They don't suck, especially after all their revisions, and because they have access to the best fighting style in the game. But their original kit indeed is extremely disappointing and painful to use.
Down right busted in many situations and mogs fighter till 11. Also you can just multiclass and get action surge to be even more absurd. Designing around optimized Gloom Stalker is miserable.
Bards don't deal damage, so no. No, picking a damage spell will not make you the same role as a ranger or rogue in combat. They also don't stealth mid combat, so double no.
Also frick 5e bards, busted as hell as fullcasters but also full skill monkeys F-. But they are fun to play.
>Bards don't deal damage >Bards can't stealth mid combat
Properly built Bards can do nearly any 1/2 and 1/4 caster class's job better than them. 5e Bards are busted and I'm glad none of my players are smart enough to realize that.
Something something nature expertise
Something something magic secrets swift quiver.
Doesn't matter bards are all homosexual troonys at heart, and 5e would be much better off if the class would kindly 41% itself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>fifth level spell so level 9 minimum >no archery style >probably no Sharpshooter
Absolutely not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why the frick do nogamers keep responding to crap they have no idea about
Full casters with strong utility. Access to healing magic, bardic inspiration is a strong in combat buff for everyone (scaling dice), skill monkey supreme. You get skills expertises and are jack of all trades (half proficient at anything even if you have no specific skill in it). Tons of utility magic, some of the best action economy for the entire party in the game and in combat temporary health.
>I could see how prep work to play a class right in an action game might bother people,
Dragon's Dogma has a lot of prep/stat based systems that far eclipse it's deceiving ARPG appearance. Whether that is intentional or not, well, idk.
That's true, even the basic gear and pawn chatter and how you tackle tough content for your character emphasizes prep work.
Well get ready for more Drows in D&D, they are retconning them so they are not inherently born evil, it will now be a societal upbringing of becoming evil. Enjoy all your games have different variations of Drost Din'Dorden
Anon, regardless of their lack of Drow knowledge, the wheelchairs are moronic. Also wizards modifications of creature lore has been an unending shit show everytime they "touch up" something.
Anon, regardless of their lack of Drow knowledge, the wheelchairs are moronic. Also wizards modifications of creature lore has been an unending shit show everytime they "touch up" something.
at the end of the day nothing is stopping a DM from using whatever headcanon he wants for Drow alignment, tabletop RPGs don't have strict lore or standards, you can do whatever the frick you want really
Yeah, and if I played d&d with a DM in the forgotten realms setting and he bent the rules ridiculously I wouldn't play in that group. Yes some homebrew shit is fine, but when you start making giant changes, it makes the game not fun. Without rules, your achievements feel moot. If a DM allows ridiculous things, fudges rolls etc. it makes the game lose it's inherent value. If there are no rules, then anything goes, and anything you do doesn't matter.
And? That's not an excuse for them making shit decisions and shit lore. Yes, a good DM can work around just about anything, but you now what's great, is having a game where the systems are fun and interesting and the lore inspires you to run the setting or do something with it >Wow, this race is awesome, check out their cities, I can't wait for my players to get to interact with them!
Imagine that, cool settings and writing for an rgp that is fun and interesting.
Frick off with your "DM just fricking fix everything, what do you mean you like quality content?"
[...]
Retconning as in they are adding in good aligned drow cities to Toril and this will change how alignment works for them. Yes, a small amount of Drow society weren't evil, but they are literally adding in good aligned Drow. In the retcon they are making it so Drow born in Lolth society aren't indoctrinated, but inherently born evil from the corruption of the god. The other cities, Callidae and Saekolath will not be corrupted by Lolth, and will not be born inherently evil
>Retconning as in they are adding in good aligned drow cities to Toril and this will change how alignment works for them
Yeah I see.
Batman is dependant on whos writing him as with spidey, he's either a large brawler, someone who uses mainly gadgets, or the stealthy ninja type or all 3
Dragon's Dogma doesn't do ranger well since there is no ranger class. Striders are close, but can only use daggers, which is an assassin weapon. Assassins are close because they can use a wide variety of weapons, but their augments are all about night time things. If they had a ranger it would be a mix of assassin and strider. Using bows, and dual weilding swords or a small two handed sword. Their augments would be about being outdoors, and they'd have access to some small magics like anodyne.
Magic really isn't necessary for most of being a ranger, my take. Also the daggers function as dual wielding in Dragon's Dogma which is a perfect fit for rangers. Those daggers are massive, they are practically shorts swords.Writing them off as daggers is pretty cheap when they are primary weapons, not secondary.
The thing Dragon's Dogma doesn't do that you are right about is survival/stuff but that's why I said combat specifically. The use of bow at range, or dual weapons for melee, being very mobile and climbing monsters is a fantastic fit for ranger. >no ranger
ANON. Are you ok?
Ranger in Dragon's Dogma is 100% not even close to a ranger. Ranger in Dragon's Dogma is nothing but an archer. Both Strider and Assassin are closer to a Ranger than the vocation of Ranger is and why I said there is no ranger class. It's there in name, but it should have been named Archer, not ranger.
Ranger still has the core melee skills and having a ranger be bow heavy is not a deviation from Ranger at all. I agree that Strider is closer, assassin is too off theme for me even if it does use swords. Still doesn't change my mind that Dragon's Dogma does a good job at ranger combat.
Well get ready for more Drows in D&D, they are retconning them so they are not inherently born evil, it will now be a societal upbringing of becoming evil. Enjoy all your games have different variations of Drost Din'Dorden
>they are retconning them so they are not inherently born evil
That's actually always been true. But I can guarantee whatever ~~*Wizards*~~ does will be 10x worse.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Drow aren't born evil you mongloid. You probably seethe over that fricking wheelchair too don't you.
Retconning as in they are adding in good aligned drow cities to Toril and this will change how alignment works for them. Yes, a small amount of Drow society weren't evil, but they are literally adding in good aligned Drow. In the retcon they are making it so Drow born in Lolth society aren't indoctrinated, but inherently born evil from the corruption of the god. The other cities, Callidae and Saekolath will not be corrupted by Lolth, and will not be born inherently evil
>game has a "ranger" class >it's just a fancy name for the bow class
I also never liked how the D&D Ranger has spells, should just be a warrior that is good at hunting/survival/outdoorsmanship
Names aside the Strider is basically meant to be a mix of the Ranger and Thief archetypes, and the name Strider itself could be a LotR reference
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I also never liked how the D&D Ranger has spells, should just be a warrior that is good at hunting/survival/outdoorsmanship
That's why he's good at it numnutz
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why? Rangers having low level nature spells make sense. They are constantly in nature my dude, why wouldn't they pick up some spells like talking to animals, having magical berries, conjuring vines to ensnare enemies etc?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not that anon, but personally I'm just not fan of a universe where magic is so abundant and easy to conjure.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think for the most part when we are talking d&d we are talking forgotten realms, and yeah there magic and stuff is pretty commonplace and it makes sense. In a low magic setting, then I definitely agree that rangers would be more outdoorsman highly skill in blades and archery, with a focus on surviving the elements. Bonuses for traversing forests, no need for rations as they can hunt well, bonuses to camouflaging their movement and camps, and bonuses to perception. I think d&d tacks on some low level nature magic to make up for this, as conjuring good berries is akin to not needing rations, vines are a standin for snares for some reason, low level healing is akin to being able to bandage wounds and create poultices from scavenged herbs etc.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>low fantasy setting
i sleep
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, LoTR puts me right to sleep.
zzzzz
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and the name Strider itself could be a LotR reference
It is a Strider Hiryu reference
Rangers come with low level nature spells. They would just entangling vines a warrior, and shoot arrows through their visor until dead. Roots break? Rangers have just as good AC, so it will be a balanced 1v1 with the warrior starting at lower hp. Warriors lose every time.
Has there ever been a game that does this right other than games that let you make a custom class? The only thing I can think of that gets close is just a custom class in oblivion.
Dragon's Dogma is an obvious answer. Most of its spells focus on the shield and weapon, and parrying gets a major focus. Besides that, I'd also say Code Vein's MC is a magic knight.
True, Dragon's Dogma did it pretty decently. The only problem I had with the class is that everything was overshadowed with how good magic cannon was, so when you play any other way you just feel gimped because it's so strong.
Dragons Dogma still stands as the most impressed I've been by high level skills. Greatsword is hilarious with slowly charging for two minutes to obliterate an enemy with great satisfaction. Then there is the high level magic which is mind blowing the first time you see it. Frick, i can't wait for DD2
I still remember the first time casting high level magic and just obliterating and entire encampment. It was magical. It does get old very quick though compared to playing melee classes.
>It does get old very quick though compared to playing melee classes.
DDO had an Osu-like minigame for mages, so hopefully whatever implementation DD2 has for magic will have significantly more depth than the original game and be fun to play for more than 2 minutes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Osu for drawing runes and stuff?
2 years ago
Anonymous
?t=66
don't ask about the MGR music, it's just the first video that came up
the dude that is playing is fairly proficient at casting, the actual input took a while to learn
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm really not a big fan of mini games integrated into combat. Feels like you are just playing a seperate board game instead of against the enemy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think it makes spellcasting feel a bit more like spellcasting, honestly. Could be a bit more complex with the "runes", though.
https://youtu.be/SJERqxokU9E?t=66
don't ask about the MGR music, it's just the first video that came up
the dude that is playing is fairly proficient at casting, the actual input took a while to learn
Crescent Blade looks sick.
2 years ago
Anonymous
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I don't disagree, but it at the very least shows that they were making an attempt at having the mages be more than just press button>charge>cast
It works mostly because it was an MMO, but realistically there's not much you can do to make magick more interesting beyond just having a full mix/match system but that's a bit much to ask, and even that doesn't do much to improve the act of playing mage itself, more the creativity that goes behind it. Dragon's Dogma already has sync skills and spell interaction though, so there's not much to move on that front either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think it makes spellcasting feel a bit more like spellcasting, honestly. Could be a bit more complex with the "runes", though.
[...]
Crescent Blade looks sick.
I don't think it would work for Dragon's Dogma, but to me, playing a wizard is more about prep than in the moment action, that's then decision making on what tools to use.
Things like having the right materials on you to cast your spells maybe? So you purchases them and slot up your gear ahead of time, a money and rarity balance vs. the enemy. If you make spells cost more in other ways, you can make them easier/faster to cast as well when appropriate. I'd just rather hold button then do minigame, just my personal preference.
Or maybe aiming spells could matter more, so while charge spells you have to work to keep your targeting on point, the better you do, the more damage the spell does?
I don't know, anything other than a miningame personally.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I was thinking that you could use fighting game combos to cast spells. Not necessarily for Dragon's Dogma, but it would help to prevent magic from just being a guy standing around.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I wouldn't mind consistent combos.
It could work, one of the original design directives for the project was emphasizing the prep work- but, I doubt they'd change the magic system that drastically in the sequel, unless Itsuno is just hit with a brick wall of inspiration. They already had the gathering and combination aspect down, along with specific tomes, items, etc that could house particular spells, so it's not an impossibility. They also has spell aiming, although that was more for AoE casts, all the single target spells were just autotargeted.
Yeah, though I could see how prep work to play a class right in an action game might bother people, but mages already feel so far departed from the other ones.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I could see how prep work to play a class right in an action game might bother people,
Dragon's Dogma has a lot of prep/stat based systems that far eclipse it's deceiving ARPG appearance. Whether that is intentional or not, well, idk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It could work, one of the original design directives for the project was emphasizing the prep work- but, I doubt they'd change the magic system that drastically in the sequel, unless Itsuno is just hit with a brick wall of inspiration. They already had the gathering and combination aspect down, along with specific tomes, items, etc that could house particular spells, so it's not an impossibility. They also has spell aiming, although that was more for AoE casts, all the single target spells were just autotargeted.
Magus in Kingmaker is pretty powerful and has a fun gimmick in that they take normally useless touch spells and add them to their melee for massive damage and debuffs
Enderal has a fun way to use it
Battlemage specialization gives melee bonus after killing people with magical attack
you have aoe attack that doesn't need casting it works like a shout
another instant power is freezing foe and shattering it with hammer or charging it with another instant spell
Because you put guns in the setting then suddenly everyone has them. Why you ask? Because your players aren't poor, they are heroes making bank. So now one of the main characters in every scene is using a gun. And if they can get a gun, others can too. And since they keep fighting rich and powerful enemies at some point, why not have guns? Also guns aren't mechanically written to be as clunky as they were at the time, so they will always feel wrong and actually be too advanced with their high rate of fire.
It's a mess. Siege weapons at least keeps it so something very specialized and actually rare.
[...] >What's a good debuff heavy dnd 5e class?
Bard. In general debuffs are way inferior to buffs, but there are a few classes/subclasses that can pull it off and a few spells like slow.
>Because you put guns in the setting then suddenly everyone has them. Why you ask? Because your players aren't poor, they are heroes making bank. So now one of the main characters in every scene is using a gun. And if they can get a gun, others can too. And since they keep fighting rich and powerful enemies at some point, why not have guns? Also guns aren't mechanically written to be as clunky as they were at the time, so they will always feel wrong and actually be too advanced with their high rate of fire.
in our game they require a specific proficiency to use that most characters will not have. even the rich and powerful will want to invest time and effort into getting good with them not to mention that tradition and institutional inertia play a bigger role in military adoption and spending than people think. the guns in the game are suitably temperamental and their fire rate is in line with other things like crossbows.
Proficiency is the only balancing that makes sense logistically, nerfing the fire rate or making them metal bows defeats the purpose of includong them in the first place.
>in our game they require a specific proficiency to use that most characters will not have
And? Are you saying your player won't/can't have it?
Doesn't really change my point. Guns change settings. Literally flashy and in your face. You want guns, that's fine and dandy, but fantasy with and without guns is a clear and obvious distinction that people have preferences on.
Ebberon splits the difference pretty well. You can just as easily have or not have guns in your particular head canon version of it, and it works almost as well either way you envision it.
I mean if you want to gatekeep them I guess, but the reason guns took over is range, effectiveness, and EASE OF USE compared to training with a longbow or learning to fight with a melee weapon.
Go to a range, rent a handgun and tell me how your groupings are at ten yards.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon...
I'll have you know my shotgun obliterated the target :^)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>never fired shotgun before >don't brace properly >recoil sends the muzzle two feet into the air and your shoulder is fricked for two days
Okay
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Be complete fricking dumbass who doesn't understand that you're exploding a chunk of metal out of a tube >Do something stupid that you could have easily avoided with common sense >This somehow means basic use of a firearm is a mythical feat that only highly trained individuals can do
Dude my mom never fired a gun til her 60's and she picked it up easily. Frick off Euro moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bro, shotgun recoil is child's play. Yes, a single uncle telling you "ok hold it like this. It's gonna kick." Is literally all I needed to get started on the clays.
You aren't trying to make a sensible point by saying "here is something that takes a few good words of advice and just a little bit hands on instruction to use." Guns are shockingly easy to use for what you can do with them, especially, compared to other weapons.
We're talking about why proficiencies make sense in fantasy. Commonor adventurers seeing a gun for the first time outside of a few stories and maybe seeing guards weild them would have no idea what to do with one. That's like asking someone who's ridden on horseback their whole life and never seen a car to drive to the next town with a six speed manual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I would make a gun simple proficiency, or whatever system equivalent it is, if I was trying to make it more in tune with how difficult operating a gun is. It is not an advanced proficiency, it's not a longbow, or fighting in melee with a rapier or longsword.
So basically, if your class has weapon profs, they can use guns, because that's the sensible thing.
Now for balance? Or keeping guns more rare? I might do other things, but my point is that guns are easy to use, easier than "simple" prof weapons or as simple. Commoner adventurers means nothing, and adventurers is a hero and has a class with proficiencies to back it up. So if guns existed in the setting, there is no reason an adventurer would not be able to easily have proficiency, and I mean without sacrificing some limited feat/skill for it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>moving the goalpost
Operating difficulty and being a skilled shot are not the same thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>moving the goalpost
Bro, are you for real. I just listed out the common weapons I thought were more difficult to use effectively than a gun. Guns are not overly complicated. They do no merit a special proficiency beyond "they are so rare literally no one (I mean no one, not guards or soldiers) knows how to use them." And then if that was the case but they had no special property and you had to take a feat tax, they would just be sucky crossbows for flavor points. There is no reason someone who became skilled with a crossbow could not become skilled with a gun, and even less for the more difficult to use longbow.
And the ORIGINAL point is that yes guns change a setting, especially if players can use them. Cases where they don't is when it's some advanced tech only one rare race has and uses so it's just their weird thing, like aliens and robots and such that crop up in fantasy settings.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>original argument was that being an effective shot takes training and skill >change the argument to ease of use and availability >compare guns to longbows >change the argument to muh setting
Short range wide target weapons do not take skill to be effective. Single target mid to long range weapons take skill to be effective. Different weapons require different proficiencies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're just quibbling on nothing at this point, the goal posts have never moved, people are discussing the merits of guns in a system and that covers lots of ground, from how a setting feels to how it is mechanically implemented, which touches on stats and proficiency and cost.
Guns change a setting, that's clear. How much can be modified, but if players have them and use them, then it is a huge change. Using a gun is no more complicated than any other weapon any adventurer can use proficiently. Therefore, if soldiers can get access to guns and be trained in them, there is no reason an adventurer could not either. This is all assuming some common fantasy system, since that's been the discussion mostly through the thread.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Even the dumbest shits have probably seen a crossbow and know how it works. This thing has a trigger too, probably works the same
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bro, shotgun recoil is child's play. Yes, a single uncle telling you "ok hold it like this. It's gonna kick." Is literally all I needed to get started on the clays.
You aren't trying to make a sensible point by saying "here is something that takes a few good words of advice and just a little bit hands on instruction to use." Guns are shockingly easy to use for what you can do with them, especially, compared to other weapons.
>more attacks
not till 11, which is a really really big deal. You can't just call it by only the last half of levels. I'll grant the ASI. Better spells? Tossup for melee, for range that's just straight wrong. Gloomstalker ranger will have more attacks and have better to hit if they can use their invisibility and has good spells for range. If you had said Battlemaster you would have a point.
>Better spells? Tossup for melee, for range that's just straight wrong.
I'm not seeng it, the ranger spell list is just so mediocre EK gets better options even with the school restrictions. rangers honestly should uave been prepared casters like druids >Gloomstalker ranger will have more attacks
how? EK can take TWF as well and gets Action Surge.
The Gloom Stalker invisibility thing is pretty cool though.
Because ranged combat is superior so if you are gonna talk the best martial/ranger I'm always gonna go ranged. Gloomsalker has three attacks first round. The first round of combat is the most important, they also have advantage initiative. once you get to level 5, just a two level dip for six attacks per round. So for 4 levels, you'll btfo everyone, it's not even close, and then once fighter finally gets to eleven, even then you'll be stiff competition if they also aren't an archer build.
>spells
hunter's mark and zephyr strike by themselves carry ranger for just dealing more damage.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If your party can afford to take a group by surprise, it's probably not gonna be a hard fight anyway.
Gloomstalker makes those fights even easier, but in the actual hard fights where you start at a disadvantage, gloomstalker doesn't help that much.
Overrated subclass.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If your party can afford to take a group by surprise
None of his features rely on "Ambush" or surprise round, what the hell are you talking about? It's literally just a free attack, speed, and amage, plus bonus to initiative.
AND THEN you also get the invisibility that takes no actions to usek and doesn't break upon shooting.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>AND THEN you also get the invisibility that takes no actions to usek and doesn't break upon shooting.
only in the dark
2 years ago
Anonymous
>just a two level dip for six attacks per round.
a two level fighter dip is good for almost every class
>hunter's mark and zephyr strike by themselves carry ranger for just dealing more damage.
EK gets fun things like Fireball and Rime's Binding Ice as well as much better defensive options as well as silly shit like silvery barbs.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>a two level fighter dip is good for almost every class
Yes but most classes get two extra attacks, not the three or ranger much earlier. It's literally better on ranger.
>EK gets fun things like Fireball and Rime's Binding Ice as well as much better defensive options as well as silly shit like silvery barbs.
Fireball for AOE granted, but you aren't getting that till level 13 chump, it's not that impressive by then, kind of the same for rime's ice. Your DCs will blow as well.
Defensive options 100% they have on lock, which is a big party of why they are better melee, but for ranged that doesn't matter compared to raw damage output.
Meanwhile Rangers get their best spells at level 2.
>AND THEN you also get the invisibility that takes no actions to usek and doesn't break upon shooting.
only in the dark
Yeah. It's something that isn't rare and is overbearing when it does. That's the big fat cherry on top of everything.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Meanwhile Rangers get their best spells at level 2.
wut all the good stuff is 1st level and it doesn't get any better from there. EK DCs will be on par with a rangers, neither can afford to invest too heavily in their casting stat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Level 2, as in class level. They get spells at level 2. And yeah, my entire point is their spells are good from the word go and there DC doesn't matter because of what those good spells are. Hunter's Mark doesn't use DC. Zephyr strike doesn't use DC.
But Fireball does uses DC, so does Rime's Ice. That's why obviously shield and cantrips are good for EK, no DC so your bad casting stat doesn't matter.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the class just peaks early compared to EK and EK is no slouch at those levels either. EKs magic is just more fun to play with, every ranger in existience uses hunter's mark and zephyr strike to the point that not taking them would be kneecapping yourself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well yeah, those spells are not exciting, but have you seen EK? Shield and cantrip attack, that's it. Just as boring. Ranger still has utility druid spells, I'm just covering their combat option, just like EK can have some utility cantrips. But druids have more options because they don't need to learn spells, EK have very limited spells known.
And "Peaking early" actually means often just better for more than 50% of the levels and since like 80%+ of campaigns end before level 11, that a big deal my man.
[...] >EK
can someone explain to me the appeal? I like spellswords, bit EK just kind of seems like he sucks. Why would I ever choose to cast a cantrip over making another attack? Especially later on when a fighter can do like 4 attacks a turn, instead of the shitty 1 cantrip + 1 attack
EK with spells is the most survivable fighter with shield and absorb elements. And with the right feats and at certain levels, the cantrips add solid damage as well. It's janky but ultimately a very solid safe fighter subclass for melee.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the class just peaks early compared to EK and EK is no slouch at those levels either. EKs magic is just more fun to play with, every ranger in existience uses hunter's mark and zephyr strike to the point that not taking them would be kneecapping yourself.
>EK
can someone explain to me the appeal? I like spellswords, bit EK just kind of seems like he sucks. Why would I ever choose to cast a cantrip over making another attack? Especially later on when a fighter can do like 4 attacks a turn, instead of the shitty 1 cantrip + 1 attack
2 years ago
Anonymous
it's better before you get your third attack since you can hit them with GFB and then get a follow up attack
2 years ago
Anonymous
>use Vortex Warp to teleport squishy wizards next to you. >watch them shit bricks
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Vortex Warp
well sure, if you think a wizard will fail a con save vs EK's spell dc, lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
wizards have shit con. you also have silvery barbs to screw them over
2 years ago
Anonymous
>silvery barbs
Don't talk to me about the other absolutely ass-moronic broken spell. Also PvP literally doesn't matter. Also wizards have that spell.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>silvery barbs
it baffles me how that got through playtesting and how many classes can use it. what the hell were they thinking?
2 years ago
Anonymous
and EK more than likely has a shit DC to begin with. What's your int as a EK? 12?, 14 if you're lucky.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What are Silvery Barbs?
2 years ago
Anonymous
A debauched cult of pleasure made up of well off merchants and nobles in the province's and you need to unmask and purge them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
New(ish) 5e spell that is moronic broken.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>On demand disadvantage for enemy and advantage for yourself or your allies
Jesus Christ
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's really tanky and would be the tankiest if certain spells and caster subclasses weren't so fricking busted
Seriously, you can just pick that one druid subclass or bladesinger wizard and be just as tanky without paying the martial task. Frick 5E Shield
2 years ago
Anonymous
what makes bladesinger so tanky?
2 years ago
Anonymous
INT bonus for AC which is extremely fricking stupid
Access to shield which, to be fair, a lot of casters do
Can wear armor out of the box, although just light
They have a lv10 ability that straight up ignores huge amounts of damages for a spell slot but you can just become tanky or extremely evasive through spells by then without needing it anyways. It's like a turbo uncanny dodge I guess.
They also get to keep concentration much better AND dex checks so they can move in and out.
2 years ago
Anonymous
5e shield is so fricking moronic it's unbelievable. >time to dump flat mods and do everything with dice >but what if we put the best flat AC option as a level 1 that never scales and still is busted the entire game
WHY
what makes bladesinger so tanky?
>You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1).
BEHOLD. So now you are +5 AC from int and +5 AC from shield. Bravo WotC. And you can teleport constantly, short distances as a bonus action or long instantly get out of fights teleports. So you are more mobile. And the absorb elements.
2 years ago
Anonymous
INT bonus for AC which is extremely fricking stupid
Access to shield which, to be fair, a lot of casters do
Can wear armor out of the box, although just light
They have a lv10 ability that straight up ignores huge amounts of damages for a spell slot but you can just become tanky or extremely evasive through spells by then without needing it anyways. It's like a turbo uncanny dodge I guess.
They also get to keep concentration much better AND dex checks so they can move in and out.
the int to ac only applies while bladsong is active. that's still pretty nuts for a full caster but full plate and shield is still better.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the int to ac only applies while bladsong is active.
So every fight? In 99% of DnD, there is no reason or pressure to take fights when you don't have your key resources. >plate and shield
18 ac plate, shield to 20. Wizard sits at13AC base + at least 3 dex. So 18. +5 from shield. 23. +5 from bladesinging. that's 28 AC.
Base AC before shield is 23. If you take defensive style you are still one down.
Also this is a level 2 feature so yes, people will multiclass dip to take this and slap it on anything.
2 years ago
Anonymous
oh shit I forgot they still get dex to ac, that's so rediculous.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, fricking gishgays I swear >I need to attack twice and hold concentration better and have better AC
Also giving any full caster extra attack is moronic. Full casters get full spell progression, martials get extra attack. When you frick with that, things break down even harder.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the int to ac only applies while bladsong is active.
Bladesong lasts for a full minute from day 1, it is practically infinite upkeep for combat. It will not run out even on drawn out boss fights. If you do some math you'll end up with very similar ACs most of the time but without the wizard's utility, movement and offense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Pretty sure it was even more powerful in 3rd edition
2 years ago
Anonymous
>casters >3rd edition
Haha, yeah...
>n general debuffs are way inferior to buffs
Yeah, I'm sadly aware of this. But like I said, it's a pretty casual group of mostly newish/casual players who play mostly for fun so not too worried about being inferior to buffers if it gives me some fun/flavor.
When I say bad, I mean bad, like it feels bad, not like "oh this is a bit underpowered. But cutting words on Lore Bard is good, bard has debuff spells and other utility, and Lore lets you pick up other spells from other lists.
Six attacks for the first round only. 2 after that. Still a great way to open combat, but it's a one pump chump reduced to the base 3 attacks in the opening round until you get at least a short rest.
Yes, six attacks for the first round, the most important one. Most combats are like 2 - 3 rounds so you are busting hard. Three rounds and the gloomstalker attacks 10 times. An normal martial only attacks 6 times. A fighter attack 8 times. That's really really big. You are rocking archery + sharpshooter so you also hit like a ton of bricks.
short rests (and long rests) are very easy to get, Action surge is one of the best features in the game, so no point in knocking it. 3 attacks and extra damage is still more than what everyone else gets.
2 years ago
Anonymous
there are much more entertaining and dynamic ways to build a Spellsword, Eldritch Knight is just a reliable gish-in-a-can you can play if you don't like theorycrafting better class combinations and wanna throw a fireball from time to time between your melee attacks.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Six attacks for the first round only. 2 after that. Still a great way to open combat, but it's a one pump chump reduced to the base 3 attacks in the opening round until you get at least a short rest.
Bruh, rangers were a thing long before Tolkien was alive as military units. He wrote them in the 3rd age as a Dunedain group, but that shit existed long before him.
He's talking about what a fantasy ranger is based on. It's based on Aaragorn, that's a 100% correct statement. Almost everything in D&D has strong LoTR roots. Active military units did not inspire the ranger class, but Strider did.
It's unironically really easy to implement, Deadfire did it although it could have been implemented better.
And It doesn't break the setting, specially in settings like D&D and Pathfinder where you have Alchemists that already have their own version of explosive powder
we house ruled the guns a bit, they're somewhere between the stuff in the books and mat mercer's from his gunslinger class that I use. they hit harder than either bows or crossbows, and they outrange crossbows, but are more expensive to buy and feed in addition to having a small chance to jam. They fit pretty well into our world
>16 shot
superposed loads? or does it use some sort of loading system like the lorenzoni pistol I posted?
I think that guns would somewhat change the flow of combat and some devs don't want to have to balance things around it to keep it fun. And second, most people have this assumption that medieval fantasy is actually medieval when a lot of stuff that are staples to rpgs like weapons, armor and architectural designs, eg: rapier, full plate armor etc. Are either late middle ages or early renaissance. Full Plate Armor was a 14th century thing, blackpowder was already present in europe in the 13th century so It makes no sense why people don't consider it part of the setting. Warhammer Fantasy has handcannons and they don't feel out of place, specially with all the monsters and magic going around
guns don't really change the flow of combat in our game, it's not like we're running around with machine guns. I'm not sure why fantasy games are so hellbent on avoiding a renaissance-esque look when they already crib so much from that time period. The nation that makes heavy use of firearms in our game is more or less based off the italian city states of the renaissance.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>superposed loads?
Yep. Deadly roman candle.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because it is a very different feel, it's not hard to understand. The tech might not be historically accurate, but the fantasy vision is consistent, guns don't really fit. Sword and Sorcery, not Musket and Tech, ok?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Sword and Sorcery, not Musket and Tech, ok?
Praise the gods.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I really don't see a problem with blackpowder weapons, The Hundred Year's war, which cultiminated in the battle of agincourt the most medieval thing most people know are also the first time blackpowder siege weapons were used. Knights coexisted with guns for a pretty significant amount of time. I don't see a reason why an arquebus would be out of place alongside teleportation circles and flying monsters, even more so when guns were very rare reserved for the wealthy and could be locked behind in-setting an alchemist guild
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because you put guns in the setting then suddenly everyone has them. Why you ask? Because your players aren't poor, they are heroes making bank. So now one of the main characters in every scene is using a gun. And if they can get a gun, others can too. And since they keep fighting rich and powerful enemies at some point, why not have guns? Also guns aren't mechanically written to be as clunky as they were at the time, so they will always feel wrong and actually be too advanced with their high rate of fire.
It's a mess. Siege weapons at least keeps it so something very specialized and actually rare.
What's a good debuff heavy dnd 5e class? My favorite classes in games are debiltators/support but aimed more on debuffing.
If anyone knows DOTA my favorite hero is Shadow Demon for example.
UIt - Enemy is slowed to a crawl for 7 seconds, every buff from all sources placed on them is instantly purged for the duration.
Q - Removes enemy (or ally) from battle for 2.75 seconds
Got a new DnD campaign coming up (with very casual players so min/maxing is not important at all, more fun focused) and wanted to try and get my favorite vidya shtick into 5e.
>What's a good debuff heavy dnd 5e class?
Bard. In general debuffs are way inferior to buffs, but there are a few classes/subclasses that can pull it off and a few spells like slow.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>n general debuffs are way inferior to buffs
Yeah, I'm sadly aware of this. But like I said, it's a pretty casual group of mostly newish/casual players who play mostly for fun so not too worried about being inferior to buffers if it gives me some fun/flavor.
I think that guns would somewhat change the flow of combat and some devs don't want to have to balance things around it to keep it fun. And second, most people have this assumption that medieval fantasy is actually medieval when a lot of stuff that are staples to rpgs like weapons, armor and architectural designs, eg: rapier, full plate armor etc. Are either late middle ages or early renaissance. Full Plate Armor was a 14th century thing, blackpowder was already present in europe in the 13th century so It makes no sense why people don't consider it part of the setting. Warhammer Fantasy has handcannons and they don't feel out of place, specially with all the monsters and magic going around
I think D&D had muskets and similar weapons in the rulebooks since 3E, they just don't like adding them to the settings explicitly because in reality their gameplay niche is covered by crossbows and spells
Back when I was in middle school I was always about elves and rangers. Then I got into magic and started liking wizards. Then I literally became a wizard. But recently I've rediscovered the appeal of what I used to like and now I'm very much in favour of "wood elves" and the like.
It's like a full circle. And by full circle I mean I'm a round fatass.
What's a good debuff heavy dnd 5e class? My favorite classes in games are debiltators/support but aimed more on debuffing.
If anyone knows DOTA my favorite hero is Shadow Demon for example.
UIt - Enemy is slowed to a crawl for 7 seconds, every buff from all sources placed on them is instantly purged for the duration.
Q - Removes enemy (or ally) from battle for 2.75 seconds
Got a new DnD campaign coming up (with very casual players so min/maxing is not important at all, more fun focused) and wanted to try and get my favorite vidya shtick into 5e.
>Low fantasy is inherently realistic
No it's not. I don't think you realize what low fantasy means, or that it covers quite a bit of ground. I would call Lord of the Rings low magic, and that has wizards, dragons, giant eagles, magical rings, giant spiders, elves, dwarves, ents, goblins.
Low magic means LOW magic, not no magic.
Low magic means that every temple doesn't have a spell casting cleric and a magical item shop.
Okay, fair point. You're still describing a setting where magic is common, just not wizard school common. Arbitrarily adding class or race requirements to commonly available knowledge doesn't make sense, unless that class or race specializes in that type of magic.
>Arbitrarily adding class or race requirements to commonly available knowledge doesn't make sense, unless that class or race specializes in that type of magic.
Wait, what are we talking about?
2 years ago
Anonymous
My brain fell asleep writing that argument I was up til 4 last night.
No one can even agree on what a ranger is. In some games, rangers are magical woodland guardians and in other games they are literally just dudes who specialize in ranged weapons.
In real life, rangers were a mix of the two ways we still use the word today: park rangers and army rangers. They were men who were ordered by the king to protect the forests from highwaymen and poachers and other criminals who might hide out in them. As such, they had to be skilled in combat as well as familiar with the geography. They were like the at-home, dark underbelly version of a paladin.
Problem is the term was popularized in fantasy by Aragorn, who's a ranger for a civilization that doesn't even exist anymore and gets pulled into a plotline where he rejects becoming the king of men. This put the idea in the heads of nerds that rangers were rootless and anti-authoritarian, like the anti-paladin, when the reality was the complete opposite.
I think most games really waste the potential of rangers and they were one of the first jobs I wanted to make if I ever made my own game a Souls-like FFXI with more in-depth job abilities.
>anti-authoritarian.
People don't see Aragorn that way. They just think "rangers are most skilled in the wilds, so that's where they belong." Nothing about Strider suggests anti-authority, he's just a skilled outdoorsmen.
i prefer playing regular ass, soldier/longbowmen than the fantasy of the ranger with a pet+traps/etc.
feels like in most games if you want to use a bow you have to be a hippy ranger or worst, a stealthy r*gue.
bow-wielding fighter is usually just a gimmick. i think only in GW2 longbow warriors were actually good.
It's not uncommon for fighters to be able to just bring the bow and smack people. Certainly is true for any D&D derivate game actually, even if that is where ranger came from. Rangers can outdoords, the fighter will just shoot stuff better.
I guess WoW pigeonholes range into that ranger/hunter acrchtype.
Fighter
Some kind of farmer/peasant class. (personal preference)
Necromancers to use your dead scrotum in their army
rangers actually suck in DnD 5e
if you go rogue with the outlander background you're a better ranger than a ranger
PHB only moronic take
class w spells > class w/out spells
plus 5e sucks fricking balls
They don't suck, especially after all their revisions, and because they have access to the best fighting style in the game. But their original kit indeed is extremely disappointing and painful to use.
gloomstalkers are ok
Rangers aren't that bad, but gloomstalkers are an overrated win-more subclass.
Down right busted in many situations and mogs fighter till 11. Also you can just multiclass and get action surge to be even more absurd. Designing around optimized Gloom Stalker is miserable.
Lore bard with outlander does Ranger and Rogue with more spell slots and better skill spread.
Bards don't deal damage, so no. No, picking a damage spell will not make you the same role as a ranger or rogue in combat. They also don't stealth mid combat, so double no.
Also frick 5e bards, busted as hell as fullcasters but also full skill monkeys F-. But they are fun to play.
>Bards don't deal damage
>Bards can't stealth mid combat
Properly built Bards can do nearly any 1/2 and 1/4 caster class's job better than them. 5e Bards are busted and I'm glad none of my players are smart enough to realize that.
Yes they are busted, but they still don't do those two things. Lore bard can slot into some AOE damage at best.
How do you build a 5E bard to shoot arrows as good as a ranger again?
Something something nature expertise
Something something magic secrets swift quiver.
Doesn't matter bards are all homosexual troonys at heart, and 5e would be much better off if the class would kindly 41% itself.
>fifth level spell so level 9 minimum
>no archery style
>probably no Sharpshooter
Absolutely not.
Why the frick do nogamers keep responding to crap they have no idea about
They can't, but why would they? They're full casters.
>Bards don't deal damage
then why the frick would i wanna play one? so i can be a sex pest "musician"?
Full casters with strong utility. Access to healing magic, bardic inspiration is a strong in combat buff for everyone (scaling dice), skill monkey supreme. You get skills expertises and are jack of all trades (half proficient at anything even if you have no specific skill in it). Tons of utility magic, some of the best action economy for the entire party in the game and in combat temporary health.
That's true, even the basic gear and pawn chatter and how you tackle tough content for your character emphasizes prep work.
how do you pronounce drizzt
drist
drizzt
Jizz
I want to thank Gary Gygax for being a horny bastard and creating the Drow
Drows and Halflings are a blessing.
We need more of them.
Well get ready for more Drows in D&D, they are retconning them so they are not inherently born evil, it will now be a societal upbringing of becoming evil. Enjoy all your games have different variations of Drost Din'Dorden
Drow aren't born evil you mongloid. You probably seethe over that fricking wheelchair too don't you.
Anon, regardless of their lack of Drow knowledge, the wheelchairs are moronic. Also wizards modifications of creature lore has been an unending shit show everytime they "touch up" something.
at the end of the day nothing is stopping a DM from using whatever headcanon he wants for Drow alignment, tabletop RPGs don't have strict lore or standards, you can do whatever the frick you want really
Yeah, and if I played d&d with a DM in the forgotten realms setting and he bent the rules ridiculously I wouldn't play in that group. Yes some homebrew shit is fine, but when you start making giant changes, it makes the game not fun. Without rules, your achievements feel moot. If a DM allows ridiculous things, fudges rolls etc. it makes the game lose it's inherent value. If there are no rules, then anything goes, and anything you do doesn't matter.
And? That's not an excuse for them making shit decisions and shit lore. Yes, a good DM can work around just about anything, but you now what's great, is having a game where the systems are fun and interesting and the lore inspires you to run the setting or do something with it
>Wow, this race is awesome, check out their cities, I can't wait for my players to get to interact with them!
Imagine that, cool settings and writing for an rgp that is fun and interesting.
Frick off with your "DM just fricking fix everything, what do you mean you like quality content?"
>Retconning as in they are adding in good aligned drow cities to Toril and this will change how alignment works for them
Yeah I see.
How to find drow gf that would let me stay inside her for a whole week?
god
yes
dark elves are my number 1 source of writing inspiration and raging boners
Barbarian
Fighter
Wizard
Sorcerer
Rapist
Warlock
Paladin
Rogue
tfw 20th level rapist
rape all the enemies
ez campaign
>called rangers
>mostly fight in melee
uhhh?
Every ranger I've played with immediately go for bows for some reason
There are so few games that do rangers justice, so while the concept is based, the implementation is usually shit.
Every open world main character is a ranger
Batman and Spider-Man are rangers?
not traditional open world
even so I'd say yes. Moving, mobile, tracking, engaging from range and up clsoe, then getting out.
Batman is dependant on whos writing him as with spidey, he's either a large brawler, someone who uses mainly gadgets, or the stealthy ninja type or all 3
Spider-Man is canonically a shaman because of garbage Madame Webb lore and has been for 15? years
And Barman is a Walorck thanks to that Barbatos situation.
The Tarnished?
The Dragonborn?
Rangers
Dragon's Dogma does the combat part well.
Dragon's Dogma doesn't do ranger well since there is no ranger class. Striders are close, but can only use daggers, which is an assassin weapon. Assassins are close because they can use a wide variety of weapons, but their augments are all about night time things. If they had a ranger it would be a mix of assassin and strider. Using bows, and dual weilding swords or a small two handed sword. Their augments would be about being outdoors, and they'd have access to some small magics like anodyne.
Magic really isn't necessary for most of being a ranger, my take. Also the daggers function as dual wielding in Dragon's Dogma which is a perfect fit for rangers. Those daggers are massive, they are practically shorts swords.Writing them off as daggers is pretty cheap when they are primary weapons, not secondary.
The thing Dragon's Dogma doesn't do that you are right about is survival/stuff but that's why I said combat specifically. The use of bow at range, or dual weapons for melee, being very mobile and climbing monsters is a fantastic fit for ranger.
>no ranger
ANON. Are you ok?
Ranger in Dragon's Dogma is 100% not even close to a ranger. Ranger in Dragon's Dogma is nothing but an archer. Both Strider and Assassin are closer to a Ranger than the vocation of Ranger is and why I said there is no ranger class. It's there in name, but it should have been named Archer, not ranger.
Ranger still has the core melee skills and having a ranger be bow heavy is not a deviation from Ranger at all. I agree that Strider is closer, assassin is too off theme for me even if it does use swords. Still doesn't change my mind that Dragon's Dogma does a good job at ranger combat.
>they are retconning them so they are not inherently born evil
That's actually always been true. But I can guarantee whatever ~~*Wizards*~~ does will be 10x worse.
Retconning as in they are adding in good aligned drow cities to Toril and this will change how alignment works for them. Yes, a small amount of Drow society weren't evil, but they are literally adding in good aligned Drow. In the retcon they are making it so Drow born in Lolth society aren't indoctrinated, but inherently born evil from the corruption of the god. The other cities, Callidae and Saekolath will not be corrupted by Lolth, and will not be born inherently evil
>game has a "ranger" class
>it's just a fancy name for the bow class
I also never liked how the D&D Ranger has spells, should just be a warrior that is good at hunting/survival/outdoorsmanship
Names aside the Strider is basically meant to be a mix of the Ranger and Thief archetypes, and the name Strider itself could be a LotR reference
>I also never liked how the D&D Ranger has spells, should just be a warrior that is good at hunting/survival/outdoorsmanship
That's why he's good at it numnutz
Why? Rangers having low level nature spells make sense. They are constantly in nature my dude, why wouldn't they pick up some spells like talking to animals, having magical berries, conjuring vines to ensnare enemies etc?
Not that anon, but personally I'm just not fan of a universe where magic is so abundant and easy to conjure.
I think for the most part when we are talking d&d we are talking forgotten realms, and yeah there magic and stuff is pretty commonplace and it makes sense. In a low magic setting, then I definitely agree that rangers would be more outdoorsman highly skill in blades and archery, with a focus on surviving the elements. Bonuses for traversing forests, no need for rations as they can hunt well, bonuses to camouflaging their movement and camps, and bonuses to perception. I think d&d tacks on some low level nature magic to make up for this, as conjuring good berries is akin to not needing rations, vines are a standin for snares for some reason, low level healing is akin to being able to bandage wounds and create poultices from scavenged herbs etc.
>low fantasy setting
i sleep
Yeah, LoTR puts me right to sleep.
zzzzz
>and the name Strider itself could be a LotR reference
It is a Strider Hiryu reference
Warrior
Rangers come with low level nature spells. They would just entangling vines a warrior, and shoot arrows through their visor until dead. Roots break? Rangers have just as good AC, so it will be a balanced 1v1 with the warrior starting at lower hp. Warriors lose every time.
Your ranger would lose to my warrior, I'm built differenr
Rangers should be a prestige class
Magic Knights are my favorite, especially the ones that don't feel like someone haphazardly slapping a wizard and fighter together.
Has there ever been a game that does this right other than games that let you make a custom class? The only thing I can think of that gets close is just a custom class in oblivion.
Dragon's Dogma is an obvious answer. Most of its spells focus on the shield and weapon, and parrying gets a major focus.
Besides that, I'd also say Code Vein's MC is a magic knight.
Anon, how in the world
True, Dragon's Dogma did it pretty decently. The only problem I had with the class is that everything was overshadowed with how good magic cannon was, so when you play any other way you just feel gimped because it's so strong.
>not parrying into Great Cannon
It's like you don't want to melt your enemies and frames
>Getting into melee ever when you can just obliterate everyone with cannon from range in seconds
But parrying into Great Cannon is even more fun.
Also setting up the Great Cannon and laying a sigil under a downed opponent
They navigate the wilderness, can gather and craft basic materials
Dragons Dogma still stands as the most impressed I've been by high level skills. Greatsword is hilarious with slowly charging for two minutes to obliterate an enemy with great satisfaction. Then there is the high level magic which is mind blowing the first time you see it. Frick, i can't wait for DD2
I still remember the first time casting high level magic and just obliterating and entire encampment. It was magical. It does get old very quick though compared to playing melee classes.
>It does get old very quick though compared to playing melee classes.
DDO had an Osu-like minigame for mages, so hopefully whatever implementation DD2 has for magic will have significantly more depth than the original game and be fun to play for more than 2 minutes.
Osu for drawing runes and stuff?
?t=66
don't ask about the MGR music, it's just the first video that came up
the dude that is playing is fairly proficient at casting, the actual input took a while to learn
I'm really not a big fan of mini games integrated into combat. Feels like you are just playing a seperate board game instead of against the enemy.
I think it makes spellcasting feel a bit more like spellcasting, honestly. Could be a bit more complex with the "runes", though.
Crescent Blade looks sick.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I don't disagree, but it at the very least shows that they were making an attempt at having the mages be more than just press button>charge>cast
It works mostly because it was an MMO, but realistically there's not much you can do to make magick more interesting beyond just having a full mix/match system but that's a bit much to ask, and even that doesn't do much to improve the act of playing mage itself, more the creativity that goes behind it. Dragon's Dogma already has sync skills and spell interaction though, so there's not much to move on that front either.
I don't think it would work for Dragon's Dogma, but to me, playing a wizard is more about prep than in the moment action, that's then decision making on what tools to use.
Things like having the right materials on you to cast your spells maybe? So you purchases them and slot up your gear ahead of time, a money and rarity balance vs. the enemy. If you make spells cost more in other ways, you can make them easier/faster to cast as well when appropriate. I'd just rather hold button then do minigame, just my personal preference.
Or maybe aiming spells could matter more, so while charge spells you have to work to keep your targeting on point, the better you do, the more damage the spell does?
I don't know, anything other than a miningame personally.
I was thinking that you could use fighting game combos to cast spells. Not necessarily for Dragon's Dogma, but it would help to prevent magic from just being a guy standing around.
I wouldn't mind consistent combos.
Yeah, though I could see how prep work to play a class right in an action game might bother people, but mages already feel so far departed from the other ones.
>I could see how prep work to play a class right in an action game might bother people,
Dragon's Dogma has a lot of prep/stat based systems that far eclipse it's deceiving ARPG appearance. Whether that is intentional or not, well, idk.
It could work, one of the original design directives for the project was emphasizing the prep work- but, I doubt they'd change the magic system that drastically in the sequel, unless Itsuno is just hit with a brick wall of inspiration. They already had the gathering and combination aspect down, along with specific tomes, items, etc that could house particular spells, so it's not an impossibility. They also has spell aiming, although that was more for AoE casts, all the single target spells were just autotargeted.
Magus in Kingmaker is pretty powerful and has a fun gimmick in that they take normally useless touch spells and add them to their melee for massive damage and debuffs
Also, Fighter-Mage in Baldur's Gate is one of the most classic examples. Great at melee, great at magic, high survivability, etc
Enderal has a fun way to use it
Battlemage specialization gives melee bonus after killing people with magical attack
you have aoe attack that doesn't need casting it works like a shout
another instant power is freezing foe and shattering it with hammer or charging it with another instant spell
Clerics.
Duh.
Interesting. I've never given Enderal a try. Maybe I should.
Does it work with Skyrim VR?
apparently yes, it has VR mod on nexus
author noted Lycanthropy stuff (it is alchemical in Enderal) is broken in VR though
Anything but Ranger
Every other one
Monk
Paladin, as long as you go Pathfinder psychotic zealot style.
Assassin.
>inb4 edgelord
So what? Being edgy is fun.
>melee rouge
>dagger attacks, stealth, pickpocketing, most likely can duel spec into bard. b***hes love a puckish rouge
vampire hunter
*is monk in your path*
Necromancer with undead and demon army.
They're consistently the worst class in everything they appear in, but okay
Stealth archer.
>Because you put guns in the setting then suddenly everyone has them. Why you ask? Because your players aren't poor, they are heroes making bank. So now one of the main characters in every scene is using a gun. And if they can get a gun, others can too. And since they keep fighting rich and powerful enemies at some point, why not have guns? Also guns aren't mechanically written to be as clunky as they were at the time, so they will always feel wrong and actually be too advanced with their high rate of fire.
in our game they require a specific proficiency to use that most characters will not have. even the rich and powerful will want to invest time and effort into getting good with them not to mention that tradition and institutional inertia play a bigger role in military adoption and spending than people think. the guns in the game are suitably temperamental and their fire rate is in line with other things like crossbows.
Proficiency is the only balancing that makes sense logistically, nerfing the fire rate or making them metal bows defeats the purpose of includong them in the first place.
>in our game they require a specific proficiency to use that most characters will not have
And? Are you saying your player won't/can't have it?
Doesn't really change my point. Guns change settings. Literally flashy and in your face. You want guns, that's fine and dandy, but fantasy with and without guns is a clear and obvious distinction that people have preferences on.
Ebberon splits the difference pretty well. You can just as easily have or not have guns in your particular head canon version of it, and it works almost as well either way you envision it.
>Literally flashy and in your face
I dunno bout that
I mean if you want to gatekeep them I guess, but the reason guns took over is range, effectiveness, and EASE OF USE compared to training with a longbow or learning to fight with a melee weapon.
>anyone can pick up a gun and shoot it
lol
lmao even
Compared to a bow, yeah.
Go to a range, rent a handgun and tell me how your groupings are at ten yards.
Anon...
I'll have you know my shotgun obliterated the target :^)
>never fired shotgun before
>don't brace properly
>recoil sends the muzzle two feet into the air and your shoulder is fricked for two days
Okay
>Be complete fricking dumbass who doesn't understand that you're exploding a chunk of metal out of a tube
>Do something stupid that you could have easily avoided with common sense
>This somehow means basic use of a firearm is a mythical feat that only highly trained individuals can do
Dude my mom never fired a gun til her 60's and she picked it up easily. Frick off Euro moron.
We're talking about why proficiencies make sense in fantasy. Commonor adventurers seeing a gun for the first time outside of a few stories and maybe seeing guards weild them would have no idea what to do with one. That's like asking someone who's ridden on horseback their whole life and never seen a car to drive to the next town with a six speed manual.
I would make a gun simple proficiency, or whatever system equivalent it is, if I was trying to make it more in tune with how difficult operating a gun is. It is not an advanced proficiency, it's not a longbow, or fighting in melee with a rapier or longsword.
So basically, if your class has weapon profs, they can use guns, because that's the sensible thing.
Now for balance? Or keeping guns more rare? I might do other things, but my point is that guns are easy to use, easier than "simple" prof weapons or as simple. Commoner adventurers means nothing, and adventurers is a hero and has a class with proficiencies to back it up. So if guns existed in the setting, there is no reason an adventurer would not be able to easily have proficiency, and I mean without sacrificing some limited feat/skill for it.
>moving the goalpost
Operating difficulty and being a skilled shot are not the same thing.
>moving the goalpost
Bro, are you for real. I just listed out the common weapons I thought were more difficult to use effectively than a gun. Guns are not overly complicated. They do no merit a special proficiency beyond "they are so rare literally no one (I mean no one, not guards or soldiers) knows how to use them." And then if that was the case but they had no special property and you had to take a feat tax, they would just be sucky crossbows for flavor points. There is no reason someone who became skilled with a crossbow could not become skilled with a gun, and even less for the more difficult to use longbow.
And the ORIGINAL point is that yes guns change a setting, especially if players can use them. Cases where they don't is when it's some advanced tech only one rare race has and uses so it's just their weird thing, like aliens and robots and such that crop up in fantasy settings.
>original argument was that being an effective shot takes training and skill
>change the argument to ease of use and availability
>compare guns to longbows
>change the argument to muh setting
Short range wide target weapons do not take skill to be effective. Single target mid to long range weapons take skill to be effective. Different weapons require different proficiencies.
You're just quibbling on nothing at this point, the goal posts have never moved, people are discussing the merits of guns in a system and that covers lots of ground, from how a setting feels to how it is mechanically implemented, which touches on stats and proficiency and cost.
Guns change a setting, that's clear. How much can be modified, but if players have them and use them, then it is a huge change. Using a gun is no more complicated than any other weapon any adventurer can use proficiently. Therefore, if soldiers can get access to guns and be trained in them, there is no reason an adventurer could not either. This is all assuming some common fantasy system, since that's been the discussion mostly through the thread.
Even the dumbest shits have probably seen a crossbow and know how it works. This thing has a trigger too, probably works the same
Bro, shotgun recoil is child's play. Yes, a single uncle telling you "ok hold it like this. It's gonna kick." Is literally all I needed to get started on the clays.
You aren't trying to make a sensible point by saying "here is something that takes a few good words of advice and just a little bit hands on instruction to use." Guns are shockingly easy to use for what you can do with them, especially, compared to other weapons.
Yes, pretty much.
Avenger
Ruler
GRAVE WALKAH
Eldritch Knight is a better Ranger than Ranger
That is completely wrong. Is this purposeful bait?
how is it wrong? EK gets more ASIs, more attacks, all the same fighting styles, better spells, and cantrips.
>more attacks
not till 11, which is a really really big deal. You can't just call it by only the last half of levels. I'll grant the ASI. Better spells? Tossup for melee, for range that's just straight wrong. Gloomstalker ranger will have more attacks and have better to hit if they can use their invisibility and has good spells for range. If you had said Battlemaster you would have a point.
>Better spells? Tossup for melee, for range that's just straight wrong.
I'm not seeng it, the ranger spell list is just so mediocre EK gets better options even with the school restrictions. rangers honestly should uave been prepared casters like druids
>Gloomstalker ranger will have more attacks
how? EK can take TWF as well and gets Action Surge.
The Gloom Stalker invisibility thing is pretty cool though.
Because ranged combat is superior so if you are gonna talk the best martial/ranger I'm always gonna go ranged. Gloomsalker has three attacks first round. The first round of combat is the most important, they also have advantage initiative. once you get to level 5, just a two level dip for six attacks per round. So for 4 levels, you'll btfo everyone, it's not even close, and then once fighter finally gets to eleven, even then you'll be stiff competition if they also aren't an archer build.
>spells
hunter's mark and zephyr strike by themselves carry ranger for just dealing more damage.
If your party can afford to take a group by surprise, it's probably not gonna be a hard fight anyway.
Gloomstalker makes those fights even easier, but in the actual hard fights where you start at a disadvantage, gloomstalker doesn't help that much.
Overrated subclass.
>If your party can afford to take a group by surprise
None of his features rely on "Ambush" or surprise round, what the hell are you talking about? It's literally just a free attack, speed, and amage, plus bonus to initiative.
AND THEN you also get the invisibility that takes no actions to usek and doesn't break upon shooting.
>AND THEN you also get the invisibility that takes no actions to usek and doesn't break upon shooting.
only in the dark
>just a two level dip for six attacks per round.
a two level fighter dip is good for almost every class
>hunter's mark and zephyr strike by themselves carry ranger for just dealing more damage.
EK gets fun things like Fireball and Rime's Binding Ice as well as much better defensive options as well as silly shit like silvery barbs.
>a two level fighter dip is good for almost every class
Yes but most classes get two extra attacks, not the three or ranger much earlier. It's literally better on ranger.
>EK gets fun things like Fireball and Rime's Binding Ice as well as much better defensive options as well as silly shit like silvery barbs.
Fireball for AOE granted, but you aren't getting that till level 13 chump, it's not that impressive by then, kind of the same for rime's ice. Your DCs will blow as well.
Defensive options 100% they have on lock, which is a big party of why they are better melee, but for ranged that doesn't matter compared to raw damage output.
Meanwhile Rangers get their best spells at level 2.
Yeah. It's something that isn't rare and is overbearing when it does. That's the big fat cherry on top of everything.
>Meanwhile Rangers get their best spells at level 2.
wut all the good stuff is 1st level and it doesn't get any better from there. EK DCs will be on par with a rangers, neither can afford to invest too heavily in their casting stat.
Level 2, as in class level. They get spells at level 2. And yeah, my entire point is their spells are good from the word go and there DC doesn't matter because of what those good spells are. Hunter's Mark doesn't use DC. Zephyr strike doesn't use DC.
But Fireball does uses DC, so does Rime's Ice. That's why obviously shield and cantrips are good for EK, no DC so your bad casting stat doesn't matter.
the class just peaks early compared to EK and EK is no slouch at those levels either. EKs magic is just more fun to play with, every ranger in existience uses hunter's mark and zephyr strike to the point that not taking them would be kneecapping yourself.
Well yeah, those spells are not exciting, but have you seen EK? Shield and cantrip attack, that's it. Just as boring. Ranger still has utility druid spells, I'm just covering their combat option, just like EK can have some utility cantrips. But druids have more options because they don't need to learn spells, EK have very limited spells known.
And "Peaking early" actually means often just better for more than 50% of the levels and since like 80%+ of campaigns end before level 11, that a big deal my man.
EK with spells is the most survivable fighter with shield and absorb elements. And with the right feats and at certain levels, the cantrips add solid damage as well. It's janky but ultimately a very solid safe fighter subclass for melee.
>EK
can someone explain to me the appeal? I like spellswords, bit EK just kind of seems like he sucks. Why would I ever choose to cast a cantrip over making another attack? Especially later on when a fighter can do like 4 attacks a turn, instead of the shitty 1 cantrip + 1 attack
it's better before you get your third attack since you can hit them with GFB and then get a follow up attack
>use Vortex Warp to teleport squishy wizards next to you.
>watch them shit bricks
>Vortex Warp
well sure, if you think a wizard will fail a con save vs EK's spell dc, lol
wizards have shit con. you also have silvery barbs to screw them over
>silvery barbs
Don't talk to me about the other absolutely ass-moronic broken spell. Also PvP literally doesn't matter. Also wizards have that spell.
>silvery barbs
it baffles me how that got through playtesting and how many classes can use it. what the hell were they thinking?
and EK more than likely has a shit DC to begin with. What's your int as a EK? 12?, 14 if you're lucky.
What are Silvery Barbs?
A debauched cult of pleasure made up of well off merchants and nobles in the province's and you need to unmask and purge them.
New(ish) 5e spell that is moronic broken.
>On demand disadvantage for enemy and advantage for yourself or your allies
Jesus Christ
It's really tanky and would be the tankiest if certain spells and caster subclasses weren't so fricking busted
Seriously, you can just pick that one druid subclass or bladesinger wizard and be just as tanky without paying the martial task.
Frick 5E Shield
what makes bladesinger so tanky?
INT bonus for AC which is extremely fricking stupid
Access to shield which, to be fair, a lot of casters do
Can wear armor out of the box, although just light
They have a lv10 ability that straight up ignores huge amounts of damages for a spell slot but you can just become tanky or extremely evasive through spells by then without needing it anyways. It's like a turbo uncanny dodge I guess.
They also get to keep concentration much better AND dex checks so they can move in and out.
5e shield is so fricking moronic it's unbelievable.
>time to dump flat mods and do everything with dice
>but what if we put the best flat AC option as a level 1 that never scales and still is busted the entire game
WHY
>You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1).
BEHOLD. So now you are +5 AC from int and +5 AC from shield. Bravo WotC. And you can teleport constantly, short distances as a bonus action or long instantly get out of fights teleports. So you are more mobile. And the absorb elements.
the int to ac only applies while bladsong is active. that's still pretty nuts for a full caster but full plate and shield is still better.
>the int to ac only applies while bladsong is active.
So every fight? In 99% of DnD, there is no reason or pressure to take fights when you don't have your key resources.
>plate and shield
18 ac plate, shield to 20. Wizard sits at13AC base + at least 3 dex. So 18. +5 from shield. 23. +5 from bladesinging. that's 28 AC.
Base AC before shield is 23. If you take defensive style you are still one down.
Also this is a level 2 feature so yes, people will multiclass dip to take this and slap it on anything.
oh shit I forgot they still get dex to ac, that's so rediculous.
Yeah, fricking gishgays I swear
>I need to attack twice and hold concentration better and have better AC
Also giving any full caster extra attack is moronic. Full casters get full spell progression, martials get extra attack. When you frick with that, things break down even harder.
>the int to ac only applies while bladsong is active.
Bladesong lasts for a full minute from day 1, it is practically infinite upkeep for combat. It will not run out even on drawn out boss fights. If you do some math you'll end up with very similar ACs most of the time but without the wizard's utility, movement and offense.
Pretty sure it was even more powerful in 3rd edition
>casters
>3rd edition
Haha, yeah...
When I say bad, I mean bad, like it feels bad, not like "oh this is a bit underpowered. But cutting words on Lore Bard is good, bard has debuff spells and other utility, and Lore lets you pick up other spells from other lists.
Yes, six attacks for the first round, the most important one. Most combats are like 2 - 3 rounds so you are busting hard. Three rounds and the gloomstalker attacks 10 times. An normal martial only attacks 6 times. A fighter attack 8 times. That's really really big. You are rocking archery + sharpshooter so you also hit like a ton of bricks.
short rests (and long rests) are very easy to get, Action surge is one of the best features in the game, so no point in knocking it. 3 attacks and extra damage is still more than what everyone else gets.
there are much more entertaining and dynamic ways to build a Spellsword, Eldritch Knight is just a reliable gish-in-a-can you can play if you don't like theorycrafting better class combinations and wanna throw a fireball from time to time between your melee attacks.
Six attacks for the first round only. 2 after that. Still a great way to open combat, but it's a one pump chump reduced to the base 3 attacks in the opening round until you get at least a short rest.
>ranger = archer
Reminder that the ranger class is based on Aragorn
Bruh, rangers were a thing long before Tolkien was alive as military units. He wrote them in the 3rd age as a Dunedain group, but that shit existed long before him.
He's talking about what a fantasy ranger is based on. It's based on Aaragorn, that's a 100% correct statement. Almost everything in D&D has strong LoTR roots. Active military units did not inspire the ranger class, but Strider did.
To be fair bow usage has been the main ranger method of fighting in D&D for longer than it hasn' been. Also perpetuated the same way with Pathfinder.
whatever i played in oblivion. armored wizard that used touch spells for offense and heavy armor and a shield for defense.
Mages.
death knight
>be fantasy
>refuse to implement blackpowder guns
Why do devs do this?
I'm fine with it, but not everything setting needs or benefits from it.
It's unironically really easy to implement, Deadfire did it although it could have been implemented better.
And It doesn't break the setting, specially in settings like D&D and Pathfinder where you have Alchemists that already have their own version of explosive powder
>It's unironically really easy to implement
Yeah but a lot just, don't.
You are a man of refined taste
we house ruled the guns a bit, they're somewhere between the stuff in the books and mat mercer's from his gunslinger class that I use. they hit harder than either bows or crossbows, and they outrange crossbows, but are more expensive to buy and feed in addition to having a small chance to jam. They fit pretty well into our world
Sounds very reasonable, now if only vidya devs would be more adventurous
>16 shot
superposed loads? or does it use some sort of loading system like the lorenzoni pistol I posted?
guns don't really change the flow of combat in our game, it's not like we're running around with machine guns. I'm not sure why fantasy games are so hellbent on avoiding a renaissance-esque look when they already crib so much from that time period. The nation that makes heavy use of firearms in our game is more or less based off the italian city states of the renaissance.
>superposed loads?
Yep. Deadly roman candle.
Because it is a very different feel, it's not hard to understand. The tech might not be historically accurate, but the fantasy vision is consistent, guns don't really fit. Sword and Sorcery, not Musket and Tech, ok?
>Sword and Sorcery, not Musket and Tech, ok?
Praise the gods.
I really don't see a problem with blackpowder weapons, The Hundred Year's war, which cultiminated in the battle of agincourt the most medieval thing most people know are also the first time blackpowder siege weapons were used. Knights coexisted with guns for a pretty significant amount of time. I don't see a reason why an arquebus would be out of place alongside teleportation circles and flying monsters, even more so when guns were very rare reserved for the wealthy and could be locked behind in-setting an alchemist guild
Because you put guns in the setting then suddenly everyone has them. Why you ask? Because your players aren't poor, they are heroes making bank. So now one of the main characters in every scene is using a gun. And if they can get a gun, others can too. And since they keep fighting rich and powerful enemies at some point, why not have guns? Also guns aren't mechanically written to be as clunky as they were at the time, so they will always feel wrong and actually be too advanced with their high rate of fire.
It's a mess. Siege weapons at least keeps it so something very specialized and actually rare.
>What's a good debuff heavy dnd 5e class?
Bard. In general debuffs are way inferior to buffs, but there are a few classes/subclasses that can pull it off and a few spells like slow.
>n general debuffs are way inferior to buffs
Yeah, I'm sadly aware of this. But like I said, it's a pretty casual group of mostly newish/casual players who play mostly for fun so not too worried about being inferior to buffers if it gives me some fun/flavor.
I think that guns would somewhat change the flow of combat and some devs don't want to have to balance things around it to keep it fun. And second, most people have this assumption that medieval fantasy is actually medieval when a lot of stuff that are staples to rpgs like weapons, armor and architectural designs, eg: rapier, full plate armor etc. Are either late middle ages or early renaissance. Full Plate Armor was a 14th century thing, blackpowder was already present in europe in the 13th century so It makes no sense why people don't consider it part of the setting. Warhammer Fantasy has handcannons and they don't feel out of place, specially with all the monsters and magic going around
my character 8n one of the campagains I'm in is a gunslinger.
I think D&D had muskets and similar weapons in the rulebooks since 3E, they just don't like adding them to the settings explicitly because in reality their gameplay niche is covered by crossbows and spells
Inquisitor
Back when I was in middle school I was always about elves and rangers. Then I got into magic and started liking wizards. Then I literally became a wizard. But recently I've rediscovered the appeal of what I used to like and now I'm very much in favour of "wood elves" and the like.
It's like a full circle. And by full circle I mean I'm a round fatass.
>name a class besides ranger
Uh archer
Never really got what makes rangers interesting. Sell me on them.
What's a good debuff heavy dnd 5e class? My favorite classes in games are debiltators/support but aimed more on debuffing.
If anyone knows DOTA my favorite hero is Shadow Demon for example.
UIt - Enemy is slowed to a crawl for 7 seconds, every buff from all sources placed on them is instantly purged for the duration.
Q - Removes enemy (or ally) from battle for 2.75 seconds
Got a new DnD campaign coming up (with very casual players so min/maxing is not important at all, more fun focused) and wanted to try and get my favorite vidya shtick into 5e.
Combat medic chads wya
>tfw combat alchemist
Isn't that a high fantasy grenadier basically? Sounds kino.
>tfw you unlock the mini catapult and use it to fling a potion of unknown effect into the enemy ranks
hybrid caster/warrior
You're actually just a side player to Warlocks no matter what class you are.
>Name a better class than rangers
Literally all of them
Undead Knight
I always pick barbarian when they are available, which is shockingly infrequently. More games need barbarians
Ranger: uses dual katanas instead of ranged weapons ...any class anon
i'm a sword and sorcery guy myself, so i'm more of Spellsword. loved Rangers when i was a kid though, Legolas was goated as hell.
>you can have literally any setting you want in fantasy
>people want it to be as realistic as possible and don't want magic od technomancy
????
>realistic as possible
Literally no one said that, pretty sure.
Low fantasy is inherently realistic. Just replace fantasy races with skin colors.
>Low fantasy is inherently realistic
No it's not. I don't think you realize what low fantasy means, or that it covers quite a bit of ground. I would call Lord of the Rings low magic, and that has wizards, dragons, giant eagles, magical rings, giant spiders, elves, dwarves, ents, goblins.
Low magic means LOW magic, not no magic.
Low magic means that every temple doesn't have a spell casting cleric and a magical item shop.
Okay, fair point. You're still describing a setting where magic is common, just not wizard school common. Arbitrarily adding class or race requirements to commonly available knowledge doesn't make sense, unless that class or race specializes in that type of magic.
>Arbitrarily adding class or race requirements to commonly available knowledge doesn't make sense, unless that class or race specializes in that type of magic.
Wait, what are we talking about?
My brain fell asleep writing that argument I was up til 4 last night.
Zamn
No one can even agree on what a ranger is. In some games, rangers are magical woodland guardians and in other games they are literally just dudes who specialize in ranged weapons.
In real life, rangers were a mix of the two ways we still use the word today: park rangers and army rangers. They were men who were ordered by the king to protect the forests from highwaymen and poachers and other criminals who might hide out in them. As such, they had to be skilled in combat as well as familiar with the geography. They were like the at-home, dark underbelly version of a paladin.
Problem is the term was popularized in fantasy by Aragorn, who's a ranger for a civilization that doesn't even exist anymore and gets pulled into a plotline where he rejects becoming the king of men. This put the idea in the heads of nerds that rangers were rootless and anti-authoritarian, like the anti-paladin, when the reality was the complete opposite.
I think most games really waste the potential of rangers and they were one of the first jobs I wanted to make if I ever made my own game a Souls-like FFXI with more in-depth job abilities.
>anti-authoritarian.
People don't see Aragorn that way. They just think "rangers are most skilled in the wilds, so that's where they belong." Nothing about Strider suggests anti-authority, he's just a skilled outdoorsmen.
i prefer playing regular ass, soldier/longbowmen than the fantasy of the ranger with a pet+traps/etc.
feels like in most games if you want to use a bow you have to be a hippy ranger or worst, a stealthy r*gue.
bow-wielding fighter is usually just a gimmick. i think only in GW2 longbow warriors were actually good.
It's not uncommon for fighters to be able to just bring the bow and smack people. Certainly is true for any D&D derivate game actually, even if that is where ranger came from. Rangers can outdoords, the fighter will just shoot stuff better.
I guess WoW pigeonholes range into that ranger/hunter acrchtype.