Most of the changes are shit, or a return to how things should have always been.
Monk having +dn sized die like how it was in 3e is a good change.
And I will admit the Rogue and Barbarian new features are interesting and better for the classes than in 5e...
As are the Monk ki point adjustments for the Flurry of Blows, Step of the Wind, and.... The other one.
But aside from those three things... Everything else is shit.
And the few other things they stumbled on to being good (inspiration on a nat1, dual wield being a free extra attack, etc) they've all walked back on.
All in all.
It's dead on arrival, but people will pick random tidbits to run as house rules when they play.
The only thing I know is that they're trying to make the warlock a less attractive dip, so now eldritch blast scales with warlock levels, and I think CHA to attack is a bit more difficult to get (comes with pact of the blade maybe?)
Spellcasters got even more cool shit that's accessible at low levels, including an actual spellcrafting system with such wonderful features such as literally removing concentration requirements from spells.
Martials either lost stuff or got stuff that woukd be cool if they were getting it at levels 3 to 5 instead of 15 to 18. Because WotC has no fricking idea how to balance a game.
>Martials either lost stuff or got stuff that woukd be cool if they were getting it at levels 3 to 5 instead of 15 to 18. Because WotC has no fricking idea how to balance a game.
It's not called Martials of the Coast
I don't know enough about 5.5 to know if this is true, but it would track with what I saw early on, because when I saw that bards are basically "rogues but better" now I checked out completely.
>including an actual spellcrafting system with such wonderful features such as literally removing concentration requirements from spells.
That was dropped because even the plebs complained.
>point pool >spend points to reduce the categories of spell costs >spend points to add an effect or make an effect stronger >caps for both depending on spell level >can increase spell level for higher caps and more points
There I fixed it.
>Martials either lost stuff or got stuff that woukd be cool if they were getting it at levels 3 to 5 instead of 15 to 18. Because WotC has no fricking idea how to balance a game.
Ah, so they're copying notes from Pathfinder 2e then? Where all the cool martial stuff only happens at the levels nobody plays at and is utterly unimpressive compared to high level magic at that point? Yeah, that sounds like modern day WotC alright.
Seriously, they've had a fricking DECADE at this point (both WotC and Paizo). How are they STILL fricking it up so bad?
It’s the best at single target damage all throughout the game, making many spellcasters players upset that they only have dominance over crowd control, AOE, and utility
Most sessions are going to focus on single bosses or use those for the most difficult encounters.
CC and AOE damage is pretty meh, because most DMs don't want to deal with the hassle of running over a handful of mobs at a time.
Single Target DPS is basically king.
Fighter is the best class if you're fighting non-magical enemies at low levels. Once enemies with magic show up, Fighter eats shit like a b***h and is only useful when he's begging the casters to do 90% of the work for him.
Fighter is pretty strong, but is definitely not the very strongest in the game. They are pretty versatile and because weapons have a lot of traits, unlike dnd 5e where longsword is just better than half of the one handed sword options in the game, they get to do a lot of cool stuff. But you won't solo encounters most of the time.
Depends on what you want to be honest. Gunslinger usually wipes the floor with a Fighter at Range, Thaumaturge is also plenty strong since they are, yet again, versatile. Spellcasting, even if it's not as extremely powerful in comparison to martials, still can make a fighter have problems when fighting a caster. Depends if we count items or not. And monks and champions still get more AC. It's not always that easy to say which class is the strongest because it kinda depends on your DM.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Spellcasting, even if it's not as extremely powerful in comparison to martials,
At even medium levels spellcasters can totally invalidate fighters with a single spell. The only thing fighters have on them is single target damage, and even that goes away
>this troll is still repeating the same troll bullshit
Man, frick off.
5e doesn't even have "martials".
And, classes like the fighter and paladin are among the strongest in the game, and literally every single class has easy access to magic, utility or otherwise.
You're just repeating troll complaints from literally 2 editions ago, and acting like you can retrofit them onto the newest edition.
It's fricking embarassing that this is what our trolls keep doing. And, no matter how many times this is explained to them, they'll just disappear, before returning to repeat the same bullshit, because none of them have ever been concerned with something that resembles the truth, they're always more concerned with just repeating lies enough that they can try to trick people. So, why not repeat the lies of older trolls that don't even half-resemble the truth? It's not like anyone who's ever played the game and would know they're just spewing bullshit would listen to them in the first place, so there's no reason to even put the tiniest bit of effort in coming up with real complaints when its so much easier just repeating what other trolls have laid down over a decade ago.
>fighters are the strongest
If they follow a single meta whiteroom build that in practice is ridiculously unfun because relying on a 25% malus in a bounded accuracy system is like grinding your nuts into a fine paste just to grow out a nice-looking beard.
Fighter is the best class in the game because they have the best core chassis in the game combined with the best feats and also get a bunch of other things every single other character has to pay feats for for free.
You're playing a Barbarian and want enemies to not be able to literally just walk right past you to start punching the backline? Lol, GET FRICKED homosexual, you need to wait until level 6 (so for the entire first book of every adventure path you have zero battlefield control) and then have the PRIVILEGE of spending your 6th level class feat to take Attack of Opportunity. And now you get to make absolutely zero choices on this level because you had to take it, no fun fire breath feat for you. Fighter? They get it for free right from level 1. Even the archers, cuz why not.
Fighters get heavy armor proficiency which is +1 AC over anyone who doesn't (including Barbarian), again something that costs a class feat to rectify. They get Legendary in attacks, and are the only class to ever get this, making them simply better than you just by waking up in the morning, they don't have to deal with clunky action taxes like a ranged Hunting Prey or entering Rage. They still get Master in armor, making them better than everyone else in the game defensively besides the Paladin and extremely high level monks. They get Master in both Fortitude and Reflex saves, and are completely immune to the Frightened 1 condition, of which 95% of fear effects cause. They have the best and most fighting style feats for open-hand, archery, and dual wielding. At higher levels they're literally better at making a bunch of attacks than the actual Flurry ranger is because of Agile Grace.
They have 10 HP per level, get free Incredible Initiative via battlefield surveyor, get free training in Athletics which is a skill tax for everyone else who isn't that needs to do Maneuvers (including ranger lol) and they get EVEN MORE bonus feats via Combat Flexibility that they can change daily
Why are you having a sperg out in a 5e thread when you clearly don't want to talk about 5e. Whatever fighter you are talking about that is "duh bestest class evar" isn't the fighter from 5e, which sucks ass in comparison.
>fighters have the best feats
feats are optional in 5e and fighter doesn't get special feats >fighter has attack of opportunity
So does everyone in 5e moron >completely immune to frightened
pretty sure you aren't talking about 5e >battlefield surveyor
not in 5e >free training in Athletics
along with a number of different classes in 5e >bonus feats
5e >combat Flexibility
5e
Why are you in this thread about 5e?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?
2 months ago
Anonymous
All that stuff is in 5e, though.
Our good DM put it in for us because we're a good group, so that means it is in 5e.
Just rewrite what you don't like.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why not just play a better game rather than bend over backwards to "fix" a shit game
Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?
No
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because you have to hinge yourself on corporate slop.
If you make homebrew, it will never be as good as the good things that good DMs make for their good groups that the corporation didn't write, so rewrite what you don't like and give the corporation credit for what they didn't do.
Maybe at like... level 1.
Magic still becomes the cause of and solution to every major problem in the mid and late game.
Fighter is the best class if you're fighting non-magical enemies at low levels. Once enemies with magic show up, Fighter eats shit like a b***h and is only useful when he's begging the casters to do 90% of the work for him.
Depends on what you want to be honest. Gunslinger usually wipes the floor with a Fighter at Range, Thaumaturge is also plenty strong since they are, yet again, versatile. Spellcasting, even if it's not as extremely powerful in comparison to martials, still can make a fighter have problems when fighting a caster. Depends if we count items or not. And monks and champions still get more AC. It's not always that easy to say which class is the strongest because it kinda depends on your DM.
>Spellcasting, even if it's not as extremely powerful in comparison to martials,
At even medium levels spellcasters can totally invalidate fighters with a single spell. The only thing fighters have on them is single target damage, and even that goes away
Have you people even played the game you're trying to complain about? This is some of the most nonsensical, never-actually-played-the-game shit I've heard about PF2e.
>This is some of the most nonsensical, never-actually-played-the-game shit I've heard about PF2e.
Sure, Jan. PF2e is totally the best system ever and not just a poorly designed mess of steaming hot shit.
>Jan
Who? >PF2e is totally the best system ever and not just a poorly designed mess of steaming hot shit.
I don't know who you think I am, but I didn't say and I don't think any of that. I can have my own critical opinions of a system while also recognizing when the criticisms laid out by others are completely moronic.
I was watching a guy on youtube do some comparisons between 5e and PF2e and explaining how pathfinder tackled some problems. It seemed interesting, but that game has a lot of modifier crunch. Too much for my tastes, and I played 3.5e.
>but that game has a lot of modifier crunch.
There's only one modifier calculation. Attribute bonus if untrained, Att+Level+proficiency if trained. Where are you getting that idea?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>+# cover bonuses when relevant >+# bonuses from spells >+# bonuses from other players
It seemed to me a game with a lot of balance revolving around riders, which while better than 5e's advantage/disadvantage, strike me as worse than something like sotdl's boon/bane system. But I've never player PF2e and have been more recently developing an appreciation for dice pools.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Wow, adding or subtracting 1 or 2 from a fixed mod, lots of math there buddy.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's not the difficulty of the computation that's the problem. It's keeping track of the large quantity of fiddly bits that is the problem.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Which isn't what's happening, but I guess if you've only played 5E and all you get is Advantage/disadvantage and maybe an Inspiration die I guess I can see how that confuses you.
why are you lying when monks got big boosts, weapon mastery now exists and barbarians get rage that last 10 minutes they can keep on as a ba and let's them use advantaged strength for all the ability checks they'd want to make from level 3? at least talk about the things that do actually suck like nerfing gwm and xbe instead of being a little homosexual making shit up
I will be honest, describing something as middling, and shortening it to 'mid' is fine. It saves time, and time is valuable and all that. Or it makes things more snappy or fit better in text boxes. But the trouble comes from not using it like 'middling'.
I don't know if it's not being used correctly or if it's a change in standards.
Consider that many US schools, and I've heard it has been slowly spreading out, have rules in place that say as long as someone shows up and can put their name on a piece of paper they get at least 50% credit.
There are generations of people growing up with the idea that the middle is actually the bottom.
In some of the more recent satirical looks at the future a running theme is the super meal or the xl package or the A+ item is the standard and cheap one while SSS+ and Mega Ultra Combo are the new marks of quality, and I think "mid" being shit is a sign of that.
Why would they make the arcane magic of the wizard yellow? I have been mentally conditioned to view blue or purple as the color of arcane magics. Yellow is reserved for divine magic used by clerics and paladins.
Honestly, aside from 5.5 looking like piddling shit changes no one asked for that will be worthless overall, and I'm wondering how the non-/tg/ reception to all of it is, and the OGL debacle? I think the absolute worst thing WotC has done is bring in all this MtG bullshit. Strixhaven is one of the worst splatbooks they released, and every new piece of art and book with shit wall-to-wall looking more and more in the style of the overwrought, overstyled, yet completely consistent house style MtG bullshit with no identity or intrigue. It's become entirely generic across settings, magics, anything, and that's exemplified by this confusion. There's no actual artistic language or depiction here, it's a fricking glossy checklist and I hate it to my core. I miss old DnD art so much, even when it was a tad jankier.
It may or may not be unpopular to say here, but I was shocked playing BG3 that, for the first time, I actually really liked the Forgotten Realms. I really ended up loving it. It had specific mixes of aesthetics and eras, consistent designs for things, a grounded and surprisingly dark, mature feeling and tone that I never picked up from the recent books or anything. I'd always just wrote it off as wholly generic as the default, and that's all on WotC, and it's fascinating how different things can be if you hand it over to a team that gives a shit about the writing and art direction of something.
Paladins and Clerics no longer have to be god aligned and its indeed encouraged for them not to be. Gold rays of bling are a thing of the past, it is now verboten to gatekeep holy drip from the unholy.
[...]
You homie never heard of Blackmancy. That shit is conjurbling, of course it gonna be gold.
Yellow matches dark skin better. It's part of the reason the OP's art is half decent, the other larger part being that it doesn't appear to be a white woman blacked up, and she has curly hair.
https://i.imgur.com/Lg6jG6S.jpg
I've been out of the loop, what are the class changes for 5.5e?
It looked nice at first, but it's still just 5e, unfortunately. Still chokes you into rote roles, still denies you options as you grow in power, still just DnD.
The best thing to look forward to is Bastions, but as far as I'm aware, they don't have a system in place for making them, just pointers that they will exist, and there are already games where the exact same thing is done better already.
Oh, and this
Most of the changes are shit, or a return to how things should have always been.
Monk having +dn sized die like how it was in 3e is a good change.
And I will admit the Rogue and Barbarian new features are interesting and better for the classes than in 5e...
As are the Monk ki point adjustments for the Flurry of Blows, Step of the Wind, and.... The other one.
But aside from those three things... Everything else is shit.
And the few other things they stumbled on to being good (inspiration on a nat1, dual wield being a free extra attack, etc) they've all walked back on.
All in all.
It's dead on arrival, but people will pick random tidbits to run as house rules when they play.
>And the few other things they stumbled on to being good (inspiration on a nat1, dual wield being a free extra attack, etc) they've all walked back on.
This made me feel sad. But maybe the critfail one wasn't that great anyway, and they still sort of kept the free extra attack for some light weapons. I'm still assmad about it, though.
>the other larger part being that it doesn't appear to be a white woman blacked up
But it's everything about black women APART from the skin color that's unappealing.
You get a mixed race girl who only got melanin from her black parent and not any of the facial structure or hair and they can be pretty. That's why everyone likes brown anime girls.
You can just rewrite what you don't like, so mentioning changes isn't necessary.
Or are you a video games autist rules lawyer who needs to have a book hold his hand like a baby b***h?
I feel you, and I've been trying to ask similar questions myself. The problem is their fricking process for this is solutions looking for problems, and leaving actual problems alone. I've tried to look over the playtests, and here's the breakdown, basically; they'll add something new, get told it's moronic, and then put it back to how it originally was. They will then create something that's basically what it started as, but with slight changes to the point of being infinitesimal or just confusing compared to the current rules, while also keeping the rest written exactly like the current rules, so you have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to play "find the differences."
Meanwhile, this is while publishing multiple things multiple times implementing then rolling back those changes, in different chunks each time, and very poorly formatted while also occasionally referencing things from previous playtests, so to get an actual read of "current changes" vs. the current rules, you're comparing and switching through three or four documents to do it.
There's some good stuff buried in there that are slight tweaks, like drawing weapons no longer being stupidly limited, drawing thrown weapons with attacks, weapon masteries, etc. but you have to hunt and peck. Meanwhile, they're leaving many of the major & smaller issues people complain about and have for years mostly alone (Martials & more utility, EK limited spell selection & slots, etc.)
Warlock is a great example of this. People have hated the limited and wasted invocations for a while, limited spells learned and and not getting them from the patron list, and slots. What do they do? New invocation bump up, but remove Pact Boons, put them in as Invocations, and make things "Prepared Spells"... which are still low, and "Prepare" on levels up. Slots still same. Why?
The PF2E Remaster at least exists for a reason, and is clear about what it's doing and why.
This "new" update to 5E just feels like they wanted to do a new edition to sell new books, since 5E has reached its saturation point, but also never truly retire 5E, so it's caught in a paradoxical position that they can't change anything meaningful because it would break compatibility, but they also can't make any real improvements so that it's a "feel choice" on if you buy in on the 14 or 24 version.
Rogues get extra turns on attack roll 20+, mystic gets busted defense and damage bonus, spellbinder gets 2 boons to attack rolls at level 9, chronicler can double attack at level 9, beast can stack primal spells to get a bunch of buffs and become size 3 basically permanently, and gishes more or less get full caster levels (power) without sacrificing much damage if any at all.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Power keeps this in check, a gish will not have 5 power.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Rogue > spellbinder > magic master path or rogue > mystic > magic master path both have power 5 at level 9 though?
I havent looked into it for a few months but last year >every class nerfed (some more than others) >new paladin kinda worse but better in some technical niches >lots of features showing up on higher levels now >druid is boring and sucks (wildshape nerf?!? Really?!?) >ranger less bad because everyone else is worse but still kinda bad
Monks got a boost.
They're not like 'strong', but you're not literally putting your balls in a vice to play as one. >https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M_dG9W3D-bNjx7QIaWa#p15
>https://5point5.fandom.com/wiki/Monk
Shoulda linked that.
1D6 starting unarmored attack. Not great, not terrible. I think they could make the Monk a bit stronger, but Fightergays and Barbariangays would start b***hing about 'weebshit' or something like that.
>I've been out of the loop, what are the class changes for 5.5e?
Honest opinion from someone that closely followed all the playtests and even playtested a oneshot:
Martials are improved immensely. Monk is the big winner, but fighter, barbarian, and even rogue got a lot of new toys. More damage, more survivability, more crowd control, more out of combat utility, they got it all. Martials are eating good.
Halfcasters are a mixed back. Paladin feels very sleek and just as powerful if not more than current, while ranger is slightly improved but still feels kindof bland.
Fullcasters are looking kindof meh. Some overpowered spells got nerfed which is fine, some subclasses especially cleric domains are looking pretty fantastic, but the base full caster classes got questionable changes that leave me wanting the current 5e ones.
In summary, if this were printed as is, then martials would be very happy indeed while casters would be quite divided opinion-wise.
Yeah, but anyone who expresses disapproval can just be told to rewrite what they don't like.
Good DMs doing good things for their good groups means D&D is good, but putting out a subpar product is the responsibility for the customers to fix, so D&D is still good.
>More damage, more survivability, more crowd control, more out of combat utility
If you want anything more specific I advise to check out the playtest pdf's.
To take fighter as an example: they got weapon masteries (as do all martials of course) increasing DPR and/or crowd control, more uses of second wind (survivability) and the ability to use it for skill checks (utility), an actually useful indomitable (survivability), and several other features in both the base class and the subclasses that further increase these areas.
Never should've existed like it did. Say what you will about GWM/Sentinel and other styles needing more options to match, but "semi-auto hand crossbow" was always a shitty ruling.
Correct. But it was also the only relevance martials had, so removing it means removing the relevance of martials. Unironically, 4e did this better by making everyone superheroes instead of having some classes be playing a gritty old pulp mag flash fiction and some classes be playing Duel Between Gods.
We don't know, and you can't know, until they publish the new PHB. You don't remember that, but the last playtest of 5e was so different from what we actually got when the game released, that it's shocking. Almost nothing in common.
It's all kind of a wash. Some of the changes are mildly interesting, like shuffling some class features around and rewording some abilities. Some changes were moronic. A prime example: initially they reworked Wildshape to use a generic beast template, instead of a beast stat block from the Monster Manual. You can see why they'd do this, in order to make Wildshape more consistent and easier to balance, but it's unironically a totally soulless approach. On top of that, they had also moved the ability to Wildshape into a tiny creature, like a mouse, to 11th level because being a tiny creature didn't play well with the whole generic template thing.
That said, they actually rolled that particular one back, but I think it's illustrative of their approach. It's a whole lot of "one step forward, one back" changes that amount to a whole lot of meh. It's also not a good sign that they've stopped releasing playtest material since several months ago, very possibly because Hasbro fired the guy(s) who were doing that kind of stuff.
I actually think a tiny wildshape should be extremely high level. The moment the druid can turn into a spider, they invalidate about 80% of the rogue's usefulness.
Shrinking wildshape should be a high level thing.
Or it has to have some kind of draw back.
The drawback is that tiny creatures aren't actually that good at anything outside of fitting through tight spaces, so basically anyone can notice you, say "ew, a spider", and just step on you or throw something at you and you'll get hit out of wildshape instantly. Then you're just some chucklefrick druid in the middle of a bunch of enemies.
Of course if you're using a generic template where your mouse form has the same stats as your bear form, as WotC was proposing, then yeah there's some problems. But that was just one of several problems with using the generic template.
The problem with that is like that other anon said, you're really gyping the Rogues out of their main duty.
A tiny spider or ant or mouse can sneak into just about anywhere without trouble and do whatever sneaking around they want.
It kills that aspect of the game if given too much freedom early on.
Later levels and you have enchanted fortresses and shit that can handle it, but early on it steps on too many toes.
Funny thing is that BG3 has holes for someone wildshaped as a cat or using Gaseous Form to sneak through areas, but it's just there as an available option.
BG3 murders Rogues in general.
There is basically no reason to play a Rogue in that game outside of RP or doing some really hokey 'Turn 1 Nova' type build.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Hey now, Astarion's really useful most of the time.
So get this, they somehow made the game even shittier. Even most of tge DnDrones are calling it dead-on-arrival.
What do you mean?
People can just rewrite what they don't like, as they said to do with 5e.
That's what people say to do with every RPG.
Most of the changes are shit, or a return to how things should have always been.
Monk having +dn sized die like how it was in 3e is a good change.
And I will admit the Rogue and Barbarian new features are interesting and better for the classes than in 5e...
As are the Monk ki point adjustments for the Flurry of Blows, Step of the Wind, and.... The other one.
But aside from those three things... Everything else is shit.
And the few other things they stumbled on to being good (inspiration on a nat1, dual wield being a free extra attack, etc) they've all walked back on.
All in all.
It's dead on arrival, but people will pick random tidbits to run as house rules when they play.
The only thing I know is that they're trying to make the warlock a less attractive dip, so now eldritch blast scales with warlock levels, and I think CHA to attack is a bit more difficult to get (comes with pact of the blade maybe?)
Spellcasters got even more cool shit that's accessible at low levels, including an actual spellcrafting system with such wonderful features such as literally removing concentration requirements from spells.
Martials either lost stuff or got stuff that woukd be cool if they were getting it at levels 3 to 5 instead of 15 to 18. Because WotC has no fricking idea how to balance a game.
>Martials either lost stuff or got stuff that woukd be cool if they were getting it at levels 3 to 5 instead of 15 to 18. Because WotC has no fricking idea how to balance a game.
It's not called Martials of the Coast
fricking hate you Carlos
hehe
I don't know enough about 5.5 to know if this is true, but it would track with what I saw early on, because when I saw that bards are basically "rogues but better" now I checked out completely.
>including an actual spellcrafting system with such wonderful features such as literally removing concentration requirements from spells.
That was dropped because even the plebs complained.
>point pool
>spend points to reduce the categories of spell costs
>spend points to add an effect or make an effect stronger
>caps for both depending on spell level
>can increase spell level for higher caps and more points
There I fixed it.
Anon... That's just 3e metamagic feats.
But worse/jankier.
>Martials either lost stuff or got stuff that woukd be cool if they were getting it at levels 3 to 5 instead of 15 to 18. Because WotC has no fricking idea how to balance a game.
Ah, so they're copying notes from Pathfinder 2e then? Where all the cool martial stuff only happens at the levels nobody plays at and is utterly unimpressive compared to high level magic at that point? Yeah, that sounds like modern day WotC alright.
Seriously, they've had a fricking DECADE at this point (both WotC and Paizo). How are they STILL fricking it up so bad?
I haven't played pf2e, but from what I've heard the fighter is the most busted class in the game
Maybe at like... level 1.
Magic still becomes the cause of and solution to every major problem in the mid and late game.
It’s the best at single target damage all throughout the game, making many spellcasters players upset that they only have dominance over crowd control, AOE, and utility
Most sessions are going to focus on single bosses or use those for the most difficult encounters.
CC and AOE damage is pretty meh, because most DMs don't want to deal with the hassle of running over a handful of mobs at a time.
Single Target DPS is basically king.
Fighter is the best class if you're fighting non-magical enemies at low levels. Once enemies with magic show up, Fighter eats shit like a b***h and is only useful when he's begging the casters to do 90% of the work for him.
Fighter is pretty strong, but is definitely not the very strongest in the game. They are pretty versatile and because weapons have a lot of traits, unlike dnd 5e where longsword is just better than half of the one handed sword options in the game, they get to do a lot of cool stuff. But you won't solo encounters most of the time.
Which class is better?
Depends on what you want to be honest. Gunslinger usually wipes the floor with a Fighter at Range, Thaumaturge is also plenty strong since they are, yet again, versatile. Spellcasting, even if it's not as extremely powerful in comparison to martials, still can make a fighter have problems when fighting a caster. Depends if we count items or not. And monks and champions still get more AC. It's not always that easy to say which class is the strongest because it kinda depends on your DM.
>Spellcasting, even if it's not as extremely powerful in comparison to martials,
At even medium levels spellcasters can totally invalidate fighters with a single spell. The only thing fighters have on them is single target damage, and even that goes away
>this troll is still repeating the same troll bullshit
Man, frick off.
5e doesn't even have "martials".
And, classes like the fighter and paladin are among the strongest in the game, and literally every single class has easy access to magic, utility or otherwise.
You're just repeating troll complaints from literally 2 editions ago, and acting like you can retrofit them onto the newest edition.
It's fricking embarassing that this is what our trolls keep doing. And, no matter how many times this is explained to them, they'll just disappear, before returning to repeat the same bullshit, because none of them have ever been concerned with something that resembles the truth, they're always more concerned with just repeating lies enough that they can try to trick people. So, why not repeat the lies of older trolls that don't even half-resemble the truth? It's not like anyone who's ever played the game and would know they're just spewing bullshit would listen to them in the first place, so there's no reason to even put the tiniest bit of effort in coming up with real complaints when its so much easier just repeating what other trolls have laid down over a decade ago.
>over a decade
Try two decades.
Damn, you're just DROWNING in tge WotC kool-aid, aren't you?
It is a copied text that is posted by ~~*someone*~~ to answer different anons on /tg/.
>fighters are the strongest
If they follow a single meta whiteroom build that in practice is ridiculously unfun because relying on a 25% malus in a bounded accuracy system is like grinding your nuts into a fine paste just to grow out a nice-looking beard.
Fighter is the best class in the game because they have the best core chassis in the game combined with the best feats and also get a bunch of other things every single other character has to pay feats for for free.
You're playing a Barbarian and want enemies to not be able to literally just walk right past you to start punching the backline? Lol, GET FRICKED homosexual, you need to wait until level 6 (so for the entire first book of every adventure path you have zero battlefield control) and then have the PRIVILEGE of spending your 6th level class feat to take Attack of Opportunity. And now you get to make absolutely zero choices on this level because you had to take it, no fun fire breath feat for you. Fighter? They get it for free right from level 1. Even the archers, cuz why not.
Fighters get heavy armor proficiency which is +1 AC over anyone who doesn't (including Barbarian), again something that costs a class feat to rectify. They get Legendary in attacks, and are the only class to ever get this, making them simply better than you just by waking up in the morning, they don't have to deal with clunky action taxes like a ranged Hunting Prey or entering Rage. They still get Master in armor, making them better than everyone else in the game defensively besides the Paladin and extremely high level monks. They get Master in both Fortitude and Reflex saves, and are completely immune to the Frightened 1 condition, of which 95% of fear effects cause. They have the best and most fighting style feats for open-hand, archery, and dual wielding. At higher levels they're literally better at making a bunch of attacks than the actual Flurry ranger is because of Agile Grace.
They have 10 HP per level, get free Incredible Initiative via battlefield surveyor, get free training in Athletics which is a skill tax for everyone else who isn't that needs to do Maneuvers (including ranger lol) and they get EVEN MORE bonus feats via Combat Flexibility that they can change daily
Why are you having a sperg out in a 5e thread when you clearly don't want to talk about 5e. Whatever fighter you are talking about that is "duh bestest class evar" isn't the fighter from 5e, which sucks ass in comparison.
>fighters have the best feats
feats are optional in 5e and fighter doesn't get special feats
>fighter has attack of opportunity
So does everyone in 5e moron
>completely immune to frightened
pretty sure you aren't talking about 5e
>battlefield surveyor
not in 5e
>free training in Athletics
along with a number of different classes in 5e
>bonus feats
5e
>combat Flexibility
5e
Why are you in this thread about 5e?
Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?
All that stuff is in 5e, though.
Our good DM put it in for us because we're a good group, so that means it is in 5e.
Just rewrite what you don't like.
Why not just play a better game rather than bend over backwards to "fix" a shit game
No
Because you have to hinge yourself on corporate slop.
If you make homebrew, it will never be as good as the good things that good DMs make for their good groups that the corporation didn't write, so rewrite what you don't like and give the corporation credit for what they didn't do.
>Where all the cool martial stuff only happens at the levels nobody plays at and is utterly unimpressive compared to high level magic at that point?
Honestly this sound like 3e to me.
Have you people even played the game you're trying to complain about? This is some of the most nonsensical, never-actually-played-the-game shit I've heard about PF2e.
>This is some of the most nonsensical, never-actually-played-the-game shit I've heard about PF2e.
Sure, Jan. PF2e is totally the best system ever and not just a poorly designed mess of steaming hot shit.
>Jan
Who?
>PF2e is totally the best system ever and not just a poorly designed mess of steaming hot shit.
I don't know who you think I am, but I didn't say and I don't think any of that. I can have my own critical opinions of a system while also recognizing when the criticisms laid out by others are completely moronic.
Okay but the criticism you pointed to is mostly completely true and you seem pretty moronic.
>Jan Who?
You need to be over the age of 4 to post here, homosexual.
I was watching a guy on youtube do some comparisons between 5e and PF2e and explaining how pathfinder tackled some problems. It seemed interesting, but that game has a lot of modifier crunch. Too much for my tastes, and I played 3.5e.
>but that game has a lot of modifier crunch.
There's only one modifier calculation. Attribute bonus if untrained, Att+Level+proficiency if trained. Where are you getting that idea?
>+# cover bonuses when relevant
>+# bonuses from spells
>+# bonuses from other players
It seemed to me a game with a lot of balance revolving around riders, which while better than 5e's advantage/disadvantage, strike me as worse than something like sotdl's boon/bane system. But I've never player PF2e and have been more recently developing an appreciation for dice pools.
Wow, adding or subtracting 1 or 2 from a fixed mod, lots of math there buddy.
It's not the difficulty of the computation that's the problem. It's keeping track of the large quantity of fiddly bits that is the problem.
Which isn't what's happening, but I guess if you've only played 5E and all you get is Advantage/disadvantage and maybe an Inspiration die I guess I can see how that confuses you.
PF2e is a worse version of 3.5.
Where every opportunity to make a bad design decision was made.
>t. WotC employee
moronic post, and the op spell crafting was dropped instantly
why are you lying when monks got big boosts, weapon mastery now exists and barbarians get rage that last 10 minutes they can keep on as a ba and let's them use advantaged strength for all the ability checks they'd want to make from level 3? at least talk about the things that do actually suck like nerfing gwm and xbe instead of being a little homosexual making shit up
>Game is bad
>Zoomers call it "mid"
The death of language
Mid's a great word tbqh.
It's a better word when it isn't used by zoomers who don't know what it means.
Mid is a fine word when you actually use it in the meaning of mid, which has been in common use for decades if not centuries to some degree.
Mid is a moron word when used in the meaning of 'bad' as zoomies do.
I will be honest, describing something as middling, and shortening it to 'mid' is fine. It saves time, and time is valuable and all that. Or it makes things more snappy or fit better in text boxes. But the trouble comes from not using it like 'middling'.
I don't know if it's not being used correctly or if it's a change in standards.
Consider that many US schools, and I've heard it has been slowly spreading out, have rules in place that say as long as someone shows up and can put their name on a piece of paper they get at least 50% credit.
There are generations of people growing up with the idea that the middle is actually the bottom.
In some of the more recent satirical looks at the future a running theme is the super meal or the xl package or the A+ item is the standard and cheap one while SSS+ and Mega Ultra Combo are the new marks of quality, and I think "mid" being shit is a sign of that.
Why would they make the arcane magic of the wizard yellow? I have been mentally conditioned to view blue or purple as the color of arcane magics. Yellow is reserved for divine magic used by clerics and paladins.
I have the agree the gold-yellow reads more as divine magic for me too.
You homie never heard of Blackmancy. That shit is conjurbling, of course it gonna be gold.
The image is AI-generated slop. Her feet literally poke out through her barrier.
You are wrong and stupid. Is this a false flag?
>Found the rare D&Drone who's SO far into the kool-aid that he would thank a WotC exec for shitting on his chest.
Honestly, aside from 5.5 looking like piddling shit changes no one asked for that will be worthless overall, and I'm wondering how the non-/tg/ reception to all of it is, and the OGL debacle? I think the absolute worst thing WotC has done is bring in all this MtG bullshit. Strixhaven is one of the worst splatbooks they released, and every new piece of art and book with shit wall-to-wall looking more and more in the style of the overwrought, overstyled, yet completely consistent house style MtG bullshit with no identity or intrigue. It's become entirely generic across settings, magics, anything, and that's exemplified by this confusion. There's no actual artistic language or depiction here, it's a fricking glossy checklist and I hate it to my core. I miss old DnD art so much, even when it was a tad jankier.
It may or may not be unpopular to say here, but I was shocked playing BG3 that, for the first time, I actually really liked the Forgotten Realms. I really ended up loving it. It had specific mixes of aesthetics and eras, consistent designs for things, a grounded and surprisingly dark, mature feeling and tone that I never picked up from the recent books or anything. I'd always just wrote it off as wholly generic as the default, and that's all on WotC, and it's fascinating how different things can be if you hand it over to a team that gives a shit about the writing and art direction of something.
Paladins and Clerics no longer have to be god aligned and its indeed encouraged for them not to be. Gold rays of bling are a thing of the past, it is now verboten to gatekeep holy drip from the unholy.
5E completely divorced them from gods as direct power sources.
Clerics draw it from their Domain, which is usually a domain the god they serve has power over.
Paladins gain their power directly from their Oath, with no gods involved.
Unironically this
Yellow matches dark skin better. It's part of the reason the OP's art is half decent, the other larger part being that it doesn't appear to be a white woman blacked up, and she has curly hair.
It looked nice at first, but it's still just 5e, unfortunately. Still chokes you into rote roles, still denies you options as you grow in power, still just DnD.
The best thing to look forward to is Bastions, but as far as I'm aware, they don't have a system in place for making them, just pointers that they will exist, and there are already games where the exact same thing is done better already.
Oh, and this
>And the few other things they stumbled on to being good (inspiration on a nat1, dual wield being a free extra attack, etc) they've all walked back on.
This made me feel sad. But maybe the critfail one wasn't that great anyway, and they still sort of kept the free extra attack for some light weapons. I'm still assmad about it, though.
>the other larger part being that it doesn't appear to be a white woman blacked up
But it's everything about black women APART from the skin color that's unappealing.
You get a mixed race girl who only got melanin from her black parent and not any of the facial structure or hair and they can be pretty. That's why everyone likes brown anime girls.
How is that relevant to anything?
People are weird.
I'm assuming because he called the OP art decent because the girl looked black.
>not a single specific change mentioned
Interesting.
You can just rewrite what you don't like, so mentioning changes isn't necessary.
Or are you a video games autist rules lawyer who needs to have a book hold his hand like a baby b***h?
I feel you, and I've been trying to ask similar questions myself. The problem is their fricking process for this is solutions looking for problems, and leaving actual problems alone. I've tried to look over the playtests, and here's the breakdown, basically; they'll add something new, get told it's moronic, and then put it back to how it originally was. They will then create something that's basically what it started as, but with slight changes to the point of being infinitesimal or just confusing compared to the current rules, while also keeping the rest written exactly like the current rules, so you have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to play "find the differences."
Meanwhile, this is while publishing multiple things multiple times implementing then rolling back those changes, in different chunks each time, and very poorly formatted while also occasionally referencing things from previous playtests, so to get an actual read of "current changes" vs. the current rules, you're comparing and switching through three or four documents to do it.
There's some good stuff buried in there that are slight tweaks, like drawing weapons no longer being stupidly limited, drawing thrown weapons with attacks, weapon masteries, etc. but you have to hunt and peck. Meanwhile, they're leaving many of the major & smaller issues people complain about and have for years mostly alone (Martials & more utility, EK limited spell selection & slots, etc.)
Warlock is a great example of this. People have hated the limited and wasted invocations for a while, limited spells learned and and not getting them from the patron list, and slots. What do they do? New invocation bump up, but remove Pact Boons, put them in as Invocations, and make things "Prepared Spells"... which are still low, and "Prepare" on levels up. Slots still same. Why?
It's basically
>Dungeons & Dragons: Nobody Asked Edition
I don't know what the frick they're doing, and I don't think they do, either.
The PF2E Remaster at least exists for a reason, and is clear about what it's doing and why.
This "new" update to 5E just feels like they wanted to do a new edition to sell new books, since 5E has reached its saturation point, but also never truly retire 5E, so it's caught in a paradoxical position that they can't change anything meaningful because it would break compatibility, but they also can't make any real improvements so that it's a "feel choice" on if you buy in on the 14 or 24 version.
Built for a white male human fighter
is there a change list anywhere I can see
doesn't even matter, anyone with a functioning brain moved on from dndslop ages ago
>won't post his system
He's a pathfindertard. Just ignore him.
Not him but me and my group moved to PF2e, BFRPG, Battle Century G, The One Ring 2e, and Star Trek Adventures.
After my group played SotDL, we instantly converted our 5e campaigns over to it. It's an objective improvement in every conceivable way.
This, but sotdl has a gish issue where they're better than both casters or martials
The only issue that I've run into is Spell Guard being way too OP. What else is the issue?
Rogues get extra turns on attack roll 20+, mystic gets busted defense and damage bonus, spellbinder gets 2 boons to attack rolls at level 9, chronicler can double attack at level 9, beast can stack primal spells to get a bunch of buffs and become size 3 basically permanently, and gishes more or less get full caster levels (power) without sacrificing much damage if any at all.
Power keeps this in check, a gish will not have 5 power.
Rogue > spellbinder > magic master path or rogue > mystic > magic master path both have power 5 at level 9 though?
Have you tried the new SotWW? It's still in pre- but I like it so much better than SotDL, and SotDL is a huge leap from 5e.
I havent looked into it for a few months but last year
>every class nerfed (some more than others)
>new paladin kinda worse but better in some technical niches
>lots of features showing up on higher levels now
>druid is boring and sucks (wildshape nerf?!? Really?!?)
>ranger less bad because everyone else is worse but still kinda bad
Monks got a boost.
They're not like 'strong', but you're not literally putting your balls in a vice to play as one.
>https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M_dG9W3D-bNjx7QIaWa#p15
>https://5point5.fandom.com/wiki/Monk
Shoulda linked that.
1D6 starting unarmored attack. Not great, not terrible. I think they could make the Monk a bit stronger, but Fightergays and Barbariangays would start b***hing about 'weebshit' or something like that.
The same people who said Bo9s was weebshit?
>Barbarians continue to just be better fighters
so glad I stopped playing this shit
Barbarians have been worse than Fighters for a long time.
are you moronic?
Bad.
>I've been out of the loop, what are the class changes for 5.5e?
Honest opinion from someone that closely followed all the playtests and even playtested a oneshot:
Martials are improved immensely. Monk is the big winner, but fighter, barbarian, and even rogue got a lot of new toys. More damage, more survivability, more crowd control, more out of combat utility, they got it all. Martials are eating good.
Halfcasters are a mixed back. Paladin feels very sleek and just as powerful if not more than current, while ranger is slightly improved but still feels kindof bland.
Fullcasters are looking kindof meh. Some overpowered spells got nerfed which is fine, some subclasses especially cleric domains are looking pretty fantastic, but the base full caster classes got questionable changes that leave me wanting the current 5e ones.
In summary, if this were printed as is, then martials would be very happy indeed while casters would be quite divided opinion-wise.
Yeah, but anyone who expresses disapproval can just be told to rewrite what they don't like.
Good DMs doing good things for their good groups means D&D is good, but putting out a subpar product is the responsibility for the customers to fix, so D&D is still good.
What are the improvements that make Martials big winners?
>More damage, more survivability, more crowd control, more out of combat utility
If you want anything more specific I advise to check out the playtest pdf's.
To take fighter as an example: they got weapon masteries (as do all martials of course) increasing DPR and/or crowd control, more uses of second wind (survivability) and the ability to use it for skill checks (utility), an actually useful indomitable (survivability), and several other features in both the base class and the subclasses that further increase these areas.
Fighters got cucked hard by the heavy nerf to CBE+SS and they got nothing even remotely as good in return.
Good. Frick CBE and SS.
>CBE
Never should've existed like it did. Say what you will about GWM/Sentinel and other styles needing more options to match, but "semi-auto hand crossbow" was always a shitty ruling.
Correct. But it was also the only relevance martials had, so removing it means removing the relevance of martials. Unironically, 4e did this better by making everyone superheroes instead of having some classes be playing a gritty old pulp mag flash fiction and some classes be playing Duel Between Gods.
We don't know, and you can't know, until they publish the new PHB. You don't remember that, but the last playtest of 5e was so different from what we actually got when the game released, that it's shocking. Almost nothing in common.
It's all kind of a wash. Some of the changes are mildly interesting, like shuffling some class features around and rewording some abilities. Some changes were moronic. A prime example: initially they reworked Wildshape to use a generic beast template, instead of a beast stat block from the Monster Manual. You can see why they'd do this, in order to make Wildshape more consistent and easier to balance, but it's unironically a totally soulless approach. On top of that, they had also moved the ability to Wildshape into a tiny creature, like a mouse, to 11th level because being a tiny creature didn't play well with the whole generic template thing.
That said, they actually rolled that particular one back, but I think it's illustrative of their approach. It's a whole lot of "one step forward, one back" changes that amount to a whole lot of meh. It's also not a good sign that they've stopped releasing playtest material since several months ago, very possibly because Hasbro fired the guy(s) who were doing that kind of stuff.
I actually think a tiny wildshape should be extremely high level. The moment the druid can turn into a spider, they invalidate about 80% of the rogue's usefulness.
The drawback is that tiny creatures aren't actually that good at anything outside of fitting through tight spaces, so basically anyone can notice you, say "ew, a spider", and just step on you or throw something at you and you'll get hit out of wildshape instantly. Then you're just some chucklefrick druid in the middle of a bunch of enemies.
Of course if you're using a generic template where your mouse form has the same stats as your bear form, as WotC was proposing, then yeah there's some problems. But that was just one of several problems with using the generic template.
The problem with that is like that other anon said, you're really gyping the Rogues out of their main duty.
A tiny spider or ant or mouse can sneak into just about anywhere without trouble and do whatever sneaking around they want.
It kills that aspect of the game if given too much freedom early on.
Later levels and you have enchanted fortresses and shit that can handle it, but early on it steps on too many toes.
Funny thing is that BG3 has holes for someone wildshaped as a cat or using Gaseous Form to sneak through areas, but it's just there as an available option.
BG3 murders Rogues in general.
There is basically no reason to play a Rogue in that game outside of RP or doing some really hokey 'Turn 1 Nova' type build.
Hey now, Astarion's really useful most of the time.
Shrinking wildshape should be a high level thing.
Or it has to have some kind of draw back.
STR has been nerfed and DEX has been buffed. Again.