Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?

[W'rkncacnter]

Ugh. Yep, that's RAW. I declare stupid. What is the character reacting to on their turn??

typically something they've just done (e.g. dropping an enemy to 0 or missing an attack).

 

[Stalker0]

I still say the simplest way to fix this, is have it only work on 1 attack.

 

[Distracted DM]

I still say the simplest way to fix this, is have it only work on 1 attack.

Simplest yes, but not IMO best. It would turn it into a maneuver to be avoided rather than considered for use.

 

[PauloR]

Not if you lower the cost to 2, maybe even 1 exertion. That's how the monk ability worked back in 3e wanst it? You pay for it at every attack.

You'd need yo rewrite the maneuver to something like "after you activate the maneuver, the first attack stuns (on a failed save). Pay again for the next attack to also have a chance to stun" sort of thing

 

[Distracted DM]

Not if you lower the cost to 2, maybe even 1 exertion. That's how the monk ability worked back in 3e wanst it? You pay for it at every attack.

You'd need yo rewrite the maneuver to something like "after you activate the maneuver, the first attack stuns (on a failed save). Pay again for the next attack to also have a chance to stun" sort of thing

It's still how the monk and adept work in (a)5e! Yup you can definitely just give all martials access to stunning strike (via that maneuver). Maybe charge them 2ep per use instead of the adepts 1, so the monks feature isn't completely copied.

 

[PauloR]

Well, since we have a maneuver that copies the adept feature, I don't see a problem of it costing double, a fighter can even halve the cost with the maneuver specialisation if he really wants it anyway

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Well, since we have a maneuver that copies the adept feature, I don't see a problem of it costing double, a fighter can even halve the cost with the maneuver specialisation if he really wants it anyway

...okay, but now we're back to square 1. so...

 

[evildmguy]

Before I go back to SA, I was rereading this thread. I do agree berserker shouldn't get evasion in core and adept should. I could definitely see changing that.

I think someone said that shield focus is more powerful than evasion. I think it's a way for fighters to have evasion. It just doesn't work in my mind for some reason. I have accepted an agile creature finding or moving to a place that avoids a spell or effect. I can't accept a shield being able to absorb unlimited damage. It doesn't help that the system has maintenance for mundane equipment and the damaged and broken status for equipment.

I will have to read back more to see if there is anything else.

Thinking about SA more but I'm still not sure what to do. I'm not a system master so not sure of all effects this could have in other areas. My own thoughts.

Coming from 3E, and still playing PF1 with three action economy, I like the idea that a character does one action at a time. Once they stop doing that action, they can't do more. Then add in the feat Spring Attack, a la 3E/PF1, to let them keep moving around the battlefield. Or make it a maneuver, so it costs exertion to keep moving. This might stop some movement during a turn. I think it makes movement more tactical. As a maneuver, might allow them to move as a reaction off their turn, again at cost.

I don't mind the idea that it does a chain of conditions leading up to stunned but I think that has bigger implications and is complex. I mean, once we do that for stunned, I think it should be done for more conditions, such as paralyzed or petrified.

I like the idea of having to inflict so much damage before they have to save for stun.

The high level fighters have ways to use their reaction on their turn and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Again, I think reaction should be defined as off a character's turn. At the same time, they have done it to get something extra and now can't use shield focus or an attack of opportunity (or maneuver) on someone else's turn.

Okay, new question but it's for 5e and a5e. How do others have dominate work? It says that when given a command, the target of dominate must obey to the best of its ability. In my specific campaign right now, the players are worried that the fighter with SA will be dominated and then have to run around and attack all of them. Dominate is the worst kind of "save or suck" type spell since it's no fun to do that to your fellow players. Is that how others play it? Do you remind players of tactics they used before and to use them now? Do you allow malicious compliance?

That's one of the few areas 4E had better defined. When dominated, they just had to do basic attacks or actions.

Okay, that's enough. Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Distracted DM]

Okay, new question but it's for 5e and a5e. How do others have dominate work? It says that when given a command, the target of dominate must obey to the best of its ability. In my specific campaign right now, the players are worried that the fighter with SA will be dominated and then have to run around and attack all of them. Dominate is the worst kind of "save or suck" type spell since it's no fun to do that to your fellow players. Is that how others play it? Do you remind players of tactics they used before and to use them now? Do you allow malicious compliance?

That's one of the few areas 4E had better defined. When dominated, they just had to do basic attacks or actions.

Okay, that's enough. Thanks for the discussion!

I think it's questionable if it's the worst of the save or suck spells- the player still gets to roll dice! Some are cool playing into it.

You may issue commands through this link and the target does its best to obey. No action is required to issue commands, which can be a simple and general course of action such as “Attack that target,” “Go over there,” or “Bring me that object.” Without commands the target only defends itself. The target continues to follow a command until its task is complete.

You can use your action to assume direct control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, you decide all of the target’s actions and it does nothing you do not allow it to. While a target is directly controlled in this way, you can also cause it to use a reaction, but this requires you to use your own reaction as well.

It really depends on what kind of command is given. "Attack your comrades/party/friends," I'd say it's player's choice as to the target- so maybe the high-ac warrior, or the archer that they'd have to dash to get to. "Kill Melchior the Wizard," that character's gonna be swinging for the mage.

Regardless, they have to do their best to obey- that means no "malicious compliance."

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I do agree berserker shouldn't get evasion in core and adept should. I could definitely see changing that.

i don't really mind that berserkers can get evasion - i mind more that A. adepts can't and B. the alternative to evasion for berserkers is just a straight up trap option.

i'm thinking of replacing the evasion/trap choice for berserkers with adding your rage HP bonus to your saves while raging as a house rule. remove the trap option entirely.

I think someone said that shield focus is more powerful than evasion. I think it's a way for fighters to have evasion.

i mean, maybe WOTC intended it that way, but it's a port of shield master from o5e.

also, i don't think i'd say shield focus is more powerful then evasion. for one, it takes up your reaction, and for another it does nothing for you if you fail the save. sure, you can add your shield's AC bonus to the save, but only if the effect targets only you - i'm pretty sure most dex saves are AOEs, so most of the time it wouldn't even apply.

It just doesn't work in my mind for some reason. I have accepted an agile creature finding or moving to a place that avoids a spell or effect. I can't accept a shield being able to absorb unlimited damage. It doesn't help that the system has maintenance for mundane equipment and the damaged and broken status for equipment.

i actually find the opposite is more true for me - i can accept using your shield to protect yourself from something, because that's literally the entire point of them. i find it incredibly difficult to square completely avoiding something that 100% envelops you with the only justification being "doj gud" when you don't even leave your space. i do see how it could've been another opportunity to make use of the maintenance system, though.

Coming from 3E, and still playing PF1 with three action economy, I like the idea that a character does one action at a time. Once they stop doing that action, they can't do more. Then add in the feat Spring Attack, a la 3E/PF1, to let them keep moving around the battlefield. Or make it a maneuver, so it costs exertion to keep moving. This might stop some movement during a turn. I think it makes movement more tactical. As a maneuver, might allow them to move as a reaction off their turn, again at cost.

what you'll get out of this is what you got out of 3e/pf1e, where creatures get into melee and then just don't move because there's no point. i'd find that boring, personally, but if that's what you want then there you go.

I don't mind the idea that it does a chain of conditions leading up to stunned but I think that has bigger implications and is complex. I mean, once we do that for stunned, I think it should be done for more conditions, such as paralyzed or petrified.

i mean, fair on the complex point, it is a condition chain, but i'm completely stupefied by the idea that changing a single maneuver has broader implications then fundamentally changing how actions and movement interact with each other. changing stunning assault to be a condition chain only actually effects stunning assault itself (well, and how the party interacts with it), and only really suggests the possibility of implementing the idea elsewhere. changing movement so that it just ends whenever you take an action changes how you have to approach thinking about positioning whenever you want to take any action at all.

I like the idea of having to inflict so much damage before they have to save for stun.

yeah, i think the last time we discussed that you said the same thing. i like it too, and it's the simplest fix i'd want to try.

The high level fighters have ways to use their reaction on their turn and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Again, I think reaction should be defined as off a character's turn. At the same time, they have done it to get something extra and now can't use shield focus or an attack of opportunity (or maneuver) on someone else's turn.

i like it. it's a trade off like you say, and it gives an actual cost to things that would otherwise just be a free action.

Okay, new question but it's for 5e and a5e. How do others have dominate work? It says that when given a command, the target of dominate must obey to the best of its ability. In my specific campaign right now, the players are worried that the fighter with SA will be dominated and then have to run around and attack all of them. Dominate is the worst kind of "save or suck" type spell since it's no fun to do that to your fellow players. Is that how others play it? Do you remind players of tactics they used before and to use them now? Do you allow malicious compliance?

That's one of the few areas 4E had better defined. When dominated, they just had to do basic attacks or actions.

how i've usually seen it done in the groups i'm in is the DM will give the player a goal (usually "kill the party") and then let them handle it. softball, hardball, whatever.

well, either that or the DM just won't use it at all, which i find is a bit more common among my groups. i did run the crypta hereticarum once and one of the players just told me to take control of his PC when he got dominated instead of giving him a goal. of course, that was also in the very first fight and i ran those monsters completely wrong, but uh...that was also the party's favourite fight of the dungeon, so task failed successfully, i guess?