D&D 5E Boop

[FrogReaver]

I don't find the casters meaningfully different, no. In a game with zero MC then a little moreso. It's mostly access to a handful of different spells and whether or not i have a good idea for one of the other mechanics which most often isn't really what its fluffed as. That's rare though.

Obviously there are mechanical differences between the classes but nothing that, to me, that separates the classes in a super meaningful thematic way. I never said there weren't mechanical differences btw, only that I didn't find the differences compelling from a character design standpoint, as odd as that sounds.

An example: you mentioned wanting to be a skill monkey and picking bard. I would call skill monkey a meaningful thematic difference between bard and the other casters. You do not?

 

[Fenris-77]

Not really. You can get there or some of the way there with knowledge cleric too, or a level of rogue. And/or half elf if that works. Well, yes, it's a difference, bit not one I care about unless I happen to want a ton of skills. It would be a more compelling difference if there weren't so many other ways to do the same thing.

Honestly, in the cases where I'd pick a bard for skills its far more about the comparison to rogue than the other casters. The Lore Bard makes a way better magical rogue for a lot of builds than anything you can do with an actual rogue. This is an excellent example of what's at the heart of my indifference to class descriptions.

If you wanted to say that my impression of the classes is coloured my multiclassing, you'd be correct. In a no MC environment the differences mean more.

 

[Umbran]

oh man I do apologize, I thought that was pretty clear in the tone of my post. I have no respect for you as a person...

Mod Note:

"I apologize and here's an insult," is not acceptable. You're done in this thread.

Next time, please exert a bit more self-control, and disengage from the conversation before you flame out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you can leverage role flexibility into the Fighter well why not?

You can already see how the lack of formal Roles left some wiggle room in the fighter. It's a hardwired high-DPR class (Striker Role), but also has the hps & tankiness of a Defender. The BM & PDK get a couple of minor abilities that shade into Leader. The BM's maneuvers are a diverse resource mechanic - admittedly, not a fraction as diverse as spells, 16 vs hundreds, one level vs nine, laser-focused on armed combat - that could be leveraged and expanded to more fully embrace contributions beyond DPR... if there were any room left in the fighter chassis for that sort of thing, which there obviously isn't. So while the lack of formal Roles left the fighter free to be simultaneously tough like a defender (with no defender role support) and high-DPR like a Striker (but w/o typical striker mobility), by itself, it doesn't leave it free to fill a 4e-leader - broader/murkier 5e informal support - role.

But, if you take a resource-heavy, high-versatility chassis like Cleric - or even just a resource-heavy one like Bard, or short-rest-resource-heavy like Warlock - and swap in greatly expanded maneuvers as the resource, and you'd be able to adequately handle leader/controller (support) contributions for a party.


(BTW, the temptation(npi) to use Warlock is obvious: it's the single class heaviest on short-rest resources, and the BM's maneuvers happen to use short-rest-recharge CS dice. But, I still like the idea of decoupling maneuver resources from short-rest-recharging and going with per-encounter or per-enemy limitations, instead or as well.)

 

[Garthanos]

But, I still like the idea of decoupling maneuver resources from short-rest-recharging and going with per-encounter or per-enemy limitations, instead or as well.)

That is a dramatic one with more concept involved which yeh I like quite a bit, Martial Tricks for that one per-enemy or per fight maneuver.

And I think I just had a balance thought for those In 5e land they are I presume less intense unless you have more intense fights. So perhaps allow them to get boosts approximately based on fight length. One such trigger might be making them more intense if you or an ally or allies are bloodied it makes your trick more convincing - which makes a lot of sense for false openings and suckering them in and the like.

 

[Garthanos]

You can already see how the lack of formal Roles left some wiggle room in the fighter. It's a hardwired high-DPR class (Striker Role), but also has the hps & tankiness of a Defender. The BM & PDK get a couple of minor abilities that shade into Leader. The BM's maneuvers are a diverse resource mechanic - admittedly, not a fraction as diverse as spells, 16 vs hundreds, one level vs nine, laser-focused on armed combat - that could be leveraged and expanded to more fully embrace contributions beyond DPR. instead or as well.)

Allow maneuvers which use risk to trade on the tankiness In 4e a fighter traded some of his superior defense in order to increase his offense and a Warlord (Bravura) could trade on it for increasing the amount of his inspiration or even to grant allies extra attacks. A ranger could trade on his higher damage to get control functions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Coroc]

Paladin and Bard are jumping out right away. I wouldn’t recommend Bard. I think it’s just the overlapping concept that people associate, not any mechanical convergence.

Oddly those two were the first which came to my mind.

 

[Coroc]

Looking back at the poll, it looks like fighter won. Although I don’t know that it’s a statistically significant victory over the Bard.

And, even though some people don’t like the fighter .... I still wouldn’t call them “Boop.” “Bop” at a minimum for hitting things.

A pet rabbit makes boop nudging you with its nose, I thought the OP was a bit embarrassed to ask for a vote maybe because the topic had so much discussion already (not that I mind) but that's only my impression.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*