Vaalingrade
Legend
Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.
I think its just a fear of change, which is a common human trait.Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.
back in the day there was a superhero D20 game called mutants and masterminds.Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.
Are you are saying that 7 years, literal millions of players, and countless surveys in incapable of uncovering something glaring that a year playtest that started incomplete in terms of the classes and subclasses and changed multiple times missed?not so glaring if they passed the playtest and went into print, are they?
I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.That to me is the kind of thing we need to address in 5.5e. Even if a class is workable, doesn't mean its truly "working". I think the monk is the same way. At the end of day, a monk is absolutely playable and not as bad as some people think... but there is a reason that so many threads have popped up over the years around "monks sucking". There is just something missing about them, something incomplete, something that juuuuuust isn't quite hitting the mark.
I think the best answer to this is in subsystems like what Buffy used.... the idea of drama or plot "points". Aka the strong characters are just better than the weaker ones....but the weaker ones get points that can change scenes, allowing them to pull off cool manuevers or daring escapes all their own.now these two don't sound too bad right... I mean they are both JLA member so of course they are similar... try it with the avengers and you get Black widow deals similar damage to Hulk.
That's a great definition of a class failing to work: it doesn't provide the fantasy the fluff implies. That's what classes are supposed to do.I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.
PHB, pg 14, in the creating a character section: "Without armor or a shield, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in chapter 5."yup even in the basic rules make the term "base AC" a defined term, something like your dex+armor+magic is your base and other things like sheilds and cover (or just make a shield count as lesser cover) add to it...
What is the point of Strength at that point beyond one skill and the ability to wear some heavy armors without a movement penalty?remove the finesse property entirely. make all melee attacks use str or dex, and all range attack use dex or wis. Then make the thrown properity allow for str to damage but not to hit.
yes totally, and again I just totally did the most bare bone example, to give M&M the benfit they DO have things like that too...I think the best answer to this is in subsystems like what Buffy used.... the idea of drama or plot "points". Aka the strong characters are just better than the weaker ones....but the weaker ones get points that can change scenes, allowing them to pull off cool manuevers or daring escapes all their own.
I think it works because its intentionally asymmetric, trying to balance two cosmically imbalanced characters is just an exercise in failure, the better answer is not to try, but instead give them completely different schticks.