D&D 5E Companion thread to "5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)"

[CleverNickName]

Oh, man, NO!!! Keep guns out of D&D please! I mean, as a cross-over adventure or something is one thing, but for the sake of Pete not core material! I am already not a fan of anything in Wildemount, sigh.

Eh, to each their own. Like I said elsewhere, every now and then it's nice to be reminded that guns, rapiers, and halberds all occupied the same period of history.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Eh, to each their own. Like I said elsewhere, every now and then it's nice to be reminded that guns, rapiers, and halberds all occupied the same period of history.

Sure.

(FWIW, I don't allow rapiers, either. , but halberds were around before either... so they are ok.)

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

guns, rapiers, and halberds all occupied the same period of history.

Yeah... hand crossbows are the really odd ones out.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Yeah, but lets look at what actually happens (using ACs from actual monsters in the books (over 800 of them, FWIW):

View attachment 262668

So, I've done an extensive analysis of this and that is why I said you don't need a 20 by level 8; you barely need an 18 really. Honestly, you can even "get away with" just having a 14 to start, but you'll feel the pinch if you don't bump it to 16 at 4th level...

Anyway, this is why I can just take half-feats at 4th and 8th for +1 bump to modifier, and again at 12th and 16th for the last +1 bump. I've NEVER, EVER spent an ASI on a +2 to a single ability score and the math works just fine without it.

huh. wizards moment.

EDIT: Here is the table starting with Ability 14 using the ACs for the CR = Level from the DMG:

View attachment 262670

As you can see, you can start with a 14, take the ASI +2 at 4th and 8th levels (at which point you'd have an 18, not 20), and hit your 60% or better all the time...

i meant 65%, actually - i was trying to point out 8 or higher is always supposed to hit and that's 65%. that's a miscalculation on my end.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

(FWIW, I don't allow rapiers, either. , but halberds were around before either... so they are ok.)

technically guns (specifically the hand cannon) and halberds were both invented in the 13th century, but guns didn't get to europe until the late 14th, so...half correct?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure.

(FWIW, I don't allow rapiers, either. , but halberds were around before either... so they are ok.)

I assume you forbid plate armor as well, then?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

technically guns (specifically the hand cannon) and halberds were both invented in the 13th century, but guns didn't get to europe until the late 14th, so...half correct?

Technically, the first single-user gunpowder weapons appeared even earlier, around the 9th century. It took around 300 years to refine them into the first "guns" as we would understand the term today, and then about a century to spread from the East to Europe.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Mongols may have brought them over. First cannons in 1300s kind of a deal.

 

[humble minion]

Would you say it's better or worse than the Rune Carver Wizard?

I always felt like Runes should be a thing you carve into equipments and could be used to buff OTHER people and not just you. runes should basically be a thing Artificer can do.

That, or be used to divine the future like actual ancient furthark runes...

But I liked the mechanics well enough.

About the same as the Rune Carver. I 100% agree that runes should be enhancements or enchantments that you apply to a person or object to improve them, rather than just quasi-spells (although divinations etc from casting the runes would be thematic too). The rune carver is called a rune carver but never has to carve anything, and in fact the great majority of its subclass abilities are ranged so you couldn't even invoke them by carving anything even if you wanted to. The rune implementation is probably better in the Rune Knight because it at least does give SOME lasting abilities, but the rune knight is pants in a whole bunch of other ways (ooh, i forgot one in my post above - it's annoying and inconsistent that the rune knights growth ability works completely differently to Enlarge...)

WotC has been incredibly conservative with class/subclass design in 5e, and they even seem to be getting less inclined to be inventive or adventurous in that department as time goes on, annoyingly (which is strange - by this stage in the 3e lifecycle they were really throwing some experimental stuff out there, like the Warlock, or things like the Book of Nine Swords that heavily influenced 4e's design). Instead everyone gets a variation of minor spells or spell-like abilities proficiency times per long rest, perhaps some minor resistances or very limited damage boosts etc, almost no active abilities with durations longer than a minute. I definitely agree that a rune carver would be better implemented as an artificer though - except that in another case of myopic design, the artificer (especially the spell list) is tied very tightly to the Eberrony steampunk theme and is an awkward fit with anything else.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I assume you forbid plate armor as well, then?

This is not in my games:

This is in my games:

Also, no cannons or anything "gunpowder" related.

i meant 65%, actually - i was trying to point out 8 or higher is always supposed to hit and that's 65%. that's a miscalculation on my end.

No problem. I know WotC was looking at 65%, but 60% was close enough so I wasn't going to argue it.

But, my first table shows most levels at 65% anyway, again without the (supposedly) "needed 20 by 8th level".

technically guns (specifically the hand cannon) and halberds were both invented in the 13th century, but guns didn't get to europe until the late 14th, so...half correct?

Since my settings model medieval Europe... all correct, because the hand cannon didn't get there until the (early) 14th century.