Search results

In a game with more classes, I feel some of the concepts could get split up more. Like a pure martial ranger and a half caster warden being their own classes. Or a martial inventor type class alongside a more magical artificer class.

Ngl I do find it odd how so many people seem to dislike the idea of half casters. There are endless people wanting ranger to be a pure martial, while I also see people saying artificer should be full martial inventor, or full caster, on a regular basis. Less common, but I've seen it a few times...

That's the issue. 4e was set up in such a different way to other editions, that copying anything across is the opposite of easy. This applies to both the warlord and the swordmage.

One reason why I'd rather have a half caster swordmage, is that is allows more power to go into cool and unique subclass abilities. Rather than blowing the entire power budget on spells. It's one reason for why I love artificer so much. Any artificer subclass basically feels like an entirely...

I've never understood the draw of full caster swordmage, and it's often the reason swordmager haters point towards why DnD shouldn't have the class. I believe half caster would work best for it as a dedicated class. Though I also believe it could be done as a pure martial, using a pool of power...

One problem with just throwing more weapon strike and martial augmenting abilities into the wizard list, is that it benefits the wizard far more than it would ever benefit an eldritch knight. There is a good reason for cleric not getting the paladin spells, and for druid not getting the ranger...

I think the answer for that is different for everyone. I've seen people who prefer the alternating spells and weapon strikes, but to me that's just a wizard / fighter multiclass. I personally prefer the idea of a warrior who imbues their weapon strikes with spells, but that niche got moved onto...

This is the next in a series of threads about how to implement certain commonly requested class concepts in 1DnD, in order to see how people want certain class/subclass concepts handled in the new system. I'm focusing on the most suggested and talked about classes first, and maybe I'll move onto...

Spellstrike or something similar like the smite type spells from paladin and ranger. I want an elemental warrior wielding a blade of fire or ice or lightning. Not a fighter who casts a cantrip once per turn.

I found eldritch knight so unfun that I ended up working with my DM to completely rebuild my character at level 8. It just completely fails to capture any of the aspects which made the 3.5e duskblade, pathfinder magus, and 4e swordmage fun. The 1dnd playtest buffed it loads, but it wasn't ever...

I really hope these spells make it in. There is so little to allow arcane gishes to work well, and these two spells are one of the few crutches holding them up.

Background equipment but no class equipment is fun, as it means that the party has to desperately scavenge until they get a bit of money. Also results in a lot of improvised weapons being used which is always hilarious.

I'm amazed about the amount of people who seem to object to even the option of playing below level 1, even if it never effect them in any way. Then again can't say I'm surprised with this constant push from the community to make level 1 characters more and more powerful, with god stat arrays to...

Yep this. Modern DnD doesn't really do the 'zero to hero' at all. It's more 'hero to demigod'. And even then a massive portion of the community considers starting characters far too weak. Some of us like our 'farmboy' level of power start.

Ngl I'd love a proper 'level 0' system as an optional rule. It's great for things like character funnels and introductory sessions. Hit points could be 1d4+con mod or something. DnD Beyond used to support it via a bug, but they 'patched' it as apparently it was unintentional. Not sure why...

Crazy stuff like basilisks, hydras, and things like that definitely fit into some monstrosity or magical beast category. But owlbears are just some big furry creature with 4 legs and a beak. That's less exotic than irl animals which exist or have existed.

It's the WotC specialty. Take a popular idea which people have been asking for, do it badly, and then axe the entire concept, bury it, and salt the earth where it lies for the rest of the edition. I don't even like the idea of templates for wildshape, and yet I still feel they should have tried...

Yeah I really hope the owlbear is a beast this time around. There are several creatures which should be beasts, but because they don't exist irl they're monstrosities. I've seen a lot of owlbear depictions which make them looks like a creature which could really exist.

And here lies part of the problem with how the entire druid class concept is flawed. If you want a nature mage, half your class abilities are wasted on wildshape stuff you don't want or care about. If you want to play as a monster or shapechanger, your entire class power budget is spent on...

(Hopefully summon draconic spirit too)