Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7444526" data-attributes="member: 12731">My thoughts, or assumptions if you will. Assumption: Crunch is good. I'm not interested in the feat-less game.Assumption: the game should support all kinds of fighter configurations (spear-users, knife-throwers, staff-users, whirling dervishes, fencers-with-cape, etc). This isn't necessarily best fixed by messing with the weapons table - it's okay that some weapons are just inferior to the untrained user, if feats allow them to achieve parity. (These feats should not focus on individual weapons, since D&D demands flexibility due to magic loot; but a chosen style/flair: your character expressed through the way he or she fights. More below.) This should not be fixed with subclasses - that's way too inflexible. Way of life decisions yes; style of weapon decisions no.Assumption: Martial characters are primarily defined by their damage output. Your job as a fighter is to kill monsters. Whatever other characteristics you might have, you shouldn't have to endure significantly worse DPR just because you chose an exotic weapon. Meaning: as long as a spear or hammer can't achieve comparable DPR, the game should not expect you to make that choice. Problems: monsters can't cope with optimized characters. Solution: nerfing the best feats should ameliorate this to some extent.Another solution: lower the average starting scores by 1. Not only does this narrow the gulf between PC and NPC skill scores, it means reaching 20 takes longer, making ASIs relatively more valuable than feats.Problem: even disregarding monsters, the best combat feats are still too good, overshadowing the fighter configurations that can't benefit from them (see examples above). Solution: again, nerfing the best feats. This increases the relative attraction of other feats, which in turn increases variety, which is good in itself.Problem: Nerfing these feats make weapon-users not good enough compared to the best cantrips (Eldritch Blast and twinned Sorcerer cantrips). Assumption: D&D gives in too much to the "don't want my spellcaster to use crossbows or daggers" crowd. Cantrips are too good and too disruptive.Or rather, certain casters get too much. The cantrips of druids and clerics pose no issues (except things not directly related to DPR such as spamming Guidance, which we won't be dealing with here). Warlocks are probably the least problematic, since they're so weirdly restricted in general. Compared to Wizard, the Sorcerer is too good though, since it can achieve nearly twice the DPR of Wizards (much better nova capacity). ---So what do I envision?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Replace the "elite array" for the "non-elite array". The 5E default is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Replace this by 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 (or rolling plain 3d6).</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Nerf GWM - maybe renaming it into Cleave and replacing the -5/+10 by "+1 Str".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Nerf SS - replace it with: your short and long range is each increased by a distance equal to your short range (a Shortbow becomes 160/400), +1 Dex</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Nerf the archery fighting style: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons against targets with cover.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?584750-Crossbow-Expert-redux" target="_blank">Retool CE entirely</a>.</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PM can be kept - but make sure the DM imposes disadvantage in cramped conditions. When you're swamped by goblins, or fighting in narrow hallways, your reach and long weapon should be distinctly disadvantageous. Maybe add this as a weapon property to polearms: "if three or more adjacent squares are occupied by obstacles or enemies, attacks against adjacent enemies with this weapon are at disadvantage". (Note how this encourages you to stand behind an ally, since you're never disadvantaged when you're actually using your reach).</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Add feats to allow "repressed" fighter configurations to reach DPR parity or nearly so. For instance: add a feat that allows throwing knives to match two-weapon fighting. Add a feat that allows the spear (hammer etc) to match the one-handed sword/rapier. Add a feat that allows exotic two-handed weapons some equality. </li> </ul>Note: I don't mean a "Hammer feat" or a "Spear feat", since it is no fun to find an axe when youve' specialized in hammers. The feats should cover all weapons that can express a certain fighting style: the stuff-thrower, the one-handed strength user, and so on. If you take the feat that improves the warhammer, that same feat should probably benefit a battleaxe or longsword too.Note: these feats should not merely aim for parity with best-in-class alternatives. For instance, a feat that makes a spear as good as a longsword is still not good enough - since you just spent a feat! No, the feat should bring your spear up to parity with a fighter using a longsword and a feat/ASI.As for cantrips, actually messing with individual cantrips is far too much work. Limiting cantrips so they're no longer at-will kills many cantrips, and means dealing with the "I never want to use a sling in my life"-crowd. Besides, the actual cantrips aren't the issue - being allowed to add an ability modifier to them is the real problem. Without the +5, Firebolt or Eldritch Blast are no longer too good in comparison to swords or bows, now that we have nerfed the best feats. So how about... just removing that?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Remove the Agonizing Blast invocation. Or, perhaps better, allow it, but in return for the Warlock's Patron never giving access to Evocation spells. (If you build a dedicated Eldritch Blaster, that's fine, but the combo of EB and Fireball overshadows every other build)</li> </ul>  <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Restrict Elemental Affinity (Dragon Sorcerers) to non-cantrip spells. (Add similar abilities of splatbook subclasses here)</li> </ul>Relatively late abilities (the Evocation Wizard's Empowered Evocation) can be kept as is. With no metamagic, the Wizard isn't the problem anyway.</blockquote>

Verification