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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7107517" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Hm, I can see the point about the Fighter, but I think the Fighter's offensive capabilities come from Extra Attack (2) and all the ASIs/feats that they get.  Any Fighter can get to 20 Str/20 Dex/20 Con if you put your 15, 14, and 13 there and take a race with a +2 or more to physical stats.  Battlemaster and EK give you a lot more to do and a lot more decisions to make, but if you run the base class without any subclass, you're not missing all that much.  Ranger, on the other hand, loses almost all their offense without a subclass.  You have Extra Attack, Fighting Style, and spells, and that's it.  The only other offensive ability in the base class is the capstone:  Foe Slayer at 20th that lets you add Wis mod to damage once per turn when attacking a Favored Enemy.  (Why is this capstone so terrible?!)Beyond that, I'd never nuke the Fighter.  Or, rather, I'd nuke every other class before Fighter.  D&D and the Fighter are synonymous for me.  The game started with the Fighting Man.Turn undead doesn't bother me only because nobody gets just turn undead.   The other channel divinity option is essentially the actual ability that you get, and that's how I've looked at it since the game came out because, yeah, turn undead is a waste of an action.  I certainly wouldn't call it a huge amount of class space, though.Now Destroy Undead is a terrible ability.  I'll agree with you there.  That should not count as your class ability at the levels that increases.  However, it only actually does that once: At level 14.  Every other time you get the ability, you are either getting a new spell level or getting another ability at the same time.  Cleric 14 is actually a totally dead level, however, which is pretty rare overall.Generally speaking, though, getting extra uses or increasing the power of an existing ability really shouldn't count as the named ability for a given class level unless it's a major upgrade like a new spell level.  I always think, "Hey, Rogue doesn't have levels that say, 'Sneak Attack +1d6' at every odd level and that's a major ability.  Why does this class basically do that for incremental upgrades to this minor ability?"Yeah, I've no interest in the game being like that.  It certainly would work mechanically, and might even be more balanced, but it starts to lose the feel of D&D to me.  I'd be more of a fan of doubling or tripling  the number of uses of most short rest abilities and making them long rest.  Exceptions should be made for abilities that characters should essentially have every combat (Action Surge, I'm looking at you) and those should be on a 5 or 10 minute cooldown.  If we can track spell duration, we can track a 5 to 10 minute cooldown.The core issue either way is that the tension between short and long rest doesn't actually make an interesting or hard decisions for the game.  It just makes the players argue and disagree about what to do.  That's not interesting; it's just disruptive and time consuming and leaves players unhappy.That could work, if Cha weren't already used for an absurd number of skills.  Cha doesn't need help.</blockquote>

Verification