5E Boop

What is the best Chassis for a 5e Warlord class?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Bard

    Votes: 25 39.7%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 8 12.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 28 44.4%
  • Monk

    Votes: 5 7.9%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 11 17.5%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Druid

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 9 14.3%

  • Total voters
    63
You're missing the forest for the trees. One, my experience of the game is mine, theres not a lot to argue with. I use strong concepts to build characters and I'm strongly class agnostic about the tools at hand. Most of my strong cleric concepts are actually better served by the Paladin class, for example, just like my preferred assassin build ismore fighter than rogue.

Two, it's not a copout, I just dont care about what WotC thinks I should be doing with class X. I'll pick whatever class works. If the concept calls for an armored caster I'll go Cleric or maybe Paladin. If I want a skill monkey I'll play a Bard and maybe ignore all the music and performance stuff. Whatever gets my concept off the ground. I'll ignore or reskin whatever needs it. The important part is that I'm always really excited about my characters.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Sounds like a copout

So you are just as likely to play a melee lore bard as a melee tempest cleric...? Or is the difference in melee and ranged also just an incidental feeling?

So you admit clerics and bards are more suited for different concepts and stories. Doesn't that above all else show they are meaningfully different?
You really don't see it?

Damage types aside, Firebolt is a pure damage attack, while Chill Touch blocks healing but more importantly nerfs undead enemies. Now, maybe you don't play in games where enemies heal much, or where undead are a real challenge, but that just means Chill Touch isn't a good cantrip for those campaigns, which is why most DMs I've ever played with (as well as I myself) allow cantrip retraining.

And those aren't even on the outer end of difference between damage dealing cantrips. Vicious Mockery vs Create Bonfire vs Booming Blade vs Word of Radiance vs Infestation vs Lightning Lure vs Shillelagh vs Shocking Grasp vs Primal Savagery etc etc they all do much more different things than the difference between armor types and slightly more HP.
 
So, one capability that technically deals slightly more damage, but in truth is usually considerably less, and one that deals consistently the same damage to everything, plus has an occasionally-useful special rider on it?

As it is, the two are often more distinct than the primary weapon choice for martial characters, bearing in mind that cantrips are generally less important to a caster than weapons are to a martial type.
And I think you just answered the question for why cantrips are non-meaningful differentiators while something like weapon choice can be - because cantrips are relatively unimportant to the caster.
 
You're missing the forest for the trees. One, my experience of the game is mine, theres not a lot to argue with. I use strong concepts to build characters and I'm strongly class agnostic about the tools at hand. Most of my strong cleric concepts are actually better served by the Paladin class, for example, just like my preferred assassin build ismore fighter than rogue.

Two, it's not a copout, I just dont care about what WotC thinks I should be doing with class X. I'll pick whatever class works. If the concept calls for an armored caster I'll go Cleric or maybe Paladin. If I want a skill monkey I'll play a Bard and maybe ignore all the music and performance stuff. Whatever gets my concept off the ground. I'll ignore or reskin whatever needs it. The important part is that I'm always really excited about my characters.
I mean the more you explain the more it's aligning with my thoughts about your actions - which doesn't really align with your thoughts in this thread.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not dismissive you say?



Please let the facts speak for themselves. You've been denying that it's possible he sees no difference between firebolt and chill touch despite him telling you multiple times he doesn't see a difference in them....
Well, no. I said that to you, not to him, for one thing.

And I apologize for my tone in that post. I lost patience for a moment, and posted rather than walking away for a bit like I should have.

As for a difference, it is literally inarguable that there is a difference, the contention is about whether there is meaningful difference. Even down to whether your main damage cantrip is a good choice to use in a given round, there is a pretty significant difference between the two, unless your campaigns all use enemies that don't have any resistence or vulnerability, and no undead or enemy healing tends to be featured, in which chill touch is just a bad choice regardless of considerations of generating differentiated play experiences.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
And I think you just answered the question for why cantrips are non-meaningful differentiators while something like weapon choice can be - because cantrips are relatively unimportant to the caster.
But cantrips generally have less variation between them than spells do. If cantrips have more distinction between each other than the martial weapon choic, don't you find that spells create even more distinctions?
 
You really don't see it?
You still don't get it?

Damage types aside, Firebolt is a pure damage attack, while Chill Touch blocks healing but more importantly nerfs undead enemies. Now, maybe you don't play in games where enemies heal much, or where undead are a real challenge, but that just means Chill Touch isn't a good cantrip for those campaigns, which is why most DMs I've ever played with (as well as I myself) allow cantrip retraining.
I suppose the most apt thing to say there is that differentiation cannot be determined in a vacuum. It's not just what the ability "does", but it's how it's impacting the world around you. In a typical campaign there is little to no difference between firebolt and chill touch. In specific campaigns there might be. Just because the abilities are different in one campaign doesn't mean there is a meaningful difference between them in a typical campaign.

And those aren't even on the outer end of difference between damage dealing cantrips. Vicious Mockery vs Create Bonfire vs Booming Blade vs Word of Radiance vs Infestation vs Lightning Lure vs Shillelagh vs Shocking Grasp vs Primal Savagery etc etc they all do much more different things than the difference between armor types and slightly more HP.
I'm not lowkey. I never claimed there wasn't sufficient differentiation between many of those.
 
But cantrips generally have less variation between them than spells do. If cantrips have more distinction between each other than the martial weapon choic, don't you find that spells create even more distinctions?
I fully do. Thus why I said Clerics and Wizards were meaningfully distinct.
 
And I think you just answered the question for why cantrips are non-meaningful differentiators while something like weapon choice can be - because cantrips are relatively unimportant to the caster.
This is very true. The power of a full caster comes from the leveled spells. Cantrips are useful, but not particularly important past that, nor do I find a lot of interesting character choices coming out of cantrip selection. That's me though.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I mean, someone explain how Shocking Grasp and Eldritch Blast are not meaningfully different.

Preferably someone who thinks fighters and rogues are meaningfully different from eachother, and especially if there is anyone who thinks those two cantrips are basically the same, but doesn't think that a polearm fighter and a two-dagger fighter are basically the same.

Like I said, some spells and cantrips are similar. Some cantrips are just kinda boring and underwhelming, like Word of Radiance and Sword Burst, both of which should do literally just something at all other than damage.

But there are plenty of cantrips that are very meaningfully different. They simply create different moments in the fiction. This is why I keep coming back to the difference between what they look like on a character sheet vs what they actually allow the character to do, because it's the only thing that makes sense to me as an explanation, and no one provides an actual explanation. Sorry, but car analogies aren't actually all that explanatory. It just reiterates that you think they're the same. It doesn't explain why, at all.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
This is very true. The power of a full caster comes from the leveled spells. Cantrips are useful, but not particularly important last that, or do I find a lot of interesting character choices coming out of cantrip selection. That's me though.
Indeed, but Frogreaver also made the point that cantrips are a meaningful distinction in the play experience for them given presence of an opponent that is resistant to one of them.

I'm trying to resolve that with the other statements.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
You know what, man, at no point have I been a dismissive, insulting, jerk to you about this disagreement.
You know what, man, when I find that I have repeatedly tried to explain something, emphasizing that it's a difference of opinion and that's okay, and someone proceeds to launch into a post saying that a) they are living in the Twilight Zone or I am wrong (aka, I am crazy for having my opinion) and b) may opinion would mean that D&D has never had any meaningful mechanical distintinctions, PERIOD ... maybe I try to exit with a joke.

Just maybe. To the extent you feel the need to call me names for making a joke ... well, okay then. I guess jerk is better than crazy, right?

Not to mention, the comparison is just blatantly absurd. I don't believe for a moment that you even believe that Chill Touch and Firebolt, much less things like Create Bonfire vs Vicious Mockery, are as similar as a literally directly stolen hook from two pop songs.
Since you asked, this is how it would work:

One person would say: Hey, Under Pressure and Ice Ice Baby are different songs. I mean, objectively, they are different songs since they by different artists, and have different lyrics, right?

Another person would say: Okay, but they feel very similar, because the base line that was sampled is so very prominent.


See how you might apply that to the instant situation. Again, there is no wrong, but it's odd that you're again telling me what I believe, and I'm not sure how you understand how it comes off when you repeatedly tell people that they can't possibly believe what ... they ... just ... told ... you.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm not lowkey. I never claimed there wasn't sufficient differentiation between many of those.
You did claim that cantrips aren't meaningfully different. It's possible that you didn't mean to, and it was only by implication born out of what you replied to and the context of the discussion, though, in which case fair enough.
 
You did claim that cantrips aren't meaningfully different. It's possible that you didn't mean to, and it was only by implication born out of what you replied to and the context of the discussion, though, in which case fair enough.
I only claimed ranged damage cantrips weren't meaningfully different. I stand by that. Were any of those cantrips you listed supposed to be considered a ranged damage cantrip?
 
Indeed, but Frogreaver also made the point that cantrips are a meaningful distinction in the play experience for them given presence of an opponent that is resistant to one of them.

I'm trying to resolve that with the other statements.
Not given the presence of an opponent that is resistant. Given the prevalence of a campaign to feature many enemies resistant or vulnerable to the cantrip in question.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
All the spellcasters feel very much the same in 5e, the Warlock excepted. The differences between them, and between various spells of the same type is, well, underwhelming.
Common spell lists seem a kicker if not core to me for the caster types feeling the same (individual casters can still be unique by spell selections) There can be a lot of distinction from spell lists as each spell can have flavor carrying part of the class sense of uniqueness.

I have been finding some really cool elements of Chainmail recently things like counter spell and functionally at-will fireball/lightning and the Hero having aura of fear and increasing allies HD, However casters who are mildly adjusted versions of one another was not a good thing. The variant names were collapsed into level titles in AD&D
 
Indeed, but Frogreaver also made the point that cantrips are a meaningful distinction in the play experience for them given presence of an opponent that is resistant to one of them.

I'm trying to resolve that with the other statements.
Oh yeah, on the mechanical side there an obvious difference. Resistances etc all inpact the selection process. I just find that those differences don't translate over to actual play for me. Its game mechanics chosen because of other game mechanics. Meh, it doesn't give me feels.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You know what, man, when I find that I have repeatedly tried to explain something, emphasizing that it's a difference of opinion and that's okay, and someone proceeds to launch into a post saying that a) they are living in the Twilight Zone or I am wrong (aka, I am crazy for having my opinion) and b) may opinion would mean that D&D has never had any meaningful mechanical distintinctions, PERIOD ... maybe I try to exit with a joke.

Just maybe. To the extent you feel the need to call me names for making a joke ... well, okay then. I guess jerk is better than crazy, right?
This is a directly misleading account of what I said. I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt intention, and clarify.
I didn't say that the twilight zone comment to you, for one thing, nor does it imply that you're crazy for having your opinion. As for mechanical distinctions, yep. If there are no damage cantrips with meaningful mechanical distinction, then (speaking only very, very, mildly in hyperbole) dnd doesn't have meaningful mechanical distinctions.

None of which explains why your "joke" needed to involve comparing me to a lying thief, in the context of him lying about his theft to try to get people to not judge him for it, in a discussion about whether things that do different things in gameplay are different enough.

Accusing me of "calling you names" for calling out your behavior is pretty wild, too, tbh. It's fine to be insulting, as long the insults don't directly involve using a noun, I guess?



Since you asked, this is how it would work:

One person would say: Hey, Under Pressure and Ice Ice Baby are different songs. I mean, objectively, they are different songs since they by different artists, and have different lyrics, right?

Another person would say: Okay, but they feel very similar, because the base line that was sampled is so very prominent.


See how you might apply that to the instant situation. Again, there is no wrong, but it's odd that you're again telling me what I believe, and I'm not sure how you understand how it comes off when you repeatedly tell people that they can't possibly believe what ... they ... just ... told ... you.
That's...rich. It's also not at all what happened, but okay. It's much more like you said that all metal songs sound the same, I said that's not true and asked what about them actually seems too similar while citing what makes them different, and then you reiterated your opinion that they are similar with a car analogy and then mocked me while implying that I'm similar to a lying thief of other people's work.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Oh yeah, on the mechanical side there an obvious difference. Resistances etc all inpact the selection process. I just find that those differences don't translate over to actual play for me. Its game mechanics chosen because of other game mechanics. Meh, it doesn't give me feels.
See, this I can understand. You've provided some explanation of what actually isn't generating a differentiated play experience. The difference is too mechanical (ie, about and involved in the mechanics of the game on a fairly meta level), and not fictional enough, for you to care about the difference in actual play. Is that roughly on target?
 

Advertisement

Top