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

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
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.
 



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.
 


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

The High Aldwin
I assume you forbid plate armor as well, then?
This is not in my games:
1664500737856.png


This is in my games:
1664500960447.png


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. :D
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
But, my first table shows most levels at 65% anyway, again without the (supposedly) "needed 20 by 8th level".
yeah, because apparently wizards can't follow their own CR rules. hence, wizards moment :p
Since my settings model medieval Europe... all correct, because the hand cannon didn't get there until the (early) 14th century. :D
i mean, the middle ages didn't end until the late 15th century, but i get what you mean
 

This is not in my games:
View attachment 262672

This is in my games:
View attachment 262673

Also, no cannons or anything "gunpowder" related.


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".


Since my settings model medieval Europe... all correct, because the hand cannon didn't get there until the (early) 14th century. :D
Right. (Well, other than the "guns was only early 14th century." Guns appeared in the early 12th century.) The former thing is what "plate" armor refers to. The latter is some kind of lamellar armor, not plate--and also dates to the 1400s or later, after guns had reached Europe. "By 1338 hand cannons were in widespread use in France." "Plate armor" didn't exist until the early 1400s either. Meaning a century after "hand cannons" had been introduced to Europe.

So: Do you forbid your players from using plate armor? Because plate armor--armor actually made of segmented metal plates covering the entire body--did not exist until after guns did.
 

Undrave

Hero
I like the concept of the BM, but not the execution--superiority dice (horrible name) are too fiddly and a pain to track IME.
I don't get ithat last one. How are they a pain to track? When I play a Battlemaster I bring out my red D8s (that I bought for that exact purpose!) and I lay them down on one side of my character sheet and when I use a maneuver I physically take the dice from my reserve, roll it and put it on the other side. I keep Ki points with my Monk using M:TG counter beads in the exact same manner.

But in principle: Maneuvers as at-will things without the bonus damage dice would be way more fun.
yeah, because apparently wizards can't follow their own CR rules. hence, wizards moment
It's been known since the start that CR rules are BS.
 


It's been known since the start that CR rules are BS.
"Known" is a strong word. There are a fair number of people who vehemently refuse to accept any evidence that 5e CR is only very slightly better than 3e CR. Since 3e CR was almost completely worthless, being "only very slightly better" than 3e CR doesn't say very much.
 

Undrave

Hero
"Known" is a strong word. There are a fair number of people who vehemently refuse to accept any evidence that 5e CR is only very slightly better than 3e CR. Since 3e CR was almost completely worthless, being "only very slightly better" than 3e CR doesn't say very much.
By 'known' I mean there is articles floating around saying the MM monsters don't follow the CR rules at all.
 




Like I said: to each their own. I happen to think historical D&D settings are a lot of fun, so I like the Gunslinger.
"Historical" is a stick to beat the DM over the head with. The gunslinger's firearms have a rate of fire that is much much much faster than any pre-19th century firearms.

It's fine, because it's fun. But it aint historical.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top