I admit, the existence of Feats is a flaw, but some people seem to like them, so I don't think it's all that bad.
Oh ho.
So perhaps you agree with me that many of the aspects offeats should be available in other ways?
I admit, the existence of Feats is a flaw, but some people seem to like them, so I don't think it's all that bad.
Of the ten or so official fighter subclasses, like 5 of them have magic, and the 1 of those 5 appeared in core, and 1 of them is in the Wildemount book (how official you want to count this is up to the reader). So, there are still more non-magic fighter subclasses than magic ones. More and more magical? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? They started out with 1 or 2 magical fighters - Eldritch Knight and Arcane archer out of like 6 fighter subclasses and have added like 2 more since then.But all I wanted was a page or 2 of weapon or armor related stuff. Casters always get tons and tons of new spells. My fighter, Hak McSlash, woulda been fine with a hammer on a stick, a new pokey stick, 2 new chuckable weapons, and some dangerous thing on the end of a rope or chain.
The fact that there are few martial additions to 5e that should been in the 3 core books (like thrown weapon fighting fighting style) is just beyond strange. The barbarian, fighter, and rogue get more and more magical as each time WOTC mentions them.
Split between Subclasses and improv Skill rolls, basically.Oh ho.
So perhaps you agree with me that many of the aspects offeats should be available in other ways?
Of the ten or so official fighter subclasses, like 5 of them have magic, and the 1 of those 5 appeared in core, and 1 of them is in the Wildemount book (how official you want to count this is up to the reader). So, there are still more non-magic fighter subclasses than magic ones. More and more magical? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? They started out with 1 or 2 magical fighters - Eldritch Knight and Arcane archer out of like 6 fighter subclasses and have added like 2 more since then.
The rogues since Xanatar's: (Phantom and Soulknife) are magical.Of the eight rogue subclasses, 3 are distinctly magical.
Berserker isn't magical. And thre are tons of nonmagical barbarian ideas. Tribal Chiefs. Horse Archers. Weapon hurlers, Battleragers.Barbarians are a bit of an odd duck since they've been a magical fighter class since day 1.
One line on my list was armor as DR.But, again, you keep making this argument that you're needs are not being addressed. The goalposts have shifted rather a lot from your original wish list of armor as DR etc. New weapons? Good grief, there's a shopping list of that stuff on DM's Guild. More than you could possible want.
Oh you mean how monsters don't get maneuvers.Again, WotC is being absolutely clear here. They will not produce stuff that makes other books harder to use. Full stop. A book of weapons impacts monsters. It means that every adventure module going forward has to include some of these new weapons.
That's why I want manuevers based on weapons and have weapon groups. These rules would remove the single tactic buildism in warrior classes.f flails ignore shields, for example, it means that every monster that uses a flail suddenly nerfs my sword and board fighter - a nerf that is most certainly not needed. And, since only a tiny handful of monsters actually use a shield, this will hurt the players far more than grant them any advantage. Players get REALLY shirty when you start having stuff that impacts their careful build creation. I remember using Dragon Heist and doing a Fall Season adventure which meant that outdoor ranged attacks were at disadvantage due to the winds. The players of the archer character lost his naughty word on me for that. Didn't matter that it would only impact a couple of encounters. He went completely orangutan poop.
[/QUOTE]The fighters since Xanatars: (Echo, Psi, and Rune Kinght) are all magical.
The rogues since Xanatar's: (Phantom and Soulknife) are magical.
Berserker isn't magical. And thre are tons of nonmagical barbarian ideas. Tribal Chiefs. Horse Archers. Weapon hurlers, Battleragers.
One line on my list was armor as DR.
At what point did I say I wanted all those things. Someone asked for a list of possible modules and I gave some examples. I don't want all of those things. I just would have liked something. I have what want from paid third party items and my own game design.
But it isn't about me. It's about others. I'm not with the "I Got Mine" mentality that is persistent in the D&D community. Especially from DMs. What about All the DMS and Groups who don't know about DMGuild? So the variants WOTC throws to the side might never reach some of those looking for rules and advice to get the game they want.
5e no more locks a warrior into single tactics than you force it. That's a ridiculous statement. See, this is why it's such a problem. Sure, when you point buy your character and dump stat, instead of building balanced characters, yeah, you have single, one trick pony characters that do one thing over and over again. But, that's a player problem. I've seen that far too many times. Ok, I'm going to singularly focus feats, ASI's, magic items and every other character option on using this one tactic. What? You are nerfing my tactic because of the wind?!?! HOW DARE YOU!! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO PLAY!!!!Oh you mean how monsters don't get maneuvers.
Seriously how does giving an orc a double axe wreck 5e?
That's why I want manuevers based on weapons and have weapon groups. These rules would remove the single tactic buildism in warrior classes.
That's the reason why I hoped for weapon groups. 5e locks warriors into a single tactic at level 1 or 2 where some casters can change their character around every day or load multiple strategies at one time.
And Axeman would have bonuses with handaxes, battle axes, and great axes. 3 combat styles to choose from. And they would have the luxury of choosing the damage of axes over the penetration of light, war, and great hammers.
Thane and Chief barbairans are as valid a subclass as Cavalier. And a hurler and archer barbarian would allow Rage to effect their ranged attacks.Since there has been one class book since Xanathar's, again, I think you might be reading a bit much into this. And, while Berserker isn't magical (at least, not really), every other Barbarian has been. This is hardly a change. Tribal Chief isn't a subclass, horse archer isn't a barbarian class and weapon hurler? battlerager? None of those are actual classes. Those are just combat collections. Again, not what WotC has been producing at all.
And still the new DMs I mentored knew nothing of Dragon+ or DMGuild until I mentioned it. Everyone will kow about the Strixhaven book. FNo where near as many will see the top downloads on DMGuild.I think this is why every single month, WotC puts a honking big section in Dragon+ advertising DM's Guild. Not really sure how much more outreach they could do. Between Reddit sites with hundreds of thousands of members (/r DNDNext alone has 7600 members online RIGHT NOW and a membership of just shy of half a million), online play shows like Critical Role, and various other venues, "I have no idea what DM's Guild is" rings a bit hollow.
Nah. I disagree with a lot of this.5e no more locks a warrior into single tactics than you force it. That's a ridiculous statement. See, this is why it's such a problem. Sure, when you point buy your character and dump stat, instead of building balanced characters, yeah, you have single, one trick pony characters that do one thing over and over again. But, that's a player problem. I've seen that far too many times. Ok, I'm going to singularly focus feats, ASI's, magic items and every other character option on using this one tactic. What? You are nerfing my tactic because of the wind?!?! HOW DARE YOU!! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO PLAY!!!!
Yeah, I have zero sympathy for those players. Bounded accuracy means that a 16 in your prime stat is more than good enough. No, you don't have to use one weapon and only that one weapon for 16 levels to be effective.
The only people who want more options are the optimizers and, frankly, I couldn't care less about that or what they want
Hi Minigiant, I want to reiterate that I would like you to get the kinds of elements you desire in future D&D books. At this point, I am not precisely sure why I continue to read this thread as, speaking for myself, I certainly do not want you unhappy with D&D and I think the last ten pages or so of the thread have kind of turned into a discussion about that!You pick a fighing style at level 1 or 2. Only Champions get a second at high levels. And Shields stink in 5e without a fighting style backing it up. And you can't even throw multiple weapons in a turn without a fighting style.
It's 5e that makes characters into one trick ponies. It isn't about optimization. The advantage of switching styles is extremely low and is only done when a warrior's primary style is cancelled. 5e barely learned the lessons of 3e and 4e and hamstrung itself to be easier.
Character has 2 attacks; starts round with one spear in hand.I do not understand this. Anyone with multiple attacks, gained at 5th level or 6th level by the battle smith artificer, college of valor or college of swords bards, monk, barbarian, ranger, paladin, and, of course, the fighter, can throw a # of weapons/turn equal to the character's # of attacks