D&D (2024) What classes have improved the most from 2014 to 2024? (+)

[UngeheuerLich]

I think your missing the extra d10 damage.

2d6+4+4 = 15 *.84 (advantage) = 12.6 damage.
Vs
2d6+4+4+1d10= 20.5 * .6 = 12.3 (+ Push).

Barely any difference in average damage, for the additional effect.

Also worth noting that you can pick each attack. Make one with advantage (get the beserker bonus damage), then use the second to push. Possibly 3rd attack if you TWF, 4 with dual wielder feat.

Yes, of course. That was not my point though. A berserker that attacks a foe that is prone has advantage anyway.
They still need to reckless attack, or won't get their bonus damage. If they could trade only only the advantage from reckless attack, they would at least get some other benefit out of one attack.
I never said it is totally unbalanced. But I think that would feel better.

Or for other barbarians, just decoupling it from reckless attack would also help, if it would be indeed unbalanced on a barbarian.
So just: on any one attack you can forgo any advantage to brutal strike. So if you had advantage you did not have to use reckless attack at all.

What could be really fun is a whip (slow 10) + Slasher (slow 10) + Hamstring (slow 15). And the beserker damage boost still means you're dealing plenty of damage.

 

[Horwath]

Yes, of course. That was not my point though. A berserker that attacks a foe that is prone has advantage anyway.
They still need to reckless attack, or won't get their bonus damage. If they could trade only only the advantage from reckless attack, they would at least get some other benefit out of one attack.
I never said it is totally unbalanced. But I think that would feel better.

Or for other barbarians, just decoupling it from reckless attack would also help, if it would be indeed unbalanced on a barbarian.
So just: on any one attack you can forgo any advantage to brutal strike. So if you had advantage you did not have to use reckless attack at all.

It would be better if you ONLY give up advantage from Reckless attack and not other sources, that would promote more tactical play and seeking more sources of advantage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It would be better if you ONLY give up advantage from Reckless attack and not other sources, that would promote more tactical play and seeking more sources of advantage.

Yes. One or the other would be fine for me.

 

[Blue]

I liked them as guidelines for creating character concepts and how to roleplay your character. but I never liked the idea of getting inspiration for "good" roleplay.

If you roleplayed some scene very good any advantages should be tied to that, I.E. if you come up with a good story there is an advantage on your Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation check or if you managed to get sneaky there is an advantage to your next attack.

So if I play up a character's flaws well, that should be "rewarded" -- that is, punished -- by the scene, but if I mostly ignore my character's flaws and play them tepidly if at all so there's no story effect I should be effectively rewarded by not being punished? Sounds like a recipe for Mary Sues who never RP anything except that which will advance the plot, as opposed to well rounded and interesting characters with fears and flaws.

White Wolf had RP as an important mechanic back in the 90s, in Vampire where PCs needed to act to either their inner belief or outer presentation to recharge Willpower, and important and oft-spent resource. Pendragon predated that in the mid 80s with mechanical tie-ins to RP. It was picked up, first by smaller games like Lady Blackbird or Don't Rest Your Head, but since has become common.

The state of the industry has moved quite a bit to mechanically supporting RP. Games like Fate allow you to play those downbeats for meta-currency (like Inspiration) that you use to make yourself cooler (like Inspiration) at later points. Cortex Prime, a vast selection of the PbtA games, all have this.

Frankly, to be called a Role-Playing Game, you need to have mechanical game effects to be connected to role play. It's literally in the name of the hobby. D&D is very late to the table with that sort of support, and those who mostly/exclusively play D&D and D&D-like games don't get how backwards that is. It's like if you've never driven a car with anti-lock breaks in today's day an age, and then bemoaning that it's not needed.

 

[Mistwell]

I liked them as guidelines for creating character concepts and how to roleplay your character. but I never liked the idea of getting inspiration for "good" roleplay.

If you roleplayed some scene very good any advantages should be tied to that, I.E. if you come up with a good story there is an advantage on your Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation check or if you managed to get sneaky there is an advantage to your next attack.

just because you told a good story does not mean you get a reroll on an attack you make 13hrs later that has not connection to that scene whatsoever.

It did by the rules. I get many people house ruled that, but we got plenty of enjoyment out of playing it as written.

 

[Mistwell]

Moon druid is so much worse than before. Druids are so much worse than before, IMO. This is the one class where I think WotC took a massive step backwards. They are way more complicated and still don't capture the essence of what druids have become in popular culture, even in their own products.

They should have watched their own movie and made that druid.

The correct answer to the poll is, of course, monk, and then it's an argument about which class is a distant second in terms of improvement.

Moon druid is worse at lower levels, where they had been very overpowered, and better at higher levels, where they had been very underpowered. AC is much better for your wildshape forms. Temporary hitpoints makes more sense and makes it so that wildshape isn't just an additional bag of hit points you're stacking on. The extra spells are quite good. Lunar Step and Lunar Form are both good abilities to give a boost at higher levels. Moon Druid did well by these changes. A much more balanced class. Though I agree with you on options for forms. We shall see once the Monster Manual comes out. It could be they will have more choices than we think.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

We shall see once the Monster Manual comes out. It could be they will have more choices than we think.

If the GM lets them use MM forms. Default Druid is just using those in the PHB. So this can create a big difference between tables as the game goes on... but at least not every Druid will be velociraptoring, so.

 

[Mistwell]

If the GM lets them use MM forms. Default Druid is just using those in the PHB. So this can create a big difference between tables as the game goes on - 'Druid is good if you can turn into Velociraptor' kind of a deal.

Base druid sure, but Moon Druid requires Monster Manual or else at higher levels there are no beasts available I seem to recall.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Base druid sure, but Moon Druid requires Monster Manual or else at higher levels there are no beasts available I seem to recall.

Well, yeah, there'll be a huge gap between tables. PHB has at best a bunch of CR1s and then it's one CR4 for elephant (as lv12 Moon Druid). So clearly the subclass needs extra beasts just to function, but that's not the rules by default.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Well, yeah, there'll be a huge gap between tables. PHB has at best a bunch of CR1s and then it's one CR4 for elephant (as lv12 Moon Druid). So clearly the subclass needs extra beasts just to function, but that's not the rules by default.

To make it more interesting at my table, I usually add beast-like monstrosities to the mix. It avoids the whole dinosaur-or-bust from having only beast to pick from.