• The window for editing your posts has been extended from 48 hours to about two weeks or so. Please report any problems with this in Trouble Tickets.

[Tell me about] Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition

Tanka

We See You
Staff member
Moderator
Validated User
#71
Never touched 4th Edition. It was so far and away not anything like "D&D", I just couldn't wrap my head around why it was so radically different.

Moderator Text:

This is textbook edition warring. Calling a D&D edition you didn't like "not D&D" has been the go-to for starting fights. Don't do it again.
 

kvltjam

Formerly 'sigma7'
Validated User
#72
So my regular group is about to start a 5E game, and an aspect of class design that should have been obvious but for some reason it went right over my head was:

Subclasses won’t change the core class significantly.

I think this is one of my big gripes of the design, but it’s something that could be addressed. It probably already has. I don’t know!

Here’s what I mean: I’ve heard chatter that the Battlemaster Fighter is the closest analogue we have for a 4E-style Warlord. That rang a little false to me, because fundamentally the Warlord and the Fighter are different beasts. And even the Warlordiest Battlemaster will be stuck with Fighter flavor, like the Fighting Style, multiple attacks, and so forth.

I’ll contrast that against the Monk, whose base class I adore. I was already sold on the base class, so the subclasses were less of a concern to me. I would have chosen any of them, even the ones who make me look stuff up in the back of the book, which usually I can’t stand. (I eventually settled on Open Palm because it seems the best suited to my style of play.)

It’s really a matter of that generally, subclasses follow base classes, and there isn’t much they can offer if the base class doesn’t appeal to you or doesn’t seem like an ideal fit. I should have picked up on this earlier, but I’m dense.

(Did they ever make a Ranger that wasn’t a half-caster? If so, that does sort of invalidate my stance.)
 

Unka Josh

Social Justice Game Dev
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#73
(Did they ever make a Ranger that wasn’t a half-caster? If so, that does sort of invalidate my stance.)
Not an official 5e one. 4e, of course, did that, and there are Unearthed Arcana and 3rd-party variations.

Well, and also the Scout Rogue, who is basically exactly that.
 

Calypso

Bunny With a Glock
Validated User
#75
Ah. I remember seeing a UA that had something as a bit of a patch, I guess it’ll show up everntually. I hope so, because Rangers are fun, but I like mine purely Martial.
So, out of curiosity, why not just play a fighter with the outlander background? What is a "martial ranger without spellcasting" other than a fighter with some survival skills?
 

kvltjam

Formerly 'sigma7'
Validated User
#76
So, out of curiosity, why not just play a fighter with the outlander background? What is a "martial ranger without spellcasting" other than a fighter with some survival skills?
That would certainly work from an in-fiction perspective, I’ll grant you that. From a systems/gameplay perspective, I want it to play differently than what you get with the Fighter. I’m not sure how that would actually be. I’m a little eh on the Fighter class.
 

Calypso

Bunny With a Glock
Validated User
#77
That would certainly work from an in-fiction perspective, I’ll grant you that. From a systems/gameplay perspective, I want it to play differently than what you get with the Fighter. I’m not sure how that would actually be. I’m a little eh on the Fighter class.
Fair enough, I guess rangers do get a couple things, like favored enemy. I actually quite like the battlemaster fighter archetype.
 

kvltjam

Formerly 'sigma7'
Validated User
#78
Fair enough, I guess rangers do get a couple things, like favored enemy. I actually quite like the battlemaster fighter archetype.
Yeah, I like Favored Enemy quite a bit. And I like the Hunter subclass quite a bit. I just wish I didn’t have to engage with casting.

I think the Battlemaster fine enough, but that means I still have to buy into the base class, which I’ve already gone over.

(Apropos of nothing, I love the Monk.)
 

kvltjam

Formerly 'sigma7'
Validated User
#80
Well yeah, the monk class is baller.
Hell yeah it is. The resource management is simple, but it’s core to the class in a way that I feel will provide me with a wealth of crunchy, game-y, tactical options. It’s obviously its own thing, but it feels the most 4E-ish of the classes, which I appreciate.
 
Top Bottom