The D&D thread

[Maitrecorbo]

Fascinating. I thought the GithX races were more related to psionic stuff (like they were illithid slaves i think?).
I remember them from when 4e introduced psionic stuff and they didnt leave much of an impression. They were a bit too ... sci fi i guess for what i generally associate with DnD (didnt help that i didnt like the psionic stuff).

[Morty]

I've been fiddling with remaking my 5e dwarf rogue in 4e. The problem here is that neither of the dwarven stat bonuses benefit rogues. I ran into the same problem in 5e, but my GM allowed me to swap the constitution bonus to dexterity. Besides, 4e really wants you to have your main stat as high as possible, particularly as a striker. I wish they'd got rid of racial stat bonuses like 15 years ago. 4e seems worse about enforcing optimal race/class combos, too.

I could've sworn there was a rogue option that benefited from wisdom, but I can't find it now. Regardless, if I wanted to use a crossbow, I'd need to satisfy myself with a hand crossbow or spend a feat on a real one. Which I'd do, because I hate hand crossbows.

[PMárk]

Bladesinger Wizards make great gishes. Bards make decent ones too. The problem with Warlocks specifically is that Eldritch Blast is so good, it’s really hard to justify not using it. Even the Hexblade, which does make a perfectly good gish, is still arguably better of just using Eldritch Blast.

Didn't have an actual table experience with the bladesinger. What I gathered from the subclass write up and the talking about it on the internet is that it's basically a full wizard with some melee capabilities slapped on, some of them even being somewhat contradictory with the class's other stuff. It's sad, because I really, really wanted to love that one. :/

What I gathered, the best one is probably the bard. The problem being, those are still full caster classes and you'll probably play them as full casters and the melee stuff will be something of a last resort, or a deliberately chosen flavor thing, meaning you'll stress that angle in play, regardless not being the ideal choice.

If i'm being honest, part of my dissatisfaction might be what one would expect from a gish? For some, the 5e options are perfectly good, while I'm comparing them to the Magus and the old bladesinger and duskblade and I'm founding them lacking.

[/QUOTE]As for doing it with subclasses instead of classes, that’s a general 5e thing, more than a gish thing specifically. They don’t seem to want to make new classes if they can help it, preferring to design new subclasses instead.[QUOTE]

Yes and I somewhat think that's a shame. I get the thought process, not wanting to overcomplicate things, keeping the core classes significant, etc. I just think that there are a lot of examples, when a concept would be a true hybrid of existing classes, or something totally different and this design choice severely limits those. A "true" gish is one of those and IMO, a swashbuckler is another, I'm not a fan of the SCAG version.

[Second Chances]

Fascinating. I thought the GithX races were more related to psionic stuff (like they were illithid slaves i think?).
I remember them from when 4e introduced psionic stuff and they didnt leave much of an impression. They were a bit too ... sci fi i guess for what i generally associate with DnD (didnt help that i didnt like the psionic stuff).

They are, but there is more to them than that. There have always been options for the Gith that don't involve psionics, the Githzeri Anarchs Guild is a great example in Planescape. They are able to manipulate the raw matter of Limbo. While they could be psionic (very on theme) all they really need is willpower.

[PMárk]

I wish they'd got rid of racial stat bonuses like 15 years ago. 4e seems worse about enforcing optimal race/class combos, too.

Well, I can understand the frustration about it limiting certain choices somewhat. I think you're right it's worse in 5e, because the importance of ability bonuses, compared to proficiency.

However, in a broader sense, current politics aside, don't really get the wish for doing away with racial bonuses. Fantasy races are traditionally highly different in physical and mental built and I think it should show in the rules too. Even, if you're taking away straight ability bonuses and give only other, flavorful ones, that'd still predispose them for some classes as ideal, albeit, depending on the execution it might be a weaker predisposition.

Edit: actually, I think Shadowrun has the best version of this thing, because your metatype isn't adding bonuses to your attributes, but specifies the lowest and highest possible score you could get. So, you could be a little better social character with an elf, if you're willing to dump xp into it, but you aren't doing yourself a disservice by sacrificing a +2 dex and int, by playing a barbarian.

[Maitrecorbo]

I like the racial abilities but i think that stats increase are not necessary as racial components. Predisposition for certain classes should only be cultural. Besides adventurer generally don't conform to common society in some ways so it wouldnt be strange for an adventurer being a class that is rare within a race.

I've been thinking yesterday that the stat increase should be in the class instead (with the secondary stat increase in the subclass maybe).
But yeah i'd like to make a dwarven wizard (transmutation school and guild artisan background, which i think is still very thematic for a dwarf). I mean, i know nothing is really stopping me from doing it, but it still feel like voluntarily choosing a weaker option.

[Charlaquin]

Didn't have an actual table experience with the bladesinger. What I gathered from the subclass write up and the talking about it on the internet is that it's basically a full wizard with some melee capabilities slapped on, some of them even being somewhat contradictory with the class's other stuff. It's sad, because I really, really wanted to love that one. :/

I had a Bladesinger in a party I was a player in for a while. He was the second-tankiest character in the party after my barbarian, and it was a close second. That subclass is fantastic if you build to its strengths.

What I gathered, the best one is probably the bard. The problem being, those are still full caster classes and you'll probably play them as full casters and the melee stuff will be something of a last resort, or a deliberately chosen flavor thing, meaning you'll stress that angle in play, regardless not being the ideal choice.

If i'm being honest, part of my dissatisfaction might be what one would expect from a gish? For some, the 5e options are perfectly good, while I'm comparing them to the Magus and the old bladesinger and duskblade and I'm founding them lacking.

I'm not familiar enough with those classes to compare. But the bard is pretty decent, really more of a support class than what I think of as a gish though. Like I said, Bladesinger is excellent, and Hexblade can do it, though I personally despise the subclass. Arcane Trickster Rogues are pretty awesome too, but again, not exactly what comes to mind when I think of a gish.

Yes and I somewhat think that's a shame. I get the thought process, not wanting to overcomplicate things, keeping the core classes significant, etc. I just think that there are a lot of examples, when a concept would be a true hybrid of existing classes, or something totally different and this design choice severely limits those. A "true" gish is one of those and IMO, a swashbuckler is another, I'm not a fan of the SCAG version.

I'm not a huge fan of subclass being one of the only means of differentiating one character from another, but I personally prefer this approach over the class bloat of 3.x/PF.

[PMárk]

I had a Bladesinger in a party I was a player in for a while. He was the second-tankiest character in the party after my barbarian, and it was a close second. That subclass is fantastic if you build to its strengths.

Hmm. Okay, I'd admit, high AC is one of the good sides of the subclass. What was your overall strategy and playstyle with it, if you don't mind me asking? Bsed upon what I read, the biggest gripe with it is that you're just better of playing it as a wizard, than a gish, because, while it's tanky it has nowhere the level of hitting power as a fighting class and the doesn't really have magic stuff directly assisting that.

I'm not familiar enough with those classes to compare. But the bard is pretty decent, really more of a support class than what I think of as a gish though. Like I said, Bladesinger is excellent, and Hexblade can do it, though I personally despise the subclass. Arcane Trickster Rogues are pretty awesome too, but again, not exactly what comes to mind when I think of a gish.

For comparison, there are the aforementioned classes:

http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/ra...ger/index.html Somewhat close to the 5e version, but I still think it gives more (it's a prestige class).

http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/duskblade/index.html Now, that's what I'd have liked to see from the eldritch knight. It's really a spell-soldier and it's a full class.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/u...ers/magus.html As I mentioned, this is my ultimate favorite take on a full gish class.

I'm not a huge fan of subclass being one of the only means of differentiating one character from another, but I personally prefer this approach over the class bloat of 3.x/PF.

I understand why people take issues with "bloat", however I'd always rather have material I don't use than not having material. Personally, I have no problems with the number of classes and archetypes in PF, because a lot of them is really fun and not easily reproducable by the base classes, or just more close to a specific concept. It's just a broader palette, though admittedly to the point that I'm second-guessing PF to still being a class-based system!

[Charlaquin]

Hmm. Okay, I'd admit, high AC is one of the good sides of the subclass. What was your overall strategy and playstyle with it, if you don't mind me asking? Bsed upon what I read, the biggest gripe with it is that you're just better of playing it as a wizard, than a gish, because, while it's tanky it has nowhere the level of hitting power as a fighting class and the doesn't really have magic stuff directly assisting that.

The guy who was playing it focused heavily on the AC aspect, yeah. He'd go in with Mage Armor, Bladesong, and Haste, and on the off-chance that an opponent actually beat his AC, he'd use Shield. Of course, that meant when he did get hit it was usually because of a critical, and he didn't have a ton of hit points, but even in spite of that he made a great tank. He also competed very well in terms of damage output. Between Haste and Extra Attack, he was making as many attacks per turn as I was with my Berserker Barbarian, though my attacks did a bit more damage on average. Plus he had the option to throw fireballs or what have you for AoE damage. I don't know if he would necessarily have been better foregoing melee combat, but he did very well for himself as a melee combatant.

http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/ra...ger/index.html Somewhat close to the 5e version, but I still think it gives more (it's a prestige class).

Yeah, I'd say your assessment of this one is spot on. Looks basically the same as the 5e bladesinger, even with some pretty similar mechanics. It does give a little bit more, but with the 5e version you start getting the benefits right away instead of having to take 5 levels in a full-BAB class (or more levels in another class) first. I'd say if this is a satisfying Gish to you, the 5e bladesinger would be as well.

[http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/duskblade/index.html Now, that's what I'd have liked to see from the eldritch knight. It's really a spell-soldier and it's a full class.

Ok, so this one looks like an arcane half-caster who can cast in armor, gets full-BAB progression, and has a neat ability to cast touch spells through its weapon. I do agree that an arcane half-caster is something 5e is kind of lacking. But none of this would necessitate a full class. You could definitely pull something like this off in 5e with a Fighter or Wizard subclass. It's a shame that they haven't, especially because the Eldritch Knight could have easily been that subclass if they hadn't been quite as cautious with it.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/u...ers/magus.html As I mentioned, this is my ultimate favorite take on a full gish class.

Interesting. So, it's a half-BAB, half-caster with some abilities that mitigate the disadvantages of casting in combat, a neat feature that lets them treat spellcasting like an off-hand weapon, and a lot of cool magical features tied to a limited resource called an arcane pool. I actually think this would make a really cool Sorcerer subclass in 5e. Conceptually, the Arcane Pool is similar to the Sorcerer's Sorcery points. A subclass that gives Sorcerers some armor proficiencies, some new ways to use their Sorcery Points, Extra Attack, and maybe a feature like Spell Combat would be awesome.

I understand why people take issues with "bloat", however I'd always rather have material I don't use than not having material. Personally, I have no problems with the number of classes and archetypes in PF, because a lot of them is really fun and not easily reproducable by the base classes, or just more close to a specific concept. It's just a broader palette, though admittedly to the point that I'm second-guessing PF to still being a class-based system!

Yeah, I get that. I get fatigued by bloat very easily, and prefer my games very lightweight, but I likewise understand why folks would rather have more options they might not use than not enough options.

[Nyrufa]

I have released Demogorgon onto this thread... I shall wait and see what comes of this.

[Charlaquin]

[Morty]

Well, I can understand the frustration about it limiting certain choices somewhat. I think you're right it's worse in 5e, because the importance of ability bonuses, compared to proficiency.

However, in a broader sense, current politics aside, don't really get the wish for doing away with racial bonuses. Fantasy races are traditionally highly different in physical and mental built and I think it should show in the rules too. Even, if you're taking away straight ability bonuses and give only other, flavorful ones, that'd still predispose them for some classes as ideal, albeit, depending on the execution it might be a weaker predisposition.

Edit: actually, I think Shadowrun has the best version of this thing, because your metatype isn't adding bonuses to your attributes, but specifies the lowest and highest possible score you could get. So, you could be a little better social character with an elf, if you're willing to dump xp into it, but you aren't doing yourself a disservice by sacrificing a +2 dex and int, by playing a barbarian.

Attribute bonuses or penalties don't make you actually better or worse at anything and they don't encourage playing your race any particular way. They're just part of the numbers game that discourage you from certain race and class combinations. And I don't think the game benefits in any fashion from discouraging them.

Look at the other dwarf traits in 4E. Using Second Wind as a minor action actually affects how I play a rogue, because I can take more risks and when I get hurt, I can grit my teeth and keep going. This is not something a human or elf rogue will do. Resisting poison... situational, but plenty of critters use it. Ignoring speed penalties from heavy armor and heavy load is admittedly useless for a rogue. They don't use heavy armor and no one cares about encumbrance. Weapon proficiencies likewise - they're a relic of old editions in an edition that restricts weapon proficiencies more than ever. But resisting forced movement and being knocked prone is another thing that actually affects how I play a rogue. Positioning is a large part of 4e's tactical layer and being able to resist pushes, pulls etc. is valuable to everyone. It might mean a melee monster can't pull me into its melee range to clobber me.

Attribute bonuses, meanwhile... if I'm a rogue, I want high dexterity and charisma or strength, in a core game. That means I will raise them, one way or the other. And all the dwarven racial bonuses get me is an extra +1 for values I don't use much anyway. It doesn't affect how I play the character at all.

[Acrozatarim]

Playing Rage of Demons, in what I assume are still the early stages of the adventure. Last session my lvl 3 wizard was basically relegated to a magic missile launcher, which was rather important due to bloody oozes corroding the weapons and armour of the rest of the party.

I'm hoping I'll eventually encounter something worth using Suggestion on rather than magic missile-ing into oblivion :P

[AnubisXy]

Attribute bonuses or penalties don't make you actually better or worse at anything and they don't encourage playing your race any particular way. They're just part of the numbers game that discourage you from certain race and class combinations. And I don't think the game benefits in any fashion from discouraging them.

Pretty much this. I can count on one hand the number of times I saw a half-orc Sorcerer in 3rd edition where they took a -2 to Charisma and Intelligence in exchange for a +2 strength, which they couldn't really use, meaning the half-orc would be operating at a net -4 to their primary stat compared to a race that got a +2 in Charisma. In comparison I've seen tons of half-orc Sorcerers in Pathfinder, where half-orcs just get a +2 to any stat that they want.

That's really the problem with bonuses and penalties to races - if you don't play the appropriate race with the appropriate class, you're going to be holding yourself back. That might not be a big deal to the person in question - "I like playing underpowered, underperforming characters!" and there's nothing inherently wrong with that mindset, but D&D is ultimately a group game and making the rest of the group try to compensate for the poorly made character might not be fun for the other players.

That's why I think it's better if different races get interesting tricks or abilities, but nothing that gives any kind of major mechanical advantage or disadvantage. That was one thing I thought 4th edition did well and I was sad to see return in 5rd edition.

[Morty]

Yes and no. 4E has interesting active and passive racial powers, but it also enforces optimal combinations through attribute bonuses. Perhaps even more so, since every race has two bonuses and every class has two main stats - this makes for some very clear best choices.

I suppose it would be accurate to say that if you removed racial attributes, or attributes period, from 4E, the remaining racial abilities would still be fairly distinctive. If you removed attributes or racial bonuses to them from 5E... there's really not much left.