Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    After reading the weapon rules, it seems like my crossbow-using ranger would work, because they've got a crossbow-oriented feat. But I don't see any point in using a crossbow if you're a rogue. A d8 rather than d6 damage die isn't worth sacrificing an action.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    We both liked 4e, so they can't be that divergent. And yet...



    There's still this apprehension to let skills and feats do too much, it seems. If it's not magical and doesn't have a per-day limit, they play it safe....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    From my admittedly brief reading so far, I think skills are the one part I actually like. They feel less half-assed than 5e's, certainly, and they actually provide concrete actions. Skill feats are a good, but underutilized idea. Maybe there's more of them in the final book... I hope so, at least. As with class feats, they're a mixed bag, and many of them feel like they kick in too late. A climb speed is nice and all, but on level 15?
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Not a "large" number. Any kind of number above "one, maybe two" would do.



    But you only get one of those, unless you're a human. One 1st level feat, and that's it, unless you sacrifice a higher-level pick for another one. Fighters at least get a decent-sized selection; rogues or rangers get one feat out of four, and not very good ones. If you gave a martial character two or three such abilities on level 1, that might actually make for a decent basis of a varied action selection. Of course, not all of those abilities actually alter your action economy...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 08-03-2018, 02:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Compared to my 5e experience, at least a rogue makes a choice every level of a feat or two to pick. That's not nothing. But other than that, yeah, basically....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    I'm not. I'm just disappointed. The designers talked up how class feats will let non-casters perform a variety of actions and it really doesn't look like it pans out. But I'd rather drop it after being accused this way....
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 08-02-2018, 05:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    No arguments here.



    I'm not sure if pointing out how the two weapons are only marginally different is a point in the system's favor. There's not that much reason to use a bastard sword as a longsword, unless you have some feats that let you take advantage of wielding a single one-handed weapon.

    But let's assume this fighter doesn't take this ancestral feat, or isn't a human at all, and only takes Sudden Charge. This means he can charge with fewer actions, and... that's it. Once they're in melee with an enemy, it's just attack, attack, attack. Having Combat...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Yeah, so it might be a worthwhile feat if it gave you something better than a +1 to attack, once. Even then, it triggers randomly and largely outside your control.

    Class feats for non-magical characters all seem like that. Some plain bad ones, some mediocre ones and some that would be good if you just got more of them. Let's say I want to realise my mobile fighter with a bastard sword idea. Unless I'm a human and take the natural ambition feat, on level 1 I can pick one, but not the other. If I want wielding a bastard sword to make any kind of sense as opposed to a greatsword, I need...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    The crossbow feat is there for the simple reason that their basic Hunt Target feature encourages multi-attacking. This lets them use a crossbow without wasting their class feature. Which is all well and good, except like you said - it means that if you're using a bow, two level 1 feats are useless to you. Meaning you're either going to take an animal companion or a feat that's, to put it charitably, not going to come into play very often.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    One of the 1st level ranger feats gives you an animal companion. Another helps you dual-wield. Another helps you use a crossbow. Then the fourth one gives you a +1 to one attack if you happen to critically succeed at recognizing a monster. One of those isn't like the others, is it? Good thing I don't mind animal companions, because otherwise that greataxe-wielding ranger's 1st level options would be looking pretty grim.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Those are a stop-gap measure at best, though, created once it became clear that multiclassing casters is otherwise a poor decision. Besides, they usually have you wallow in mediocrity until you can actually take a level in the PrC, which tends to be around level 6-7....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Yeah, I'm with Charlaquin (or should it be Willow?) here. I don't see it as much of a sacrifice, because honestly 3e's multiclassing didn't accomplish any of that either. Trying to do that just left you with an unfocused character who wasn't very good at anything. 3e/5e MCing is a trap for newbies and a tool for optimizers. A new player who wants to mix and match two classes is likely to shoot themselves in the foot, while an experienced player who wants to power-game can carefully dip into a different one for maximum effectiveness.

    I don't know if it'd be possible to create a system...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 07-28-2018, 06:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Apparently, the barbarian that one of the devs mentioned to be the team healer was in fact multiclassed to cleric. They're really bent on this, aren't they?

    I'm also wondering how multiclassing to and from different classes is going to work, given that some have spells, feats and class features while others only have feats and features.

    I've never tried multiclassing in 4e so I don't know how it works. But I do know that the buffet-style multiclassing from 3e/5e doesn't work well, so this should be an improvement.
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 07-27-2018, 06:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to A concern for Lunars: Alternate dice pools
    "Of course strong but slow characters aren't effective, they're not protagonist material" honestly strikes me as a sour-grapes justification of a weakness in the ruleset. I've seen the same thing applied in D&D to explain why dexterity-based melee characters can't work.
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 07-26-2018, 12:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    I still feel like there's enough facets to it to serve two full classes, if we split away the animal companions and shifting away from spellcasting, but since they do have to stick to the battered old class list, this is alright....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    So we had druids previewed, which I could've sworn happened before, but I confused it with some other bits of info about them. And it actually... looks pretty good. Wild-shaping and animal companions are optional now, which means the class isn't quite so overloaded with features and won't overshadow rangers quite as badly.

    We also see a rare example of a power that's neither at-will nor daily. But once per minute... feels a bit awkward. In combat, it'll be "once per encounter" more often than not, unless a combat runs very long and you use it early on. Out of combat... who...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Other "oddball" concepts I could try... melee alchemist, maybe? I remember that compared to the PF1 alchemist it's going to be harder to shoot yourself up with mutagens and go to town, but I'm not sure. They could also use poisons. Either way, something other than the default bomb-throwing.

    I'd also like to try some fighting styles that have always been studiously ignored. My "investigator" rogue up there has a single sword, but to be fair that's always been an option for rogues if they don't dual-wield. But there's also throwing weapons. Could try that. Is it...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    It explicitly worked with ranged attacks in 3e/PF1e too, but making targets qualify for it was still a giant pain in the rear. You had to stay within 30 feet, you couldn't flank... I want to see how easy or hard it is in PF2e. 5e makes it refreshingly easy, but in the process makes ranged rogues arguably better than melee ones.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    I've compiled something of a list of characters I'm going to create once the PF2e playtest is available:

    1) A fighter with a bastard sword who wears light armor and whose dexterity is at least as high as his strength. Focusing on mobility, to see if I can do that without being a monk or ranger.

    2) A goblin rogue with a crossbow to see how hard it is to play a ranged rogue. I like goblins but I loathe Pathfinder goblins; we'll see how it averages out.

    3) A rogue with a single sword of whatever kind they're allowed to use who doesn't use stealth, focuses on...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 07-21-2018, 05:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied to The D&D thread
    Yes, I wasn't talking about encounter or daily abilities - I meant the mechanics that restrict their use without giving them resources. As sceptical as I am of it in general, I like it because it gives you control. Ideally, fighters will open up with one of their "Open" abilities, then use an appropriate "Close" or universal one... and so on. Will other classes have something similar? Rogues, in particular, have always suffered from having all of their abilities be secondary to sneak attack and their tactics being kind of binary.

    Though I certainly would expect...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Morty; 07-20-2018, 07:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Morty
Morty
Member
Last Activity: Today, 04:42 AM
Joined: 11-01-2013
Location:
Working...
X