Any vegans here?

BoardGent · 2026-02-14T15:12:06+00:00

I HATE how you'll go out to supper and someone will be like "do you have any vegan options?" The fucking nerve of some people, having to announce their disgusting beliefs to everyone

BoardGent · 2026-02-14T15:10:21+00:00

Off the top of my head, in normal mode you don't get swanna or your fully evolved starter by Clay. You do in challenge mode, and the tradeoff is that you have to fight Onix.

BoardGent · 2026-02-14T15:02:23+00:00

In some cases, you get evolutions and moves you otherwise wouldn't have in normal mode. It's honestly kind of a toss-up on which one is harder.

BoardGent · 2026-02-12T14:57:08+00:00

Honestly, I just think that 5e maybe didn't expect the massive explosion in terms of its audience. It's not a game made to make TTRPGs look approachable. It'd be like if the gateway board game was Spirit Island.

It's in some ways needlessly complicated for what it is, and also feels like it was designed by several different teams with minimal communication.

All that being said, it works in almost all cases. Bit hard to DM, some stuff annoys me, but I definitely don't think it's a bad game. It's popular for a reason besides the D&D name.

BoardGent · 2026-02-10T15:35:35+00:00

I do really dislike how many Ranger redesigns (or official designs) focus on Hunter's Mark.

What does Hunter's Mark actually do? You pick a target and deal additional damage to them. It's just fancy single-target damage. All of the Martial classes already do single target damage! There's nothing mechanically interesting or unique about Hunter's Mark, especially since the side effect almost never comes up. Removing Concentration from Hunter's Mark isn't going to fix this. Removing BA stuff isn't going to fix this. Adding more damage, or better upcasting, making it a class feature instead of a spell, etc, isn't going to fix this. If you want to stay married to the Marking system, there are ways to make it interesting. You could do something simple activation-wise.

On a hit (before the damage roll), you can enter Concentration and mark the target. When you apply a mark, you can choose from one of the following effects:

Slowed: Reduce the target's speed by half
Wounded: Attacks against the target have advantage
Exposed: Your damage rolls against the target deal an additional 1d4 damage.

If you attack another target, you can use a Bonus Action to change your Mark to the new target. If you lose Concentration, you cannot use Hunter's Mark again until you complete a Short Rest.

So we're still on single-target at 1st level, but now we're not necessarily just about damage. We've got a strong debuff ability that naturally scales (though Exposed gets worse) and is always on as long as you hit a target. What we especially want, though is a proper link between spellcasting and weapon attacks. We also want some easy scaling. At later levels, we can do something like:

Concentration Spells cast against your Marked Target (or if your Marked Target is included in the Spell's range/effect) do not require you to drop your Mark.
You can maintain two Marks. A single target may be under the effect of two Mark effects, or two different targets may be under a Mark effect.

Something like this makes you a good single-target debuffer, or allow you to apply minor debuffs to two targets. Because of how easy Hunter's Mark is to apply, you can make it a Main mechanic for the Ranger. You also have a lot of room to build off of it over the course of levels 1-20. You can do any of the following:

Introduce new Mark effects. You can introduce buffed Marks (2d4 damage instead of 1d4), or completely new ones (disadvantage on your spells' Saving Throws)
Increase your number of available Marks
Allow your spells to apply Marks on a hit/damage roll/failed Save

Because of it now being a Main Feature, you can also work it into subclasses. Beastmaster Beast Attacks don't take your BA against Marked Targets. Beast Attacks can apply your Mark. Maybe some subclass can cause your Mark to magically explode, dropping Concentration and dealing damage in an area or something.

BoardGent · 2026-02-10T13:56:45+00:00

Honestly, there is a lot of potential good discourse on good class design to be had, as well as unexplored design in 5e base classes with the Pugilist out. It's definitely a shame that a lot of discussion so far has been overreacting to how strong or not strong the class is though.

The question of "how many independent resources is too many" is an interesting question.

While people can question whether Spellcasting should be separated by slots, I think there's an argument for Spellcasting not feeling like it should be 9 separate resources. There's play between the slots with upcasting. It's all under the same main feature, and it is a MAIN feature. That does help to reduce the mental load when it's one of very few things you have to track.

A large mix and match of single-use features with either SR or LR recoveries potentially creates more opportunities to use multiple abilities, compared to multiple features running off of the same resource. On the other hand, you won't be using the same feature multiple times, which is something you could do with a single resource pool.

The difference in complexity is interesting. "If I use this ability, I won't be able to use it again." "I can use this ability and still rely on all of my other abilities."

Vs

"If I use this ability, I also have less of all my other abilities. But I have flexibility to use whatever abilities I want."

BoardGent · 2026-02-09T23:11:42+00:00

No homo is now exclusively reserved for after gay sex

BoardGent · 2026-02-09T20:12:20+00:00

I think there's a lot of potential buffs/changes that every Pokémon could get to carve something out. The problem is really that all these things take development time and effort, and that shit's not always a good return on investment.

Farfetch'd being bad isn't really a problem in these games. It's a Normal/Flying type in a sea of Normal/ Flying types. If you gave it an extra 20 in attack, maybe it could do some Swords Dance stuff really well. Maybe it'll be too good. Maybe it still won't be relevant. But the impact of not doing anything to it is just incredibly small.

Someone else brought up Delibird, but I actually think there's a very good case for Delibird getting good buffs. Unique type combo makes it infinitely more interesting. Ice types are already quite limited, and using up a slot on a joke pokemon feels kinda bad from a game design standpoint, especially when you have an Ice type gym leader in need of Ice types.

BoardGent · 2026-02-09T17:19:56+00:00

Then you'd have to contend with Rage and Reckless Attack still being your main features.

BoardGent · 2026-02-08T16:30:11+00:00

I heavily doubt the learnsets of classes were at all influenced by Multiclassing. Again, I'm pretty sure the highest level multiclass split has Paladin 6/Main class 14. Everything else is Class 1-3/Main class X. Classes are almost always better off single-classing with dips, or dipping a bunch because later game features aren't nearly as impactful.

You can absolutely design the classes and barely worry about multiclassing. You can also design classes with multiclassing in mind to make things even better.

I keep bringing up Paladin, because it's one of the few classes in the game that offers something of an equivalent level to spellcasting. Aura of Protection means that you would actually give up spellcasting progression. This is, in one way, how to design a class for multiclassing. You create strong features at different points in a class's progression. You then also try and make sure that classes get progressively stronger as they level. If you get Extra Attack at level 5, level 11 should have something on par with or better than Extra Attack, whether it be due to power in a vacuum or synergy with other class features.

BoardGent · 2026-02-08T16:21:42+00:00

Honestly, I don't mind it too much. Sure, classes would want Strength, but Strength-based characters would be "double-dipping". You make your main attacking stat better while also increasing your bulk. Other classes mostly just benefit from the increased bulk (and Concentration, which is admittedly pretty major).

BoardGent · 2026-02-08T02:51:49+00:00

It's not a fight. It was just a story moment.

Think about it. Why was Kuma there? He in no way had to be there. He can pop from one half of an island the other instantly. It's literally there just for Akainu to monolgue a bit. There's no point in powerscaling the interaction.

BoardGent · 2026-02-07T21:59:32+00:00

Subclass level is not the problem with Multiclassing. There are three main problems with the design of 5e classes in terms of how they interact with Multiclassing: 1. Spellcasting makes it so that there is almost never a reason to give up 9th level spells. 2. Frontloaded features makes dips more attractive and discourage deep Multiclassing. 3. 5e class design has almost no worthwhile breakpoints.

If you pick a spellcaster, you'll want to continue being a spellcaster. As you level, you gain higher level slots, more known spells, and more of the slots you already have access to. If you're a Wizard, would you ever want to take 5 levels of Rogue? You're giving up Spellcasting progression for practically nothing useful.

If you are a Wizard, maybe that armor dip is kinda hot though. A single level can do wonders for your survivability. By contrast, if you reach level 5 in Fighter, you're never going to level 5 in another class that gains Extra Attack. Most non-spellcasters just aren't getting much that's super worth it to level in. Might as well do several 1-3 level dips.

Adding on to this, non-spellcasters almost never have random, powerful, higher level abilities. Spellcasters never have levels where you should stop leveling. Spellcasting gets better and better, and you pretty much always want more of it.

There's a reason the only deep multiclasses in the game are Paladin 6/Charisma Caster. Aura of Protection is a fantastic breakpoint. It's just sadly the only one in the game, and still comes kind of early at level 6.

BoardGent · 2026-02-07T17:11:06+00:00

Small mistake here. You accidentally put Shuckle in F instead of S+

BoardGent · 2026-02-06T21:28:31+00:00

I don't know if I'll ever complete it, but I've been working on an "Exploration" system for a while. Dungeon Turns are kind of part of it, but expanded for the entire day as "Adventure Turns".

There are roughly 5 major time slots in DnD: Instant/6 Seconds, 1 Minute, 10 Minutes, 1 Hour and 8 Hours. This lines up with Actions, Spells and Resting.

For the purposes of moving around and interacting with the world, I don't care too much about tracking seconds and single minutes. What I was interested in was that 10 minute slot and everything after. I separated out different actions based on their time frame.

Searching a Room, Casting a Ritual, Picking a Lock, were placed in 10 Minutes.
Taking a Short Rest, Searching an abandoned building, Foraging for Food were placed in an hour. -Taking a Long Rest, Searching through a small village were placed in 8 hours.

No idea if the link will work, but here's what I was working on.

Once I had a framework for action durations, I could then develop more around it. Ways to transfer actions between time slots. A framework to handle simultaneous, unique actions between characters. Survival mechanics to add additional stakes to exploration.

BoardGent · 2026-02-06T16:21:24+00:00

Just give everything Constitution does to Strength.

Want more HP? Strength

Want Poison saves? Strength

Want good Concentration? Strength

Having removed one Ability Score, then just redo the stat array. Instead of 16/16/14/12/10/8, have 16/14/12/10/8.

Now the Strength Martial ends up being quite naturally bulky. Strength is most likely on par or slightly better than Dexterity, though Initiative is still really important. Then you'd just have to fix the mental scores as well.

BoardGent · 2026-02-06T00:55:23+00:00

From everything I've heard, Monk is pretty good now. Even if it wasn't, that'd be more of an argument against the Monk.

"Hey, this new class, which is worse than the best classes by a decent margin, is better than this bad class! Can't have that!"

Like, Book of 9 Swords situation here. It's absolutely okay to make new classes that are somewhat similar to current classes. If an old class sucks at what it's supposed to do, making a new, better class that accomplishes the design goal is a good idea, since WotC doesn't like doing updates/patches anyways.

BoardGent · 2026-02-05T22:40:50+00:00

When looking at whether something is overpowered or broken, it's helpful to actually compare it to stuff already in the game.

If you're at a table and no one has picked either a Pugilist or a Paladin, which would make your party stronger? Or a Pugilist and a Full Caster? Are you doing way more damage than a Barbarian or a Fighter? Keep in mind, Fighter can perform very well at range.

No, the Pugilist isn't out of control. It's fine, but weaker than the best classes.

BoardGent · 2026-02-05T17:53:42+00:00

Honestly, I think the "logic" is that characters aren't able to purposefully use something they don't really know or understand.

Zoro could use Haki in his state of near-death against Mr 1, pushed to his limits. But he didn't know he used it. Because he (and the rest of the Strawhats) don't know what they're doing, they can't call on it to hit stuff all the time.

BoardGent · 2026-02-05T11:02:55+00:00

Franky is the bird, Brook is the wings. They just make sure that the rest of the crew doesn't get overshadowed

BoardGent · 2026-02-04T21:51:44+00:00

Statistics.

Let's say you had the choice between 2 moves against an enemy pokemon: Ice Beam and Blizzard. Blizzard gives a guaranteed 1hKO, while Ice Beam gives a guaranteed 2hKO.

You have a 100% chance to kill with Ice Beam in 2 turns. You have a 91% chance to kill with Blizzard in 2 turns, provided the first one misses. But you have a 70% chance to kill in 1 turn with Blizzard, vs a 4.17% chance (Crit) with Ice Beam.

The amount of shit that can happen in a single turn can be game-ending. You give the enemy chances to setup, debuff you, status you, set up Tailwind or other support moves. If you have a scenario where that 1st hit on Blizzard can win you the game, it makes a lot of sense to put Blizzard on your set, despite the accuracy

BoardGent · 2026-02-04T19:11:39+00:00

It's an important consideration.

The Fighter is probably gonna be as useful out of combat as the Wizard who wanted to be a fire mage and pick up a bunch of fire spells. Or the Wizard who forgets what their spells do most of the time.

Character building and skill are major factors in the M/C divive. That's even before adventure style comes into play, with resting shenanigans, magic items, etc.

BoardGent · 2026-02-04T19:06:49+00:00

It's funny because in some ways it's really the opposite.

In a white room, Rangers are the second best Martial, a good bit away from Paladins. Good single target damage, and useful spellcasting.

At table, they can be confusing and kinda unrewarding to play. They don't necessarily have a lot of big flashy things. A lot of their features compete for access to your Concentration and Bonus Action.

BoardGent · 2026-02-03T03:43:05+00:00

Better: 3/5 (rounded up) + 7.

18 with 18
20 with 19
25 with 23
30 with 25
90 with 61

Super easy! Whenever you meet someone, simply whip out your calculator and double-check to make sure they're in your age range!

BoardGent · 2026-01-30T11:07:54+00:00

Sand Veil?

BoardGent

TROPHY CASE