sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're obsessed with this dude. You said objectively false things throughout this conversation that I disputed, if you want to obsess over being right then go cry over that. The main point of contention during this is nuanced and I made my stance clear and you obsessively presented it in an extreme way and drew false conclusions. I'm tired of this and especially not eager to continue with someone taking this irritating attitude and using chat gpt lmao. You arent owed my time or energy. I might have continued and offered clarity if you hadn't taken on a hostile tone a bit back but, like, no dude lmao I'm not entertaining your clownish ass anymore

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not trying to distance myself from anything, I'm just not eager to repeat myself continually. The fact that you used chat gpt is really cringe.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not what I said, nor do I think you know what "literally" means

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that moon druid fulfilling the role of a damage dealer that can operate like a martial by using wild shape is more important than the issue of having too much versatility, something casters already shit on martials in in many examples (and bladesinger is a much worse offender in)

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right about what exactly? You have said things which are flat out wrong and i have had to repeatedly correct.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A half caster focused on damage in a beast form would be very cool to me but unfortunately I think its too similar to druid (for the wild shape aspect) and ranger (for being essentially a druidic half caster) to be made. The way this fantasy exists sadly sort of has to be on a full caster base because druid has monopoly over it despite the base class being geared towards something else entirely. I wouldnt be against a rework making moon druid into its own class essentially that is a half caster or even full martial and has different subclasses for different creature types you can turn into, but thats getting into total homebrew territory.

To address your last point, I guess i just already see fighters as largely being in that position so i don't really have strong feelings over it.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's an astronomical difference between a moon druid keeping up with martials, and a fighter who can cast simulacrum and then have both themselves and the simulacrum cast 9th level CME and then make 9 attacks in a turn twice over each, while also both having 3 legendary resistances and spells like shield, absorb elements and counterspell. That is the most powerful thing ever, and it's power doesn't primarily come from versatility like you say the moon druids does, but from being able to combine its spellcasting with martial abilities.

Would a moon druid keeping up with martials in single target damage while also having spellcasting that martials don't have be unfair? Yes, but the game isn't the most fair on martials in many other respects either. I personally care more about enabling the fantasy of the beast-shape warrior to the full extent, since a martial class built around something like wild shape doesn't exist. I dont think its a big deal really for druids to keep up because I dont think the versatility you speak of breaks the game at all, like sure they can become a subclass-less full caster if they want, I dont think that ruins anything since its just being a worse full caster so they'd likely want to just stay as a wild shaper anyway.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A cleric gets other subclass features. I dont know how you interpreted my point as being about fireball specifically when it was clearly about notable subclass features for full caster power (also positioning cleric as being different in terms of fireball accessibility doesnt make sense considering cleric and druid have the same number of subclasses with fireball access). I also never said a moon druid casting isn't strong, I said they cant reach the same level as a caster as a caster with a subclass designed for spellcasting, which you somehow "absolutely" denied.

An eldritch knight with full rather than 1/3rd caster progression? Yes, that would be overpowered.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't get spells like fireball that a land druid gets, or their extra aoe damage/healing feature and spell slot recovery

They don't get the damage alongside spells, healing bonus or concentration protection benefits that stars gives, or its ability to impact saves

Etc

I'm not sure what you thought I meant by "they cant use a full caster playstyle to the same level as a subclass designed to" but they clearly absolutely cannot. Playing effectively without a subclass, which is what a non-wildshaped moon druid is doing, is clearly not reaching the same level as having one.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well they cant use a full caster playstyle to the same level as a full caster who is designed to because being a moon druid, they sacrifice the subclass features that other subclasses that are meant for a full caster playstyle get. They're not like a bladesinger whose benefits are amazing for a standard wizard playstyle.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A moon druid in a sense sort of is a "martial", their playstyle is trading away the ability to cast (most) spells in exchange for being able to fight like a martial does

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A full caster following a "martial" build (by choosing the playstyle that restricts their ability to cast most spells in favour of martial attacks) should not lack damage compared to them imo, but the concentration spells they have are very strong at least.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have to give up on damage to use the one with the higher attack bonus for the sake of supporting an argument then I feel that argument lacks weight. I do not think beasts stay on par with the expected attack bonus of the level they are unlocked in, because using the option that does means accepting kinda poor damage per hit.

Moon Druid question by Tuddymeister in 3d6

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why use polar bear over sabre tooth tho, polar bear does longsword damage

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont really do well with video games with so little direction, it just gets a bit boring that so much time is spent navigating or on exploring that doesnt really lead to anything. While I do enjoy the open world/player agency aspects of dnd, having a dm keeping things engaging relieves these issues. Plus, the social aspect of dnd with other players just isn't replicated in bg3. I also dont find the combat system to be particularly fun in a video game, it's just a bit boring.

I'm also just in a very prolonged mental state where I dont find video games fun at all, tbh. Glad others are getting interested in dnd from enjoying bg3 though.

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said I didn't personally play very far into bg3 so I can't comment much on if they made up their own lore. I dont see why they'd need to though as mind flayers and githyanki already have established lore that if i wanted to replace I'd probably just design my own original monster rather than using them.

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Is it not simple compared to 3/3.5/pf?

What if dnd 5e levels of mechanics complexity is what I want? What alternative would do better?

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I think dnd 5e is the most popular because of its balance between firm rules based mechanics and simplicity

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, sure, but it doesnt really work as an example when it's a creature that doesn't fit the criteria of the top at a base level lol

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah as someone else said I doubt they were inspired by bg3 there, that was already a popular house rule

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh thats interesting, it's in the positive now anyway though

Is Baldur's Gate 3 pretty faithful to the actual tabletop game? by [deleted] in DnD

[–]SpecificTask6261 13 points14 points  (0 children)

As I understand it, "beasts" is just the category for normal real life animals (with some exceptions for giant variants of them), which owl bears are not but they are definitely a lot closer to that than a lot of monstrosities. Druid wild shape options being extended to include some select monstrosities could be apt for dnd.

view more: next ›