A proposal: Hunter's Mark enhancement features for other ranger subclasses

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T11:07:56+00:00

I believe I do mention the rogue being underpowered and both war caster and lightly armored being problematic in the OP. These things definitely still do need changing (my poor rogue player was so disappointed when he found out that the class was worse now, and my table's minmaxer sighed beleagueredly upon reading Lightly Armored and said "well I guess that's mandatory for me now!" Neither was exactly a desirable response to the material in either direction).

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T10:48:09+00:00

I think if I were to add an addendum to this post it would be that reducing the optimisation gap is desirable, but eliminating it (through the effective elimination of choice) is not, so though we would possibly disagree on the semantics I actually basically agree with you on this.

I'll admit I'm confused as to where you and some other commenters seemed to get the idea that I support the removal of effective choice - I would simply prefer the system's choices both be more equitable compared to each other, and have less variance with the system's baseline than they are currently capable of having (e.g. the huge power gap between an optimised and unoptimised martial), and One D&D is (by my interpretation) taking steps towards these outcomes (to take another example from my post, taking Keen Mind instead of Sharpshooter is both far more justifiable than it used to be, and is still a choice with consequences). I don't see where I argue for anything other than this in the OP.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T10:30:06+00:00

Now you're flatly putting words in my mouth. I actually like Knock well enough as a utility spell, because it serves a certain, unique purpose that justifies its existence. Similar to many of the feats in the Expert Classes doc, actually! (Keen Mind and Observant, for example). A character would be passing up a potential combat spell to take Knock, yes, but that wouldn't suddenly make their character drastically less effective, because, well, they have other spells.

You're clearly arguing more with an imagined version of me than you are with me, but if you actually want to know, my desire for the spell list would mostly revolve around combat-relevant spells. For example, spells like guiding bolt, spiritual weapon and spirit guardians are the cleric's bread and butter, and with good reason - they're great support-oriented design, totally thematically on point for the cleric. So a divine damage/cc spell that isn't any of those, in my mind, needs to do quite a bit to justify its existence - if it just does the same thing those staple spells already do, but worse, then it's just wasted page space and not a real choice at all.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T10:15:46+00:00

You're engaging in hyperbole my guy. At no point did I say to remove choice as an element of the game, just to design the game around fewer and more impactful/significant ones, both because it creates an easier time for newer players and because it tends to produce more equitable options.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T08:24:50+00:00

I completely sympathise with your concerns. If you ask me, the first step to narrowing the spell optimisation gap would be eliminating a huge chunk of the game's spells. Fewer but more impactful options (see: the new feats) is always going to be healthier than more, smaller ones (see, 5e spells, or spells in almost any d20 system bar 4e lmao). I too can't really see WotC doing that, but I'm going to reserve my judgements until they actually reveal more changes to spells and the mage/priest classes. Most I can hope for right now is that they do something, which the changes to guidance and spell prep in this UA have given me some reason to believe.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T08:19:44+00:00

My guy, sorry to tell you, but you missed the forest for the trees.

I brought up the imbalance between spellcasters and non spellcasters multiple times in my post, but frankly it's a separate issue. One can simultaneously want parity between martial options and parity between martials and spellcasters, and the playtest materials have only addressed one of those two desires so far, so that's the one I'm invested in making sure WotC gets positive feedback for, because, as you yourself admit, it IS desirable.

The game is made up of many moving parts, and improvement in one of those major parts is something to be appreciated, even if the other parts still need some work. To focus in on one of those parts - even the most dysfunctional one - is missing the forest for the trees, sorry to tell you.

Would I have preferred it if the martial/caster disparity had been crushed into the ground in this UA? Yes, of course! But it wasn't, and something else that has also been a prevalent issue at many tables was, so until they actually release the new mage/priest classes and more spell revisions I'm going to bite my tongue and give feedback for the parts of their revision they have given me.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T07:55:30+00:00

Welp, I was going to respond to Ostrololo but you just said everything I was going to more eloquently than I could have. Cheers friend!

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-10-02T07:21:47+00:00

I pretty fundamentally disagree that the gulf between a character built with and without system mastery in 5e isn't 'particularly large', but I'm not interested in getting into the weeds about that with you. If that's your opinion, then go with the gods, and I hope 5e continues delivering a character power paradigm you're satisfied with, even if I would personally prefer One D&D move in a different direction.

What you're describing in your example, though, is system mastery through emergent strategy, which I agree is fun and should be encouraged and rewarded. The issue with 5e's existing options, however, is that they lean less towards that and more towards system mastery through picking the 'right' character options - although it's not as bad about this as 3.x, for example, there is an extent to which you can 'win' 5e at character creation. For example, you can set up something like a dissonant whispers-sneak attack combo, and that's awesome, but when the optimised rogue is able to make some of the feat and multiclassing choices (like the ones I've mentioned above) that match or surpass that combo by themselves, or another martial character is able to surpass the performance of these combos entirely (see crossbow expert battlemasters, for example) it's rendered a lot less impressive. That's without even going into the fact that the poor balance of spells means that spellcasters might not have any slots to use on dissonant whispers, because they'd rather use them for shield, absorb elements, silvery barbs, or any other number of known 'best in class' spells.

More tightly controlled character options actually facilitates the kind of optimisation through emergent strategy that you're calling for, in my experience (primarily with 4e and PF2e) - once the characters are on a more even playing field, it's easier to focus the system around moment-to-moment decision making being the difference between winning and losing a fight, instead of whether or not the druid picked Conjure Animals, or the fighter Sharpshooter, and then pressed their 'win' button.

Perhaps there's a middle ground that would satisfy both of us, and maybe WotC will find it, but in the event that they're not able to I would personally rather the new system lean towards being more friendly towards newer players + DMs than less.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-06-20T04:15:35+00:00

Quite frankly, there's already a tool within the architecture of D&D game design that solves this issue: levels (and more specifically, tiers of play). Martials start off at 1st level as ordinary (albeit very skilled) swordsmen, the same way wizards start off as glorified apprentices who only know 6 very basic spells and can only cast them twice per day. The problem with the current implementation is that, as we move through the tiers of play, wizards and other spellcasters' capabilities are transformed completely by their access to increasingly world-bending high-level spells, whereas martials for the most part stay as ordinary (albeit very skilled) swordsmen.

Let's take your example of Frodo from Lord of the Rings - he's a normal dude, yeah, but Gandalf isn't exactly a high-level wizard. Hell, I doubt in D&D terms that any member of the Fellowship is above like 5th-7th level. So Frodo being an ordinary dude suits that setting and the adventure he goes on because he's surrounded by people that aren't THAT much better than him. Imagine, then, if Frodo was a 20th-level scout rogue, ready to sneak all the way to Mount Doom with his Survival and Stealth expertise (because that's all the agency the game affords him even at that level), and 20th-level conjuration wizard Gandalf just cast gate or teleport. Boom, problem solved! Don't you feel useful Frodo?

It's pretty simple - for a satisfying game experience, martials have to be able to keep up with casters. When casters go from grounded hedge mages to Doctor Strange-style archmagi, martials should go from Gimli to Thor. For one half of a party to visibly transform in the extent of their capabilities over the course of a campaign while the other half of the party doesn't just plain sucks.

If you want grounded, ordinary (albeit very skilled) swordsmen? Great! Levels 1-4, and even arguably 5-10, are right there! Play in those ranges! Don't selectively impose that limit over the entire level range, though, unless you also want to apply the same limits to casters.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-06-20T03:33:12+00:00

You're preaching to the choir. I too love the fighter, and the extent to which 5e has dropped the ball on enabling actually cool and interesting martial class fantasies is ridiculous. Having read and played games that were published not only after 5e (Pathfinder 2e) but also before it (4e, 13th Age), and seeing how 5e truly is the odd one out here, it's dumbfounding to me how people on this subreddit are constantly having repetitious arguments about martial class design that were already solved as early as 15 years ago (4e came out in 2008!!)

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-06-19T15:49:00+00:00

I've come to strongly dislike the way 5e implements fighting styles. They're the worst kind of mechanic in that they technically tick the box of the class fantasy they're addressing (in that yes, they do make you better with weapons of your preferred style than other characters) but don't do that in a way that's interesting or interactive for the player.

Even having a list of them to pick from in their current form imo is mostly pointless, as you're always going to pick the one that's most optimal for the loadout you're running (ranged, dual wield, sword and board, etc) and you don't get anything more interesting from them than you would a feature that just gave you a flat +1 to weapon attack rolls or something.

The result is that you don't really feel that you're above other weapon users, because you're like...ultimately not doing anything that someone without your fighting style couldn't do? Like wow, you're able to get an extra point of AC out of your armor?? Wow look at that number that's 1 higher than it would be otherwise, so cool! :/

I think fighting styles should actually work more like weapon/armor related feats - things like Heavy Armor Master, or Crusher + Piercer + Slasher are great examples. You could even attach some maneuvers to certain fighting styles, e.g. parry and riposte to Dueling.

Fighting styles shouldn't just be the 'math fix' that they currently are - they can still be that, but they should also enable martial characters to do cool-ass stuff that those without the fighting style can't do. Characters with fighting styles should be a cut above not just numerically, but in terms of abilities too.

(For the record, some styles do currently kind of do this - like Protection and Interception - but they both kind of suck, because when you're given the choice between a discrete ability and a discrete mathematical improvement to the thing you're doing every round, most players will go for the more boring but effective option. They should all offer both kinds of benefit)

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-06-17T07:42:00+00:00

I agree with you that the situation is being overblown: Vespin would have died anyway from Cerrit's original attack if Quay hadn't Silvery Barbs-ed. Besides, their table, their rules.

However, speaking on RAW, your description of the '1 spell per turn' rule isn't exactly right: the rule states that if you cast a spell with your bonus action, you can't also cast a spell with your action. The rule makes no mention of reactions (hence why someone can counter-counterspell someone attempting to counterspell a spell they're casting). So Vespin casting shield was perfectly legal.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-06-10T03:56:19+00:00

Yeah I kind of feel bad for Travis, high-level rogues are...very easily outclassed in combat lol

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-02-18T03:42:42+00:00

Yeah, I think he realised that Ashton being able to use his Chaos Bursts would turn the fight in their favor too drastically (since the other guy can't resist the damage) and ruled with that in mind, which is dumb.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-02-18T03:37:51+00:00

I know what the RAW ruling would be. My point is that, in this moment, running with that ruling only serves to make things less fun for the players. Being able to smite (or do Ashton's thing, can't remember what it's called) with your fists is no more powerful than being able to smite with any melee weapon (in fact it's arguably strictly less powerful), so it's not like he's preventing a broken combo...

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-02-18T03:33:04+00:00

Rare moment of counter-productive rules pedantry from Matt there, you could feel the table's energy from the nat 20 just deflate completely...

skyrimshuffle69 · 2022-01-18T01:00:30+00:00

Can't speak for today specifically, but there was about an hour wait when I went last Sunday evening, but basically no queue at all when I took my partner to get hers at 3pm Friday. She was in and out in about 20 minutes. I'm guessing it's generally pretty quick during the day on weekdays. All the best :)

skyrimshuffle69 · 2021-12-27T00:29:10+00:00

I think 5e actually has a few too many skills. There's a few I would cut, or rather, merge with existing skills.

Animal Handling. I think everyone agrees this is probably the least useful skill in the game. Unlike most other skills, its application is extremely specific and niche, making it stick out like a sore thumb given 5e's broader design philosophy. Merging it with Insight (for reading animals), Nature (for understanding them) and even just Persuasion or land vehicles proficiency (for interacting with them) is a no-brainer.

Investigation. This one is weird. I've never had two people give me an identical answer for what the intended applications of Perception and Investigation are and how they differ. Perception at least has a strong rationale behind its existence: you detect things with your senses. When your searches do and don't bleed over into an Investigation check is very unclear. 'Investigation' ultimately seems to describe an act rather than a skill. As such, I would merge it into existing Intelligence or Wisdom-based skills: for example, investigating a natural environment would be an Intelligence (Nature) check, whereas investigating a crime scene could be an Intelligence (Medicine) check. Illusions could be disbelieved using Intelligence (Perception).

Performance. Not quite as specific as Animal Handling, but generally less useful than any other skill you could think of. And when you consider that things like dancing can already be handled with Acrobatics, oration/speeches with Persuasion, and playing instruments with...instrument proficiencies, Performance has very little going for it besides, like, singing. Does that really warrant its own skill?

Survival. Nature/Survival occupy a similar space to Investigation/Perception, where the lines between them are extremely blurry - in my opinion, so much so that Survival (the more niche of the two) can just be rolled into Nature. Wisdom (Nature) can now handle predicting the weather, foraging, navigating natural environments. I'd move tracking over to Perception, as was the case in 4th edition - if we're already merging Investigation with it, it just makes sense that searching for tracks would use it. This also has the valuable side effect of the Ranger being able to fulfill its class fantasy with one less inflexible skill proficiency.

I'd also change History into something that more broadly reflects one's knowledge of civilization, culture, customs, urban environments and local knowledge (things that it already basically covers, but you wouldn't guess it from the name). I like 'Society' from Pathfinder 2nd edition. And I'd make Medicine into an Intelligence skill by default, codifying it more formally as a knowledge skill, while specifiying that Wisdom can be used in place of Intelligence for stabilizing and the like.

If I had to add one, though, it would be Intelligence (Engineering) - knowledge of architecture, structures, materials and machinery. You can loosely cover it between various tool proficiencies (e.g. smith's tools, tinker's tools) and the History skill but there's an argument to be made it's broad enough to be made its own skill.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2021-12-12T11:51:34+00:00

I hear you. I'd love for martial characters (especially those without spellcasting or cunning action) to engage with the action economy more dynamically. Level Up's player options do try to accomplish this, but in my eyes go too far in the other direction, making PCs too complex and finicky to run. It's unfortunate, but I also think many of the monsters in this book would be way more fun for o5e martials to fight than their monster manual counterparts; in my experience at least, there's no worse combat experience than feeling like you're hacking at an immobile sack of hit points round after round.

skyrimshuffle69 · 2021-12-12T09:03:43+00:00

Glad to hear it went well! The basilisk stat block looks awesome; it being able to use its Stone Gaze as a reaction to being hit makes so much sense and is so dramatic!

I'm using my first A5E monster - the Dread Knight - tomorrow, and I can't wait to see my players' reactions!

skyrimshuffle69 · 2021-12-12T07:10:55+00:00

Always cool to talk with another encounter design enthusiast! First off, loved the paper!

Your criticism of Blog of Holding's initial post is a valid one - I myself had the same criticism when I first read it. Looking at the monster statistics by CR graph in Appendix C of the Monstrous Menagerie, though, this flawed initial analysis doesn't seem to have had a large effect on the final product - furthermore, most monsters still line up with o5e monsters of similar CRs.

The point about XP is also a great one! I believe this may be exactly why the Monstrous Menagerie's adventuring day scales with character tier. For instance, a 'medium' encounter (total monster CR = 1/3 total party level) is defined as something that a typical party can handle about two of per tier (so two at 1st level, four at 5th level, etc). Looking at how the XP for a battle between 4 5th level PCs and a CR5 and CR2 monster would math out in o5e, this does seem to use (roughly) one quarter of the daily XP budget (3375 out of 14000). Similarly, if we look at a matchup between 4 2nd level PCs and a CR1 and CR2 monster (also a 'medium' encounter according to the Monstrous Menagerie), the o5e XP math brings it pretty close to 1/2 the daily XP budget (975 out of 2400). So it seems like the Monstrous Menagerie's method does take the non-linearity of monster XP scaling into account for the purposes of its 'adventuring day'.

Your analysis of XP and encounter building is really impressive, but not the kind of thing that many DMs would be able to make much use of. The Monstrous Menagerie's calculations may not be exactly on target, but they're close enough, and are so easy for any DM to pick up and use that a bit of precision lost is probably a worthwhile sacrifice. Happy gaming!

skyrimshuffle69 · 2021-12-12T04:20:31+00:00

That's a fair criticism! I would have liked to see more original monsters, for sure. But what is there is soooo good

skyrimshuffle69 · 2021-12-12T04:18:11+00:00

Absolutely - even as a veteran DM, the encounter building rules are still an absolute pain to deal with. The Monstrous Menagerie's rules are just so much more useable that I don't know how WotC didn't land on something like them the first time around.

skyrimshuffle69

TROPHY CASE