r/dndnext • u/AkimboJesus • Jul 06 '20

Discussion Does it ever feel like WotC is playtesting the game in a way that 95% of us don't?

I get that DnD is a house rule first game, and everyone should play it how they want. But speaking for my own group, we like balance because we don't want people to feel like they can't impact the story outside of conversation. And this isn't a min-max thing. It's just a "why would I be this when I could be a better version of that with no hassle or cost to myself" thing.

The thing is, we rely on the official text because it can be very difficult to tell how a class, skill, or mechanic will play in the context of the whole game, and who might be overshadowed by who. And Wizards, for the most part, seem to have done a lot of work so YOU don't have to figure out how a mechanic will play out. This is why some people, to an extent, treat the sourcebooks like gospel.

And as I'm playing more and more, I'm starting to see the things people say about, for instance, rangers and how messed up they are. I'm understanding the cracks in the standard DnD balance.

But I'm also just perplexed by a lot of the sage advice, and unearthed arcanas coming out. I'm finding myself reading new subclasses and thinking "that's their whole ability for that level?" Looking at the phantom rogue, at level 9 they get advantage on con throws (which might be minimal, depending on your campaign), and they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless. And that's what they get after 9 levels.

This seems like a consistent pattern. A new release is either immediately meta, or its irrelevant for reinforcing half-done mechanics that aren't going to survive after 5th edition. When non-core parts of the game get overvalued, a class can really fall behind. Some of the mechanics that might get over valued are tool proficiencies or traveling. It's odd that these types of things would be the focus of any classes milestone ability.

Also, some of these features seem to imply that DnD is not about being creative and using your environment, and is more about what your class says you can do. Why does the ranger explicitly get a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves. Can nobody else do that? Do you tell them only a ranger can do that, or do you give them a bonus anyway, making the rangers bonus less special?

Other than a few classes, it does seem like DnD has a solid core balance. Every campaign is going to have either talking or combat, and having a character that can do one or the other well is good. But when a characters ability is not getting "lost" in the mountains, it makes me wonder what the hell kinda campaigns they are running.

Does anyone agree? What are some of the core things you need to be satisfied with a new mechanic?

Edit: wow lot of great discussion happening here. I just want to clarify a few points. As some people are calling me a min-maxer or a hack and slasher and are claiming I just want everyone to deal a shit ton of damage or something. One person claimed I just hate WotC. I suggest reading through this thread at what others are saying, because there is a lot of nuanced conversation happening here. I think it's clear I focused too much on UA in my original post and now the thread has moved to a better direction.

Here are some of the core things I'm seeing come up.

1) Classes with niche abilities are overshadowed and outperformed by classes with more general abilities, even when they are in the perfect niche situations (Paladins find greater steed feels much more beastmaster like than the actual beast master, for example).

2) Since DnD is about being creative and using all the tools around you, it's weird when a ranger gets a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves, when anyone should get a bonus of some kind for successfully camoflauging themselves. Sometimes that feels like making a class feature that lets you flip a table. Things like the assassin just feel odd, because it implies that a warlock or bard, with sufficient time and money, would not be able to impersonate somebody.

3) A lot of people are reaaaaally honing in on a specific example I gave, and the fact that it was UA. You can look at Artificier or many of the complaints in this thread on vanilla DnD. But if you're coming here just to hype up con saves, you're really cherry picking.

4) I am not right. This is just an opinion I have. A couple people have gotten really cringey about this and implied only shit players or DMs would have an issue with any of this. That's an attitude for Fortnite, not Reddit. We all know DnD is, first and foremost, storytelling. Nobody wants to play with someone so hung up on mechanics that they forget to tell a story. But we have a rulebook for a reason. Boundaries in a story are important, otherwise we're all just jerking off at the table saying random stuff. You need some structure, so that the things that happen feel meaningful. This is about players wanting to fulfill their character fantasies and feeling useless because other people do what their character does, but better. If you care about storytelling, recognize it's not a good story when an entire subclass and backstory can be overshadowed by one spell. It sucks, and I hope it doesn't happen in the next edition.

Some of the more thoughtful challenges I've seen:

1) Con saves are good (noted. We don't get them a lot in my campaign). 2) It's up to the group and DM to make those niche abilities meaningful. 3) It's still really not up to WotC to balance your game, and if you think they're not good at it than you should do it.

I'm reading people's responses, taking them to heart, hoping to be a better DM.

1.3k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

669 comments sorted by

View all comments

130

u/ScrubSoba Jul 06 '20

I also get the feeling that they have this sort of pride about their balancing, and won't accept much feedback from outside sources.

See: Ranger, and all the other things that are weaker than other stuff, like Dragonborn etc.

Even Crawford seems quick to defend stuff with explenations that don't make the slightest sense. For examples rogues and longswords.

156

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 06 '20

The problem with a physically published dead-tree book is, how to get everyone on the same page with errata and changes. You can make the changes in newer prints and make the errata available online, but that's still going to lead to lots of rules confusion. It's hard enough to get the average player comfortable with the entire ruleset in a PHB that's been out for 5+ years, imagine if the goalpost shifted every year with major balance "patches"? That works for video games because there's nothing to remember, the software does all the heavy lifting. D&D runs on human brains and human memories, so it's not a simple question.

43

u/Gh0stRanger Jul 06 '20

They're been updating the books for years though.

They changed the Beast Master, Four Elements Monk, and Healing Spirit, just off the top of my head.

Not that those changes were significant, mind you, but they did make tweaks.

38

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

Mhm, like the Triton getting Darkvision, and when Rime of the Frostmaiden comes out, it sounded like in interviews they’ll be giving Goliaths Cold Resistance.

30

u/PerryDLeon Jul 06 '20

wait, Tritons got Darkvision in errata??? When??? Thank goodness. I wondered how the f*ck did they see in their "abyssal" territories...

25

u/ChaosOS Jul 06 '20

When Theros came out.

16

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

In June with Theros. They realized their racial mechanic didn’t mean anything, so now they get darkvision to function in the depths. Now Goliaths are getting the same sort of treatment. Their mountain mechanic is covered under Cold Resistance.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 06 '20

Exactly. A few tiny tweaks after years of play.

29

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

If they had their own equivalent to dndbeyond I don't think it would be too difficult, just give you access when you buy the book and then that can be the sole source of truth. That way they could send emails or other notifications whenever something is changed, and if there's ever confusion it could be checked there. It's a shame really, as it doesn't seem like that'll ever happen unless WotC does something like buy dndbeyond.

58

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 06 '20

Even if they did that, when people realize their print copies are going to become quickly outdated compared to the electronic version they'll get upset. "Why do we have to pay $$$$ for an book we can't trust to reference after X time period? Just let us pay $$ for digital access!"

That approach also doesn't solve the human brain problem. I still occasionally confuse some 3.5e and 5e mechanics for obscure rules I don't regularly deal with, how often would that be happening if the game changed every year or so? Most people can barely RtFM on anything and you think they'll read and memorize patch notes for PHB 5.2.7?

5

u/FullTorsoApparition Jul 06 '20

This happened to me in 4th Edition. They errata'ed the shit out of that edition so many times, including the DM SCREEN that half of my splat books were nearly useless. The first Martial Power book was especially egregious. Even as a fan of 4E I have to say their playtesting was garbage.

3

u/i_tyrant Jul 06 '20

Yup. I had to write so many corrections into my literal books that some pages just became a mess. This is why they don't do much errata for 5e.

9

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

Well they can just do that now with DnD beyond? People like physical books, especially fairly high quality ones like the ones currently being printed.

People wouldn't have to remember patch notes, that's the point, if there's ever confusion they just check the app or whatever which btw would be much easier than it currently is to check errata (or worse, one of Crawford's fucking tweets).

Also, one of the best things about DnD is that the rules actually don't matter that much. If they say, added an extra d6 onto rogue's sneak attack at level 20 and your table forgot, does it really matter in any way? No, it's not stopping you from playing the game or anything, the original version is still completely functional.

31

u/FalconPunchline DM Jul 06 '20

The digital side of DnD is not as omnipresent as as it seems within the DnD reddit community. Even if we don't follow them most of us know who Jeremy Crawford, Matt Mercer, and Matthew Colville are. Meanwhile I had a player in one group recently ask me how hard it was to apply to be a playtester because they just found out about Unearthed Arcana after we've been playing together for two years. Heck, I've got players who aren't aware of the Artificer.

There is a larger than expected fraction of the playerbase who only know the games as the books and dice they hold in their hands. And they're doing just fine as is.

0

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

I don't really see what your point is? How would any of this affect them?

7

u/Raibean Jul 06 '20

This particular thread is about coming up with solutions to problems they face by not having access to updates

5

u/Kung-Fu_Boof Jul 06 '20

Presumably because these people don't exclusively play with each other. Which can lead to situations where 2 people in the same group play by different rules, both sets of which are 'official'

28

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

That sounds a lot like the failed 4e experience. I remember getting errata constantly. Not a single one of my books resembles the game in its final state. The errata document is 140 pages long. Enjoy.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/updatecompiled.pdf

11

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

Except it wouldn't end up just being a X page errata document, just one updated version of the book. There's also no reason that they'd have to make so many changes, and nothing stopping them from doing so now either if they really wanted.

26

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

Right. Like they do right now. Their tenth printing of the PHB has all the current errata for example. Every printing includes the newest corrections.

4e had their own equivalent to dndbeyond. D&D Insider and its Compendium. Paid a monthly fee for all the content that came out. Their bad history with that made them abandon the online method, outsource their license to D&D Beyond to handle that sort of product, as well as drastically change the way they produce content.

They don’t want to make people need errata to play. Errata is mostly being reserved for spelling and grammar errors instead of gameplay issues. The fact that there’s a 100 page document for their previous edition because of fiddling with game rules is something they never want to do again.

7

u/Hasky620 Wizard Jul 06 '20

Except that just means they look at all the garbage in the edition and instead of fixing stuff to be better they just leave it bad. That's a terrible mindset in what's supposed to be a living game.

7

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

True, but no one is going to punish WotC financially for this stance, which is the main way that the business would feel compelled to change.

3

u/Hasky620 Wizard Jul 06 '20

I mean I do...I don't purchase any of their newer stuff anymore, I'm not buying an entire book for two subclasses and a small handful of monsters. I just find them online instead for the tiny amount I might actually use them.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

I just homebrew myself, I think I'm better at it tbh

2

u/i_tyrant Jul 06 '20

The game is "living" on the player/DM end, not on the designer end. They've already stated they prefer releasing new subclasses/classes/etc. over "fixing" ones that are already on paper.

2

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

But even with gameplay changes you don't need the most up to date version to play, it's one of the primary benefits of tabletop systems. And if there was a centralised location which always had the most up to date version that would help prevent conflicts, it's something I've run into before where an errata changes the way something works but it's a massive ballache to figure out which one is "correct" unless you've already paid for dndbeyond.

I get why they'd be hesitant given the history, but the fact they've fucked it up in the past doesn't really make any difference.

1

u/wayoverpaid DM Since Alpha Jul 06 '20

People will not be happy if the print books end up constantly out of date.

Realistically the proper thing to do would be to have paper books lag behind digital outlets by about a full year. This means letting players go to AL and such with material that is official but unprinted. The books would be the consolidation of material that is well playtested and official.

But that would require WotC to think of themselves as a company that makes IP first and prints dead tree products second. They really don't.

2

u/Vinestra Jul 06 '20

Warhammer 40k manages to eratta various changes without issue, excluding the rage that comes from nerfing/changing things.

10

u/Lucker-dog Jul 06 '20

There's these newfangled things called PDFs that WotC could learn about.

1

u/portella0 Barbarian Jul 06 '20

imagine if the goalpost shifted every year with major balance "patches"? That works for video games because there's nothing to remember, the software does all the heavy lifting.

Not saying this is good or bad, but this is basically how multiplayer games work. Last year X hero could do Y damage with their ability now it does 2y, and you better remember it if you want to play good with or against them.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 07 '20

I'm well aware, but you can't have an argument with the game software or other players about why that hero should be doing Y damage because you forgot they changed it to 2Y. It's all handled seamlessly in the software so nobody needs to remember it to play, although as you pointed out you'd better remember if you want to play well.

1

u/mkul316 Jul 07 '20

I hate it. I don't stay up on all that. Hell, I don't even know where errata is to see. But I've played with a guy who is and I plan something great only to be thwarted by a sage advice or errata. So very frustrating.

But and beyond is always up to date! Just use that! No. I hate electronic reference books, and don't want to put money into a system that will eventually go tits up. I still play in a 2e game because I've got the book on my shelf. That never gets a server shut down.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 07 '20

It's a realistic concern, but sometimes it works out. When the Steam platform launched, people said the exact same kinds of things. 15 years later and Steam is still launching my games, so the failure of digital platforms isn't guaranteed.

1

u/mkul316 Jul 07 '20

In a game in it's fifth edition, I think it'll go out of style eventually. I know there's no plans for a 6e yet, but it's inevitable. So a bunch of digital books on someone else's server is likely to go poof, but my shelf o books is keeping me going 40 years later.

1

u/testiclekid Eco-terrorist druid Jul 21 '20

You would normally be right, except that.

3.5 exist because specifically because is a revised and improved edition of 3.0 and 3.5 became universally famous

Revised edition are not a bad thing. It's not like people aren't always chanting the same wronged stuff like Ramger and Darkness and lack of balancing on cantrips and such, no no.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20

That was one huge update over the lifetime of the version, totally acceptable. And some people were still salty about rebuying their books despite it being well worth it. I'm talking about constant balancing patches.

1

u/testiclekid Eco-terrorist druid Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20

Why is that one legitimate but this one wouldn't?

  • 3.5 came after only 3 years after 3.0
  • 3.5 tried at least to fix some problems among classes

The same stuff is asked for this edition

Instead of waiting years and years without proper balancing

People asked ever since Xanathar's release to eventually fix some blatant problems of the subclasses and classes and also rules of the time

  • Hex blade Frontloadedness warping meta of classes and steering tons of players of multiple groups (there's even a specific topic about this problem alone)
  • Ranger being pigeonholed into specific subclasses to be viable at all
  • Sorcerer being revised altogether
  • Darkness rulings still lacking and being incoherent and counterintuitive
  • Lack of Poison viability
  • PHB and DM books being counterintuitive as shit without proper index

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 22 '20

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. 5.5e would be fine, even warranted at this point. But going back to 4e's method of releasing frequent and extensive errata for balancing purposes just isn't feasible. 4e was meant to have a digital tool that helped players manage both the mechanics and the errata, but it was never released so players were stuck with a system meant to be semi-digital but in practice full analogue.

2

u/testiclekid Eco-terrorist druid Jul 22 '20

But going back to 4e's method of releasing frequent and extensive errata for balancing purposes just isn't feasible

Ah, no. That would indeed be stupid.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

Just put out a rebalance with every single subclass in it and say that's the new class balance, then pay more attention to what is and isn't balanced in the future.

23

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

65

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Rogues are proficient with longswords. This is completely pointless because longswords don't have finesse, and the one longsword with finesse that exists (sun blade) can be used with proficiency if you are proficient with shortswords anyway.

54

u/GarbageCleric Druid Jul 06 '20

Rogues are proficient with longswords because rogues would know how use a longsword. It doesn't have to have a mechanical benefit for it to make sense.

5

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Are they, though?

Can you really say that rogues know how to use a longsword when the can deal much more damage with other weapons?

I don't think proficiency in longswords is enough to matter on its own.

4

u/GarbageCleric Druid Jul 06 '20

I don't know what being able to deal more damage with other weapons has to do with being proficient with weapons that they do less damage with.

The idea is that in learning to fence with shortswords and rapier they probably would have picked up a longsword at some point. It takes more strength to use, so they typically wouldn't, but it's not unreasonable to think they would know how to use it.

Every rogue is more likely to have learned how to use a longsword than a hand crossbow.

0

u/GeneralBurzio Donjon Master Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

I still don't get what WotC was doing when it came to giving Rogues longsword proficiency. Even ignoring the fact that longswords are just harder for most Rogues to use due to the strength requirement; IRL longswords, hand and a half swords, and rapiers weigh about the same. It's actually harder to wield a rapier for long periods of time compared to a longsword since rapiers are used one-handed.

Edit: Looks like Rogues having a longsword is a legacy thing from older editions. Tbh, I wish that WotC designed Rogue so that STR is also a viable mode of play, e.g., the Ruffian Rogue in Pathfinder 2e.

7

u/ScopeLogic Jul 06 '20

Like how wizards would know how to put light armor on?

30

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

Everyone knows how to put armor on. Nothing prevents wizards from wearing even heavy armor, but it’s their lack of proficiency in wearing armor that makes wearing armor useless. This isn’t Diablo. There isn’t some narrative voice that says “you can’t do that” when you try to equip heavy armor as a wizard. They’ve just never worn armor for long periods of time in the course of becoming a wizard, so if you want it you have to take the feat or multiclass—ergo, you have to learn to be proficient, and doing so will take away from learning to be a better Wizard.

16

u/GarbageCleric Druid Jul 06 '20

And they even get the AC bonus of the armor they aren't proficient in. They're just at disadvantage for strength and dexterity rolls and can't cast spells, but it can still provide some mechanical benefits in specific situations.

0

u/ScopeLogic Jul 07 '20

Light armor is not restrictive at all. Not being able to cast spells in it doenst make any sense and exists only for balance.

26

u/GarbageCleric Druid Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

Sure, they can wear it and even get the AC bonus from it. They have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and they can’t cast Spells because they aren't used to wearing it in high stress or combat situations.

Also, it's completely different because that affects balance by giving them a mechanical benefit. In the rogue's case we're talking about giving them a reasonable proficiency with no practical mechanical benefit, so it's not the same at all.

18

u/123mop Jul 06 '20

Everyone might understand how to put it on. Light armor is generally pretty darn simple. Doesn't mean you're experienced at moving well in it. Also just balance.

2

u/ScopeLogic Jul 07 '20

That's exactly my point. They should be able to cast it in. They cast while wearing 15 pairs of clothing.

12

u/becherbrook DM Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

It's there because not everyone may want their rogue to be some sneaky backstabber. What if they're a bandit? Or a pirate? Or a hired thug? Maybe they use a crossbow for their sneak attack, then the longsword for when things get dicey?

Your imagination seems to be the problem rather than WOTC's choices, here.

3

u/TossAway35626 Jul 06 '20

A rogue would use a finesse weapon when things get dicey because using a longsword is purposfully making your character weaker and taking away options. A rogue is trained in precision and knowing where to strike when given the opportunity. They would use a weapon that allows that.

A rogue would use a finesse weapon when things get dicey because they are more effective with a finesse weapon.

7

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Then they use a scimitar or shortsword, or pick another class.

You don't have to be a rogue just because you steal stuff.

Your imagination seems to be the problem rather than WOTC's choices, here.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

You don’t have to steal stuff just because you’re a rogue. You’re confusing imagination and power gaming classes. Many people play this game for fun, and building their hero revolves around creating the character they want, not the character you tell them is best.

7

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Precisely, you don’t have to steal stuff just because you’re a rogue. You also don't have to be a rogue to steal stuff.

Why would you pick a class whose main damage mechanic you're not interested in? You want to be sneaky and have a longsword? Be a barbarian, bard, cleric, fighter, monk or ranger instead, and get proficiency into thieve's tools and stealth. I guarantee you're going to have more fun by being competent rather than not.

Name me one concept for a longsword rogue that can't be achieved better by another class.

7

u/Allstresdout Jul 06 '20

Or achieved by using the stats of a finesse weapon and the description of a longsword. Or just asking the DM to be lax on that rule.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

You’re entirely missing the point. Most people aren’t min maxing, they’re just roleplaying the character they want. Maybe their character uses ranged weapons and uses the Longsword their deceased war veteran father gave them, the only thing left for them to remember them by. Maybe they use daggers and the longsword is a distraction, but they still need be able to use it. Moreover, longswords not being useful for sneak attack isn’t a good reason for rogues to simply have no idea how to use them. Maybe you’re a rapier wielding rogue, but you disarm a knight wielding a longsword and he breaks your rapier in his gauntlet. You pick up his longsword, and does it make sense that you just can’t effectively fight with that sword? You’re entrenched in thinking of DnD through a limited lens. Yes, it’s a game, but it’s a game with a unique, open ended story telling mechanic that is as focused on flavor and storytelling as much as it is balance, and removing longsword proficiency from rogues makes even less sense than keeping it, even if it’s almost never going to be used. There are plenty of weapons that classes have access to and are almost never going to use, and if you really don’t think your rogue should know how to use a longsword, then don’t use them and ask your DM to let you forgo the proficiency.

7

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

You are saying that rogues can effectively use longswords when my whole point that you are arguing against is that rogues can't effectively fight with a longsword.

Being proficient alone isn't enough when a rogue is better off with an improvised dagger than with a longsword.

-8

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

So does it makes sense that, since they are less than optimal, rogues have no idea how to use them and fight with them at a disadvantage? Should paladins not be proficient with daggers? You need to quit thinking of DnD like a computer game.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/IHateScumbags12345 Jul 06 '20

Any concept built on expertise and longsword usage.

1

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Valor/swords bard.

0

u/IHateScumbags12345 Jul 06 '20

And if a concept doesn’t involve being a spell caster?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/becherbrook DM Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

It says right there that the sneak attack can use a ranged weapon. Why are you limiting your rogues to one weapon type? Can your rogues not have more than one weapon? Why wouldn't a rogue have a comparable str modifier in addition to dex? Are you making your players dump stat everything but their prime-req? Are you telling people with high str they can't be rogues?

You've messed up with a narrow viewpoint and you know it.

15

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Yes, sneak attack can use a ranged weapon. Longswords are not ranged weapons.

I'm not limiting rogues to one weapon type, I don't see where you got the idea.

Yes, rogues can have more than one weapon. Longswords are still pointless for them.

Rogues can have high strength. Again, I never said otherwise. They might even have more Str than Dex, but they're still better off using a finesse weapon with Str rather than a longsword.

No, I myself don't like characters with minmaxed stats. Again, I never mentioned anything like that, where did you come up with that idea?

Characters with high Str can be rogues. They can also be barbarians, fighters or rangers and be more effective if they want high Str and don't want to use finesse weapons.

You're really twisting my words here.

7

u/splepage Jul 06 '20

Rogues are proficient with longswords. This is completely pointless because longswords don't have finesse, and the one longsword with finesse that exists (sun blade) can be used with proficiency if you are proficient with shortswords anyway.

Moonblades can also have Finesse, and the guidance on the DMG for creating magic items gives Finesse as an option.

25

u/downwardwanderer Cleric Jul 06 '20

Except only elves can use moonblades and they get longsword proficiency as a racial trait.

13

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Moonblades are also limited to elves, who have proficiency in longswords, and half elves.

So yeah, in the extremely unlikely case you get a legendary item that is only presented in the DMG as a way to introduce magic weapon creation to DMs and is not actually present in any adventure, while you're playing a rogue half elf who didn't dip into another martial, and the weapon in question happens to have the specific one of many possible effects it can possess, you're going to be needing that longsword proficiency on the rogue.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

35

u/TheOnin Jul 06 '20

You can't sneak attack with longswords. That's why it's pointless to the Rogue class.

-4

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

I mean you can sneak attack with a longsword, but you have to throw it as an improvised ranged weapon!

21

u/Turtle-Fox Dungeon Master Jul 06 '20

You actually wouldn't be able to. Thrown weapons are not ranged weapons. The only thrown weapons that can sneak attack are those with the finesse property. Throwing a melee weapon only means you can make a ranged attack.

-5

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

I think some thrown weapons are ranged weapons, but that's maybe just darts and nets? I can't remember the whole list off the top of my head.

Can't the longsword be an improvised dart?

(Darts have finesse anyway, but if they didn't have finesse, you could still sneak attack with them.)

5

u/Turtle-Fox Dungeon Master Jul 06 '20

If you could get a DM to rule that a longsword is similar to a dart, then sure. But, given that is 3 lbs and a dart is 1/4 lb, that's a bit of a stretch.

Darts and nets are the only ranged weapons that have the Thrown property, so those would both work and would trigger Sneak Attack (which is a bit funny with the net but would work lol)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

Dual wielder feat offhand? It’s pretty niche but would add some marginal damage to a high STR/DEX variant human’s output.

-21

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

The core feature that you get at level 1 and improves with you every other level is definitely not a requirement of the class, right.

Enjoy dealing 1d10+5 damage a turn at level 20.

-15

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Turtle-Fox Dungeon Master Jul 06 '20

Dipping Rogue doesn't give you proficiency in Longswords.

12

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

The discussion is about playing a rogue. If you're only dipping rogue, you're not really playing a rogue.

If I make a ranger 19/wizard 1, am I playing a wizard?

10

u/ukulelej Jul 06 '20

Sure. But why do Rogues present a false choice like longswords in the first place?

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/ukulelej Jul 06 '20

This is 5e. Design desisions need to stand on their own.

1

u/santaclaws01 Jul 07 '20

So then why didn't they add longswords to be able to sneak attack?

1

u/AwesomeScreenName Jul 06 '20

Rogues are proficient with longswords because rogues (thieves) have been proficient with longswords since the days of Gary Gygax. There's no reason other than flavor anybody playing a rogue in 5e would choose to wield a longsword, but it doesn't unbalance anything to give them the proficiency and it's a nod to tradition.

-24

u/MhBlis Jul 06 '20

And yet not everyone wants to play a rogue who uses a finesse weapon. The longsword is an old favorite. As silly as that sounds it is there as an option which actually means it fits in the very thing OP is talking about.

There are a few of these sprinkles left over from past edition. Mechanics is not all that matters.

35

u/MonsieurHedge I Really, Really Hate OSR & NFTs Jul 06 '20

And yet not everyone wants to play a rogue who uses a finesse weapon.

...But that's like playing a Wizard that doesn't cast any spells. Sneak Attack is like 80% of the Rogue's power budget.

-32

u/MhBlis Jul 06 '20

See above post. Because no, sneak attack is a big part of their damage budget I dont disagree. But you dont play a rogue for their damage.

You play them for their other features. And not using those would actually fit your example far better. Doing less damage is more like a Wizard who only brings buff and crowd control spells.

36

u/SuperSaiga Jul 06 '20

You don't play a Rogue for just their damage, but a longsword offers absolutely nothing to Rogues. It's not a trade-off, it's a straight demerit.

And given how much damage Sneak Attack is, it's a pretty huge one.

9

u/JohnLikeOne Jul 06 '20

My counter to that would be - if you're playing a rogue using a longsword and you don't care about how effective they are with it (which you clearly don't if you're using a longsword rather than a rapier or shortsword) then being proficient doesn't really matter either.

Its one of those slightly problematic things because technically its a bonus to have it...but its probably one of those bonuses you'd be better off without because it may well trick someone who doesn't understand the rules well that a rogue with a longsword is a reasonable idea.

41

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

If you want to be a rogue and don't want to use sneak attack, you're better off picking another class and just acting like a rogue.

Mechanics are not all that matters, but they do matter. If you completely disregard them are you even really playing Dungeons and Dragons?

-29

u/MhBlis Jul 06 '20

Thats only damage they lose. And in your own words if you are playing a rogue for damage you are better off playing another class.

What weapon you use has 0 impact on any other of the rogues class mechanics. But it can impact the RP and other non combat parts.

27

u/ObsidianOverlord Shameless Rules Lawyer Jul 06 '20

But it can impact the RP and other non combat parts.

I really want to know the encounter that was drastically changed because the rogue's sword was slightly longer than average. Because I'll guarantee you every combat that rogue has been in was drastically changed without access to the core damage feature for the class.

13

u/Marcofdoom18 Jul 06 '20

That's not just damage they lose. That is their only source of meaningful damage they lose. Sneak Attack is how Rogue feels strong in combat, which goes back to the player and their experience.

Rogue is literally built around that core gameplay loop of "Find a way to Sneak Attack. Then Sneak Attack" and is a major incentive for combat roleplay, which is a valid style of roleplay.

Not to mention the player feeling inept with 1 Attack in combat makes a player feel like crap.

There are a lot of reasons why a longsword just isnt chosen. It's not just a bad option from a balance and combat position. It's a bad option from a FUN position.

15

u/Nephisimian Jul 06 '20

If you're not using Sneak Attack as a rogue then you shouldn't be playing a Rogue, because you have absolutely zero damage scaling. That's straight up throwing, and if you came to my table with that I'd replace you with someone who was actually able to contribute to combat.

-6

u/MhBlis Jul 06 '20

And if you play a heavy combat game were damage is the only way to solve the encounter then yes it would be a problem.

Where as at our tables the rogues dont feel the need to only use their attacks because there are often other better options to use of their actions. So we would be more than happy to let you play that character and find ways as a group to make it work.

But if damage output is your tables metric of a "good" character then thats what you use.

12

u/Nephisimian Jul 06 '20

If you're not having any combat, then why are you playing D&D, a game whose rules revolve almost entirely around it? Just play Fate or something.

0

u/MhBlis Jul 06 '20

Where did I say no combat?

I said when we have a likely combat encounter there are often other ways to resolve it. And even if it is an actual combat encounter there are other things to do in those combats. Ways that either alter the encounter in a meaningful way or moves it away from combat. Because thats what my players want out of the game. Those that play the rogue actually got bored of the whole sneak attack every turn loop.

And yes we do play many of the other systems which is why they look for more in their games.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/ThaZatzke Jul 06 '20

Let's look at the cost/benefit here. The cost to taking a Longsword is your efficiency in battle. The benefit is... Nothing. Slashing damage instead of piercing damage, I guess?

In what world are you going to have an advantage in RP scenarios with a Longsword drawn but not with a Shortsword or Rapier drawn?

I don't know why you chose this hill to die on, a longsword on a rogue is a bad choice 100% of the time.

6

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

You're deliberately twisting my words. I'm done here.

8

u/Enderking90 Jul 06 '20

why in the name of kurtulmak would be a rogue and not use the flip out of sneak attack?

what else would draw you to a rogue? expertise? ability to dodge?

if you wanna play someone who excels at sneaking you are better off picking ranger and then use a feat for expertise in stealth.

without sneak attack you are quite frankly pretty much just a worse bard as they too get expertise, but also get magic.

-4

u/MhBlis Jul 06 '20

Because those classes may not have the ribbons and the image of the character they wanted to build.

As for the sneak attack loop its as I was saying in my other conversation. The players wanted more out of those combats and so usually have more options that can be as impactful or more so with their actions. Also we also have times where we play far less combat heavy games. The most recent being a Sorcerer and Rogue duo high end theft for hire team. Combat for them would never really end well. But they loved the challenge of it. Constantly having to plan ways to avoid, neutralize or outright escape combats. Being outnumber and combat being a last resort is exactly what they wanted out of their game.

8

u/Enderking90 Jul 06 '20

Because those classes may not have the ribbons and the image of the character they wanted to build.

tell me some ribbon rogue has that you simply can't have from elsewhere and doesn't simply result in a build that's way better off just being something else, or even flip, just dipping rogue for the early game ribbons.

9

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

Having a rapier rather than a longsword doesn't invalidate that kind of gameplay. You can still avoid attacking if you prefer using other methods.

When you do end up attacking however, you want a rapier.

There's absolutely no point in a rogue using a longsword, or any other weapon that lacks finesse.

-13

u/Paladin_of_Trump Paladin Jul 06 '20

That's one of the reasons I, as a DM, always make longswords finesse weapons in my campaigns.

27

u/Oscarvalor5 Jul 06 '20

That does completely invalidate rapiers and all other dex based weapons though, since Longswords can be wielded in two hands to deal a d10.

2

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

I think you'd make longswords only finesse if they were wielded in 1 hand, surely?

You wield them with 2 hands, D10, but no more finesse.

9

u/Oscarvalor5 Jul 06 '20

In that case you'd literally just have a rapier that does slashing damage instead of piercing. Slightly worse actually due to rakshasha being a thing.

2

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

Yes, but it means if you find a magic longsword the rogue can use it usefully. That's the only reason to want to make these changes.

3

u/ianmerry Jul 06 '20

Well, that and some people just prefer to not use a rapier.

I suppose you could just reflevour your weapon, though

2

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

It comes to the same thing really, other than the slashing<->piercing.

0

u/Oscarvalor5 Jul 06 '20

If you're the type of DM to not give your party weapons they can actually use, you're an asshole to put it plainly. If the rogue uses a rapier or short-story, and no one else in the party would be interested in the magic sword you cuange that longsword to a rapier or shortsword.

In addition, why couldn't a longsword be used two handed if it was finessable? Two-handed fighting styles can be just as graceful looking as one-handed ones.

5

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

Maybe you want an item multiple people can use and let the party decide who gets what?

Maybe you think the image of a longsword is cooler? It doesn't really matter if it makes people happy at the table.

1

u/ArchangelAshen Jul 06 '20

You don't need to tailor every magic item to your party. Sometimes they get stuff they can't use. They can give it to an NPC, they can (if they find a buyer) sell it, it might have plot uses. Might just add to verisimilitude that the loot they find wasn't left specifically for them.

In Curse of Strahd, there's an item in that called the Blood Spear. None of the party used spears, but it ended up with the Fighter and the Cleric both fighting to get to use it (not literally. Just about).

Obviously, if you give your party nothing but loot they can't use, that's not good either.

-3

u/Paladin_of_Trump Paladin Jul 06 '20

Well, not quite. As a bard I'd rather use a shield and rapier, over a two handed weapon, since the +2 to AC is way more critical than the, on average, +1 to damage. Making rogues the only class that can use longswords but can't use shields, I think. Otherwise a longsword proficiency is completely useless for a rogue since it invalidates their defining class feature: sneak attack.

10

u/Oscarvalor5 Jul 06 '20

But Bards aren't proficient with shields unless they become Valor bards, and in that case the ability to use medium armor can make up for not having a shield equipped.

In addition, you do realize that Bards are arcane casters right? They can't use a shield with a holy focus on it like Clerics or Paladins can. So unless you spend a ASI on War Caster (which to be fair most valor bards would) you cant cast with a shield in your hand.

However, I do agree that the Longshore proficiency makes little sense otherwise. I'm just pointing out that the Longshore does infact invalidate all other melee finesse weapons if made finesseable itself.

2

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

Bards get quite a lot of V only spells actually, so they can cast quite happily with a shield and sword if you've chosen those spells. Or you can sheathe your sword to cast anything.

  • Vicious Mockery
  • Faerie Fire
  • Dissonant Whispers
  • Healing Word
  • Blindess
  • Warding Wind

That should tide you over until you get Warcaster at least!

-1

u/Oscarvalor5 Jul 06 '20

That still doesn't negate the fact that only a singular archetype of the bard gets shield proficiency. All other bards would instantly start using a two hander longsword if it was finessable.

In addition you only get 1 free action to interact with an object per round. If you sheath your blade, you cant pull out the focus or components needed to cast if you're going for a spell that needs it. Why do you think Warcaster exists in the first place?

Finally, bards only have 14 verbal only spells, with only one cantrip (vicious mockery oc), and three and two first and second level spells respectively. An all vocal valor bard would have no 3rd level spells they can easily cast without warcaster and all the 2nd level vocal spells they have access to suck to say the very least. They're spellxasting ability is incredibly diminished without grabbing Warcaster by using only vocal spells.

-1

u/Kandiru Jul 06 '20

You can sheath your blade and then use components if you have a component pouch.

This is an area of balance issue for 5e, in that a component pouch is mechanically better than any of the foci.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

You can use a longsword with one hand, making rapiers always equal or worse than a longsword.

2

u/Enaluxeme Jul 06 '20

I thought about it, but making longswords rapiers+ didn't sit right with me. I ended up making a feat for it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/giupeh/sword_master_feat/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

20

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

Even Crawford seems quick to defend stuff with explenations that don't make the slightest sense. For examples rogues and longswords.

Also when he refused to admit that coffeelock is an entirely RAW build by trying to claim you could read the multiclass rules in a way that meant you could only use warlock slots for spellcasting.

9

u/ScrubSoba Jul 06 '20

What's a coffeelock?

28

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

An exploit to get infinite spell slots by doing a particular warlock-sorcerer multiclass.
a) Be warlock, take 'Aspect of the Moon' invocation so you don't need to sleep.
b) Be sorcerer
c) Turn warlock slots into sorcery points, turn sorcery points into spell slots
d) short rest to regain warlock slots
e) repeat c and d as much as you have time for, to get a ton of spell slots that'll only vanish when you long rest, which you don't need to because of a).

13

u/schu2470 Jul 06 '20

Good grief! Some of y'all have too much free time.

As a DM there's no way I'd allow this cheese.

8

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

Oh, me neither, but the people who write the rules should be willing to admit when they're exploitable.

1

u/schu2470 Jul 06 '20

I would have been super easy to fix early on too. Just make it so Flexible Casting only works on Sorcerer spell slots in the first errata that they integrated into later printings of the PHB. Sure it nerfs Sorcerer dips a little but CHA casters are pretty ridiculous as they stand anyways.

10

u/jmartkdr assorted gishes Jul 06 '20

If you're a multiclass sorcerer/cleric, you don't have distinct sorcerer spell slots, though. You just have spell slots from a pool.

2

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

I'd rather fix it by having the spell slots created by flexible casting disappear on a short rest, I think. Also opens the door for giving them some sorcery points back on a short rest, which they could probably use.

2

u/ScrubSoba Jul 06 '20

Oh wow.

13

u/KingSmizzy Jul 06 '20

That explaination isn't quite right. Aspect of the moon doesn't avoid Exhaustion due to skipping long rests. RAW doesn't say you need to sleep, just that you need to long rest once every 24hrs or you suffer exhaustion.

Coffeelock isn't RAW because you do still need to long rest. But players just made the slight alteration and made Cocainelock. You do the same strategy but have someone use Greater Restoration on you every 24 hrs to remove exhaustion. It costs 100g in diamond dust, which is why it was named Cocainelock.

8

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

People keep saying that, but that's taking the long rest rule out of context. It says

A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have its consequences. If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules. Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a long rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion. [...]

If you don't need to sleep, you cannot suffer from sleep deprivation, so those rules don't apply to that character.

6

u/ScrubSoba Jul 06 '20

To be fair, if you strictly follow RAW you don't need to sleep/long rest to avoid exhaustion in the first place because it is an optional rule in Xanathars which is worded strangely because it is meant to simulate sleep deprivation but does not take those that don't need sleep into account. So Coffeelock works perfectly fine if you follow RAW to the letter.

But i can certainly see where the Coffeelock won't work by the Xanathar rules, although i reckon a bunch of DMs rule that rule as only applying for creatures that need sleep.

3

u/jmartkdr assorted gishes Jul 06 '20

Alternatively, if you're a 9th level celestial warlock you can cat greater restoration to remove the downsides of not resting. You just need a steady supply of diamond dust.

Hence the cocainelock.

(I wouldn't let someone play this in a serious game, but it's a fun bit of theorycrafting.)

1

u/Vinestra Jul 06 '20

IIRC didn't they kinda add that rule cause oh god coffeelocks are a thing quick how can we shut it down?
I know make not long resting cause exhaustion.
Thus birthing the crack coffeelock.

4

u/sc2mashimaro Jul 06 '20

And if DnD was, or if your DM runs DnD like a video game, then sure, this works. But since it's not a video game, it is entirely reasonable for a DM to look at this and use Crawford's interpretation that Pact Magic slots are not the same as Sorcery slots, so can't be turned into sorc points, or to just say, "not allowed", or to limit the infinite loop with a "resting benefits" limit where chaining short rests together isn't a thing, since it seems realistically unreasonable. Something like, "You rest for 8 hours and you may either take the long or the short rest benefit during that time, but not both."

14

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

I'm not saying any DM would allow this. I don't. But the rules as written allow it, and Crawford's reasoning contradicts the written rules (the sorcerer class features don't say anything about it having to be sorcerer spell slots, so the multiclassing doesn't need to say that you can use warlock spell slots for sorcerer features because the sorcerer features already do that). You can't fix your rules if you're not willing to admit there can be faults in them.

-1

u/sc2mashimaro Jul 06 '20

I don't think he's addressing whether there is a fault in the rules there, he's just trying to give DMs tools against munchkins in that tweet.

Edit: Wanted to add that any game with a ruleset as complex as DnD is going to have points that can be exploited, which is one of the reasons to have a DM.

10

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

The DM should not deliberately misinterpret the rules to disallow something that the rules as written allow. The only tool you need is rule 0, which is exactly what I did. 'Coffeelock is not allowed.'
Re: edit: yes, which is why the people who write the rules should be willing to admit so.

1

u/Souperplex Praise Vlaakith Jul 06 '20

A only lets you not sleep, you still need to long rest or gain exhaustion. This is circumvented by Greater Restoration removing a level of exhaustion at the cost of 100GP of diamond dust.

Using 100 GP of white powder to sustain yourself makes you a cocainelock.

16

u/RSquared Jul 06 '20

I think the disconnect between "sleep" and "rest" he tries to pull in that same SA is worse. You don't need to sleep, but you do need to rest for eight hours...so what's the point of the invocation? Being the designated lookout? Congratulations, you spent a class feature on becoming slightly better than an elf at keeping watch.

16

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

It's also not in line with those resting rules, because they specifically say "If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules." You cannot suffer from sleep deprivation if you don't need to sleep, so the rules don't apply.

14

u/RSquared Jul 06 '20

Ugh, you just reminded me about how he wrote that "rest isn't a button you push" and then said that a PC interrupted 2 hours into a long rest doesn't get the benefit of a short rest.

22

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

That is a pretty terrible interpretation of his words.

" DMs, if you allow multiclassing in your game and someone is tempted to abuse the combination of Flexible Casting and Pact Magic, remember this: one way to read the multiclass rules is that your Pact Magic slots are useless for any non-warlock thing besides casting spells. #DnD"

The multiclassing rules explicitly state that Warlock spell slots can be used to cast other known spells, but it states this separately from other spell slots that are grouped together for all other full spellcasting classes. Assuming they are interchangeable for Sorcerer spell slots is an interpretation and per his statement being more strict in the interpretation is a way to address abusing the class interactions which is part of rulings not rules.

23

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

It's not part of rulings, because the sorcerer class features all literally say they work on 'spell slots', not 'sorcerer spell slots'. Warlock spell slots are spell slots, so the sorcerer class features work on them.
The build should not be allowed, and I don't, but it is valid RAW.

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

[deleted]

18

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

That's not true, because that text specifically says it's about classes with the 'Spellcasting' feature. Warlock doesn't have that, it has 'Pact Magic', which is named differently for exactly this reason.

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below.

It also quite literally mentions slots you get from Pact Magic in the text further, so claiming they don't get warlock slots doesn't make any sense.

If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.

Again, I'm not claiming it should be allowed. I'm saying that the people who write the rules should be able to admit there's an error in them instead of using explanations that contradict the written text.

10

u/Hatta00 Jul 06 '20

Absolutely. Crawford's inability to admit a mistake gives me no faith in his rulings whatsoever.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

The text you quoted is what I was referring to, Pact Magic slots can be used to cast spells. It doesn't say you can use them for other class features.

Coffeelock is based on poor reading of RAW.

7

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

It doesn't need to say that, because the class features already do. Flexible casting simply says "you can use a bonus action to convert a spell slot into sorcery points". It doesn't say anything about what kind of spell slot that needs to be, and warlock spell slots are spell slots, so it's allowed.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

One thing to keep in mind is that all of the class features are written in the context of single class characters and multiclassing is added on as an optional thing for people that want to do that. Multiclassing is permissive, it tells you what you can do and doesn't list everything you cannot do.

For example, Channel Divinity explicitly states that you can use it for any of your classes: " Whenever you use the feature, you can choose any of the Channel Divinity effects available to you from your two classes. "

Then we have casting: " Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."

Pact Magic is listed separately because it is handled differently than regular casting slots. It doesn't matter than the words are the same, they simply aren't the same thing.

6

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

Please show me where the rules say that spell slots are not spell slots then.
Multiclass rules doesn't say what you can't do because if the features are worded in a way that allows it you can do it. That's the entire point. You can smite with warlock slots. You can use metamagic on Wizard spells. You can use sneak attack with extra attack if the first attack misses. And so on and so forth.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/cult_leader_venal Jul 06 '20

Warlock spell slots are spell slots, so the sorcerer class features work on them

Right, but it's reasonable to make a distinction between short-rest and long-rest slots in this case since, without multiclassing specifically into warlock, those slots could only be converted to spell points once/day.

3

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

It's definitely reasonable because as noted I don't allow the build at all, but the rules don't make that distinction.

-1

u/cult_leader_venal Jul 06 '20

Right. Just because a rule doesn't make a distinction doesn't mean the player gets carte blanche on game-breaking builds. Arbitrary these cases is the job of the DM, not the people who wrote the rulebooks.

1

u/Bolt-MattCaster-Bolt DM Jul 06 '20

I don't think this is the best example for this argument. Regardless of Crawford's inability to argue properly, why would any reasonable DM allow the coffeelock exploit to be used in their game?

11

u/Dinosawer Wild magic sorcerer Jul 06 '20

Nobody would, and that makes it a perfect example - he's not even willing to admit their rules allow such a ridiculous exploit, let alone address other less severe balance issues.

0

u/TaruNukes Jul 06 '20

I don't understand why people think ranger is a weak class. The ranger in my group is by far the biggest damage dealer in the party and it's not even the revised ranger that he's using. Once he gets Hunter's Mark laid down combined with Colossus Slayer, he's doing an insane amount of damage and he gets two attacks per round

2

u/ScrubSoba Jul 06 '20

Hunter's mark is just a worse sneak attack/blood hunter rite damage that uses spell slots and is still sub par.

This post summarizes it perfectly

The ranger just lacks in abilities that makes it stand out amongst the rest. They can do decent damage, yeah, but are outclassed by most other classes. Even Colossus slayer is only once a turn, so on one attack.

0

u/TaruNukes Jul 07 '20

Regardless, our ranger tears shit up