And Dragonborn having darkvision is going in the wrong direction imo, continuing to make darkvision too common. I wish they would bring back low-light vision and give darkvision only to subterranean races.
While I agree that Dark Vision is too common in the Player's Handbook that doesn't really excuse not giving it to races that should have it. Dragonborn are meant to fill the niche of "player acceptable dragon race". Them not having Dark Vision like dragons and even kobolds doesn't feel right.
Personally if I were to remove Dark Vision from someone it'd be the non-Drow elves. They have no real reason to have it since their people aren't nocturnal and tend to live in well lit, glowy cities filled with magic light. It's purely a carry over from low-light not being a thing anymore.
why would a fighter use a staff = [BG3] because he wants to cast Bless and don't overwise have that spell... yes its in the game
[BG2] because the fighter is also a thief and staff allows backstab [BG1] the +3 staff is one of only 3 weapons that have better than +2 magic and not cursed + you don't have to kill Drizzt
[any game] from a role playing view your Fighter just wants a staff because you feel she should
Luke Skywalker: I don't, I don't believe it. Yoda: That is why you failed.
The ASI change is horrible. So there are no biological differences between a humanoid lizard and a 3 ft. tall skinny human? And why? Becaus Minmaxer refuse to play any race without a bonus to their casses primary attribute? And because some twitter bubble that screams racism when races are actually different from another? Sadly its no surprise, D&D has been going downhill for a while and the next edition just continues the trend.
The ASI change is horrible. So there are no biological differences between a humanoid lizard and a 3 ft. tall skinny human? And why? Becaus Minmaxer refuse to play any race without a bonus to their casses primary attribute? And because some twitter bubble that screams racism when races are actually different from another? Sadly its no surprise, D&D has been going downhill for a while and the next edition just continues the trend.
I remember Level Adjustment in 3e/3.5e; some races were just flat-out better than others.
why would a fighter use a staff = [BG3] because he wants to cast Bless and don't overwise have that spell... yes its in the game
[BG2] because the fighter is also a thief and staff allows backstab [BG1] the +3 staff is one of only 3 weapons that have better than +2 magic and not cursed + you don't have to kill Drizzt
[any game] from a role playing view your Fighter just wants a staff because you feel she should
Sure ...
But if you remember your own original question was:
Originally Posted by Ussnorway
a Wizard with 14 str and a staff hits for the same damage as a Fighter with 14 str and a staff... if that character happens to allow armour then its even less difference so why would anyone take the Fighter right?
So ... im a little lost here. At first you were comparing effectivity of two highly uneffective classes ... and then you stated that it doenst matter that they are effective, since the simply "feel they should do this" ...
I dont say that Fighter "cant" use staff ... I say that if we are talking about reasons to play Fighter (wich WAS your original question) ... then we should not concider highly uneffective ways to play them, since there is better question: Why even do that?
You demand your Fighter to use staves? You demand your Wizard to have 14Str and bashing enemies heads with his staff, rather than learn Shocking Grasp and attacking your meele enemies with possibly much better Int modifier, and advantage if they have metal armor? Sure you can ... nobody is going to stop you ...
Just dont complain they sucks ... they do, and its your doing, not their fault.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
ok i see, my point = [so far in bg3] we only have 4 levels... that means a Fighter doesn't look better than a Wizard in melee because the Wizard with same str\ weapon does the same as Fighter + also gets spells or put another way, this EA gives bias feedback because people don't have all the details
this thread on 1D&D is also bias for the same reason... the knee jerk reaction to it across the internet is 'change is bad' but some of the things in it like backgrounds becoming more important to get abilites\ skills and hints of new race\ class are probably going to be in BG3 by release time, if not already here. if Wizards of the coast want to encorage 'artificer class' or drop the 'dodge feat' to use X instead then the obvious place to introduce changes is here in BG3
i'm not compaining they suck and even if some things do suck you have the option to make a different character and replay or i can just play a character that sucks a bit for the extra challenge
what i am saying is most the things we know about 5e D&D, subhumans, Monks stacking saves, reactions and even what spells etc we should get at levels 5-10 = actually we don't know yet... yes Larian may have dropped some vague post about how this or that is being worked on \ reworked but none of that can be taken to the bank yet and WotC is well known for changing their mind in the dev circles too
Luke Skywalker: I don't, I don't believe it. Yoda: That is why you failed.
There's no Intelligence minimum to cast spells, nor do more intelligent wizards get more spells. So playing a high strength wizard as a warrior becomes viable early on, especially if you only cast non-concentration and damage spells. Burning hands is the only AOE spell in the game right now, I think, and you get a lot more chances to use it if you're on the front line.
You still don't really have the hit die to do it well, but by level 4 you might have something.
There's no Intelligence minimum to cast spells, nor do more intelligent wizards get more spells.
Not true ... The more intelligent your Wizard is, the more spells he can prepare.
But even if that would be true your hit change is calculated as your roll + proficiency bonus + (and this is the important part) your INTELLIGENCE modifier (for Wizard)
With Shocking Grasp you do 1d8 ... just as the staff do ... I know that staff with 14Str gives you +2 to that damage and hit ... Shocking Grasp gives you advantage on hit against targets in metalic armor, strips your oponent of reaction for that round, give double damage if your oponent is wet (funny, this condition can easily bring certain staff), and you would still get all the other benefits (including hit bonus, but not damage bonus) from your class "main stat" (wich isnt named like this without reason )
I mean ... is that really a competition?
Originally Posted by Sozz
So playing a high strength wizard as a warrior becomes viable early on
Not sure about viable ... its certainly possible.
Question is what stat do you sacrifice to get your 14Str? - Dexterity, that gives you better AC, wich is quite useable for squishy Wizards? - Constitution, that gives you better HP, wich is quite useable for squishy Wizards? - Intelligence, that affects basicaly everything that conciders you class? O_o
Originally Posted by Sozz
Burning hands is the only AOE spell in the game right now, I think
True for all damage types except Thunder (but it does more damage) if I remember correctly.
Well actualy its true only for Fire and Lightning ...
Poison (unless i remember incorectly) only gives "poisoned" status, wich gives you disadvantage, but no damage ... Frost only creates difficiult terain with risk to fall prone ... Acid reduces target AC, wich isnt damage ... but in some cases can be OP as fuck.
True for all damage types except Thunder (but it does more damage) if I remember correctly.
Well actualy its true only for Fire and Lightning ...
Poison (unless i remember incorectly) only gives "poisoned" status, wich gives you disadvantage, but no damage ... Frost only creates difficiult terain with risk to fall prone ... Acid reduces target AC, wich isnt damage ... but in some cases can be OP as fuck.
Oh yeah...right, we were not just talking about AOE spells but AOE spells that do damage....my bad xD
I don't think I've ever electrified fog cloud, probably because I'm mostly casting it on my guys, it still requires some setup which I wasn't interested in, a lot of those spells require concentration too, which I was trying to avoid. Someone can double check me but some spells affect more people if upcast.
As for what stats to dump, using heavy armor, Dex isn't as necessary, and Charisma.
Shocking grasp is a good choice, especially against people with metal armor, but I think the difference between using a weapon and using shocking grasp; there isn't going to be a +2 shocking grasp of vampirism in a chest somewhere.
You know Ragnarok, we have a game that let's us put theory into practice, let's just roll two Gish and see how well they turn out
i don't subscribe to the must have max stats to play your class idea, a Wizard with 12 intel can cast all the same spells as a Wizard with 16. a Fighter with 17 str does one more point of damage from hits as the same Fighter with 14 str and the Fighter with 14 str will also have at least 4 more points in some other stat like intel, dex or con which helps them in other ways... attack from high ground, turn invisable or just talk your way out of the fight are all worth as much as that single extra point of damage imo
just to be clear, play the game in any way you want so if having the max stats possible is your thing then go for it but its not the only option
Luke Skywalker: I don't, I don't believe it. Yoda: That is why you failed.
It's worth noting that within 5e's bounded accuracy, the value of one point of Save DC is substantially higher than the value of one to attack bonus. It's relatively easy for martials to pump their attack bonus high enough that they never really need to worry about hitting successfully, while the means for boosting your save DC as a caster are very limited. Adding one to your save DC (for example by pushing to 18 Int, rather than staying at 16 and allocating elsewhere) is incredibly valuable, comparative to other things you might get for those same points, and in *most* cases is going to be the most appealing course of action, for primary casters.
i don't subscribe to the must have max stats to play your class idea, a Wizard with 12 intel can cast all the same spells as a Wizard with 16. a Fighter with 17 str does one more point of damage from hits as the same Fighter with 14 str and the Fighter with 14 str will also have at least 4 more points in some other stat like intel, dex or con which helps them in other ways... attack from high ground, turn invisable or just talk your way out of the fight are all worth as much as that single extra point of damage imo
just to be clear, play the game in any way you want so if having the max stats possible is your thing then go for it but its not the only option
I think you're underestimating the effectiveness of a single +1 ability mod in 5e, by not accounting for to-hit and by using absolute damage instead of relative. A fighter with 17 str also has a +1 to hit, which combines with that extra +1 damage for a decent power spike. Going from a +2 to a +3 Str bonus while wielding a d8 weapon results in a ~25% damage boost. That's pretty impactful.
While it's true that a fighter could otherwise put those points other stats for other uses, a fighter's specialty is combat. Similarly, a wizard's specialty is spells and arcana checks. Lowering primary ability scores will result in a more well-rounded character, sure, but somewhere you reach a point where you'll be so ineffective at combat due to frequent missing/enemies passing save that it might become frustrating and just not fun to play (assuming you're not playing in a roleplay-heavy game). Something something jack of all trades, master of none.
)
