• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not going to lie, I’m already taking notes. I like that in general, if you make the right choices, it’s easy to make even wizards feel a lot less squishy, which would make me feel a lot more comfortable not pulling punches in my game. One of my favorite changes so far is the wild shape recharge on short rest for druids.

    It’s gotten me thinking about how to fix some other broken classes again, like making Ranger not fucking suck, and fixing the MADness of Barbarian. Fight me IRL, having the Barb’s unarmored defense dependent on dex instead of strength is dumb as hell when the barbarian is clearly a STR/CON class, that would be like having the Monk’s unarmored defense being dependent on Constitution. “So, what, Barbarians should just deflect attacks by flexing extra hard?” Yes.

    • Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t druid already get wildshape on a short rest? I do agree that barbarian Unarmored Defense is a bit lackluster though.

      I get what they were thinking. Monk gets to add Wisdom because their awareness let’s them dodge, so it should be roughly equivalent to let a barbarian add Constitution because their natural durability makes them harder to hurt. Dexterity being one of the main Ability Scores for monks throws this out the window though

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        IIRC, Druid only gets two wild shapes per long rest, but it’s possible I’m misremembering because my druid player basically forgot she could do that and it’s been ages since I played one myself.

        • Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Druids get two Wildshapes per short rest. Players just tend to not take short rests because they’re not really incentivized. I know this because I read through the druid features more than my druid player did

          • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ohhhhhhhhhhh, yeah, okay. Neither myself (when I play) nor my players take short rests. Death before short rests, for some reason.

    • Crozekiel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ummm… Barbarian Unarmored Defense is based off Con, not Dex. They just didn’t take away the default Dex bonus to AC that every class in the game gets. They shrug off damage by having a high Con. Barbarians are pretty good as it is, if you let them completely dump Dex and give AC from Str, they would be broken AF… 18 AC at level 1 with a shield under point buy system, and immediate jump to 20 AC at level 4, with no reduction in damage output at all. Possible to be 20 AC at level 1 literally completely naked (no shield) with rolled stats, and 18 isn’t even entirely unlikely…

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reason that it’s broken (in a bad way) as Dex+Con compared to the Monk’s Dex+Wis unarmored defense is that monks absolutely CAN get broken as fuck AC from Dex + Wis, especially as the game goes on. Kinda on a related note, in BG3 I re-specified Astarion as a thief/monk, gave him a few mid-tier magic items, and now he’s my front-line tank with an AC of 21 at level 7. No sane Barbarian PC is going dex barb, so realistically the barbarian’s unarmored defense is going to cap out at AC 15-16 minus shield (which, come on, what barbarian won’t be rocking two handed weapons?). So, while the Monk gets unarmored defense based on both of its chief stats, Barbarian gets unarmored defense based on just one of its chief stats.

        Having a barbarian with a broken AC to start with doesn’t bother me too much, but then I also tend to not run gritty/from dark style games, and that’s also bearing in mind that the martial classes don’t really scale as well as the casters do after level five. Giving the barbarian a ludicrous AC to aspire to at high levels might help balance that out.

        • Crozekiel@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are talking about removing Dex bonus to AC, which every class gets, to make Barbarian able to completely dump 4 ability scores and not even need items (at least a fighter needs nearly 1k gold to get into heavy armor that will compete with this barbarian completely naked). Barbarian is not broken in a bad way currently compared to any other martial. A monk might keep up with AC, and maybe even damage output (but I’d argue being locked into monk weapons means they won’t) but they’ll have at best 60% of the HP a barbarian has (who is also taking half damage from non-magical sources a majority of the time) and still have to put points into 3 stats to stay relevant.

          Also, BG3 is not a great source for comparison… I have a bard at level 5 with a 21 AC. The more “tanky” classes I have played were all around 23 AC at level 7. There are a lot of magic items in the game that stack AC and you are absolutely swimming in them by level 8. Every party I’ve played through by the end game it was 4 characters with 23-26 AC across the board. My wizard was 24 AC (25 if standing in low light) by level 10…

          • Golett03@ttrpg.networkOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re aware that barbs get resistance to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing irregardless of whether it’s magical, right? And that extends further with the bear totem

            • Crozekiel@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea, I meant to refer specifically to spell damage but wasn’t very clear. But that furthers my original point anyway.