- Joined
- Nov 23, 2021
Man, wizards is trying really hard to get me to save my money aren't they? Thanks I guess.
Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)
- Thread starter Surtur
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
The melee-focused bard subclasses (Swords and Valor) are something of a worst-of-both-worlds option, where you don't really get enough of a damage boost to offset the lack of other interesting bard things to do. If you're going to go bard, you'll want to lean into the class's strengths, supporting your allies and filling in for what your party lacks. Lore is always a good option there.
Fighter is a good versatile option, but barbarian is another to consider as well if you just want to smack face and not really think about it. Beast gives you a variety of options you can swap around anytime you rage or rest so you can tailor it to your needs, and the newly released Giant lets you grow huge and fling your greataxe at range to smite your enemies before calling it back to you. If you're looking for something different, I'd give those a try.
But if your DM allows it, I think artificer would be just what you're looking for, specifically Armorer. Not only is artificer a very versatile class with a multitude of ways to support your party (infuse tiny objects with magic, craft magic items, boost ability checks, store spells in items), Armorer lets you play out your magical Iron Man fantasies, donning a suit of magical armor that either makes you tanky or stealthy and then beating up or zapping your enemies respectively. Best of all, you can swap out which one you're using after any rest, so you're able to swap to whichever would be more beneficial.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2021
Valor is okay. The problem is every other bard subclass just completely overshadows it. Swords is actually pretty good if you're just dipping into bard. But on it's own it's pretty bad.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
I played an artificer with an Iron Defender for quite a while. What made it really great was that the rules don't specify any sort of limit to its movements, so I effectively had a second character which could be rebuilt whenever he was smashed to bits. My PC could also use him to communicate with the rest of the party at a distance, although I had to use a Scooby Doo voice when I did so.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
The adventurers colonize into the BIPORC environmentally sustainable, biodegradable, planning ,free community, and turn, the consensually employed workers who get a free housing and free food, out into the snow.
Are we the bad guys here?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2022
Today I learned that the guy who made Lancer used to do inflation porn.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
Wait Andrew Dobson made Lancer? So that's what that nigga been up to.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
Thanks for the assistance on all of this, guys; been more helpful than you might think.
Talked a bit with the Rogue player; he actually admitted that he was wanting to run an archer build for this campaign as well, because... well, stealth archer. So, I think he's going to end up being the designated archer for this campaign, at least. To reiterate, we've got the aforementioned bow Rogue, a GOO Warlock, a Paladin, and a Knowledge Cleric NPC. I was basically wanting to make a character who could help cover any potential issues with the party.
Problem is, we seem to have everything covered already; Arcane, Ranged, Holy, Healing, Melee, basically got it all. Hence, I'm not sure what to really try to run; I brought up Swords Bard earlier because I had the idea to "roleplay" somewhat as a solo mercenary that got involved due to needing money, but given how weak the class is, I'll scratch going Sword Bard, at least.
Artificer sounds like a fun class, at least; I'll talk a bit with my DM, see what we can come up with. Thanks for the help guys; I admit, out of the 8 (rotating) players in my DND group, I'm the player that can never decide what to play on - can't ever find a main, usually just plays whatever. So, any help is appreciated.
Talked a bit with the Rogue player; he actually admitted that he was wanting to run an archer build for this campaign as well, because... well, stealth archer. So, I think he's going to end up being the designated archer for this campaign, at least. To reiterate, we've got the aforementioned bow Rogue, a GOO Warlock, a Paladin, and a Knowledge Cleric NPC. I was basically wanting to make a character who could help cover any potential issues with the party.
Problem is, we seem to have everything covered already; Arcane, Ranged, Holy, Healing, Melee, basically got it all. Hence, I'm not sure what to really try to run; I brought up Swords Bard earlier because I had the idea to "roleplay" somewhat as a solo mercenary that got involved due to needing money, but given how weak the class is, I'll scratch going Sword Bard, at least.
Artificer sounds like a fun class, at least; I'll talk a bit with my DM, see what we can come up with. Thanks for the help guys; I admit, out of the 8 (rotating) players in my DND group, I'm the player that can never decide what to play on - can't ever find a main, usually just plays whatever. So, any help is appreciated.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Happy to help. Artificer and bard are the best classes for filling in potential gaps in what your party needs, though of the two, I'd give a slight edge to artificer due to how frequently they can change up their build. Here's everything an artificer can change, and when:
- Magical tinkering: any time, oldest ones replaced
- Spell list: on long rest (and as a side note, can also ritual cast)
- Infusions: one per level up
- Tool crafting: any time, though you can only have one set created at a time
- Spell-storing items: any time, replacing the former if it hasn't already been expended
Comparatively, the bard is a bit more locked in as you go. You can swap out one spell for another each level up, and every ASI level lets you swap an Expertise skill or a cantrip, if optional features are allowed. Most of the versatility comes from Magical Secrets, letting you pick out exactly the spell that your group might need from any class, but these are locked in and can't be changed (well you can, but it would have to be a bard spell you're changing to, and that's a waste).
I think you could probably still play an artificer as an "in it for the money" character, needing money for his experimentation. You could always go the mad scientist route in an eldritch horror campaign, that would certainly be fitting.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
A lot of spells have just been renamed to get away from any potential OGL fuckery as an attempt could be made to assert IP on the titles, but the descriptions (as long as they are striped of any IP or trademarked words) would be rules and covered under fair use.
They are to working to make it impossible for WotC to even bring a case against them.
That is, WotC could try to use OGL licensing against Paizo by saying "look, they are using our IP! Here is our spell list vs. theis" and a judge might want to take a closer look to see if there's some merit - you probably win the case but you have to go to court and especially a small shop might fold rather than undergo the expense of trial. If the spell lists don't match, and the text has been reordered even a little, a judge will see 'Oh, well this is game rules, they are different so there's no copyright claims' and probably refuse to even hear the case.
This level of torching nearly 25 years of good will to the point anything even related them is now toxic. You love to see it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
Yup. I admit, some of the changes intrigue me. Spell schools are no longer a thing, for example; now wizards have a curriculum, kind of like their college degree, that determines their specialization.
Regardless of how stupid some of Paizo's decisions have been in the past, I think the Remaster is probably a good idea simply because WotC has demonstrated how pants-on-head retarded they are.
Battlefield2142EU
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
Has there been a founder of a hobby and company that get demonized and scrubbed from history mroe than Gary Gygax? I don't think Disney tried to scrub Walt Disney from the company more than Hasbro/WOTC scrubbed Gary Gygax. He pretty much J.K Rowling among redditors and 5E dungeons and dragons fans.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
I'm not exactly a DnD history buff, but wasn't there an original founding member that was written out of DnD history by the time ADnD rolled around to avoid paying him royalties?
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
And exactly what did Gary *do* to deserve such a shunning other than being of the generation that were just a bunch of old white guys who were into Avalon Hill WWII and medieval recreation games and asked the question "hey these tanks and planes are all fine and dandy but what if they were trolls and dragons from Lord of the Rings? wouldn't that be something lets make some rules for that".
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
Its less that they've shown their ass - because they never actually did anything other than propose the dumbest rule changes imaginable (other than sending the pinkertons to go raid that one dude's house for magic cards; but magictards get what they deserve) - and more their new corporate masters have demonstrated they will chase that dollar under any circumstances. This time there was community backlash and saner heads prevailed. There is no guarantee in the future there will be the same result.
And as I added to my last post, its not about whether or not you'd win in court, its about making things so watertight and iron clad there is no grounds for a case to be brought. WotC has Habro's well-funded legal department, so you might be clearly in the right but they have resources to make your victory pyrrhic as they run you through the legal system for a decade and then another with appeals as you try to collect legal fees.
There's been a couple cases like that, including eventually Gygax getting a taste of his own medicine when he lost control of the company. D&D switched default settings a couple of times to fuck with rights holders.
I believe you're thinking of Dave Arneson. He helped develop D&D but left the company shortly after BECMI/1e. He was largely a game designer, and TSR argued that AD&D was different enough from BECMI that they didn't own him royalties. This was settled out of court. Dave's issues were more with TSR leadership than GG, and when GG was president of TSR he released new D&D modules for his setting ; this line was canceled when GG was forced out.
WotC bought out Dave's rights in the 90s for an undisclosed sum.
Gygax was sort of a dick to a lot of people and nearly criminally bad with money.
Last edited:
Battlefield2142EU
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
Considering how Disney and WB producing box office Bomb after Bomb yet leftists worship both companies. That’s not the real reason why Gygax hatred now. Gygax too libertarian and religious for fags living in Seattle running WOTC now. He wanted AD&AD combat be hard because he wanted players to fight everything. No welfare gaming.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
So he was the Paul Heyman of ttrpg's when Heyman was running ECW that aside still doesn't feel like he deserves half the vitriol he does for shit that seems like it was all done internally on a business level.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
This was all business and some of it was just Gygax being a bad businessman, and some of it was petty interpersonal bullshit and ego, with Gygax being generally the biggest ego in the room. It has very little to do with the wokeshit reasons he's currently canceled though, and most everyone who followed history knows about the oldbies like Arneson.
There was a fair amount of interpersonal drama from the Chainmail period on, although trying to cut Arneson out of D&D was probably the sleaziest move. As noted, they ultimately settled.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
I was being facetious "Being sort of a dick with an ego and bad at business" aren't reasons for cancelling, but that's really all they have on him.
IIRC he had some opinions about most women just not having the mindset for miniature wargaming and this has been turned into "Gygax did a Muhsoggyknee" (as in, "I'm not trying to attract women, I am attempting to make games for autists. If women want to be as autistic as we are they are welcome to play, but I'm not going to alter the game to cater to them much as they shouldn't need to alter their hobbies to cater to me" and this is of course turned into "GYGAX SAID ALL WOMEN ARE SUBHUMAN AND SHOULD BE BANNED FROM RPGS!!!!!111")
The issue is that Gygax went to Castles & Crusades towards the end and modern WotC has to memory hole him because Gygax made thing that are leaps and bounds above the garbage they are churning out now.
Gygax went along with the sidelining of Arneson even if he didn't drive it. Again, they made up enough that Gygax approached him to make modules for AD&D until he lost control of TSR. Arneson felt a little butthurt after TSR canned his projects, but in general both mostly ignored the other after.
But he was seriously really, really bad at finances especially corporate ones.