安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Also, only classes in Solasta or all classes?
I never played a pure rogue so can't really comment too much on that. They make excellent snipers with the right feats though from what I have seen my players do in 5E.
Fighters on the other hand aren't -that- good to MC into. Sure action surge and second wind are nice as is the ability but fighters only really get into their own after level 10 when they get more attacks then rangers, barbs and paladins (and warlocks and bards if they have the right build.)
As a straight class I prefer a paladin because they have more spell slots then a fighter, they can smite when you need it (and few enemies enjoy radiant damage) and their channel divinity is nothing to sneeze at either. Their class abilities and Oath abilities are powerful and buff others in the party often as well. Paladins really are team players.
Up to and including level 5 a ranger is on par with a fighter as well I feel. With hunters mark and a bow and their attack bonus they reliably make their hits and they hurt. After level 5 a fighter outclasses a ranger easily as they get much better things then a ranger does.
20 attacks is great but you need to rest after every battle to maintain that or you'd at 12 (still respectable) and the damage of those is less then what a rogue, ranger or paladin would do at lv 5.
I was a big player of 3.5e, and I find that 5e's lack of class skills to be problematic. It does make sense that anybody can pick a lock, that's how it originally was. But it also does not make sense for a Str. Fighter to pick the DC18 lock the rogue failed at picking because of lucky dice rolls.
With the content Solasta has for us with so far, the Rogue has sadly been quite useless, as apparently a 4x Fighter team is viable for some people. But I shouldn't be surprised, this is a heavily combat oriented campaign, Dex is OP in 5e, and there are no penalties to dual-wielding, only minor limitations, and it's low level at present. But you'll probably be wanting that Wizard later on though, for the crowd control.
Have fun Gaming!
I'm sure other builds are in that boat. BUT. If you want a Rogue-Type? Just build a dex fighter. Sneak attack is nice on a crit or when you can reliably drop line of sight... But why bother when you can just unload with a Longbow + Superiority Dice, dip into melee with dual-wielding, pop out a shield and tank something if you need to at any point, heal yourself, better health pool, and just go wherever you want with no positioning setup while still having all the stealth and lock picking you need?
Seems good to me. I'm not saying it's always the best Damage per Round under ideal conditions, but it's just extremely versatile damage/defense.
Well, Spellblade does have access to crowd control (and more importantly, Dancing Lights because the devs really love lighting disadvantage for some reason lol). Also Jump for those jumping challenges. Feather Fall, all that fun stuff.
Plus Paladins seems to survive better due the whole better saving throws vs fighters when getting hit by spells. This comes along with having a decent line-up of cleric style skills.
Just a side story. :)
To be fair, you're taking the fighter/wizard archetype and then a background that enables rogue features. Of course you're a fighter/wizard/rogue at that point. You're just missing some of the strengths that would come from going all-in on the fighter role and if you were using a point-buy system (which 5e is balanced around) then you wouldn't be able to have great stats in strength, dex, con, int and wis at the same time so you would be weak in some aspects.
I'm not denying it's a potent and versatile build. It just wouldn't be so awesome on the table that everyone picks it normally. In heavier armours you couldn't easily sneak. With a shield on you wouldn't be casting many spells unless you put your weapon away. Without a shield your lower AC means the monsters have a better chance of hitting you. Swapping a shield on or off during a fight costs your action. With low wisdom your perception to find traps would suck. Etc.
I generally prefer balanced parties with an emphasis on spell casting. However, I can imagine a group of fighters half with say protection and half with ranged specialization to be pretty good. One great thing about Solasta is how balance the combats are such that you can try different styles, tactics, and combinations which work in 5e. This said, I generally prefer paladins and rangers as "fighters" as they get the multiple attacks, but have either smite, hunter's mark, or a better mix of spells to toss out. I also miss the valor bard and blade warlock as they combine full spellcasting and multiple attacks.