Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

1535456585999

Posts

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    After Matt mercer's cool lore for The Raven Queen I was disappointed in her new incarnation, but I think she's still a god? It says after the nagpas part the stuff she did "after achieving divinity". It's kind of unclear

    I really like all of the new monster but I'm disappointed overall in the lore changes from previous editions and the lack of new content that wasn't already UA - every subrace in here was UA already and are only tweaked in minor ways

    override367 on
  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    After Matt mercer's cool lore for The Raven Queen I was disappointed in her new incarnation, but I think she's still a god? It says after the nagpas part the stuff she did "after achieving divinity". It's kind of unclear

    I really like all of the new monster but I'm disappointed overall in the lore changes from previous editions and the lack of new content that wasn't already UA - every subrace in here was UA already and are only tweaked in minor ways

    It calls her a 'quasi-divine entity' and specifically calls out that one of the things that torments her is 'her failure at attaining godhood'. She's also trapped on the Shadowfell in a physical castle, which is not generally a problem gods have. She may arguably have something approaching god-like power (notwithstanding the fact that she's basically falling apart and has to constantly siphon souls and memories to keep her identity intact) but she's definitely not a god in this version of the lore.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA regular Registered User regular
    I find it interesting how 5E was basically sold as a "nostalgia edition" but is still making some major lore shake-ups (that personally I am mostly fine with).

    The Raven Queen is probably still a goddess in the Nentir Vale setting. The "quasi-divine" iteration is just a way to get her into other settings that already have established gods of death.

    I also personally like how Primus is more involved in the multiverse. Maruts are now some of the most powerful creatures in existence and could probably take down some demon lords if a dedicated force could get to them.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    Eh. Settings regularly have more than one God of X, especially once you get into establishing entire pantheons for each race like Tome of Foes does. Tome of Foes outlines six or seven gods of death, at least one in every pantheon (and two in the Seldarine).

    It's also not a superficial technical change - everything about her up to and including her origin, powers, and motivations are different. Even her personality (insofar as it's been established to begin with) seems to have gone from 'inscrutable because she doesn't tell anyone anything about her goals' to 'inscrutable because she's barely sane and spends most of her energy on trying to keep her mind from falling apart and might not have any coherent goals at all'. It's a ground-up rewrite, not a kludge to get the same character into a new setting.

    The new Maruts are interesting - it's funny to me that a lot of people expected this book to detail Sigil because of its focus on interplanar threats and travel, and then it mentions the city by name a couple of times, explains nothing about it, but includes a monster which has an ability in its statblock that explicitly teleports itself and several other creatures (but not enough to bring the whole party) to Sigil.

    "Okay, you failed the save, so you're in Sigil now"

    "What's Sigil?"

    *shrug*

    override367Ringo
  • dresdenphiledresdenphile regular Watch out for snakes!Registered User regular
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    steam_sig.png
  • captainkcaptaink regular TexasRegistered User regular
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    5e is pretty well balanced, you can pretty much make whatever you want.

    SteelhawkZonugal
  • SleepSleep regular Registered User regular
    For the most part I don't use lore stuff directly. I basically just take ideas I like and discard the rest. Like for my setting the raven queen not becoming a full God, while personally infuriating, may contribute to why she's still around, and the reasons for her need for souls may be a bit different, but it's a cool locale to throw into the shadowfell. I don't know I'd have to read more and see what's worth taking.

    I never got a bunch of the adventure books so i dig a new collection of all the monsters from those.

    Do they at least refer to it in full as "Sigil the city of doors"?

  • iguanacusiguanacus regular Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    What do you want to do? Stab or shoot is the first choice, probably.

    Sleep
  • see317see317 regular Registered User regular
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    There aren't really any out right bad races in D&D 5e, mechanically speaking. Most races boil down to a +2 and a +1 to a couple of stats and a handful of traits that may or may not be useful depending on your class.

    Class wise it depends on what you want to do. Are you looking to deal damage? Do you see yourself more as the party's face? Maybe you're the trap/locks guy?
    Once you narrow down what you want to do it's pretty straight forward to pick a class, and if you want to min/max it's easy enough to work your way back from "What's my classes main stat?" to "What race gives me a +2 to that stat?". Or you can just go gnome. Everybody loves gnomes.

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Do they at least refer to it in full as "Sigil the city of doors"?

    Once out of around a dozen mentions, but not in the text of the ability. They also mention the Lady of Pain in, for some reason, the Raven Queen lore, but not in a way that connects her to Sigil or explains anything about who that is. It just suggests that the Raven Queen may be "using people as pawns in an inscrutable game, the rules of which are known only to her and the Lady of Pain."

    Why would the Raven Queen be connected to the Lady of Pain? If I've only ever read 5e books because I'm one of the many new people 5e is attracting to the hobby, what is a "Lady of Pain"?

    *shrug*

    re: classes to avoid, the most egregiously underdeveloped class is the Ranger. If you want to play one, there's a revised Ranger in Unearthed Arcana that is substantially better, but the PHB ranger is widely regarded as underpowered to the point that it's worse at being a Ranger than just playing an archery Fighter.

    SmrtnikSleepdoomybearZonugaloverride367
  • captainkcaptaink regular TexasRegistered User regular
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    Sleepoverride367
  • JustTeeJustTee regular Registered User regular
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I'll give a quick run down of classes. If you're playing in a party of min/maxers and looking to optimize, the stat in ()'s is that class's main stat, and you just pick a race that gets +2 to it. If you're playing with non-optimizers, then pick a race who's lore/flavor/special abilities sound cool. Ultimately, you'll miss out on *at most* a +2 to a main stat, which is actually only a +1 to the modifier. If your game is all about combat efficiency and optimization, it might matter. As a DM, though, there's so much fog in the encounter building system that I have to build in a bit of wobble, so my players know they don't really have to optimize in order to play well in my games. Your mileage may vary.
    Fighter (STR or DEX) - Some of the most effective combat builds in the game are based around the fighter, or sometimes built around a 2 level dip in fighter, for access to Action Surge. Champion subclass is the one to avoid, if what you're looking for is interesting decisions to make every round. Battlemaster Fighter is fun, with lots of options during combat. DEX is technically the "optimal" choice, but the difference usually ends up being fairly small.

    Rogue (DEX) - The base rogue class is pretty boring. Your options are essentially - find some way to hide or gain advantage some way, and unleash a single large attack. Arcane Trickster is a cool idea for a subclass, but in practice, you generally are almost always better off using your actions to sneak attack, rather than casting weak spells.

    Barbarian (STR) - Simple. Effective tanks. Huge damage dealing potential. Boring mechanically.

    Warlock (CHA) - 90% of your combat rounds will be spent casting Eldritch Blast, if your DM runs multiple combats per day. You have some space for utility spells, but it's often hard to figure out when to use them. Invocations are cool as hell though.

    Wizard (INT) - Easily the most versatile of all the classes. Access to the widest range of magical effects. If your games are at all deadly, the wizard is someone who will drop regularly.

    Cleric (WIS/CHA) - Honestly, Clerics are surprisingly effective damage dealers, incredibly resilient, and some of the domains get access to some pretty funny things.

    Druid (WIS) - Extremely versatile, access to wild shapes, generally pretty fun. If your campaign starts at level 1, Circle of the Moon Druids are *easily* the most OP things in combat in the game at level 2. It's utterly hilarious. I took out an entire castle full of goblins basically by myself as a level 2 druid, while my party watched in horror as a big brown bear just mauled it's way to the main boss.

    Ranger - Probably the only class I'd actively avoid unless you know combat effectiveness doesn't really matter, and there's some kind of wilderness aspect to the campaign. Otherwise, a Crossbow Rogue or Ranged Fighter are both more effective, and will generally be able to use their class specific abilities more often.

    Monk (DEX/WIS) - Shockingly effective combat class. Consistently outputs wayyyyy more damage than people think. Some fun lore and role play options. Kind of like the Battlemaster Fighter-Lite.

    Sorceror - Kind of like the Wizard-lite. With some Warlock subclass chicanery, one of the highest damage per round capabilities in the game. Metamagics are super cool, but also extremely limited.

    Diagnosed with AML on 6/1/12. Read about it: www.effleukemia.com
    Sleepdresdenphile
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    In DnD cosmology, the "after you die your soul goes here" worlds are arranged in a wheel configuration, with like alignments being next to each other. The center of the wheel is a large neutral/neutral area. At the center of that is a tall spike. At the tip of the spike, there is a strip of land that orbits the spike (kind of hard to explain, see pictures https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-google&biw=360&bih=222&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=wN8CW8ufFcW0sQXl4KtQ&q=sigil+city+of+doors&oq=sigil+cit&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.1.0.0l4j0i24.5871.6892..7664...0....301.649.0j3j0j1......0....1.j=#isa=y).

    They talked about it in previous editions in it's own books and it's been in at least one video game heavily featured. The 5e DM guide gives about a half page per each of these "after life" locations.

    Sigil is known as the city of doors because there are millions of portals in it leading to/from just about anywhere you can imagine. Some are one way some are two way. Some are plain to see some are invisible. Most don't look like a classic shimmering portal but are instead a random door, window, mouse hole, arch in a plaza, whatever... Most are only active if someone next to them does something to activate them, but that something may be things like saying a specific word or phrase, humming a tune, making a specific shape with their body, spinning in place 3 times, wearing a yellow shirt, thinking of a bee on a flower, etc... Each portal is it's own thing, and the activation may or may not be common knowledge. The portals connect different parts of the city with each other but also to other planes, including the material, and other times too.

    Sigil is very cosmopolitan, with devils/demons/angels plus every race that ever existed in any world rubbing shoulders at the markets and taverns. There is some criminal activity in parts, and the socioeconomic status runs from extremely poor to extremely rich. There is no government, the city is ruled by the Lady of Pain.

    LoP, nobody knows who or what she is. She is s giant sized woman that floats slightly above ground, has sharp blades sticking out all over her body, and if you piss her off she mazes you (DnD spell, look it up) in an eternal prison designed specifically do you can't get out of it (someone other than you could), based on your personality. Nobody fucks with LoP. She is mute (or at least nobody ever heard her speak), communicates telepathically with you via odd pictographs). She refuses to be worshipped, and knows instantly if someone prays to her in Sigil, in which case she teleports there instantly and mazes them.

    See: http://www.nwn2planescape.com/images/goldfish/planes.jpg

    Smrtnik on
    steam_sig.png
    SleepElvenshaeSteelhawkAldoJustTee
  • see317see317 regular Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
    JustTee
  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    In DnD cosmology, the "after you die your soul goes here" worlds are arranged in a wheel configuration, with like alignments being next to each other. The center of the wheel is a large neutral/neutral area. At the center of that is a tall spike. At the tip of the spike, there is a strip of land that orbits the spike (kind of hard to explain, see pictures https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-google&biw=360&bih=222&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=wN8CW8ufFcW0sQXl4KtQ&q=sigil+city+of+doors&oq=sigil+cit&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.1.0.0l4j0i24.5871.6892..7664...0....301.649.0j3j0j1......0....1.j=#isa=y).

    They talked about it in previous editions in it's own books and it's been in at least one video game heavily featured. The 5e DM guide gives about a half page per each of these "after life" locations.

    Sigil is known as the city of doors because there are millions of portals in it leading to/from just about anywhere you can imagine. Some are one way some are two way. Some are plain to see some are invisible. Most don't look like a classic shimmering portal but are instead a random door, window, mouse hole, arch in a plaza, whatever... Most are only active if someone next to them does something to activate them, but that something may be things like saying a specific word or phrase, humming a tune, making a specific shape with their body, spinning in place 3 times, wearing a yellow shirt, thinking of a bee on a flower, etc... Each portal is it's own thing, and the activation may or may not be common knowledge. The portals connect different parts of the city with each other but also to other planes, including the material, and other times too.

    Sigil is very cosmopolitan, with devils/demons/angels plus every race that ever existed in any world rubbing shoulders at the markets and taverns. There is some criminal activity in parts, and the socioeconomic status runs from extremely poor to extremely rich. There is no government, the city is ruled by the Lady of Pain.

    LoP, nobody knows who or what she is. She is s giant sized woman that floats slightly above ground, has sharp blades sticking out all over her body, and if you piss her off she mazes you (DnD spell, look it up) in an eternal prison designed specifically do you can't get out of it (someone other than you could), based on your personality. Nobody fucks with LoP. She is mute (or at least nobody ever heard her speak), communicates telepathically with you via odd pictographs). She refuses to be worshipped, and knows instantly if someone prays to her in Sigil, in which case she teleports there instantly and mazes them.

    See: http://www.nwn2planescape.com/images/goldfish/planes.jpg

    To be clear, I'm not saying that I don't know anything about Sigil. I'm suggesting that if you're gonna write a book with fluff that abruptly connects the Raven Queen to the Lady of Pain and monsters that teleport players to Sigil, it's weird to not also include some amount of explanation about what those things even are. This is particularly true for 5e since accessibility to new players is theoretically a big part of their whole thing, and relying on the assumption that your new players also have an old 3e book about Sigil lying around does not scream "accessible".

    It's also odd for this book in particular, since it covers a variety of interplanar threats, has a hundred pages of fluff, and goes out if its way to repeatedly bring up Sigil on its own - yet somehow it has room for a paragraph of exposition about the seventh-most-important gnome god and not enough space to give even a brief summary of what is arguably the interplanar hub city.

    SmrtnikElvenshaeMoridin889JustTee
  • captainkcaptaink regular TexasRegistered User regular
    JustTee wrote: »
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I'll give a quick run down of classes. If you're playing in a party of min/maxers and looking to optimize, the stat in ()'s is that class's main stat, and you just pick a race that gets +2 to it. If you're playing with non-optimizers, then pick a race who's lore/flavor/special abilities sound cool. Ultimately, you'll miss out on *at most* a +2 to a main stat, which is actually only a +1 to the modifier. If your game is all about combat efficiency and optimization, it might matter. As a DM, though, there's so much fog in the encounter building system that I have to build in a bit of wobble, so my players know they don't really have to optimize in order to play well in my games. Your mileage may vary.
    Fighter (STR or DEX) - Some of the most effective combat builds in the game are based around the fighter, or sometimes built around a 2 level dip in fighter, for access to Action Surge. Champion subclass is the one to avoid, if what you're looking for is interesting decisions to make every round. Battlemaster Fighter is fun, with lots of options during combat. DEX is technically the "optimal" choice, but the difference usually ends up being fairly small.

    Rogue (DEX) - The base rogue class is pretty boring. Your options are essentially - find some way to hide or gain advantage some way, and unleash a single large attack. Arcane Trickster is a cool idea for a subclass, but in practice, you generally are almost always better off using your actions to sneak attack, rather than casting weak spells.

    Barbarian (STR) - Simple. Effective tanks. Huge damage dealing potential. Boring mechanically.

    Warlock (CHA) - 90% of your combat rounds will be spent casting Eldritch Blast, if your DM runs multiple combats per day. You have some space for utility spells, but it's often hard to figure out when to use them. Invocations are cool as hell though.

    Wizard (INT) - Easily the most versatile of all the classes. Access to the widest range of magical effects. If your games are at all deadly, the wizard is someone who will drop regularly.

    Cleric (WIS/CHA) - Honestly, Clerics are surprisingly effective damage dealers, incredibly resilient, and some of the domains get access to some pretty funny things.

    Druid (WIS) - Extremely versatile, access to wild shapes, generally pretty fun. If your campaign starts at level 1, Circle of the Moon Druids are *easily* the most OP things in combat in the game at level 2. It's utterly hilarious. I took out an entire castle full of goblins basically by myself as a level 2 druid, while my party watched in horror as a big brown bear just mauled it's way to the main boss.

    Ranger - Probably the only class I'd actively avoid unless you know combat effectiveness doesn't really matter, and there's some kind of wilderness aspect to the campaign. Otherwise, a Crossbow Rogue or Ranged Fighter are both more effective, and will generally be able to use their class specific abilities more often.

    Monk (DEX/WIS) - Shockingly effective combat class. Consistently outputs wayyyyy more damage than people think. Some fun lore and role play options. Kind of like the Battlemaster Fighter-Lite.

    Sorceror - Kind of like the Wizard-lite. With some Warlock subclass chicanery, one of the highest damage per round capabilities in the game. Metamagics are super cool, but also extremely limited.

    Don't forget Paladin(STR/CHA) Tough, good at blowing things up with Divine Smite, has some nice defensive auras.

    I will say that some classes fared very well with the new subclasses in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Barbarians, Rogues, Rangers, Warlocks, Fighters all got interesting options that diverge quite a bit from their vanilla incarnations.

    SleepdoomybearJustTee
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Eh. Settings regularly have more than one God of X, especially once you get into establishing entire pantheons for each race like Tome of Foes does. Tome of Foes outlines six or seven gods of death, at least one in every pantheon (and two in the Seldarine).

    It's also not a superficial technical change - everything about her up to and including her origin, powers, and motivations are different. Even her personality (insofar as it's been established to begin with) seems to have gone from 'inscrutable because she doesn't tell anyone anything about her goals' to 'inscrutable because she's barely sane and spends most of her energy on trying to keep her mind from falling apart and might not have any coherent goals at all'. It's a ground-up rewrite, not a kludge to get the same character into a new setting.

    The new Maruts are interesting - it's funny to me that a lot of people expected this book to detail Sigil because of its focus on interplanar threats and travel, and then it mentions the city by name a couple of times, explains nothing about it, but includes a monster which has an ability in its statblock that explicitly teleports itself and several other creatures (but not enough to bring the whole party) to Sigil.

    "Okay, you failed the save, so you're in Sigil now"

    "What's Sigil?"

    *shrug*

    That was my point, why even use the raven queen as the name for this entity? It's COMPLETELY different than any previous iteration

    And we really should have had something, anything about Sigil, even a single page. I would rather have more on sigil than an extra 5 pages about elf lore

    override367 on
  • iguanacusiguanacus regular Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    iguanacus wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

    It does seem like maneuvers should probably have been baseline for fighters, especially given how many of the new/UA fighter subclasses end up just being 'Battlemaster again, but with a more limited set of maneuvers and some other features to compensate'

    JustTee
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic regular Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    iguanacus wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

    It does seem like maneuvers should probably have been baseline for fighters, especially given how many of the new/UA fighter subclasses end up just being 'Battlemaster again, but with a more limited set of maneuvers and some other features to compensate'

    But then it wouldn't have been iconic.
    Snark aside, a very simple class version existing is probably a good thing.

    ElvenshaeJustTeeMrGrimoire
  • SleepSleep regular Registered User regular
    As a note sigil has a small blurb in the DMG that explains its basic concept at least.

    Smrtnik14357
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk regular Registered User regular
    Planescape was the best.

    ElvenshaeSmrtnikMoridin889JustTee
  • webguy20webguy20 regular Registered User regular
    I would consider the barbarian sub class that generates fatigue when using its signature move to be broken, based on how fatigue functions.

    Besides that nothing is too crazy.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    SleepdoomybearZonugaloverride367discriderJustTee
  • iguanacusiguanacus regular Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    iguanacus wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

    It does seem like maneuvers should probably have been baseline for fighters, especially given how many of the new/UA fighter subclasses end up just being 'Battlemaster again, but with a more limited set of maneuvers and some other features to compensate'

    But then it wouldn't have been iconic.
    Snark aside, a very simple class version existing is probably a good thing.

    They were, during the beta play testing. They removed it because they wanted to harken back to previous editions.

  • captainkcaptaink regular TexasRegistered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    iguanacus wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

    It does seem like maneuvers should probably have been baseline for fighters, especially given how many of the new/UA fighter subclasses end up just being 'Battlemaster again, but with a more limited set of maneuvers and some other features to compensate'

    If my Battlemaster also had Champion or Cavalier abilities, it would be crazypants overpowered.

  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I would say avoid half-Orc Barbarians and Barbarians in general Not because they're weak, but because they're likely to be too strong.

    Hunter Rangers are a tad weak but do have some things that archer fighters et all cannot do, and will be a bit better until 11th level.

    Some people don't like Elementalist Monks but i think they're just peachy(they could use a few minor tweaks)

    wbBv3fj.png
  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    iguanacus wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    iguanacus wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

    It does seem like maneuvers should probably have been baseline for fighters, especially given how many of the new/UA fighter subclasses end up just being 'Battlemaster again, but with a more limited set of maneuvers and some other features to compensate'

    But then it wouldn't have been iconic.
    Snark aside, a very simple class version existing is probably a good thing.

    They were, during the beta play testing. They removed it because they wanted to harken back to previous editions.

    Right. They removed it because they wanted it to 'feel' like previous editions (read: the maneuver system is basically 4e encounter powers grafted onto 5e, and they wanted to be able to tell people they didn't have to use the 4e stuff), not because removing it was the most interesting or fun or mechanically sound way to design the class.

    And then they spent the next couple years designing fighter subclasses that roll maneuvers and superiority dice back in anyway, suggesting that even they are aware that it's how the class should probably have been designed.
    captaink wrote: »
    Abbalah wrote: »
    iguanacus wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    The fighter is better than anyone when it comes to just using weapons though. That's the class, and it's pretty much all the fighter gets.
    Sure, the Eldritch Knight subclass gets a few spells, but they max out at 4th level slots and the Battlemaster gets a few toys, but mostly it's just all the weapons and armor for days.

    Other classes get interesting features to boost their DPS or utility, whether it's the leveling cantrip damage, smites or raging or whatever. For the Fighter it's just "Okay, now attack again. And again. And again. Action surge. Now attack 4 more times." And they're good at attacking.

    I'm a fan of making all fighter subclasses Battlemaster+whatever. Always having options available through maneuvers and whatever the other subclass adds.

    It does seem like maneuvers should probably have been baseline for fighters, especially given how many of the new/UA fighter subclasses end up just being 'Battlemaster again, but with a more limited set of maneuvers and some other features to compensate'

    If my Battlemaster also had Champion or Cavalier abilities, it would be crazypants overpowered.

    Sure, but that's not what I'm suggesting. Obviously if maneuvers had been a baseline part of the class design, Battlemaster would either be something else or offer an improvement on the weaker baseline maneuvers, and obviously the power level of the subclass features (and the class's other features) would have been adjusted as appropriate. "Just pick two subclasses as-printed and get both" makes an overpowered character pretty much regardless of which class or subclasses we're talking about.

    And it seems like they either really want maneuvers to be baseline, or are not being particularly imaginative with their subclass design, because Arcane Archer basically just gets maneuvers reflavored as 'arcane shots' and Scout, Monster Hunter, and the earlier UA versions of Cavalier all literally just got superiority dice and a fixed set of battlemaster maneuvers, plus some other stuff as appropriate to the subclass theme.

    JustTee
  • captainkcaptaink regular TexasRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I would say avoid half-Orc Barbarians and Barbarians in general Not because they're weak, but because they're likely to be too strong.

    Hunter Rangers are a tad weak but do have some things that archer fighters et all cannot do, and will be a bit better until 11th level.

    Some people don't like Elementalist Monks but i think they're just peachy(they could use a few minor tweaks)

    Someone correctly critiqued 4 Elements monks when they said that the only thing the subclass adds is more ways to spend Ki, whereas other classes add or change the way you might spend Ki. The additional uses are also not particularly competitive with just spending it on Stunning Blow or Flurry of Blows. Though maybe that just says something about how good Stunning Strike is.

  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    Maneuvers are way way too good to give them to every fighter subclass. If you would do that you would have to remove basically all of the fighter options and probably drop them to 2 or 3 attacks.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • AbbalahAbbalah regular Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Maneuvers are way way too good to give them to every fighter subclass. If you would do that you would have to remove basically all of the fighter options and probably drop them to 2 or 3 attacks.

    Again, that depends entirely on how good you design the maneuvers to be, how many you give out, and how much power you put into the subclasses after the fact.

    You can literally already give maneuvers to anyone for the cost of a feat, and it's not especially good because you only get one and it's worse than what fighters currently get.

    Plus almost half the fighter subclasses do get maneuvers, as is, and those are the ones that get played the most often in any case, which is a big part of why it seems a little silly that they're not 'officially' baseline.

    Maneuvers are practically speaking less 'a thing you get if you play a Battlemaster' than they are 'a thing you get unless you decide to play an Eldritch Knight'

    Elvenshae
  • iguanacusiguanacus regular Desert PlanetRegistered User regular
    I can't say that I agree that it would make any of them overpowered, with a couple caveats: I'm talking average games, so we top out at about level 12, and we're still talking almost exclusively damage. A wizard, bard, sorcerer or warlock can take out as many enemies as fit in a 30 foot cube starting at level 5 (Hypnotic Pattern) or hit for 8d6 in a 40 foot circle that goes around corners (Fireball), or Suggest that the Big Bads meatshield bodyguard sits out the fight (Suggestion). All this while also doing somewhat comparable damage numbers at will thanks to scaling cantrips (Firebolt: 1d10; Eldritch Blast: 1d10; Toll the Dead; 1d8 or 1d12).

    With the Champion, combining it with the Battlemaster gets you what? An additional 5% chance to crit, and another fighting style at level 10. The Purple Dragon Knight actually becomes a real choice for a subclass. The Cavalier gets some offensive punch to go with it's couple of defensive tricks. The Samurai gets something it can do more than 3 times a day. Maybe the Arcane Archer you could instead give them equivalent magic arrows uses instead of also letting them use maneuvers (2 uses per rest, really?). The Eldritch Knight is a sticky wicket, I've never really played one.

    Multiclassing might be an issue, but 3 levels to get maneuvers is a big ask for most classes, with the above caveat of most games only get to around level 12.

  • ZonugalZonugal The Holiday Armadillo I'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User regular
    If they were to give every Fighter subclass combat maneuvers I'd rather they just import in the battle system from Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords from third edition.

    Ross-Geller-Prime-Sig-A.jpg
    Elvenshae
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives regular Registered User regular
    when a religion is still alive and being actively practiced there are usually not clear, consistent distinctions of who is god of what. That kind of systematization is almost always imposed by later people once a religion is no longer part of peoples daily life.

    This vid talks about that with regards to norse myth but much the same thing could be said about how the Greeks and Romans looked back on Egyptian gods.

    FryIvellius
  • SCREECH OF THE FARGSCREECH OF THE FARG #1 PARROTHEAD margaritavilleRegistered User regular
    Due to computer issues on the part of our wizard we don't get to finish curse of strahd this week, ooooo the blue balls

    SYhhzZG.jpg?2?8605
  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I would say avoid half-Orc Barbarians and Barbarians in general Not because they're weak, but because they're likely to be too strong.

    Hunter Rangers are a tad weak but do have some things that archer fighters et all cannot do, and will be a bit better until 11th level.

    Some people don't like Elementalist Monks but i think they're just peachy(they could use a few minor tweaks)

    Someone correctly critiqued 4 Elements monks when they said that the only thing the subclass adds is more ways to spend Ki, whereas other classes add or change the way you might spend Ki. The additional uses are also not particularly competitive with just spending it on Stunning Blow or Flurry of Blows. Though maybe that just says something about how good Stunning Strike is.

    The problem with the critique is that the extra abilities on shadow and open have the same "problems" as those for the 4 elements. The exception is the open hand bonus flurry options.

    A proper critque might be that the range of options is too low, but even then i think its a pretty effective class simply because the utility of spells is quite powerful and i don't think that a proper evaluation would not see this.

    Lets take the shadow monk as an example. You get a bonus action limited teleport. But this takes your bonus action and that is super valuable for monks. You get a standard action invisibility. You get an extra attack as a reaction sometimes. And you get Darkness, Darkvision, Pass Without Trace, and Silence as std for 2 points. Which are all second level spells that don't do damage.

    The 4 elements monk starts out a bit weaker, only knowing one spell... And it will be weaker(1st level rather than 2nd level spells). But at level 6 they should know three and those can be pretty powerful. The non-spell options are, as well, a lot more generally useful than they seem normally.

    Shape of the Flowing water in particular has a myriad of tactical uses for only 1 ki point (make or destroy walls, make or destroy bridges).

    Fangs of the Fire Snake provides the highest burst damage possibility for any monk (Attack + Flurry, +ki on every hit) even if its slightly expensive*.

    I shouldn't have to explain the utility of fireball and damage spells in general.

    Almost as important is that, as time goes on the ability to spend Ki will be far out-striped by your total points while the duration you generally have to spend points doesn't increase much. Fights don't last >5 rounds like, ever, and in general you should be spending about 1/2 of your ki pool per encounter (from standard encounter tables) and only the 4-Elements monk has consistent ways to do that later in the game.

    *The proffer has a high cost, but the damage itself is pretty efficient given that you don't spend it on a miss.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    captaink wrote: »
    The Hunter Ranger is OK, though probably still a bottom half class. The Beast Master is actually rough. But yes, a Fighter is a better archer than a ranger in general. Play ranger if you want the extra wilderness survival and spell abilities.

    Revised beastmaster is a load of fun

    if you're a halfling get a giant crab and you can drive it around like a water pokemon

    override367 on
    SleepArthilFryShawnaseeFuselagenever die
  • GaddezGaddez regular Registered User regular
    Really, 5e kind of has a class for everyone and always a new thing to try out so saying what you should avoid because it's broke is kind of a weird question.

    Like, as we continue to trudge through tomb (a season I'm kind of done with at this point) I've been playing a kobold mastermind that act as a skill monkey and lucky charm for the group (master mind allows help as a bonus action) and in like 8 months I haven't made 1 single solitary attack against a hostile target and I've flat out stated that I won't under any circumstances break with my pascifist philosophy.

    Which I'll freely admit is a bizzare way to play the game but it's been a hoot.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    LindElvenshaeShawnaseeSteelhawkZonugalnever dieJustTeemildlymorbid
  • NyhtNyht regular Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    JustTee wrote: »
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I'll give a quick run down of classes. If you're playing in a party of min/maxers and looking to optimize, the stat in ()'s is that class's main stat, and you just pick a race that gets +2 to it. If you're playing with non-optimizers, then pick a race who's lore/flavor/special abilities sound cool. Ultimately, you'll miss out on *at most* a +2 to a main stat, which is actually only a +1 to the modifier. If your game is all about combat efficiency and optimization, it might matter. As a DM, though, there's so much fog in the encounter building system that I have to build in a bit of wobble, so my players know they don't really have to optimize in order to play well in my games. Your mileage may vary.
    Fighter (STR or DEX) - Some of the most effective combat builds in the game are based around the fighter, or sometimes built around a 2 level dip in fighter, for access to Action Surge. Champion subclass is the one to avoid, if what you're looking for is interesting decisions to make every round. Battlemaster Fighter is fun, with lots of options during combat. DEX is technically the "optimal" choice, but the difference usually ends up being fairly small.

    Rogue (DEX) - The base rogue class is pretty boring. Your options are essentially - find some way to hide or gain advantage some way, and unleash a single large attack. Arcane Trickster is a cool idea for a subclass, but in practice, you generally are almost always better off using your actions to sneak attack, rather than casting weak spells.

    Barbarian (STR) - Simple. Effective tanks. Huge damage dealing potential. Boring mechanically.

    Warlock (CHA) - 90% of your combat rounds will be spent casting Eldritch Blast, if your DM runs multiple combats per day. You have some space for utility spells, but it's often hard to figure out when to use them. Invocations are cool as hell though.

    Wizard (INT) - Easily the most versatile of all the classes. Access to the widest range of magical effects. If your games are at all deadly, the wizard is someone who will drop regularly.

    Cleric (WIS/CHA) - Honestly, Clerics are surprisingly effective damage dealers, incredibly resilient, and some of the domains get access to some pretty funny things.

    Druid (WIS) - Extremely versatile, access to wild shapes, generally pretty fun. If your campaign starts at level 1, Circle of the Moon Druids are *easily* the most OP things in combat in the game at level 2. It's utterly hilarious. I took out an entire castle full of goblins basically by myself as a level 2 druid, while my party watched in horror as a big brown bear just mauled it's way to the main boss.

    Ranger - Probably the only class I'd actively avoid unless you know combat effectiveness doesn't really matter, and there's some kind of wilderness aspect to the campaign. Otherwise, a Crossbow Rogue or Ranged Fighter are both more effective, and will generally be able to use their class specific abilities more often.

    Monk (DEX/WIS) - Shockingly effective combat class. Consistently outputs wayyyyy more damage than people think. Some fun lore and role play options. Kind of like the Battlemaster Fighter-Lite.

    Sorceror - Kind of like the Wizard-lite. With some Warlock subclass chicanery, one of the highest damage per round capabilities in the game. Metamagics are super cool, but also extremely limited.

    Don't forget Paladin(STR/CHA) Tough, good at blowing things up with Divine Smite, has some nice defensive auras.

    I will say that some classes fared very well with the new subclasses in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Barbarians, Rogues, Rangers, Warlocks, Fighters all got interesting options that diverge quite a bit from their vanilla incarnations.

    Nothing actually ties them to STR though does it? Don't leave out all the elven Green Knights.

  • DenadaDenada regular Registered User regular
    Yeah my answer whenever this comes up is that the math in 5E just isn't tight enough that anything is outright bad. Sure there are some builds that are better at a given thing than others, but over time it all pretty much evens out. As is always the case in D&D, trying to be a jack-of-all-trades generally just makes you suck at everything instead of being good at anything (unless you're a Wizard), so it's always best to pick a niche and go for that.

    But yeah general advice, just play what sounds fun. It'll probably be fine.

    Steelhawk
  • captainkcaptaink regular TexasRegistered User regular
    Nyht wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    JustTee wrote: »
    After a long role-playing hiatus, I've been invited to a 5E game. I played a little of 3.X, a ton of 4E, and I played in whatever the initial "My First D&D 5E module" was (Lost Mine of Something-Something?) with a pre-generated character.

    Are there any classes and/or races to avoid? I wasn't too fired up about the Rogue in that module, but I'm not sure if that whole thing was playtest materials or not. I prefer to not be the Final Fantasy "move forward two steps, slash, move back two steps" character, but I'm open to pretty much anything. This game was just announced, so I'm not sure on what others will be playing.

    I'll give a quick run down of classes. If you're playing in a party of min/maxers and looking to optimize, the stat in ()'s is that class's main stat, and you just pick a race that gets +2 to it. If you're playing with non-optimizers, then pick a race who's lore/flavor/special abilities sound cool. Ultimately, you'll miss out on *at most* a +2 to a main stat, which is actually only a +1 to the modifier. If your game is all about combat efficiency and optimization, it might matter. As a DM, though, there's so much fog in the encounter building system that I have to build in a bit of wobble, so my players know they don't really have to optimize in order to play well in my games. Your mileage may vary.
    Fighter (STR or DEX) - Some of the most effective combat builds in the game are based around the fighter, or sometimes built around a 2 level dip in fighter, for access to Action Surge. Champion subclass is the one to avoid, if what you're looking for is interesting decisions to make every round. Battlemaster Fighter is fun, with lots of options during combat. DEX is technically the "optimal" choice, but the difference usually ends up being fairly small.

    Rogue (DEX) - The base rogue class is pretty boring. Your options are essentially - find some way to hide or gain advantage some way, and unleash a single large attack. Arcane Trickster is a cool idea for a subclass, but in practice, you generally are almost always better off using your actions to sneak attack, rather than casting weak spells.

    Barbarian (STR) - Simple. Effective tanks. Huge damage dealing potential. Boring mechanically.

    Warlock (CHA) - 90% of your combat rounds will be spent casting Eldritch Blast, if your DM runs multiple combats per day. You have some space for utility spells, but it's often hard to figure out when to use them. Invocations are cool as hell though.

    Wizard (INT) - Easily the most versatile of all the classes. Access to the widest range of magical effects. If your games are at all deadly, the wizard is someone who will drop regularly.

    Cleric (WIS/CHA) - Honestly, Clerics are surprisingly effective damage dealers, incredibly resilient, and some of the domains get access to some pretty funny things.

    Druid (WIS) - Extremely versatile, access to wild shapes, generally pretty fun. If your campaign starts at level 1, Circle of the Moon Druids are *easily* the most OP things in combat in the game at level 2. It's utterly hilarious. I took out an entire castle full of goblins basically by myself as a level 2 druid, while my party watched in horror as a big brown bear just mauled it's way to the main boss.

    Ranger - Probably the only class I'd actively avoid unless you know combat effectiveness doesn't really matter, and there's some kind of wilderness aspect to the campaign. Otherwise, a Crossbow Rogue or Ranged Fighter are both more effective, and will generally be able to use their class specific abilities more often.

    Monk (DEX/WIS) - Shockingly effective combat class. Consistently outputs wayyyyy more damage than people think. Some fun lore and role play options. Kind of like the Battlemaster Fighter-Lite.

    Sorceror - Kind of like the Wizard-lite. With some Warlock subclass chicanery, one of the highest damage per round capabilities in the game. Metamagics are super cool, but also extremely limited.

    Don't forget Paladin(STR/CHA) Tough, good at blowing things up with Divine Smite, has some nice defensive auras.

    I will say that some classes fared very well with the new subclasses in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Barbarians, Rogues, Rangers, Warlocks, Fighters all got interesting options that diverge quite a bit from their vanilla incarnations.

    Nothing actually ties them to STR though does it? Don't leave out all the elven Green Knights.

    Only the multiclassing requirements, for some reason. But yes, a Dex Paladin is totally doable, they just have a harder time multiclassing.

Sign In or Register to comment.