Sorry, but have to chime in and say these kinds of threads make me wonder what kind of game some people are playing. Sounds like statistical analysis  instead of a portraying a character. It's a Roleplaying game not a Rule playing game right?

I have so far played the most out of the 5e Warlock followed by the Sorcerer. The Warlock is alot of fun, especially if you just accept that your spellcasting is not much, and that alot of your oomph comes from the invocations and your pact aspect. They are also great for emulating the BX Elf who was combination fighter/wizard.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1006279Sorry, but have to chime in and say these kinds of threads make me wonder what kind of game some people are playing. Sounds like statistical analysis  instead of a portraying a character. It's a Roleplaying game not a Rule playing game right?

Have to agree here. Sometimes these threads devolve into "DPS is the all!"

I am totally not concerned with wither my character doing as much damage as the others. Im pretty darn sure Im not. Which is how it should be. I contribute mostly outside of combat with logistics and mapping. I supplied the mobile home for the group and tend the be the group negotiator and not because my character has a good CHA. (It helps But rolls arent made much if at all during things like that.) We've had alot of fun exploring the area and delving into the mysteries of the swamp region and occasionally coming across the aftermath of two other groups that run on different days.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1006279Sorry, but have to chime in and say these kinds of threads make me wonder what kind of game some people are playing. Sounds like statistical analysis  instead of a portraying a character. It's a Roleplaying game not a Rule playing game right?

It's not 1992, this is not Usenet, and we've all heard the "it's ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing!" lines (although nice change up on the specific wording though, kudos). The original poster framed the discussion in terms of game mechanics, using phrases such as 'combat role' and discussing damage, damage resistance, and locking down opponents. So of course people are going to respond to the question with answers related to game mechanics.

Now if the OP had asked about what types of character roles people would want to play, and everyone instead responded with what they liked to play based upon their mechanical abilities, that critique might have merit. But that is not what happened here.

Quote from: Omega;1006283I am totally not concerned with wither my character doing as much damage as the others. Im pretty darn sure Im not.

In all likelihood, few/none of us are. The culture of this board selects against it. But when someone asks a question on the subject, we can answer about it on topic, yes?

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1006238Monks do lots of damage when you take account of multiple attacks. If you are adding their Dex bonus for damage on every hit, it doesn't matter that they are just doing D6 damage each time - the bonuses accumulate. I had a 5th level Halfling Monk that could smack the crap out of lots of opponents. Monks also have the appeal of not carrying needing to carry much equipment with them - which can be advantageous in some situations where they've had their weapons taken away. They can make very good assassins.

Monks can do consistent damage but not high damage. Multiple attacks (which really require ki usage to do the full flurry) mean multiple chances to miss, and even if they're hitting consistently monks don't typically dish out the same amount of damage as most other melee classes can do without burning resources because they don't have access to high-damage attacks until late game and can't make much use of the damage-boosting Feats.

On the sorcerer, I've seen one, and so far I'm not seeing the appeal that much.  The gap between wizard and bard was so slight, it was tough to fit something in there.  It would be a simple class, which would be its reason for existence at all, except that the key to making one work is good choices in the "meta magic" options with the sorcerer points.  An occasional "twin" spell is very powerful, especially if it is something that requires concentration.  

I've made it a point to address any class balance issues through equipment instead of rules changes.  So far, I've had to make sure that the ranger and sorcerer have good equipment compared to the rest of the group, to stay very relevant.  For example, the sorcerer got a rod that improves his spell attack bonus and saves against DC by +1.  Doesn't sound like much, but it was enough to give the character a niche.  This particular group does not have a wizard in the party. I'm not sure how the sorcerer would seem if they did.

I do not see the collapsing of differences in characters that others have talked about, at least not to any great extent.  There is some basic overlap, due to the decreased numbers overall to support the "bounded accuracy" principle.  So attacks, armor classes, saves, etc. are generally in a smaller range.  This reminds me very much of Basic D&D more than anything 3E or 4E.  The cantrips aren't near the be all and end all that some theorize.  Once the characters hit 5th level (and warriors get that second attack), the differences become more pronounced.  Yeah, hit points are inflated.  So is damage.  A wizard type does not want to spend any time in melee if they can help it.  Even hybrid characters want to limit their exposure.  A rogue would much rather be lurking just outside of melee, helping attack something a warrior type or armored cleric has already engaged, getting in a ranged sneak attack or dashing in for a shot before disengaging or hiding.  

The one area I do see too much 3E and 4E influence is the relative importance of Dex and thus diminishing of Str.  A single house rule to remove Dex-based melee attacks would go a long way towards giving even more of an earlier D&D feel.  Even more than diminishing or removing cantrips would.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1006279Sorry, but have to chime in and say these kinds of threads make me wonder what kind of game some people are playing. Sounds like statistical analysis  instead of a portraying a character. It's a Roleplaying game not a Rule playing game right?

I said on Pundit's forum this would happen if I started a 5e thread here, but people told me to post anyway.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1006296The one area I do see too much 3E and 4E influence is the relative importance of Dex and thus diminishing of Str.  A single house rule to remove Dex-based melee attacks would go a long way towards giving even more of an earlier D&D feel.  Even more than diminishing or removing cantrips would.

I went the other way and allowed STR-based bows. It seems closer to reality anyway.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1006296The one area I do see too much 3E and 4E influence is the relative importance of Dex and thus diminishing of Str.  A single house rule to remove Dex-based melee attacks would go a long way towards giving even more of an earlier D&D feel.  Even more than diminishing or removing cantrips would.

Excellent point. Its one of those design choices that made me scratch my head.

Wow some "interesting" comments on here already.

In regards to the Social Pillar it is very hard to put game bits on this.  They added the Ideal, Flaw, Bond, and Personality system with Inspiration as a makeshift rules system that you can hang onto.  However, going full Exalted and having bits and bobs that let you dominate Social would in fact remove the Role play and make it Rule play as alleged.  Basically everyone's Social mechanics are wrapped up in their Background, which gives the PIBF for Inspiration and a role-playing benefit in most cases (Soldier for instance), and in the Skill system (Persuasion, Performance, Deception, Insight, Intimidation).  Classes are better or worse at Social based on access to those skills and a few other bits and bobs -- mostly spells.

I don't feel that there is an over reliance on Dex in 5e.  Light armor + 20 Dex only gets you 17 AC which is what Half Plate + Shield gets you.  Ranged attacks aren't necessarily the be all and end all because of Cantrips and the Magic Initiate feat.

What the hell are people's monks fighting that they are missing all the time?  I grant that the stunning palm rarely seems to work but I've never really seen monks have trouble at least hitting their target 4+ times a round.  If the monk is having problems so is the fighter so everything evens out.

Sorcerers are tick-based characters.  They are not as powerful as a Wizard or even Bard but they can manage things that neither of those two can do because of Metamagic.  The sorcerer in one group just got Greater Invisibility and thanks to Twinned Spell he is able to cast it on both himself and the Rogue which leads to crazy damage in battle.  In addition as a Charisma based class they are set up to be good at the Combat and Social pillars but lag in the Exploration aspect compared to a Wizard.

I'd say the Warlock is also a combat trickster but with the potential to either focus on Combat, or dabble in both Social and Exploration, or just specialize in one of S/E.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1006279Sorry, but have to chime in and say these kinds of threads make me wonder what kind of game some people are playing. Sounds like statistical analysis  instead of a portraying a character. It's a Roleplaying game not a Rule playing game right?

This is a different game than the one you are playing.  This is dueling spread sheets.   It can be a lot of fun.  But treat it like a different game than the one you normally play.  The goal is to get the biggest number possible in a couple of specific boxes.

Quote from: Headless;1006344This is a different game than the one you are playing.  This is dueling spread sheets.   It can be a lot of fun.  But treat it like a different game than the one you normally play.  The goal is to get the biggest number possible in a couple of specific boxes.

Only if you are one of the white room dunderheads that plagues modern D&D.  For old school players there is actually a lot of fun to be found.  Champion is usually bagged on by a lot of DPS acolytes but fearsomepirate's underused class guide on the TBP points out how amazing it is at environmental stuff.  Remarkable Athlete lets you do all sorts of crazy old school stuff like tossing furniture on people, piloting vehicles, tying people up, break free of bonds, bend bars and lift gates, tip over statues, etc.  I also just noticed that it also applies to Initiative checks.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1006279Sorry, but have to chime in and say these kinds of threads make me wonder what kind of game some people are playing. Sounds like statistical analysis  instead of a portraying a character. It's a Roleplaying game not a Rule playing game right?

Some like to do this, doesn't mean you have to in your campaign. I for one emphasize the roleplaying and say to hell with balance as long it reflect how my setting works.

For example the Halfing Shadow. Or the Berserker, both reflect how things work in the Majestic Wilderlands. I don't really care if they are better, worse, or the same as the core classes.

Quote from: KingCheops;1006353Only if you are one of the white room dunderheads that plagues modern D&D.  For old school players there is actually a lot of fun to be found.  Champion is usually bagged on by a lot of DPS acolytes but fearsomepirate's underused class guide on the TBP points out how amazing it is at environmental stuff.  Remarkable Athlete lets you do all sorts of crazy old school stuff like tossing furniture on people, piloting vehicles, tying people up, break free of bonds, bend bars and lift gates, tip over statues, etc.  I also just noticed that it also applies to Initiative checks.

Sounds to me like you are just getting your big numbers in a different box.  

Athlete gives you a bounis to initive as well?  I don't remember that.  Sounds OP ;p

Quote from: Headless;1006397Sounds to me like you are just getting your big numbers in a different box.  

Athlete gives you a bounis to initive as well?  I don't remember that.  Sounds OP ;p

Yes because older editions of D&D never had any game mechanics for anything.