TheRPGSite

As many here know, I've been running quite a lot of 5E lately.
I've been running the Temple of elemental Evil and a few side quests thrown in for good measure.

The party is now at level 5 and close to level 6.
It consists of:

Halfling, Open hand Monk
Tielfing Moon Druid
Human Champion Fighter
Halfling, Wild Sorceror

There has been a bit of up and down with the power levels of the various characters.

I should start with that I didn't just assume short rests would go ok whenever the party wanted to. They had to plan things out and ofter stick it out when abilities that recharged on short rests had run out, such as KI points, wild shape etc..

Druid
At first, it seemed like perhaps the Druid would have the upper hand, but I noted the Damage output was generally lower than the other classes. Although the extra HPs gained from Shapechanging was really nice. but the limitations of no spells when in beast form was quite limiting.
Also it's important to note that if you want to change back to your normal form before the change duration runs out, that costs a shape change slot.
So what it gained, it lost in other ways.

Monk
The Monk KI abilities and improved movement speed were a real boon for the Monk. As it gets those extra KI attacks, it's generally low damage is counterbalanced by more attacks, so it's a real combat monster.
It had a fairly average AC though and not fantastic HPs, so the Monk tended to get dropped to zero HPs the most.

Fighter
What with the fighter decent HPs and AC. Plus using a Greatsword, which deals out quite a bit of damage and action surges etc.  
Whilst not the most exciting character to run at low level, was always the last one standing and the hardest to hit.
He got a lot more interesting as he went up levels with his additional abilities and feats.
His damage output had ups and downs and was the class most susceptible to crappy dice rolls, due to getting less attacks than other classes (although higher damage).

Sorceror
The wild Sorceror was a great class to play. The Wild magic roll hardly ever came off though (only rolled 1 a couple of times) .
The Sorcery points are really useful and Meta magic really boosts the class and makes it interesting.
For ranged damage, the Sorceror is really deadly and saved the day a few times when things were looking really bad.
Just don't let things get close to him though.  Fairly easy to hit (even with Mage Armor) and not a lot of HPs.

All in all, I liked all the classes and races so far that we played.
Perhaps at level 5, the Moon Druid is lagging behind a bit in damage output as it doesn't get those extra attacks the Fighter and Monk got at level 5.
Although it did get level 3 spells and Call lightning, which under the right circumstances is nasty.
It'll be able to change to CR 2 beasts next level though, so that will be interesting to see how it balances out.
   
All in, in my experience all the whining about the Moon Druid being overpowered is unfounded, as the other classes are very good too.
I wouldn't say all the classes are absolutely balanced at every level. But I didn't experience any "This is terribly unbalanced " moments.

I think the classes most affected so far by the lack of Short rests is the Druid and Monk (shapechanging slots and KI slots respectively)

The most affected by lack of Long rests are the Sorceror and Druid (spells)

The Fighter seemed the most resilient with lack of Short or Long rests.


What are other people's experiences with 5E so far balance wise?
I don't mean your personal opinions based on what you read in the PHB, but by actual gameplay experience.

Quote from: danskmacabre;798297It had a fairly average AC though and not fantastic HPs, so the Monk tended to get dropped to zero HPs the most.
.

This is my experience as well.  In the game we're playing (we're level 4 now), I'm playing a shadow monk and I've dropped about 4 times.  More than any other PC by a wide margin.  I can move all over the place, but can't take that many hits before I'm dropped.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798301This is my experience as well.  In the game we're playing (we're level 4 now), I'm playing a shadow monk and I've dropped about 4 times.  More than any other PC by a wide margin.  I can move all over the place, but can't take that many hits before I'm dropped.

I put in some magic items later on and one thing I put in was a +1 ring of protection.
I had actually intended it for the Sorceror, but after some discussion the players decided to give it to the Monk, as he was going down so often.
That +1 AC made a real difference to him and he stayed up far more often.

I found the Monk was great at stopping mobs running away, as he was so fast and had the knockdown abilities etc.
As he could catch up so easily, he'd force enemies to use a disengage action, thus slowing them down.
It's just when fighting solo, toe to toe against a heavy hitter, he suffered somewhat.
But then I guess that's the job of the Fighter, who performed that role very well.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798301This is my experience as well.  In the game we're playing (we're level 4 now), I'm playing a shadow monk and I've dropped about 4 times.  More than any other PC by a wide margin.  I can move all over the place, but can't take that many hits before I'm dropped.

In our group of a Human Monk, Tiefling Barbarian, Dragonborn Ranger and Halfling Warlock (NPC), the Monk has definitely sustained the most abuse and dropped the most here as well.

I think it's because Dex and Wis are your primary attributes (so not likely to have a CON bonus), and you have the HP of a rogue, but can't really attack at range like a rogue can.  Or have cunning action like a rogue to disengage for free.

The fighter in our group has a very high AC, so he hardly gets hit, and the barbarian has damage resistance.  That leaves me as the 3rd melee fighter (I'm also the scout since we don't have a rogue).  I don't mind it so much (going down), and figure it will get better the higher level we go.  Once I get shadow step I foresee me using that a lot.

My campaign started with a Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, and Wizard.  At low levels, the Ranger was awesome, the Sorcerer and Wizard so so, and the Bard sucked raw eggs.  Around 3rd or 4th level, the Bard switched to Barbarian and is much happier for it.

Hitting 5th level was a huge boost in power for everyone.  Two fireballs in a round is incredibly nasty.

Now they are 6th level.  The Sorcerer and Wizard are stout cookies, but must be careful with stretching their spell load.  When relying on cantrips they are terrible.  Even their 1st and 2nd level spells are noticeably weakening.

The Barbarian is an absolute beast who can handle rediculous amounts of punishment.  He is also useless at range, so battle planning matters a lot.  

The Ranger is starting to fade, particularly in having a weak chin.  Goes down in a lot of fights.  The player admits, however, to not really utilizing his spellcasting.  He plans to focus on that and see how it goes.  The thoughts of switching to a different character are percollating.

There things worry me.

How can a bard choose to become a barbarian? Was he always a barbarian tribe guy but focused on the bard stuff (Scald?) One one day did he strip off his Motley and decide he was going to grow a beard and learn to curse in an accent. Is he a real barbarian or the bard just acting as a barbarian?

How can the monk plan to use Shadow step a lot? Is this something he has discussed as an accolyte " One day grasshopper you will learn to use shadow step, you should use this a lot in combat as monks are fragile having a low con and only d8 HP"

Didn't sacro say this monk dipped into a level or sorcerer to get a ranged cantrip spell for backup? How can that work? I think I will just master the arts of magic in case I get stuck without a bow or ammo... hold on...

Sounds scarily like 3e or a tactical combat sim to me :D

The bard retired to become an NPC ally of the party, spreading word of their deeds in Neverwinter.  The player rolled up a barbarian.  I have never been bothered by a player switching PCs.  Minimum XP of the lowest level party member, no magic items.

5e certainly feels like a blend of 3e and AD&D, but my games are no tactical sim.  

We have spent nearly as much time dicking around Neverwinter as we have adventuring.  Last session had a great time where the elf wizard brought back the dragon's carcass to mount in his family's Neverwinter mansion (noble background).  

I am using an ad hoc way to track their fame in the city.  A couple sessions ago, the ranger pissed off the various noble families at a party.  He was banned from the town.  Becoming a dragon slayer bought him enough goodwill that the guards finally let him in the gates again last session.  We all laughed our guts out.

Of course, we also do DnD adventure stuff.  Something like 50/50 between time spent in adventure and pure roleplay.  The roleplay part does not matter all that much what the PCs' abilities are.  In the adventure part, it does.  And if a player is not happy with their PC's performance, I let them switch if they want.  No big deal.

Quote from: jibbajibba;798446Sounds scarily like 3e or a tactical combat sim to me :D

Cherry picking magic items in first edition is like 3e. Min-maxing has been with the hobby since the beginning. Hell I won a AD&D 1st fight tourney because I knew how broken a 7th level Druid was with the right magic items (picked with a limited budget)

Three decades ago a younger me would have sniffed my nose and looked down on the idea. Now I don't really give a crap. My goal it make sure my campaign is fun and players are immersed regardless of their play style except those who insist on being a dick.

Quote from: estar;798462How was that role-played?

Happened about halfway through the Phandalin adventure.  The bard was from Neverwinter, so he went back to his old tavern singing ways.  The barbarian is a dwarf, cousin of the dwarves in the Phandalin adventure.  He heard word of his cousins' being kidnapped and went to Phandalin to find them.  Obvious hookup with the party since they were looking for the dwarves as well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;798446There things worry me.

How can a bard choose to become a barbarian? Was he always a barbarian tribe guy but focused on the bard stuff (Scald?) One one day did he strip off his Motley and decide he was going to grow a beard and learn to curse in an accent. Is he a real barbarian or the bard just acting as a barbarian?

How can the monk plan to use Shadow step a lot? Is this something he has discussed as an accolyte " One day grasshopper you will learn to use shadow step, you should use this a lot in combat as monks are fragile having a low con and only d8 HP"

Didn't sacro say this monk dipped into a level or sorcerer to get a ranged cantrip spell for backup? How can that work? I think I will just master the arts of magic in case I get stuck without a bow or ammo... hold on...

Sounds scarily like 3e or a tactical combat sim to me :D

1a: I think in the example given he meant the player was retiring the Bard and starting up a new character who was a Barbarian?

1b: As for multiclassing. That ones allways going to be all sorts of goofy tricky. One way to look at it is a sort of "going back to nature" sort of deal or the bard trying to tap into some sort of "primal rage music". Wizard is harder to justify but do-able. Perhaps the wizard is fed up of getting stomped in melee, or has some sort of ancestral ties, or takes to living with a barbarian kingdom and is a natural for it. Maybee its part of some sort of long term plan?

2: Same as with some real world training. If I want to be a painter I train more for painting than sculpting. (Assuming I have a tallent for either.) In martial arts is seems that some do indeed have a sort of "plan" for getting XYZ techniques for whatever reason. And often you need to work through the lesser techniques to gain understanding of the higher ones. (Which is something D&D martial arts should play more off of.)

3: Yeah. This bugs me too a little as it feels way too much like gaming the system rather than playing a character. Why not just use a bow? Or spend a feat to gain a cantrip? Though you can weave the cantrip into the martial arts as a technique rather than pure magic. Like the meteor hammer or iron ribbon attacks. etc. There are ways to make it feel less gamey.

3a: addendum: and Sacro explained his reasonings and method below.

I think at this point, between this and the other thread, jibba is just trolling for luz.  It sure seems 90% of his complaints in both are based on incorrect assumptions, even after being pointed out the inaccuracies

as for my monk, shadow step is a class feature, just like a paladin in 1e leading how to call a warhorse or cast spells, or any of the numerous abilities a 1e monk got later on.  And for my cantrip, I DID take a feat at 1st level to get it (human) because it fit with his background of being part of a dark monastic order

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798508I think at this point, between this and the other thread, jibba is just trolling for luz.  It sure seems 90% of his complaints in both are based on incorrect assumptions, even after being pointed out the inaccuracies

as for my monk, shadow step is a class feature, just like a paladin in 1e leading how to call a warhorse or cast spells, or any of the numerous abilities a 1e monk got later on.  And for my cantrip, I DID take a feat at 1st level to get it (human) because it fit with his background of being part of a dark monastic order

well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

I really hated that so much I never moved to 3e. I had hoped we woudl get a 5e that was more about "how does my character develop through time and experience" rather than how can I add more stuff to my character to enable it to do y.
I know multiclassing is optional - so I have already banned it. I am still on the fence with feats. I didn't allow humans to pick feats at first level for sure but I was hoping that I could allow them at 4th as a way to give the party that nice jump to mid level. Maybe I allow at 4th but don't allow another til much later ... we will see.

I am quite worried about the Warlock with EB extra damage, Spell sniper etc who can chuck 2 EBs 600 feet and deal 1d10+3 a round, every round, for ever :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;798568well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

I really hated that so much I never moved to 3e. I had hoped we woudl get a 5e that was more about "how does my character develop through time and experience" rather than how can I add more stuff to my character to enable it to do y.
I know multiclassing is optional - so I have already banned it. I am still on the fence with feats. I didn't allow humans to pick feats at first level for sure but I was hoping that I could allow them at 4th as a way to give the party that nice jump to mid level. Maybe I allow at 4th but don't allow another til much later ... we will see.

I think 5e is supposed to be adaptable to run with a 3e feel, a 4e feel, or a 1e/2e feel (probably more 2e - actually it's closest to C&C), depending on the preference of the players & the group.
I think I'll be aiming for a sort of 1e/2e plus 4e mash-up; stomping on 3eisms such as the multiclassing, but probably allow Feats ok.

Regarding Multiclassing. I've never been that attracted to it, but then I never played DnD v3 or 3.5 .

I Ran and played PF, but hardly anyone took Multiclassed characters, as the PF classes seemed pretty well rounded anyway.
5E seems to be even more well rounded.

I doubt I'll ban Multiclassing, but I don't expect it to be a problem or people particularly wanting to either.

As to Feats, there's not that many of them and they seem OK to me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;798568well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

I really hated that so much I never moved to 3e. I had hoped we woudl get a 5e that was more about "how does my character develop through time and experience" rather than how can I add more stuff to my character to enable it to do y.
I know multiclassing is optional - so I have already banned it. I am still on the fence with feats. I didn't allow humans to pick feats at first level for sure but I was hoping that I could allow them at 4th as a way to give the party that nice jump to mid level. Maybe I allow at 4th but don't allow another til much later ... we will see.

I am quite worried about the Warlock with EB extra damage, Spell sniper etc who can chuck 2 EBs 600 feet and deal 1d10+3 a round, every round, for ever :D

ADnD is a great game that I would highly recommend, particularly 1st edition.

For 5e, angst over warlocks and feats or whatever is easily dismissed by simply having a conversation with your group over the type of game y'all want to play.  Hopefully every group has such conversations.

For my group, it seemed a bit cheesy when the ranger started using a magical quarterstaff in one hand as a dual wielder.  We talked about it as a group and decided to allow the cheesiness for this campaign and revisit the issue later for future campaigns.

I think 5e should work fine without multiclassing, and I plan on also not allowing it. There's sufficient flexibility in the game, and I say that as someone who multiclassed a lot in 3e.

I also think 5e could really use a more stripped down, microlite approach. (I might try to tinker out such an idea, myself)

Quote from: jibbajibba;798568well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

Yeah, see, you're doing it again.  When someone points out to you that no, it's not working the way you are saying it's working, you're ignoring that and doubling down on your incorrect assumption.

You did it on the other thread when you were bitching about eldritch blast being way too powerful compared to an archer, and kept to that argument when it was pointed out no fewer than three times that you were using the rules wrong, and were forgetting to add DEX mod to the archer's damage.  It was only after the half dozenth time before you finally admitted it.

And here you are again, assuming my character feat choice was based on metagaming instead of gameplay after I already told you it wasn't, and explained why.  Heck, at my table, no one has multiclassed because feats allow us to achieve the same archetypes we've always liked without needing to.  That's a huge plus for us.  Rather than do a fighter/MU or figher/thief in 1e, we have a fighter with magic initiate (or eldritch knight) or a fighter with the urchin background and skulker feat.  none of that even remotely means we're not developing PCs through play.  We absolutely are.

If you don't like 5e, fine.  Everyone has different preferences.  But stop basing it on your mistakes and/or misunderstandings of how it works or the motivations of others.  That's incredibly disingenuous.

Here I agree with Sacrosanct.

Feats in 5e are DRIPPING with characterization and Roleplay, and lack the gatekeeping bullshit of 3e feats.

They are also nicely optional.

Yeah, i dunno why they even bothered with multi-classing rules. You can take feats to effectively dip into others classes. I prefer it that way myself.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798611Yeah, see, you're doing it again.  When someone points out to you that no, it's not working the way you are saying it's working, you're ignoring that and doubling down on your incorrect assumption.

You did it on the other thread when you were bitching about eldritch blast being way too powerful compared to an archer, and kept to that argument when it was pointed out no fewer than three times that you were using the rules wrong, and were forgetting to add DEX mod to the archer's damage.  It was only after the half dozenth time before you finally admitted it.

And here you are again, assuming my character feat choice was based on metagaming instead of gameplay after I already told you it wasn't, and explained why.  Heck, at my table, no one has multiclassed because feats allow us to achieve the same archetypes we've always liked without needing to.  That's a huge plus for us.  Rather than do a fighter/MU or figher/thief in 1e, we have a fighter with magic initiate (or eldritch knight) or a fighter with the urchin background and skulker feat.  none of that even remotely means we're not developing PCs through play.  We absolutely are.

If you don't like 5e, fine.  Everyone has different preferences.  But stop basing it on your mistakes and/or misunderstandings of how it works or the motivations of others.  That's incredibly disingenuous.

Whoa tiger. On the other thread I missed the damage stuff and admitted such as soon as it was pointed out. there may have been a few crossed threads but that is the nature of an asymetrical conversation on a forum board.
I raised the point on post 20 that I didn't see where you were getting dex bonus to damage from and thanked you on post 32 that you had pointed it out. Threads cross so don't think for just one second that I was ignoring you just answering other posts.

The reason I thought your monk had taken the cantrip for meta game reasons was on the other thread when you said " I have a monk with magic initiate with that cantrip, but it's only for a long range attack for emergencies." Post #8. So I assumed you had taken it for meta game reasons. Sorry if that was not the case.

Again I like 5e but I just have problems with the cantrip stuff. I think I am allowed to have an issue with that and still enjoy the rest of the game? Or do I have to become a devotee who must accept all parts of the game to be considered pure enough of heart to comment?
5e has been the first new RPG books I have bought in about 4 years and I am running a campaign of it so that must be saying something.
You are beginning to sound like Abyssal Maw used to when we critiqued parts of the 4e system...

Quote from: One Horse Town;798786Yeah, i dunno why they even bothered with multi-classing rules. You can take feats to effectively dip into others classes. I prefer it that way myself.

Yeah, this is actually one of the things that I really did like from 4e, before they came in with the alternate multiclassing rules because people thought the feat type wasn't good enough.

3.x was all about multiclassing to hit obscure concepts, 5e just... doesn't seem to need it. All the characters we've made for 5e have been single class. At most I was tempted to take one level of fighter with my Archer bard (for the archery combat style), but that still made sense for my characters growth, dude was an archer. In the end I decided against it because it would delay my bard stuff.

That being said, I think there is, as with all versions, a bit of "this works well mechanically" choices that everyone makes, but it is also the kind of thing that I can see being a decision the character in character would choose.

My Archer bard for instance, was a high elf. For his high elf cantrip, I picked up shocking grasp. I had a pretty good int, so it wasn't that much worse for accuracy than a weapon, but it had the advantages of the enemy not getting reactions, which let me move back out of melee range easier, and I wouldn't have to drop my bow to draw a melee weapon.

It works well mechanically, but I could see the character making the same decision: If I learn this spell that allows me to shock people with my bare hand, I can not worry about drawing a melee weapon when I get cornered.

I like the multi-classing pre-reqs and other limitations. Could be tighter, but missing out on upper level goodies tends to be the bigger limiter on players dipping. It's a start at least, and a welcome one to put the kibosh on build shenanigans.

Feats for the most part are interesting, but not chained requirements. That and they're for the most part flavor dipping, not permission taxes. Everyone can attempt just about any mundane thing, if you're willing to accept the penalties.

Yes, your Wizard can start with Chain Mail, Shield, and wield a Battleaxe. Now it has AC 18 and a Battle axe to take advantage of its high STR (your wizard has high STR, right?). That wizard in a tin can also has Disadv on ability checks, saves, attack rolls, no PB on that weapon, and has their Spd reduced by 10', too.

As for my experience with mid-levels, they're good so far. Already I think we have too much stuff too fast, as Starter Set followed by Hoard of the Dragon Queen is like a rocket of power leveling to experienced players. But one of the episodes was put to good use to power level my Adventure League adaption of Michael Jackson (yes, the entertainer) from lvl 1 to lvl 5 in one short episode, so who am I to complain. I'll throw him onto the 5e NPC topic if there's popular demand.

I'm trying to savor my other Adventure League characters before they get too high too fast for my tastes.

I am allowing multiclassing in my new campaign but I'm putting the same requirements on it that already exist for learning a new language or tool.

250 days and 250gp. I'm ruling that the 1st half of those requirements must be with a qualified instructor of whatever the character wants to learn and the balance of time/money can be spent through self practice.

I am also expanding this to regular skills too. So with time and cash, any character can learn another class, skill, language or tool.

I thought it was strange that it took the better part of a year for a character to learn to speak elvish but had no difficulty suddenly learning how to cast spells overnight anf just picking up the wizard class. :rolleyes:

This way, there is sufficient in-game time spent to justify plausibly learning another classes abilities.

@ExploderWizard. I like it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;798797I am allowing multiclassing in my new campaign but I'm putting the same requirements on it that already exist for learning a new language or tool.

250 days and 250gp. I'm ruling that the 1st half of those requirements must be with a qualified instructor of whatever the character wants to learn and the balance of time/money can be spent through self practice.

I am also expanding this to regular skills too. So with time and cash, any character can learn another class, skill, language or tool.

I thought it was strange that it took the better part of a year for a character to learn to speak elvish but had no difficulty suddenly learning how to cast spells overnight anf just picking up the wizard class. :rolleyes:

This way, there is sufficient in-game time spent to justify plausibly learning another classes abilities.

I like that.
How are you handling feats?

I think Multiclassing was a natural idea in 3e, but over time I think many people started seeing the problems.

Pathfinder, for example, made multiclassing a lot less useful/necessary.

Another fun option from 3e is gestalt, where you simply have two classes at a time.

It occurs to me that a version of 5e with more simplified classes might do very well with gestalt. Mmm.

Quote from: Will;798803I think Multiclassing was a natural idea in 3e, but over time I think many people started seeing the problems.

Pathfinder, for example, made multiclassing a lot less useful/necessary.

Another fun option from 3e is gestalt, where you simply have two classes at a time.

It occurs to me that a version of 5e with more simplified classes might do very well with gestalt. Mmm.

Going back to the thread on "are classes better for fantasy" if you make multiclassing trivial then you may as well use a skills paradigm and remove classes all together. It will be a lot less jarring and the "exploits" will be reduced because you can't just pick up a level in something and immediately inherit all the base level special stuff.

One of the biggest things I'd like to see is some kind of Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger subclass for the Wizard (heavier magic less martial). Add that in with some other subclasses like Invoker/Oracle/Mystic for the Cleric some bloodline variety for the Sorcerer, 2-3 colleges for the Bard and I see little need for full multiclassing as it's setup. Given 5e like Pathfinder makes single classing the objectively better choice except in rare cases or if it's for setting or campaign reasons.

Quote from: Will;798803I think Multiclassing was a natural idea in 3e, but over time I think many people started seeing the problems.

Pathfinder, for example, made multiclassing a lot less useful/necessary.

Another fun option from 3e is gestalt, where you simply have two classes at a time.

It occurs to me that a version of 5e with more simplified classes might do very well with gestalt. Mmm.

I am waiting to see their version of gestalt and/or 0-2e multiclassing. I thought they mentioned they were going to give the latter in the DMG but I wouldn't quote that.

I like the multi-classing pre-reqs and other limitations. Could be tighter, but missing out on upper level goodies tends to be the bigger limiter on players dipping. It's a start at least, and a welcome one to put the kibosh on build shenanigans.

Feats for the most part are interesting, but not chained requirements. That and they're for the most part flavor dipping, not permission taxes. Everyone can attempt just about any mundane thing, if you're willing to accept the penalties.

Yes, your Wizard can start with Chain Mail, Shield, and wield a Battleaxe. Now it has AC 18 and a Battle axe to take advantage of its high STR (your wizard has high STR, right?). That wizard in a tin can also has Disadv on ability checks, saves, attack rolls, no PB on that weapon, and has their Spd reduced by 10', too.

As for my experience with mid-levels, they're good so far. Already I think we have too much stuff too fast, as Starter Set followed by Hoard of the Dragon Queen is like a rocket of power leveling to experienced players. But one of the episodes was put to good use to power level my Adventure League adaption of Michael Jackson (yes, the entertainer) from lvl 1 to lvl 5 in one short episode, so who am I to complain. I'll throw him onto the 5e NPC topic if there's popular demand.

I'm trying to savor my other Adventure League characters before they get too high too fast for my tastes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;798568well ...

At this point I am just trolling because 5e is starting to feel more like 3e than 1e or 2e...
Basically people using feats or multiclassing to create builds rather than developing characters though play, people looking to future class power and/or feats as a way of increasing Damage per round or whatever.

That's a function of your players, dude.

None of my guys are picking over stuff trying to figure out how to wring the most bang for their buck out of their characters. Literally the closest I've come to this is when our Monk hit level 3 and stared at the Way of the Open Hand and Way of the Four Elements and picked Way of the Open Hand because Way of the Four Elements sounded like way too much to keep up with. All he REALLY cares about is that he left the monastery with three names on his list...he's met two and killed one. The Barbarian only cares about making up for the bad stuff her tribe was involved in...and bedazzling her weapons (seriously). The Ranger only cares about the apocalyptic visions he had and squaring things away with the man that saved him from a wrongful lynching.

Playing the exact same game as you, but my players care about what their characters are doing and not what they can do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;798809Going back to the thread on "are classes better for fantasy" if you make multiclassing trivial then you may as well use a skills paradigm and remove classes all together. It will be a lot less jarring and the "exploits" will be reduced because you can't just pick up a level in something and immediately inherit all the base level special stuff.

In 5e you don't pick up all the other class's profiencencies. Again read the rules PLEASE!!! There are many other limits and subtle changes beyond the obvious also.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;799143That's a function of your players, dude.

None of my guys are picking over stuff trying to figure out how to wring the most bang for their buck out of their characters. Literally the closest I've come to this is when our Monk hit level 3 and stared at the Way of the Open Hand and Way of the Four Elements and picked Way of the Open Hand because Way of the Four Elements sounded like way too much to keep up with. All he REALLY cares about is that he left the monastery with three names on his list...he's met two and killed one. The Barbarian only cares about making up for the bad stuff her tribe was involved in...and bedazzling her weapons (seriously). The Ranger only cares about the apocalyptic visions he had and squaring things away with the man that saved him from a wrongful lynching.

Playing the exact same game as you, but my players care about what their characters are doing and not what they can do.

My players don't min/max at all becuase for 3 of them this is their first ever RPG and the other 3 have been playing in my games for a year and the closest we came to min/maxing was a short M&M2e campaing which I ran just to give them experience of other systems, as before that they had never played tabletop RPGs. so meh...

However, you look at the way the rule open up and the options that present then feats and multiclassing are risky if you want to keep optimisation to a minimum.

Quote from: Marleycat;799166In 5e you don't pick up all the other class's profiencencies. Again read the rules PLEASE!!! There are many other limits and subtle changes beyond the obvious also.

Stop....

If I pick a level of say Warlock do I get cantrips, spells, ? if I pick up a second level do I get invocations etc ... yes

they have tried to mitigate by starting classes quite light and then adding powers at levels 2 and 3 and mitigated this for single clased PCs by havign very fast XP curve to level 3. This is partially because they don't want people to dip into a class and then get a host of class abilities in one bite, so its an attempt but no one would disagree, surely, that a class based model where each class has a host of class powers is very vulnerable to people dipping into classes to collect those powers and this is far more jaring from an immersion perspective than a skills based system where you can buy any skill you like but all skills progress so it feels more natural.

You will see people dipping into fighter to get the additional action  you will get people dipping into casters to get a ranged cantrip, you will see casters dipping into rogue to get disengage without AoO.
These things all feel more 3e system mastery to me. All driven by Optimisation not roleplay.
The optimisation threads are already out there and it feels similar to a new release of Magic. Everyone searching forthe exploits.

Hey maybe I will grow to love it

I'm going to repeat this.  I say repeat because I'm sure someone has said it at some point.

People will play in a style they want to play.  Optimizers will try to optimize.  That has been true of every edition.  If you're going to avoid a game because optimizers will find loopholes, then I'm guessing your table is pretty empty.

It's not different than the specialized dart throwers in AD&D.

Here's what should happen.  Talk to your players.  Communicate how you want to play the game.  5e is actually very good at allowing several different styles of play, from "old school dungeoncrawl" to "charop builds".  Feats are optional.  Multi-classing is optional.  If you have a concern a player is charopping from purely a min/max standpoint, talk to them and don't allow it unless they can give an adequate explanation as to why it makes sense in game.

That right there would solve 99% of your problems jibba.  Stop blaming the game and play with players who share your gaming style.


*Edit*  Oh, and one more thing.  STOP BASING YOUR ASSUMPTIONS FROM WHAT YOU READ ON A CHAROP FORUM.  Go play the actual game and see how it goes firsthand.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799303Stop....

If I pick a level of say Warlock do I get cantrips, spells, ? if I pick up a second level do I get invocations etc ... yes

Yep, they do extremely limited of course, the question is how many levels do you dip? Mostly for full effect it's 9-11 so pick your preferred base class and understand what you lose as you pick up another level in some other class (hint for you it takes 5-6 levels to really be a particular class while not actually falling behind for the 3e level dipping you seem to fear).

I explained what you get and lose for level dipping into Warlock in your cantrip thread. So fuck you and actually play and quit trolling CLEAR?

We already did the 18/2 dip I'm guessing you're worried about something more balanced or maybe 5-6/15-14? Tell us the actual split and what classes are involved before going pure STUPID okay?

There was that thread on multiclassing where we picked apart the idea and showed how weird things could get like multiclassing Warlock several times to become a Blade/Chain/Tome pact to A fey, an infernal and a elder thingy for example.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;799323I'm going to repeat this.  I say repeat because I'm sure someone has said it at some point.

People will play in a style they want to play.  Optimizers will try to optimize.  That has been true of every edition.  If you're going to avoid a game because optimizers will find loopholes, then I'm guessing your table is pretty empty.

It's not different than the specialized dart throwers in AD&D.

Here's what should happen.  Talk to your players.  Communicate how you want to play the game.  5e is actually very good at allowing several different styles of play, from "old school dungeoncrawl" to "charop builds".  Feats are optional.  Multi-classing is optional.  If you have a concern a player is char-opping from purely a min/max standpoint, talk to them and don't allow it unless they can give an adequate explanation as to why it makes sense in game.

That right there would solve 99% of your problems jibba.  Stop blaming the game and play with players who share your gaming style.


*Edit*  Oh, and one more thing.  STOP BASING YOUR ASSUMPTIONS FROM WHAT YOU READ ON A CHAROP FORUM.  Go play the actual game and see how it goes firsthand.

I always do these things and all of my questions are coming from my players. My players are all new to D&D.

I am only now reading the charop forums because I want to know some of the pitfalls of RAW before I encounter them. I don't want the game to spin out of control cos of some feat or char op thing I didn't see coming. I MOSTLY want to avoid telling a player the session AFTER he outclassed the entire party that I an NERFING his character because...

So I am actively looking for the likely issues and trying to head them off so I can continue to deliver a great game my players enjoy.

I will explain what I mean with an example. When we were playing M&M 2e one of the PCs took 12 ranks in Corrosion. I read the power and understood it but there are lots of powers 4 PCs etc so I never followed through the charop possibilities.
It was a great game with time travel, flash back , the whole thing worked really well . Then eventually they came to the showdown against the Big Bad. All theeh players are ready to show their Kewl Powers. Round 1 the corrosion guy activates a thing that gets him initiative. OKAY np. Then he activates a thing that gives him some max attack benefit moving from damage to hit, then he hits with Corrosion and ... the big bad is hit looses all their toughness then takes damage based on their new toughness and so is ,...dead... No other PC got to do a thing.
Now if I had done some due diligence and surfed through the Charop Forums I could have seen that coming, the flags on the overpower/Abuse of Corrosion are manifest.
This wasn't a charoper. This was a smart guy who simply built a character with a cool theme that was a competent as he could make it.

So what I am doing here is trying to be aware of any issues so that my players get the best game they can get. They all feel like they are relevant and they all feel like they have a role to play.
I can make the setting vibrant, the NPCs realistic well rounded, scary, amusing or whatever and I can make the monsters tactics clever and engaging, I can do that because I have been doing that forever. What I can't predict and what I want to avoid is at nth level the Warlock making the archer feel pointless, the Sorcerer being able to clear the battle field or eliminate an environmental challenge etc, all because of some rule combo that seems innocuous but had unforeseen effects.

Well the good news is that 5th is driving the charoppers and whatevers nuts because its not geared to accomodate them and multiclassing isnt the be-all-end-all thed hoped. In fact its pretty useless.

As for trying to curb problems before they happen. Word of warning. Some of the pervieved "problems" are merely in the heads of the people crying "broken!" and sometimes its because they are not playing a rule correctly or possibly deliberately reading a rule in a way its not meant.

Quote from: Omega;799396Well the good news is that 5th is driving the charoppers and whatevers nuts because its not geared to accomodate them and multiclassing isnt the be-all-end-all thed hoped. In fact its pretty useless.

As for trying to curb problems before they happen. Word of warning. Some of the pervieved "problems" are merely in the heads of the people crying "broken!" and sometimes its because they are not playing a rule correctly or possibly deliberately reading a rule in a way its not meant.

And so I come here .... where at least I know what folks are like to get a less biased opinion.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;798801I like that.
How are you handling feats?

Feats I'm using as written for the time being. Unlike a level in a new class, a feat uses up a limited resource slot from the character improvement pool. A feat is gained at the cost of +2 to an ability score that could have been gained instead.

Due to the limited number of them that characters get (especially non fighters), I haven't seen any problems with them so far, and if I'm not seeing anything broken in actual play then I don't bother trying to fix it.

I would suggest not allowing multiclassing until your group knows the game very well.

It's really unnecessary, and more likely to confuse, particularly if they are used to 3e.

I am not allowing multiclassing at all unless someone has a really good reason for it AND is willing to accept that they are going to not be as heavy a hitter as a single classed character.

Yeah, there'd be no multiclassing in my games either.

I'm allowing multiclassing, but taking the first level in a brand new class requires 250 days and 250 gp just like learning everything else.

I plan on structuring the campaign to allow for downtime activities every so often. It will also help with the 15th level in 6 months of game time issue. It will mainly prevent quick dips at very low levels to snag mechanical benefits.

Those that really want to multiclass have a way of doing so but they will need to put in the time and dedication to doing so.

Honestly, as a player, some times I think about multi-classing.  For example, right now I'm playing a monk, and have thought about multi-classing into fighter for something like action surge (I envision the Bruce Lee monk, attacking with a blur of attacks).  But then I look at it and say, "Is 2 levels of fighter really worth it?  If I stayed with my initial monk class, in 2 levels my move would increase, or my martial arts die would increase, or I'd get some really kewl ability.  So I think I'll stick with monk."


So I guess the design team hit a success in mitigating all the level dips that plagued 3e.  To be honest, most of the people I see talking about multi-classing start off at higher levels, and don't actually play those sessions for the time it takes to get level X in their secondary class to achieve their "build".

I started off as a huge fan of 3e multiclassing. And I still think a different game design could work better with it, but you need a dramatically different design than 3e had.

Quote from: Will;800298I started off as a huge fan of 3e multiclassing. And I still think a different game design could work better with it, but you need a dramatically different design than 3e had.

   Say, Star Wars Saga Edition, where the class design is sort of intermediate between 3E and 4E?