D&D 5E [5e DM Help] Keeping the lid on....what builds should I NOT allow?

[Yunru]

Common bullsh*t builds:
Paladin 5/Warlock 3 for extra spell slots and non-stop smiting. His deity would abandon him if he sold his soul for power...
Moon Druid X/Monk 1 for the AC boost. Kung Fu Panda isn't a thing...
Lore Bard X/Life Cleric 1 for the heal boost. "I tried religion once... Not my thing. Learned some tricks though." Come the f*ck on

Behold, the epitome of narrow-mindedness.

Paladin/Warlock? Vengaence seeking Paladin that will do anything to acheive his goals. Archfey paladin, 'nuff said. Maybe even an Oathbreaker paladin, since that's a thing.

Monk/Moon Druid? Yeah because it's not like there's an entire school of martial arts built around how animals move or anything.

Cleric/Bard? Yes because unless you're taking levels in the class called "Cleric", there's no way you can be a holy man drawing your powers from a deity. "Come the f*ck on".

 

[cmad1977]

Behold, the epitome of narrow-mindedness

Pretty sure I'd call this the epitome of hyperbole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vulf]

Fey Warlock might fit with Oath of the Ancients.

Fiend pact into Pally is just some bull that ignores all the Paladin Lore.

You don't need levels of Paladin for a "made a deal with the devil to fight evil" backstory anyway.

 

[Yunru]

You don't need levels of Paladin for a "made a deal with the devil to fight evil" backstory.

Neither do you need not to. Both are perfectly valid.

 

[Motorskills]

Well everyone went pale yesterday with the new Ranger (Deep Stalker?) option that allows an extra attack on the first round. Combined with Sharpshooter at a soft target, that made for 30 extra damage.

I've not over-ruled it yet, but we discussed some tweaks (-2/+3 was seen by the players as dull, would just be spammed), the players proposed -5/+2d6 (seen as more interesting, with a lower average. I've not considered how this is impact by crits yet).


What I (as the GM) didn't like was the combo of no Disadvantage and ignore cover at long range. It just feels thematically wrong, especially as I love using lots of cover-providing terrain in fights, makes things much more interesting.
The players agreed, so we have (for the time-being at least) not allowed them to stack, cover counts at range, but no Disadvantage.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

I would allow everything honestly. No build is 'broken'. Some don't really make sense though...

Common bullsh*t builds:
Paladin 5/Warlock 3 for extra spell slots and non-stop smiting. His deity would abandon him if he sold his soul for power...
Moon Druid X/Monk 1 for the AC boost. Kung Fu Panda isn't a thing...
Lore Bard X/Life Cleric 1 for the heal boost. "I tried religion once... Not my thing. Learned some tricks though." Come the f*ck on.

At the end of the day, it's just a game. We all play for different reasons. Some people care more about powergaming than character background (this is the optimization forum afterall). Who's to say what we should find fun? Let your players make the characters they want to play. As DM/God, you have the power to balance things in your game via other means.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're wrong regarding your examples. Firstly, the Paladin isn't powered by devotion to a God, he is powered by an Ideal. To that end, like a previous poster mentioned, he could make deals with the goal of gaining more power to seek his Ideal. The Moon Druid/Monk sounds pretty cool actually so I'm not sure what makes this build . The Cleric is another misconception...Clerics aren't Priests. Clerics are chosen by Gods to be their Warriors on this plane, not the other way around. Yes, in a meta sense the player chooses to be a Cleric, but Clerics don't even have to particularly devout. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't believe in you. So a Bard/Cleric makes perfect sense...he's a guy chosen by God who has not chosen to fully embrace his higher calling.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

I would allow everything honestly. No build is 'broken'. Some don't really make sense though...

don't make sense *to you*

Common bullsh*t builds:

Judgmental much?

Paladin 5/Warlock 3 for extra spell slots and non-stop smiting. His deity would abandon him if he sold his soul for power...

Except for the deities that don't care, and except for all the pacts that don't involve selling a soul, and except for all the exceptions. Like: Paladin of good deity is offered power by a fiendish entity whose only condition is that the paladin use that power to kill stuff, confident that even if the paladin starts off good, power will corrupt. Meanwhile, the good deity doesn't care at all, as long as the paladin kills the right stuff, and will even reward the paladin more in the afterlife for resisting more temptations.

Moon Druid X/Monk 1 for the AC boost. Kung Fu Panda isn't a thing...

Except, of course, for any game in which kung fu panda *is* a thing. All that's missing are stats for a panda. Besides, a real powergamer will prefer a kung fu bear or wolf or dinosaur. My kung fu is so strong that rather than just imitate a bear, I can *be* the bear.

Lore Bard X/Life Cleric 1 for the heal boost. "I tried religion once... Not my thing. Learned some tricks though." Come the f*ck on

Come the f*ck on indeed: I'm mostly a pop singer, but I study a little Kabballah on the side because I'm a really spiritual person. I'm a singer/songwriter who died recently, but in life I retreated to a Zen monastery for a few years and then returned to singing. Nope, no one like that in real life. Totally unrealistic. "I'm mostly a bard but pay my dues to the Lord of Song." "I started to become a priest but the Grand Poobah said that I will reach more people through my music, and that the gods gave me my mad skillz for a reason."

At the end of the day, it's just a game. We all play for different reasons. Some people care more about powergaming than character background (this is the optimization forum afterall). Who's to say what we should find fun? Let your players make the characters they want to play. As DM/God, you have the power to balance things in your game via other means.

By the way, none of these proposed power builds are overpowered. Of course, if you don't like them, you don't need to justify your preference. Anyway, Ken

 

[mellored]

the players proposed -5/+2d6 (seen as more interesting, with a lower average. I've not considered how this is impact by crits yet).

Maybe reverse sharp shooter?

*You can add +5 to-hit, but any damage die counts as if you had rolled a 1.

Havn't done any math to see if that's good or bad.

 

[JellMoo]

Nothing. There's nothing so broken that it will completely demolish play. There are highly effective builds, and some tricky combos that get good results, but nothing so broken that it will completely overshadow the rest of the party (provided they haven't actively tried to gimp themselves).

There just isn't anything as above the curve as a 4e Ranger, or a 3.x CoDzilla.

Side note: There aren't really any BS builds either. Just combos that people think can be fun.

 

[The Hierophant]

Sharpshooter, Greatweapon master and Sorlock (Sorcerer 1/Warlock 2, keep going as Sorcerer) are the big ones.

Infinite simulacrums are the other ones.

As someone new to 5e what are the problems with these builds? What are infinite simulacra?