-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E I'm *GASP* Actually Going to Be Playing 5e in a Few Weeks -- What are the Character Creation Pitfalls to Avoid?
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
You could almost suggest bard for any character concept they are strong in a very wide range of abilities.
Jabborwacky
First Post
The only real pitfall is choosing something that doesn't fit your play style. A character can be fairly well rounded at the start of the game. On another note, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so don't think you're doing something wrong by veering away from your original character goals to take some other option (like the skilled feat, for instance). There are also some character concepts that cannot be fully realized at level one. For instance, a lore bard doesn't really have all their skill proficiencies until level three.
Gotta be tough for a full spell caster to wait till level 3 to also get more skills than any other class in the game.
Seriously though it's a good point level 1 is a sort of trimmed down point for the class a apprentice level. Most classes develop into their concept at 3 and depending on your individual concept it may take a few more levels to pick up the feats or class abilities to pull it off.
As an example the pole arm fighter in our game won't really hit his concept until level 8 when he gets his next feat.
Azurewraith
Explorer
Its 5e as written even a party of blind deaf mute kobolds with anger issues and only wooden spoons for weapons could get through the majority of encounters. Play what you want allways remember rule 1) if its cool just roll with it! Yes the bm ranger is a bit meh(ok a lot meh to the point it doesn't fit its concept of man and beast fighting as one). Berzerker barbarians are fine! Can they Nova every round of every day? No name me one class that can? Can they occasionally cheat out 3 gwm attacks a round at advantage yes they can! Only the fighter gets more attacks at 20th is it?
On the other hand if your playing 5e with a dm who will ensure encounters are a challenge and death is allways a risk(much like my games) picking a more optimal class such as bm fighter, wizard, lore bard or paladin may be a better bet. YMMV ofc
On the other hand if your playing 5e with a dm who will ensure encounters are a challenge and death is allways a risk(much like my games) picking a more optimal class such as bm fighter, wizard, lore bard or paladin may be a better bet. YMMV ofc
KahlessNestor
Adventurer
I haven't played or played with a barbarian yet, but I have watched all of Critical Role and Grog the berserker barbarian does just great. In fact, he recently went to two levels of exhaustion voluntarily. "Exhaustion sucks" and sure, he missed a few ability checks, but with rage he wasn't too noticeably crippled at all. He held his own just fine. And he still soaked half damage and all that. Rage cancelled the disadvantage of exhaustion with reckless attack
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
I second Tony's comments above regarding balance but would like to add that balance is also extremely relative in 5e. Depending on your parties makeup an easy encounter for one group can be extremely difficult for another. The Encounter system generally assumes a balanced party, aka, a party made up of various classes that play off each other in some form of coordination but in practice most campaigns don't really get that. Your always going to end up with an adventuring party with shortcomings unless they really coordinate their character creation.
More to the point though roleplaying game balance in general is a very obtuse thing, what any single individual considers balanced or unbalanced is debatable. The only true form of balance D&D ever got was in 4e, in that the classes where balanced by effectively being equal within their archtype. So it didn't matter which striker or tank you chose as long as you had one so getting a balanced group, at least the discussion among players would be like "Im going striker... ok I'll go tank, ok I'll go control" and boom you have a perfectly balanced party. That was one good element of 4e. Problem with it was that it was incredibly boring in practice because as it turns out.. balanced roleplaying games are quite dry and boring.
Then there is the whole concept of in and out of combat balance... a barbarian polearmer is an awsome fighter, but outside of combat he is outright useless.
More to the point though roleplaying game balance in general is a very obtuse thing, what any single individual considers balanced or unbalanced is debatable. The only true form of balance D&D ever got was in 4e, in that the classes where balanced by effectively being equal within their archtype. So it didn't matter which striker or tank you chose as long as you had one so getting a balanced group, at least the discussion among players would be like "Im going striker... ok I'll go tank, ok I'll go control" and boom you have a perfectly balanced party. That was one good element of 4e. Problem with it was that it was incredibly boring in practice because as it turns out.. balanced roleplaying games are quite dry and boring.
Then there is the whole concept of in and out of combat balance... a barbarian polearmer is an awsome fighter, but outside of combat he is outright useless.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
The real answer to your question is that there are none. Sure, some options are relatively weaker or stronger than others, but you don't have to worry about traps in character creation. And if your DM has anything resembling a human heart, they'll probably let you switch out options if you eventually decide you don't like them.
Rhenny
Adventurer
In my most recent campaign, pcs are at 5th level now. We have 2 rogues (one thief and one assassin), we have a bard, we have a sorcerer (who is only 4th level), we have a champion fighter.
Observations:
1) All of the pcs can do things in and out of combat, and it mostly depends on what the players bring to the game.
2) The bard's spells are really working well, but sometimes it is just plain old luck that turns the tides. His hypnotic pattern can transfix 4 of 5 or just Saturday night, work on none of 3. His Tasha's laughter kept one guy out of the fight for over 4 rounds. (Lots of NPCs have really bad wisdom saves)
3) The fighter is a beast in combat who crits often. He also wields a magic weapon so that tips the scale a bit. He took heavy armor master so he absorbs hp damage each time he's hit by a weapon. Just recently, magic missiles and eldritch blasts have been scaring him along with a hold person that he failed in last game.
4) The sorcerer player seems to feel a little weak in the combat department, but he excels in interpersonal along with the bard. He's also 4th level while the others are 5th, so he hasn't crossed over the power threshold yet (not getting his 2x damage die cantrips or 3rd level spells yet). If I had to knock any one of the classes, this one might be the one. Personally, I'd rather play a wizard than a sorcerer for the versatility, but since sorc uses charisma, if the party doesn't have a "face", the sorc will give you more for interaction.
5) The rogues are pretty awesome. Their sneak attack can be used pretty often, and cunning action is still my all time favorite. Double rogues in a party boost the striking potential of the party immensely. They love to attack, hide or attack and dash or duel attack (lots of options including skill use for locks, traps, etc.).
Overall, I get the feeling that each PC is fun to play in its own way. If the player is interested and creative he/she brings much more to the table so for me, players that focus more on their character personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws and backstories tend to have the most fun in my games.
We still haven't played Druids or Rangers yet in any of our games. In another game, someone did play a warlock, and he liked it a lot. It is definitely different and depending on how you build it can feel very different. We also had a monk player who wanted to switch from being a four elements monk to a shadow monk, but we ended that campaign.
If you like being a know-it-all, controlling the field and being a face, Bards are spectacular (mostly Lore Bard...while Valor Bard is a bit more swashbucklery).
If you like smashing foes both fighters (and the Barbarian) fit the bill.
If you like variety and being sneaky with the chance to unload and strike vicious blows, rogues are cool.
If you want to be a versatile spell caster, wizards...you won't be doing terrific damage, but you can blast or use spells creatively to change the game and contribute in all pillars (combat, interaction and exploration)
If you want to be support heavy, but still have a variety of options in combat (and in some cases be relatively strong in combat with Tempest or Light Clerics), go cleric.
Observations:
1) All of the pcs can do things in and out of combat, and it mostly depends on what the players bring to the game.
2) The bard's spells are really working well, but sometimes it is just plain old luck that turns the tides. His hypnotic pattern can transfix 4 of 5 or just Saturday night, work on none of 3. His Tasha's laughter kept one guy out of the fight for over 4 rounds. (Lots of NPCs have really bad wisdom saves)
3) The fighter is a beast in combat who crits often. He also wields a magic weapon so that tips the scale a bit. He took heavy armor master so he absorbs hp damage each time he's hit by a weapon. Just recently, magic missiles and eldritch blasts have been scaring him along with a hold person that he failed in last game.
4) The sorcerer player seems to feel a little weak in the combat department, but he excels in interpersonal along with the bard. He's also 4th level while the others are 5th, so he hasn't crossed over the power threshold yet (not getting his 2x damage die cantrips or 3rd level spells yet). If I had to knock any one of the classes, this one might be the one. Personally, I'd rather play a wizard than a sorcerer for the versatility, but since sorc uses charisma, if the party doesn't have a "face", the sorc will give you more for interaction.
5) The rogues are pretty awesome. Their sneak attack can be used pretty often, and cunning action is still my all time favorite. Double rogues in a party boost the striking potential of the party immensely. They love to attack, hide or attack and dash or duel attack (lots of options including skill use for locks, traps, etc.).
Overall, I get the feeling that each PC is fun to play in its own way. If the player is interested and creative he/she brings much more to the table so for me, players that focus more on their character personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws and backstories tend to have the most fun in my games.
We still haven't played Druids or Rangers yet in any of our games. In another game, someone did play a warlock, and he liked it a lot. It is definitely different and depending on how you build it can feel very different. We also had a monk player who wanted to switch from being a four elements monk to a shadow monk, but we ended that campaign.
If you like being a know-it-all, controlling the field and being a face, Bards are spectacular (mostly Lore Bard...while Valor Bard is a bit more swashbucklery).
If you like smashing foes both fighters (and the Barbarian) fit the bill.
If you like variety and being sneaky with the chance to unload and strike vicious blows, rogues are cool.
If you want to be a versatile spell caster, wizards...you won't be doing terrific damage, but you can blast or use spells creatively to change the game and contribute in all pillars (combat, interaction and exploration)
If you want to be support heavy, but still have a variety of options in combat (and in some cases be relatively strong in combat with Tempest or Light Clerics), go cleric.
Last edited:
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
Both are very true.
I guess about the first one... I guess that is the "real trap" in 5e - assume that things didn't really change from older editions and pick something only to find out that it doesn't quite play the same anymore.
For example, in 3e the barbarian was a bit of a glass canon - it had more HP yes, but his/her AC wasn't great and the drop of con when the rage ended was a dangerous mechanism (it could literally kill your PC). In 5e the barbarian is immensely resilient - if you want to play a "tank" it is *the* class to pick. But if you think 3e you would avoid it.
Similar Threads
