D&D 5E Starter Set Cleric Sheet

[Agamon]

All I'm saying is, if my character's bond is with a family heirloom weapon specifically, I would personally pick a fighting style that maxes out the use of that weapon, not my overall fighting prowess.

Awesome. Luckily, you'll be able to do that. Others will be able to do what they like. It's a good system that way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All I'm saying is, if my character's bond is with a family heirloom weapon specifically, I would personally pick a fighting style that maxes out the use of that weapon, not my overall fighting prowess.

Picking the AC choice is actually the powergamer move, since whatever extra damage you deal with the final great weapon fighting style is probably inferior to a +1 bonus to AC. And for Protector, our fighter benefits less and less from it (although it's terrific fun), as we fight multi-attacking enemies in larger groups. A +1 bonus to AC is the powergamer move here, and I agree they probably chose it for expediency and simplicity in the basic pregen, but it's certainly not a fun option. +1 bonus is the most boring thing one can think of, and that's coming from a powergamer. Min-maxing my overall character I would definitely pick either Defensive or Protector, they seem to be the strongest mechanically speaking. What I'm actually advocating here is not the overall min-maxing choice, but a crunch choice that more closely matches the bond as stated on the sheet.

I don´t disagree here, but I say, it is irrelevant to my previous post. I do really like the characters presented. Don´t sound boring at all, very interesting actually... It does not matter where you put your little things. +1 to defense is as good as 3 damage on a miss. (For me at least.) The mistake of 3e and 4e equally is highlighting mechanics too much, that get in your way of having fun. Does your fun really depend on yourchoice of +1 defense or 3 damage on a miss? Mine does not.
It is only relevant, if you need that feat, that granted you +1 to defense to later take whirlwind attack at a level where it is still useful. Those chains made the decision between +1 to hit or +1 to defense really important. At level 1 you had to decide if you go for cleave or whirlwind or weapon specialization.
Now you just take what you deem best at that moment, and if you see yourself regretting your choice, you can easily chose something different the next time.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm not a huge fan of the human +1 to everything either, but I can understand why they did it. Humans needed something to make them worth playing, and traits like darkvision don't make sense. They didn't want to give them a bonus feat because feats are optional rules. They also didn't want to give them bonus skills because that adds another decision point in character creation, and they wanted humans to be the quick and easy-to-play race. From what I've heard, though, humans will be able to trade in stat bonuses for other things, like feats. That's an acceptable solution for me.

I wasn't either but this is interesting.

I've had customized human regional races for a while...so I "could" take away a couple of pluses, replace them with the appropriate feats, maybe even say "Korsics are usually strong and athletic (+1 str standard)" and then let the PCs create their characters as they see fit.

Theoretically balanced.

I'm intrigued.

 

[Dausuul]

Very interesting note: The basic spell list will include revivify at level 3. If it works like 3E's revivify, it's a resurrection spell that has to be cast within 1 round of death. So you'll be able to raise the dead, albeit with tight restrictions, starting at level 5.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Very interesting note: The basic spell list will include revivify at level 3. If it works like 3E's revivify, it's a resurrection spell that has to be cast within 1 round of death. So you'll be able to raise the dead, albeit with tight restrictions, starting at level 5.

The cleric spits into his palms before rubbing his hands furiously together and pressing them on the victim's chest.

"Clear!"

 

[SkidAce]

It's very cool, but it doesn't make any sense that the character's bond to his family heirloom weapon isn't matched with specific training in how to use that weapon most effectively, by selecting the great weapon fighting style. Sure Defensive is simple, but a static bonus to AC is much less fun than damage rerolls and the wording on the sheet could be a little confusing to players if they upgrade their armor. It says this bonus is already included. I've seen many noobs over the years forget a +1 here and there, which was kind of the point of advantage disadvantage system and the way Bless spells work, which is awesome.

My father's heirloom weapon is a shotgun, but I'm trained in the M4 and the 50 cal....

go figure...


edit: I wouldn't have posted if I had read the following posts and seen the horse was already beaten to death...nothing to see here...move along.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The cleric spits into his palms before rubbing his hands furiously together and pressing them on the victim's chest.

"Clear!"

And the material component for revivify is jumper cables.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't believe that fluff is separate from crunch, sorry.

Roleplaying is crunchy to me. If I play a barbarian who loves his grandma's axe SO much, I think it's just common sense to learn how to use it the best I can. That, I consider good roleplaying. Am I allowed to have an opinion here or will I get attacked for it. My playstyle is no less valid than yours. The distinction of fluff and crunch, to my mind, is anti-roleplaying. It's anti-immersion. I don't buy it.

You are allowed to have an opinion. You are not allowed to have an opinion and consider your opinion free from criticism. I found your opinion to be a poor one, to be lacking in any appreciation for fluff unless it was connected to a mechanical benefit for that fluff. I have my grandfather's typewritter and I feel an strong attachment to it - but I never type on it and would be pretty poor with it if I did. If you can only imagine having a strong attachment to something being connected to learning how to use it as best you can, then I suggest you stretch your imagination further. It's not anti-roleplaying or anti-immersion to not want the mechanics to ALWAYS match the fluff to the maximum. Because as I demonstrated with my grandfather's typewriter, real life isn't as neat and simple as all that, and sometimes we don't maximize our connections and abilities, or we express our connections to things in different ways.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

GM:

Very interesting note: The basic spell list will include revivify at level 3. If it works like 3E's revivify, it's a resurrection spell that has to be cast within 1 round of death. So you'll be able to raise the dead, albeit with tight restrictions, starting at level 5.

Interesting. I hope they have one-shot magic items with a similar effect (scroll of revivify usable by anyone, or the like, I guess), and that other healers get the same or an equivalent spell at the same level, as it would provide a good buffer against "OHCRAP!" deaths (esp. if it's slightly more than one round - three seems ideal to me, to give both tension and the possibility of saving someone more than 30ft away without weird physics-question-inducing stuff).