D&D 5E I'm *GASP* Actually Going to Be Playing 5e in a Few Weeks -- What are the Character Creation Pitfalls to Avoid?

[Umbran]

PS. Aaron and Chris: sorry but I'm done wasting my time arguing with you. By now it's clear that you are incapable of letting any criticism against your favorite game stand, no matter how valid. Any level-headed observer would easily see ...

Don't make it personal. If you don't want to argue with these people, then just don't argue with them. And don't give us arguments of the form, "Those who don't agree with me have something wrong in their heads." That's not actually a logical argument, that's an insult, and personal insults don't make your position any better.

 

[Istbor]

As amply demonstrated by the above, [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], the Berserker Barbarian is one choice you should definitely avoid until you have gotten a more solid feel for the campaign and your DM's play style.

In contrast, the Totem Barbarian is a very strong fightery choice, with none of the uncertainty and DM-style-dependant factors that can make the Berserker build suck for you.

TL;DR: While it is possible to make a Berserker work, the benefits are definitely not worth the risk.


PS. Aaron and Chris: sorry but I'm done wasting my time arguing with you. By now it's clear that you are incapable of letting any criticism against your favorite game stand, no matter how valid. Any level-headed observer would easily see that the penalty for berserking is unpopular, and not something you would suggest to a newcomer to this edition like innerdude.

Alright, I have to agree with a couple points here, in spirit.

The penalty is unpopular. People want something cool for no draw-backs that is just simple. This particular power has a tangible draw-back. Some find that unacceptable, others feel it simply adds to the flavor. I am in the latter camp.

I would also agree that a new player should at least be warned that Frenzy comes with a very real cost. I don't think though that it should be categorized as a trap or sub-optimal.

My own play experience does not reflect any overall crippling effects from using Frenzy often per long rests. Rage can also help mitigate some of the ill effects. My Barbarian had also taken Mobility which further helped to blunt the penalties of several Fatigue levels.

As a bonus my DM did provide me later with a custom magic item: Mazor's Belt of Vigorous Action. A belt which contained 4 charges of Greater Restoration (recharged at the next dawn at a rate of 1/2 of 1D4). Though awesome DM assistance to help enhance a player's experience is not part of an objective look at any feature.

 

[S'mon]

Barbarian is really powerful unless the GM actually manages to push you through 6-8 significant encounters/day. Paladin is a good nova striker but runs out of slots fast, & I found it a bit dull. Fighter is fun but a lot weaker than Barbarian unless the GM actually manages to push you through 6-8 significant encounters/day.

To minmax, play human Barbarian with high STR, CON, and Polearm Master. Use Reckless Attack from 10' away (with Great Weapon Fighter -5/+10 at higher level), then step back 5' and profit...

 

[Eric V]

Barbarian I'd avoid the beserker one. It's main feature is almost pointless thanks to the fatigue penalty. They could have completely removed the fatigued limit and the totem barbarian would still be a better choice. It's not a bad class as people have said you almost can't go wrong but it's almost like not picking a path and just staying default barbarian.

Yeah, he could just play a totem barbarian and roleplay the exhaustion he feels after raging. It is a roleplaying game, after all.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Ninja'ed!


This has been our experience at my table as well. And once again, IMO, the difference between actually playing it and just theorizing about it.

Table experience is really awkward as a measure because you are dealing with one set of assumptions (your game framework) that may not be even close to what other people experience. Just consider the ratio of encounters:shortrests:longrests as just one example of something that will radically change your expericne of the game and class balance.

The other bug bear is that must people don't have points of reference within their game. For example, if the discussion is, how should I build a Great weapon fighting dude, most people's tabletop game doesn't have the following sort of party composition:

A GWF Bezerker
A GWF Bear Totem dude
A GWF Fighting Vengeance Paladin
A GWF battlemaster
A GWF Champion

that would allow them to say something like 'Yup, it's all playable, but the Bezerker isn't quite as good as the totem barbarian' even within the implicit assumptions of their game!

The problem is the sort of stuff you'd see all the time in 3.5 ed when people were talking about the monk, and people who said that the monk was competitive and a very playable option in their ~level 11 game. Further digging would reveal that the GM was taking significant measures to make the monk competitive. Which is 100% OK but it means that if you're playing a monk your GM has to be OK with that and if he's not you need to be careful about what you're doing.

Gotta be cautious of that anecdotal evidence! And if you're not going to be, can you please atleast provide some relevant information like:

1) What level(s) have this game taken place at?
2) How much magical gear does the party have? How much does the Bezerker have relative to everyone else
3) How is your adventuring day working? What are those critical ratios? How many rounds are in those combats, on average?
4) What's the general party composition
5) How much healing/magical resources are spent on the Bezerker vs other party members.
6) Perhaps most importantly, what do you mean that the Bezerker is fine? I mean, it's pretty commonly accepted that the Bezerker is hella terrible, but for me terrible might mean 5% worse than an oath of vengeance based build, but for you 'hella terrible' might mean '50% worse' and thus it's really key to know what you mean when you think it's competitive.

That stuff would be hella useful to know!

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Table experience is really awkward...

You know what's even more awkward? White-room theory-crafters who make sweeping claims about systems they've never even tried/seen in practical play.

Case-in-point: Advantage/disadvantage. Were you around back during the early playtest of the mechanics, when there was a huge outcry and tons of online rage over how it was going to be the worst thing ever? People posting huge rants and treatises on how stupid it was and why there was no way it was going to work. Then these same people started playing 5e. What happened? Many of them found it played a lot differently than they thought it would. This is documented in several articles by the devs. Let me know if you don't recall any of this.

...as a measure because you are dealing with one set of assumptions (your game framework) that may not be even close to what other people experience.

Out of context. I made it clear several times. If my (and others) experiences with 5e have presented a lack of issues with whatever problem in question, clearly it's not a universal problem. It's a playstyle problem. So don't blame the game. Blame how you are using it.

that would allow them to say something like 'Yup, it's all playable, but the Bezerker isn't quite as good as the totem barbarian' even within the implicit assumptions of their game!

Great. Then this equally invalidates every and all claims of anything. So everyone please quit claiming anything is good or bad. Implicit assumptions within your own game are invalid. There is no spoon!

Gotta be cautious of that anecdotal evidence! And if you're not going to be, can you please atleast provide some relevant information like:

So you want more anecdotal information to dismiss as irrelevant? Brilliant.

 

[spectacle]

The mechanical penalties of the first levels of exhaustion aren't that bad, but I really dislike the idea of playing a strong fightery character who is constantly worn out and has serious trouble doing feats of strength etc. Makes him seem more like a joke character.

I'm sure you could come up with a character concept where the constant exhaustion is a natural and integral part of the character, but the 5E berserker really fails if you want to portray a Conan type classical barbarian, unless you simply ignore exhaustion levels when roleplaying and handwave away the fact he sucks at lifting things after a major fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Barbarian is really powerful unless the GM actually manages to push you through 6-8 significant encounters/day. Paladin is a good nova striker but runs out of slots fast, & I found it a bit dull. Fighter is fun but a lot weaker than Barbarian unless the GM actually manages to push you through 6-8 significant encounters/day.

So, only when a DM deigns to run the game as recommended?

I know our un-scientific ENWorld polls have suggested that's actually rather rare, but still.

To minmax, play human Barbarian with high STR, CON, and Polearm Master. Use Reckless Attack from 10' away (with Great Weapon Fighter -5/+10 at higher level), then step back 5' and profit...

Hmmm.... sounds familiar. I really should try a Polearm Master build one of these days, see if it lives up to its 3.5 antecedents, have to find the right DM, using the right modules, of course ....
Why 5' - you can just move-attack-move by default, no?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The mechanical penalties of the first levels of exhaustion aren't that bad, but I really dislike the idea of playing a strong fightery character who is constantly worn out and has serious trouble doing feats of strength etc. Makes him seem more like a joke character.

I'm sure you could come up with a character concept where the constant exhaustion is a natural and integral part of the character, but the 5E berserker really fails if you want to portray a Conan type classical barbarian, unless you simply ignore exhaustion levels when roleplaying and handwave away the fact he sucks at lifting things after a major fight.

This whole post reads like an assumption that disadvantage some how equates to failure. Which I find quite at odds with my considerable experiences in play. Countless rolls attempted at disadvantage have managed to succeed in spite of it, by my accounting. Heck, twice in the last year, I can distinctly recall an attack made with disadvantage scoring a critical hit.

But WRT the barbarian here. Where are we getting the base assumption that one trained in Athletics, making a roll with disadvantage, would somehow be worse at it than, say, his wizard, cleric, or rogue ally? He's still, statistically, the best man for the job.

Bounded accuracy people. A first level barbarian has what? A +5 in Athletics? That's more than the statistical penalty disadvantage is applying on most checks.

Disadvantage isn't the end of the world given expected DCs.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The mechanical penalties of the first levels of exhaustion aren't that bad, but I really dislike the idea of playing a strong fightery character who is constantly worn out and has serious trouble doing feats of strength etc. Makes him seem more like a joke character.

I'm sure you could come up with a character concept where the constant exhaustion is a natural and integral part of the character, but the 5E berserker really fails if you want to portray a Conan type classical barbarian, unless you simply ignore exhaustion levels when roleplaying and handwave away the fact he sucks at lifting things after a major fight.

Think of it more like having an extra button available for when you really need to go into overdrive. Its not, and shouldn't be thought of as something that you do all the time.