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

[Imaro]

There are a lot of rules & modules in the DMG that the DM can use as guidelines or not. The static DCs that the 3.5 diplomancer build was based on were in the PH, under Diplomacy - heck they're in the SRD. That may seem like a subtle difference (or not), but it's just another example of how DM-Empowering 5e has been. Does the DM like that AD&D-referent 'reaction adjustment' style of check? He can use it, or something like it. Does he just want to narrate the NPCs reactions without reference to any check at all? He can do that, instead. It's not even a house rule, just the basic way resolution works in 5e.

There's a certain elegance to it, even.

The rules are not called out as optional in the DMG... they are supplemental to those in the PHB. Now you can claim the DM can choose to ignore them... but he can choose to ignore anything in any game. That's the biggest problem with your entire take on 5e... there are rules for most things, as a DM you can choose to use them or not use them in your camapign... the game has always been this way so I'm still at a lost for what makes 5e vague and disempowering of characters in relation to other editions...

EDIT: My issue was never with you claiming 5e was DM empowering... it's with the blatantly false statements or inference you've made as far as it being incomplete or vague when it comes to rules and character abilties...

 

[Tony Vargas]

The rules are not called out as optional in the DMG... they are supplemental to those in the PHB.

Everything in the DMG is optional, in that sense, and outside of the players' domain.

... the game has always been this way so I'm still at a lost for what makes 5e vague and disempowering of characters in relation to other editions...

DM Empowerment and the corresponding pendulum swing from player entitlement is a major accomplishment of 5e. Why you want to deny that, I don't know.

 

[Imaro]

Everything in the DMG is optional, in that sense, and outside of the players' domain.

Everything in the game (all editions) is optional... what's your point. You state there aren't rules for something and that's it's vague... I show you where the rules for it are and now your argument has become... they're optional... So the rules exist and it's not vague but like anything and everything in all editions you don't have to use them if you don't want to.

DM Empowerment and the corresponding pendulum swing from player entitlement is a major accomplishment of 5e. Why you want to deny that, I don't know.

I'm not denying anything except the false claims you'v made... which are neither here nor there when it comes to player entitlement or DM empowerment but instead are centered firmly around your lack of knowledge concerning the rules of 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not denying anything except the false claims you'v made... which are neither here nor there when it comes to player entitlement or DM empowerment but instead are centered firmly around your lack of knowledge concerning the rules of 5e.

I stand by what I said, which was very much a reference to 5e's DM Empowerment.

 

[Ancalagon]

Sometimes I look at my own advice and say "what have I done."

Giving advice on this sort of stuff almost always ends up being misleading in some way because there are two competing frames of reference in D&D about how characters should be built. One says that players should choose the mechanics that work best and try to make a character out of it, while the other camp comes from the opposite direction. I'm in the second camp. The mechanics are important, but they're also not really meant to restrict actions like the logic built into D&D's digital brethren. They're strong guidelines, but if a player wants to play a halfling storytelling duelist who uses his talents in acting to entertain his friends and confuse his enemies, it becomes more about finding the answer to the question of how do I represent this character in the game?

Sometimes the mechanics inspire a concept, sometimes you get the concept first. I've often (not always) let other people make characters first and then "filled the gap" when making PCs. I have to admit that it often is more fun to go with the roleplaying concept first though, and I didn't mean to imply that the first approach was "superior".

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Player picks a class, feats, weapons, spells, makes/buys/ items, etc, and what they do, how they stack up, and how crazy-broken they all turn out to be are all a function of 'RAW.'

5e is, if anything, less that way, even than later 2e. Players have choices but, what those choices translate to the PC actually being able to do is very much a matter of DM rulings. Some choices, like spells and class features, are more clearly defined than others, like ability & skill checks, but they're all mere rules subject to the DM rulings.

I think it's interesting that a lot of this stuff remains true for spellcasters in 5E. Let's take one of the more problematic spells, because it allows intrusion on the Rogue's niche, Knock.

5e SRD

Casting Time: 1 action; Range: 60 feet; Components: V; Duration: Instantaneous

Choose an object that you can see within range. The object can be a door, a box, a chest, a set of manacles, a padlock, or another object that contains a mundane or magical means that prevents access.

A target that is held shut by a mundane lock or that is stuck or barred becomes unlocked, unstuck, or unbarred. If the object has multiple locks, only one of them is unlocked.

If you choose a target that is held shut with arcane lock, that spell is suppressed for 10 minutes, during which time the target can be opened and shut normally.

When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.

3rd

Knock
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One door, box, or chest with an area of up to 10 sq. ft./level
Duration: Instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut). If used to open a arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each spell can undo as many as two means of preventing egress.

We can see this is fairly similar. I think the move away from player empowerment to DM empowerment has disproportionately effected (or continues to disproportionately effect I guess, your call of your view of non martial and martial empowerment in 2/3/4) martial classes over spell-casters.

 

[happyhermit]

I think the move away from player empowerment to DM empowerment has disproportionately effected (or continues to disproportionately effect I guess, your call of your view of non martial and martial empowerment in 2/3/4) martial classes over spell-casters.

I hear people say this, almost entirely those devoted to 4e, and I wonder if they realize that "martial" versus "non-martial" is not really a thing in 5e. When in the end you say "martial classes over spell casters", that is a false paradigm within 5e, there are some sub-classes that don't get any spell-casting by default, but they can pick them up in other ways too.

The "power source" categorization in 4e did not make it into 5e, so if you want to contrast spell-casters with non-spell-casters that makes sense but contrasting them with "martial classes" doesn't.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

I hear people say this, almost entirely those devoted to 4e, and I wonder if they realize that "martial" versus "non-martial" is not really a thing in 5e. When in the end you say "martial classes over spell casters", that is a false paradigm within 5e, there are some sub-classes that don't get any spell-casting by default, but they can pick them up in other ways too.

The "power source" categorization in 4e did not make it into 5e, so if you want to contrast spell-casters with non-spell-casters that makes sense but contrasting them with "martial classes" doesn't.

I mean spell caster vs non spell caster yeah. Whatever labels you want to use.

It's pretty clear the tiering of classes in 5E is basically Full Caster > Part Caster > Not a caster. I think a lot of this is because the spells are baked into the physics of the world, but there are other possible reasons.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I mean spell caster vs non spell caster yeah. Whatever labels you want to use.

It's pretty clear the tiering of classes in 5E is basically Full Caster > Part Caster > Not a caster. I think a lot of this is because the spells are baked into the physics of the world, but there are other possible reasons.

You're entitled to your opinion of the tiering of classes. The example spell you suggested doesn't really back it up however.
A spellcaster would probably rather just try to acquire proficiency in Thieves' tools if getting through locks is a part of what they want to do.
Using the spell burns a limited daily resource (assuming that you even have it available) and alerts everything in the vicinity; compared to being able to do it quietly and as many times as required using the tools. The only advantage of the spell is the greater reliability.

Magic will always have the capability of being able to do things that cannot be done without magic. But non spellcasters are generally very good at doing the sort of things that they can do, and often more regularly.

 

[Valetudo]

Actually any class can unlock doors in 5th, just create a background that lets you or use the criminal background.