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

[Valetudo]

Almost everyclass has access to spellcasting if they want it. Im shocked they havent done a ragemage for the barby yet.

 

[Imaro]

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



3rd

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.

I think the fact that the Knock spell makes noise is a big difference... The Rogue's niche is stealthily doing things and a knock spell that makes a loud noise when used not only comes with a pretty hefty drawback, but also seems to be stepping on the Rogue's niche even less than another character picking up proficiency in thieve's tools. That said I fail to see how this particular example supports either a move away from player empowerment... or the assertion that it affects martial/non-spellcasters disproportionately...

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

You're entitled to your opinion of the tiering of classes. The example spell you suggested doesn't really back it up however.

You're gluing together two concepts

1) the amount of narrative control spells give vs other abilities e.g tool profiences. Knock is purely an example showing that explicitly defined player abilities have been retained between 3.5 and 5th.
2) the mechanical effectiveNess of the classes
[Quoe]
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.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with your premise - hercule's cleaned the stables. But this is a problem. If spells are a superset of the non combat/narrative abilities then it is going to be very difficult to balance spotlight time between classes.

It gets worse when full casters get full skills to - and compare knock to thieves tools. Knock just opens the lock - assigning narrative power to the player- in a way that th8evestools do not, which goes back to vargas' thing about gm empowerment vs player empowerment. My view is that the pendulum has moved very unevenly.

This ties back to class balance because if bards are some of the best contributors in combat (particularly because they benefit from shore adventuring days than the recommended 6-8 which seems like where most people are at) plus have player empowered narrative control via spells plus have amongst the best access to skulls and tools I smell an issue.

That was Tony Vargas' point - that there has been a swing away from explicitly defined player powers between 3.5 and 5, but ijust don't see it for spells

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

Actually, any class can unlock doors period in 5e. Choosing that background with the proficiency in thieves tools just means you also add your prof bonus. Rogues just get the ability to double the prof bonus if they so choose.

I also agree with Cap'n Kobold. I never understood the complaints that knock makes the thief obsolete or steps on his toes, for the reasons Kobold gives.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

It doesn't make him obsolete -it just gives different levels of player empowerment. Knock ALWAYS unlocks the door. Thieves tools may unlock the door. The difference is very stark.

This is hardly the only example - invisibility for stealth, paticularly as a lot of the invisibility dispels seem to have been removed in 5th. Spider climb is another great example.


Obviously there is plenty of room to disagree but it seems clear to me that knock makes the player more empowered than thieves tools based on the criteria in Tony Vargas post

 

[Sacrosanct]

It doesn't make him obsolete -it just gives different levels of player empowerment. Knock ALWAYS unlocks the door. Thieves tools may unlock the door. The difference is very stark.

This is hardly the only example - invisibility for stealth, paticularly as a lot of the invisibility dispels seem to have been removed in 5th. Spider climb is another great example.


Obviously there is plenty of room to disagree but it seems clear to me that knock makes the player more empowered than thieves tools based on the criteria in Tony Vargas post

If you have 4 locks to open, and player A can automatically open 1 but not the other 3, and player B is not guaranteed to open them, but has a good chance at all 4, I would not call player A being more empowered than Player B. Especially in the context of the game, where are other significant factors that can be detrimental to the party by using player A's method (like alerting the whole place you're there), or that player A has to have had first learned the spell in question, and then prepped it, and then even have slots available to cast it, and it uses up a slot that could be needed for a much more important spell later on.

And the basic math doesn't really back up the whole empowered thing either. If your chances to overcome X is 100%, 0%, 0%, 0% (because wizard probably isn't carrying thieves tools), and player B has chances of 60%, 60%, 60%, 60%, repeat as needed, then player A certainly isn't more empowered.

 

[Imaro]

It doesn't make him obsolete -it just gives different levels of player empowerment. Knock ALWAYS unlocks the door. Thieves tools may unlock the door. The difference is very stark.

This is hardly the only example - invisibility for stealth, paticularly as a lot of the invisibility dispels seem to have been removed in 5th. Spider climb is another great example.


Obviously there is plenty of room to disagree but it seems clear to me that knock makes the player more empowered than thieves tools based on the criteria in Tony Vargas post

But with bounded accuracy... a rogue with expertise and reliable talent is a walking, unlimited, Knock spell... and invisibility spell... without any of the drawbacks or having to use a daily resource.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

If you have 4 locks to open, and player A can automatically open 1 but not the other 3, and player B is not guaranteed to open them, but has a good chance at all 4, I would not call player A being more empowered than Player B. Especially in the context of the game, where are other significant factors that can be detrimental to the party by using player A's method (like alerting the whole place you're there), or that player A has to have had first learned the spell in question, and then prepped it, and then even have slots available to cast it, and it uses up a slot that could be needed for a much more important spell later on.

And the basic math doesn't really back up the whole empowered thing either. If your chances to overcome X is 100%, 0%, 0%, 0% (because wizard probably isn't carrying thieves tools), and player B has chances of 60%, 60%, 60%, 60%, repeat as needed, then player A certainly isn't more empowered.

The definition of empowered I am using is here in the Vargas post sequence I was responding to:

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.' The DM can 'house rule' (shame! horror!) or pull out the banhammer, but the player had a lot of control over what his character was & could do - and not entirely 'within reason.'

3.5 was the height of the phenomenon (4e balance muted the effects), but it was even true further back, though to an increasingly lesser extent. 2e 'Player Option' supplements opened up some stuff along those lines. Before that, there was always spell choice, spells being a fairly push-button way of evoking specific results for the player.

Of course, the DM could always respond by ratcheting up the challenges faced, even if he wasn't willing to challenge the RAW, thus pushing relative effectiveness back down

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...eation-Pitfalls-to-Avoid/page13#ixzz4787RRqSX

By that definition knock - which always works and is fully within the players control - is more empowering than thieves tools which requires narrative permission from the DM.

But with bounded accuracy... a rogue with expertise and reliable talent is a walking, unlimited, Knock spell... and invisibility spell... without any of the drawbacks or having to use a daily resource.

As noted above, the discussion is about player con trolley. Knock is an option that 100% works a player picks of a menu. Thieves tool requires GM permission as the GM sets the DC. Maybe the lock is arcane locked and the DC is to high. Maybe it isn't. Either way the player with knock has more control as measured above.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But with bounded accuracy... a rogue with expertise and reliable talent is a walking, unlimited, Knock spell... and invisibility spell... without any of the drawbacks or having to use a daily resource.

Yup. To me, working as intended. Dedicating a good chunk of your resources to being good at something should make that your thing.

 

[Imaro]

As noted above, the discussion is about player con trolley. Knock is an option that 100% works a player picks of a menu. Thieves tool requires GM permission as the GM sets the DC. Maybe the lock is arcane locked and the DC is to high. Maybe it isn't. Either way the player with knock has more control as measured above.

So what about a lock in an anti-magic zone? or a magically resistant lock? or even a lock in a silenced room? and so on. I mean that was the point I and some others were making before... the DM can find a way dis-empower any player in any class in any edition.