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

[Sacrosanct]

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..

This is not true. Using thieves tools is not "narrative permission". It's a set DC. If you roll high enough, you get it. There is no DM permission needed. Speaking of which, I loathe that term, because it's like "mother may I". It serves no purpose other than to try to paint a picture where the players are all servants to an unreasonable DM; to passively aggressively attack the rulings over rules playstyle.

And if you say the DM can just arbitrarily raise the DC, the DM can also arbitrarily say that your knock spell doesn't work. Sorry, but your arguments are weak sauce. On an even playing field, RAW, the average math goes against what you are trying to argue.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

As I said in my post, I was specifically addressing the tiering comment, and the apparent justification based upon the example given in the post I quoted.
The level of narrative control, apart from how that relates to the comparative power on spellcasters vs non spellcasters, is a different matter entirely. I'm generally staying out of that discussion for the reason at the end of the post.

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.

Bards only get access to tools other than musical instruments based upon their background: the class doesn't the best access to them. Unlike Rogues, they cannot gain expertise with Thieves' Tools either.

They are very good contributors in combat indeed, however this is generally through the use of support abilities that improve their allies' capabilities, either directly or by reducing opponent's capabilities. There is no balance clash because their powers can't overshadow the non-casters for example: they rely on the non-casters particularly.

And this brings us to one of the trickiest sticking points of this sort of balance discussion: actual cooperation between players. If the Rogue goes through five locks before hitting one he can't handle and the Wizard steps up and Knocks it, is the wizard really outshining the Rogue? Spells can blast large areas, covering several opponents, but generally the more martial classes deal higher damage against a single, tougher opponent.
Questions of balance are generally only an issue where the area of expertise of one class is overshadowed by another class. Having Knock, Invisibility and Spider Climb on your spell list isn't going to overshadow a Rogue without the non-caster capabilities (like actual skills) to back them up.

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

I haven't been following that discussion, but it seems a skewed comparison: The sheer number of spells (and feats, and other "explicitly defined player powers") that 3.5 ended up with means that of course 5e will look less by comparison.
Picking out individual powers that do or do not indicate more explicit descriptions between editions isn't going to work: you'd have to look at the method of wording that is used for the basis of the powers' descriptions throughout each edition.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

Or even just a door with two or more locks. The spell only undoes one of them per casting. How many slots are you willing to expend to get through that door, spellcaster?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Whether you use the label 'martial' or 'non-caster,' or the derogatory/un-heroic 'mundane,' doesn't change anything. If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point.

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

The Totem Barbarian already gets a few rituals, and it's Rage is described as magical.

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

I exempted spells, and class features from that trend. All spells are fairly defined. Class features like Second Wind are defined.

But, no, that doesn't mean as much as it did when RAW was king.

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.

The DM in 5e, though, can always narrate success or failure without calling for a roll, at all. So the rogue steps up to pick the lock, and the DM describes the lock clicking into place and the door opening - or not. It's less explicitly spelled out, but the same /does/ apply to spells. The DM can rule that any given portal that may seem ripe for Knocking is, for whatever reason, unaffected by the spell.


Frankly, I'm surprised there's any 'controversy,' at all on this point.
Yes, 5e is DM-Empowering instead of player-empowering.
It set out to be.
It succeeded.
End of story.

 

[Imaro]

Sooo... just to review...

5e is DM empowering because it gives permission for the DM to use Rule zero (which both later 4e and 3e also gave explicit permission to do irregardless of whether people chose to or not)...

It's not player empowering because abilities (except for spells, class abilities, so that leaves skills??) don't have objectively defined...mechanics (those are there), DC's for every action that can be taken with the skill (No edition has this)? DM adjudication of DC's (every edition had this)?? What exactly and specifically is being called out as dis-empowering to players in the mechanics of 5e? No one has answered this question yet...

My Conclusion: Mechanically (with the possible exception of the stealth rules that were specifically called out as such) 5e is as player empowering (at least as @Tony Vargas has defined it) as any other previous edition has been... yet also sets a stronger precedence than 3e or 4e for the DM to remember that rule zero can be used when running his campaign.

 

[Plaguescarred]

No PC you make in 5E will be bottom-of-the-barrel unless you build it with major flaws, like putting low score in main ability score etc... All the classes can hold their own and contribute well enought so rest assured and happy gaming!

Let us know what you'll play!

 

[happyhermit]

I guess there are still weird things going on with the forum, this post just appeared for me now, along with a notification.

On the contrary, that's rather the point of mechanical balance. You have a lot of choices, they're quite different, but they're all viable.

It is possible to say that every choice is viable (no matter how it affects effectiveness), but then mechanical balance becomes rather meaningless as well. Making sub-optimal choices was very possible in 4e and it could decrease a characters relative effectiveness to a much greater degree than in 5e.

And easy conclusion to jump to, but not valid. The key difference is that the 4e treadmill was across the board. A PC who didn't particularly specialize in a skill still got better at it through the hard-knocks school of adventuring, so could always take a shot. A specialist could be /really/ good, even a little more so than the 12 point spread possible in 5e, though that increases to 18 w/Expertise. (Contrast 4e/5e with 3.5 and potential 23 point spread from ranks alone - and +20 items.)

This is actually not valid. RAW, a PC did not really "get better" at things through leveling because of scaling DCs, and defenses.

Is not something you'd contemplate doing, ironically, /unless/ you were an optimizer. It's not like you'd do well dumping your prime requisite in any edition (though, ironically, I've seen a 5e wizard get away with it, that was an odd case at low level).

That first statement is ridiculous and dismissive. There is a huge difference between not continually boosting a stat and "dumping your prime requisite". There are many reasons a player might want to boost other stats besides optimization, as I am sure you are aware.

Also just silly. (I get that it was a source of disequilibrium for long-time players, but if you just glance at the fighter class with an open mind, you'd never think to build one as an archer, while the Ranger had a build that was exactly that.) No 'system mastery' required, default builds and examples made it painfully obvious. It'd be easier to make the mistake of arming your high-STR fighter with a bow instead of a javelin in 5e (because you need to paruse the weapons table), than to expect a 4e fighter to be an archer, because the presentation is just that much clearer.

No, not "silly", I saw intelligent people make a fighter and think that since they were proficient in it, they would be reasonably effective with it. If one is not familiar with the fact that in 4e, simply "attacking with a weapon" is a very suboptimal move, or if one doesn't search through all the available powers that can be gained, then it is reasonable to assume a "fighter" as described would not be comparatively terrible with one of the weapons they start out proficient with. Obviously a new player wanting to use a bow right away as there primary weapon will realize this sooner than one who assumes that they will be able to switch later or in certain situations.

It does, on a very basic level. You can play to concept and not automatically taking a hit to versatility/power or be channeled into an unwanted style to remain effective. Of course, that means starting with a concept.

That isn't true, the previous example is one among MANY, and it shows that what you really mean is "as long as you start with the concept that fits the channel". Even still it isn't true, as making suboptimal choices, like diversifying your character or not taking the right ASI or feats will cause you to take a huge hit to your effectiveness.

Whether you use the label 'martial' or 'non-caster,' or the derogatory/un-heroic 'mundane,' doesn't change anything. If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point.

It can make a big difference when one is referring to a paradigm that was an essential part of one system, but not in another. If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point... that martial/spellcaster classes is a false dichotomy in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e is DM empowering because it gives permission for the DM to use Rule zero (which both later 4e and 3e also gave explicit permission to do irregardless of whether people chose to or not)...

No, not even close. Rule 0 was a token acknowledgement of an inevitable fact of gaming: that the GM could choose to change the rules of the game all he wanted, no matter what the game said about it. Nothing else about 3e particularly encouraged or required DMs to actually up and change the rules, nor did the rules design-in DM judgment the way 5e does. Really, no prior edition has gone as far to insert DM authority as unambiguously into basic resolution as 5e (1e was darn close). It's not a dramatic thing when you look at it, it's perfectly reasonable, but its tremendously DM-empowering because it does establish, in every action, that the DM is going to decide on the results, that the rules are not deterministic. 3.x/PF, in stark contrast, has rules that feel pretty deterministic, and the community attitude at the time leaned even further in that direction. I mean, it brought us 'RAW' vs 'RAI' and the Oberoni Fallacy. 4e may have been less deterministic with it's openness to re-fluffing, but it was still easy for the DM to just let the rules do the work - 'easy to DM' in that sense has been likened elsewhere to 'empowerment,' but that's like saying a Segway is good training for a marathon.

It's not player empowering because abilities (except for spells, class abilities, so that leaves skills??) don't have objectively defined...mechanics (those are there)

Just defined. How do you answer the question 'what can your character do?' In 3.5, you parse the rules text and determine RAW. In 4e, you check the rules text, and maybe tweak the fluff. In 5e you describe your action to the DM and find out if it works or not. The former two are 'player empowering' - and lend themselves to all manner of powergaming shenanigans - the latter is DM Empowering.

DC's for every action that can be taken with the skill (No edition has this)?

3.5 did, and 4e had level-based guidelines.

DM adjudication of DC's (every edition had this)??

In the same sense that even a game that didn't acknowledge rule 0, in fact had rule 0. But 5e goes further than just adjudicating DCs, the DM doesn't even need to call for a roll.

What exactly and specifically is being called out as dis-empowering to players in the mechanics of 5e?

Maybe it'd be easier to see as 5e "eliminating player entitlement." 5e did have some design decisions that were trade-offs rather than unalloyed positives for everyone (really, 'most all game-design decisions are like that), fans of 3.x/PF or 4e/E could come up with some good things about player empowerment that they miss in 5e - and have done. Those same things are often the flip side of a 'player entitlement' coin that has been cashed in to fund DM Empowerment, instead.


I've been trying to be 'fair and balanced' in all this, but it seems that using the term 'player empowerment' is getting in the way. Let's just call it 'player entitlement.'

5e 'Empowered DMs' and 'eliminated player entitlement.'

It is possible to say that every choice is viable, but then mechanical balance becomes rather meaningless as well. Making sub-optimal choices was very possible

'Sub-optimal' is not the same thing as non-viable. Viable is half the definition of balance I like to use, the other half is 'meaningful.'
A balanced game presents many, meaningful, viable choices.

5e presents fewer choices than 3.x/PF or 4e/E, but each of those choices is as viable as the DM makes it.

This is actually not valid. RAW, a PC did not really "get better" at things through leveling because of scaling DCs, and defenses.

A common, if bizarre, misconception. DCs for the same task didn't change because you leveled - you might tackle more difficult tasks, though, now that you have the ranks for it. In 5e the same task might succeed or fail or call for a different DC, whether you leveled or not, that's up to the DM.

There is a huge difference between not continually boosting a stat and "dumping your prime requisite."

You need your most important stat as high as possible. If 'as high as possible' is 20, putting an 8 in it is certainly dumping it - and, if 'as high as possible' is 25+5 inherent+6 Enhancement, a 'mere' 24 is just as bad.

No, not "silly", I saw intelligent people make a fighter and think that since they were proficient in it, they would be reasonably effective with it.

'Reasonably?' For certain definitions of 'reasonably' sure. ;P It's no different from using a STR weapon when you're a DEX build. And, yes, that was silly - based on a preconceived notion that no longer applied. It'd be like expecting a 5e Ranger not to cast spells at all (which, people did), even though a Outlander Fighter would cover the same concept.

Even still it isn't true, as making suboptimal choices, like diversifying your character or not taking the right ASI or feats will cause you to take a huge hit to your effectiveness.

That's all relative. Being 2 points 'behind' the theoretical curve, whatever that might be, is like a -1 to hit. It's a hit, but not a huge hit.

If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point... that martial/spellcaster classes is a false dichotomy in 5e.

So, what, non-casters have been erased? No one should want to play one? Those who do don't deserve choices? Absurd.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Whether you use the label 'martial' or 'non-caster,' or the derogatory/un-heroic 'mundane,' doesn't change anything. If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point.

The Totem Barbarian already gets a few rituals, and it's Rage is described as magical.

I exempted spells, and class features from that trend. All spells are fairly defined. Class features like Second Wind are defined.

But, no, that doesn't mean as much as it did when RAW was king.

I'm not disagreeing the pendulum has moved. It obviously has. My point was that the pendulum has moved unevenly. The majority of a Wizard's abilities to influence the narrative are tied up in spells, which are still very explicitly defined (see the comparison of 3.5 knock to 5e knock).

Using the logic of your post:

1) The abilities of a spellcaster are explicitly defined and selectable from a menu of powers by players
2) Defined & selectable player abilities is the 3.5E model of player empowerment.
3) Non spell casters have many less defined and selectable from a menu choices (I think a champion actually has edit: two choices unless optional rules are in play, for example, compared to a wizards 44 spells from leveling up)
4) Therefore, non spell caster classes have less abilities to select from that are explicitly defined mechanically
5) Therefore spellcasters are more player empowering than non spell caster classes

 

[Tony Vargas]

My point was that the pendulum has moved unevenly. The majority of a Wizard's abilities to influence the narrative are tied up in spells, which are still very explicitly defined

As they were back in the day. Thus the pendulum analogy. But, sure, the same pendulum isn't swinging the same way across the board.