D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal: Feats/Backgrounds/Species

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
In 5e level 3 is actually level 1. That's the level when you finally get all the abilities you would have had at level 1 in other editions. I've been starting my players off at level 3 since the second campaign.
Level 1 in 5e feels like it's ahead of level 1 in 1e, 2e, and B/X for many classes?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mellored

Legend
Are there any point buy/standard array DMs out there who wouldn't let a player take 3d6 in order as long as what was rolled didn't exceed the point buy/standard array?

Feels like the ability to play a low stat character with rolls guiding what you can be is likely still possible at most tables.
I'd allow it. Max at 16, min 6.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Whether or not that PC is a liability is a matter of opinion. And if you are playing in a game where no evil characters are allowed, letting someone die when you could save them isn't on the table.

If the party is a group of adventurers trying to save someone/a city/the world, is it ok for the party to ditch the member who is a liability* at an inn instead of taking them to the dangerous parts and significantly risk the mission?

(Is it evil to insist on risking your teammates lives because you really want to go with? Would it actually be evil if the military sent folks who would normally 4-F out on long matches into combat? Is it evil that militaries have requirements to qualify for special forces?).

On the other hand, if it is a group of friends exploring and they recognize each others particular strengths and weaknesses, then the idea of "liability" isn't really a thing. Or similarly if it is a portal fantasy and a friend is dragged along, then of course you don't ditch them.


* Maybe it is a bunch of high level characters, and someone wants to bring a low-level one with. Maybe it is 1e and one of the player is cursed and injured and level drained and who knows. Maybe they are going to fight something one of the characters is especially vulnerable too. Maybe the character has really low hit points and the party will be repeatedly at a tactical disadvantage because they need to continually heal them. And this all assumes the demi-god at the end of the table hasn't had a premonition about how the fate of the world hinges on the unexpected (or happens to know that halflings are more resistant to the tug of the big bad thing).
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If the party is a group of adventurers trying to save someone/a city/the world, is it ok for the party to ditch the member who is a liability* at an inn instead of taking them to the dangerous parts and significantly risk the mission?
No, because he's not truly a liability. Let's say you have 5 PCs and the OP PCs are 8 and the liability is a 5. 37(32+5) is greater than 32, so dropping the "liability" hurts the party overall. The PC who is a 5 is contributing to success whether the powergamers want to believe so or not. Not contributing as much as you would like =/= liability. A liability is that level 0 royal dandy you have to escort and keep alive.

Often times it comes down to having that one more person, even someone who isn't that strong, to save the world. How many movies, shows, books, etc. have you seen/read where the weak liability overcomes and is pivotal to success? I've seen/read tons. The game is exactly like that.
On the other hand, if it is a group of friends exploring and they recognize each others particular strengths and weaknesses, then the idea of "liability" isn't really a thing. Or similarly if it is a portal fantasy and a friend is dragged along, then of course you don't ditch them.


* Maybe it is a bunch of high level characters, and someone wants to bring a low-level one with. Maybe it is 1e and one of the player is cursed and injured and level drained and who knows. Maybe they are going to fight something one of the characters is especially vulnerable too. Maybe the character has really low hit points and the party will be repeatedly at a tactical disadvantage because they need to continually heal them. And this all assumes the demi-god at the end of the table hasn't had a premonition about how the fate of the world hinges on the unexpected (or happens to know that halflings are more resistant to the tug of the big bad thing).
Sure, but this is not the scenario. The scenario being presented is a 5e PC who is not optimized to the nth degree as being a liability to those that are. Same level as the others and fully capable of contributing, but just not as good. You can't make a liability PC in 5e who is the same level as the others. Not even monks or rangers are liabilities.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Sure, but this is not the scenario. The scenario being presented is a 5e PC who is not optimized to the nth degree as being a liability to those that are. Same level as the others and fully capable of contributing, but just not as good. You can't make a liability PC in 5e who is the same level as the others. Not even monks or rangers are liabilities.
I certainly agree that "not optimized" is different than "liability"!!!

Iirc some other discussions up thread were characters with scores between three and nine with not many hp at all, for example.

No pro basketball team has a starting five composed of just All-Stars, and all of them need some bench players. None of them would put me (or I'm guessing pretty much on these boards) on their bench.

If the world was at stake, and they needed five players or they would be DQ'd, and everyone else in the world who wasn't on a team and had played a sport after grade school and had hand eye coordination had been abducted by aliens, I might make the team. But otherwise I'm pretty sure they'd be better off with me running some analytics in the booth or manning a food service booth, and not on the floor.

Stories might have the case of the 1st level character in a party of 10th level ones being the key person. I don't see it happening in D&D unless the DM drives the train there. I get that that's extreme. But I'm just trying to point out that at some point their is a level of badness in D&D that would be a liability. If you think know stat-rolled sub-optimized choice could be that bad, then I guess you think 5e is more robust than I do. That's cool.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I certainly agree that "not optimized" is different than "liability"!!!

Iirc some other discussions up thread were characters with scores between three and nine with not many hp at all, for example.

No pro basketball team has a starting five composed of just All-Stars, and all of them need some bench players. None of them would put me (or I'm guessing pretty much on these boards) on their bench.

If the world was at stake, and they needed five players or they would be DQ'd, and everyone else in the world who wasn't on a team and had played a sport after grade school and had hand eye coordination had been abducted by aliens, I might make the team. But otherwise I'm pretty sure they'd be better off with me running some analytics in the booth or manning a food service booth, and not on the floor.

Stories might have the case of the 1st level character in a party of 10th level ones being the key person. I don't see it happening in D&D unless the DM drives the train there. I get that that's extreme. But I'm just trying to point out that at some point their is a level of badness in D&D that would be a liability. If you think know stat-rolled sub-optimized choice could be that bad, then I guess you think 5e is more robust than I do. That's cool.
I mean, the bolded is pretty much a white room scenario. I went to a stat roller and rolled 20 sets of stats. This is what came up. Not one came close to all 7 to 9 stats. The worst set was the 11, 11, 7, 7, 11, 12 one, and even that can be 12, 11, 7, 7, 11 14 or 12, 12, 7, 7, 12, 12 with 1st level ASIs.

11 18 8 11 7 14
12 11 14 14 17 13
12 18 16 9 8 7
15 11 9 15 8 14
12 13 7 7 18 15
8 18 19 12 13 12
16 11 10 12 13 13
16 9 11 15 14 7
15 9 15 8 7 12
13 15 15 13 10 14
11 15 14 13 9 14
14 12 12 11 16 8
11 11 7 7 11 12
11 18 8 8 9 16
16 12 8 15 14 16
9 13 16 12 9 14
16 10 16 17 12 10
12 11 6 16 12 9
9 14 13 13 11 9
14 7 9 14 15 12
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I mean, the bolded is pretty much a white room scenario. I went to a stat roller and rolled 20 sets of stats. This is what came up. Not one came close to all 7 to 9 stats. The worst set was the 11, 11, 7, 7, 11, 12 one, and even that can be 12, 11, 7, 7, 11 14 or 12, 12, 7, 7, 12, 12 with 1st level ASIs.

11 18 8 11 7 14 <- cleric?
12 11 14 14 17 13
12 18 16 9 8 7 <- chr based caster?
15 11 9 15 8 14
12 13 7 7 18 15 <- front line fighter or caster who wants to target things?
8 18 19 12 13 12
16 11 10 12 13 13
16 9 11 15 14 7 <- chr based caster?
15 9 15 8 7 12
13 15 15 13 10 14
11 15 14 13 9 14
14 12 12 11 16 8
11 11 7 7 11 12 <- melee class or wizard?
11 18 8 8 9 16
16 12 8 15 14 16
9 13 16 12 9 14
16 10 16 17 12 10
12 11 6 16 12 9
9 14 13 13 11 9
14 7 9 14 15 12 <- dex based thief?

Unless the choices made were silly, most of those don't seem to be in the liability range some others were talking about iirc.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Unless the choices made were silly, most of those don't seem to be in the liability range some others were talking about iirc.
Which is my point. The ranges they are talking about are white room ranges. They don't occur in the wild 99% of the time. They simply aren't worth worrying about, let alone giving serious discussion time to. :)
 

ECMO3

Hero
This is just laughable. There's no actual argument here. The idea that having vastly less HP is fine because "above level 16" (a range no-one plays in) WIS saves are common is hilariously nonsensical. Even enough CON to get +1 HP is a gigantic boost to real-terms survivability - If you have a d6 HD, that's about 30% more HP per level (ignoring the L1 max HP, but we can factor that in if you want to be difficult - you'll be doing the maths though). d8, it's still about 25% more. d10, 20% more, and so on (also it's slightly less of gain with fixed HP/level, but only slightly - what like 5% less?). +2 or more is amazing.

To be clear Wisdom is more important at low level, above level 16 (where I have played 6 different characters in campaigns and more in one shots) Wisdom proficiency is pretty important.

I am currently playing 4 regular games per week, I have played numerous characters with a 10 Constitution and 10 or 12 is the "normal" Constituition I play with in a point buy game. On point buy I have never played with higher than a 14 unless I got a boon to boost it from the DM and I normally only play a Rune Knight or Damphir at 14 and that is because their subclass abilities and natural attack respectively key off Con.


I've played enough 5E to know HP are absolutely vital when stuff gets real. +WIS isn't terrible - it'll be far ahead of INT, CHA and STR if those aren't primaries for you (for combat survival specifically), though probably not DEX due to Initiative. But the idea that WIS saves are something that happen constantly and always has terrible consequences is failed is utter bollocks - most sessions pass with zero player-side WIS saves - and even those that happen are rarely Hold Person or the like, but like with CON, usually for lesser effects. CON is used for plenty of equally-fatal effects too - like Paralysis and Petrification.

Wisdom is far more debnilitating generally, Constitution is used for some paralyzation (less often than Wisdom) and rarely on a stright up save. Normally you need to get hit first and then you make your Constitution save as opposed to Wisdom which is usually just a save right out of the gate. All the petrification conditions I know of in game require multiple failed saves, the first of which causes restrained (like I said).

And HP is the only defence that really works at that point.

No it doesn't. At 5th level a +2 COnstitution is 10hps. That is not even a single hit while you are paralyzed.

So over say, 100 incidences of Hold Person being cast on a PC, I daresay the CON PC will survive more than the WIS PC.

You can say this, but you would be wrong, remeber you save every single turn.

We can put this into whiteroom against a weak opponent:

a 6th level fighter with a +7 attack, 17 AC and a Longbow with a 0 wisdom save fighting a Wizard with an AC of 21, dex of 16 who casts hold person with a DC of 15 and uses booming blade with a dagger when the fighter is held and recasts after a save at the end of the fighters turn.

In that whiteroom with the Wizard winning initiative the fighter with a 0 wisdom save, +2 Con and 52 hit points will last on average 12.5 rounds against that Wizard and will deal 10 damage total to the Wizard over that 12 rounds.

In that same Whiteroom with a +2 Wisdom save and 40 hit points the Fighter will survive 13 rounds and deal 18 damage on average over those 13 rounds.

That is against a single enemy with a weak melee attack. Give the Wizard some allies and it tilts even further away from the fighter.

We must admit it is impossible to calculate because it's fully situational (Hold Person is meaningless if no enemies are in position, physically and Initiative-wise, to take advantage, and probably instantly fatal regardless of HP if several are).

Stopping actions is pretty meaningful. Every round the PC is held that is damage she is not doing or enemies she is not controlling. But that is the reason I used an example with a weak melee attack in the example above.

I agree if there are a lot of enemies to take advantage it is instantly fatal regardless of hit points, and this underscores my point - the extra hit points you get from Constitution are not very meaningful.

The idea that tanks don't need CON unless they're Barbarians is just not even arguable though. That's such a bad claim that you should retract it.

They don't. If they are optimized it is better to have more hit points than less, but they are not necessary. A high AC beats a high Constitution every time and more hit points can both be replenished and added relatively easy through magic.

I have played a ton of 5E and most of it in the last 5 years has been played with characters with a 10 or 12 Constitution, many of them tank builds and they did fine. Have you actually tried playing multiple 10-12 CON characters in a level 1-20 game like I have? If you have not tried it maybe you are the one who should retract your statement.

This is going to be even more true in the new rules where using potions will be a bonus action. Part of this now is that being at 0 hit points is actually better than being paralyzed or incapacitated from a spell or effect, because it is a lot easier for your allies to fix.

Here are two examples of a character with a 10 and 12 Constitution who I played to level 20. These are not the best examples, but these are the best I have character sheets for online. Both of these PCs could tank well.


 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
This is just laughable.

... utter bollocks ...-

That's such a bad claim that you should retract it.

Mod note:

Laying about you with disrespect maybe feels powerful. However, it is weak, emotionally-based rhetoric, and it leaves you in a poor place to assert that the other person is the one who should retract their post.

It leaves you in a good place to get reported to the moderators for being rude, though. If that was your goal... spot on!

So, maybe don't use such tactics going forward, hey what? Thanks.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top