Covered.
D&D 5E (2014) Character Concepts you cannot make in 5E
- Thread starter Lokiare
- Start date
Covered.
ExploderWizard
Hero
So I'll leave the 5E forums alone. Have fun with your game before 5E gets shelved because it could not bring in enough income.
Here's a little secret: it doesn't matter what is or isn't in 5E with regard to sales.5E will be treadmilled out just like any other edition. Hasbro has always had unrealistic expectations from tabletop rpg sales because they don't have the wits to understand the difference between a form or medium and a brand.
jamesmanhattan
Explorer
ignore ignore ignore
Last edited:
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
I can't seem to make a level eleven Cthulhu with the current 5E rules.
Also, my DM seems slightly unwilling to allow this character in his game.
Also, my DM seems slightly unwilling to allow this character in his game.
I do think people were a bit too hard on Lokiare. It was a legitimate question, assuming it was asking what concepts you can't make with the rules as we have them now. Of course those things will change once the game is out, let alone once we start getting splat books.
There are things one cannot make at the moment. That said Lokiare's parting shot really tarnishes what he was presumably trying to say. Also a number of the concepts that supposedly aren't available actually are if you are willing to multiclass. And in some cases even without.
The lightly armored/unarmored fighter who wields a big weapon is possible so long as you are willing to multiclass barbarian. The rage can be ignored, or better yet refluffed as a battle trance, getting into the rhythm of battle, or something similar. This would require 3 good stats, but a human can have 3 16s if they are willing to tank their mental stats. And fighter does get the most stat increases. This means with a single level of barbarian added in, and having the three physical stats at 16, the "fighter" can have an AC of 16. Add a second level of barbarian and they can get advantage on their attacks pretty much at will. Multiclassing barbarian is a small price to pay to be able to go without armor and still wield a big weapon.
As for the Defender Wizard. Well Mages still get buff spells that can help them in combat, though most of those will be Concentration so they can't cast a bunch of them on themselves, and the new suggestion of taking damage ends concentration may ruin that even further. But beyond that there are the Enchanter Wizard option that is potentially broken, and one can be a dwarf and at 4th grab the feat to wear heavy armor. As an added bonus you can focus on upping Con and Int and have more HP as well as some damage resistance equal to Con mod. Makes a pretty good tank wizard after all. The Enchanter Mage 2nd level feature is so crazy that some melee characters, especially fighters, might take 2 levels just for that.
There are things one cannot make at the moment. That said Lokiare's parting shot really tarnishes what he was presumably trying to say. Also a number of the concepts that supposedly aren't available actually are if you are willing to multiclass. And in some cases even without.
The lightly armored/unarmored fighter who wields a big weapon is possible so long as you are willing to multiclass barbarian. The rage can be ignored, or better yet refluffed as a battle trance, getting into the rhythm of battle, or something similar. This would require 3 good stats, but a human can have 3 16s if they are willing to tank their mental stats. And fighter does get the most stat increases. This means with a single level of barbarian added in, and having the three physical stats at 16, the "fighter" can have an AC of 16. Add a second level of barbarian and they can get advantage on their attacks pretty much at will. Multiclassing barbarian is a small price to pay to be able to go without armor and still wield a big weapon.
As for the Defender Wizard. Well Mages still get buff spells that can help them in combat, though most of those will be Concentration so they can't cast a bunch of them on themselves, and the new suggestion of taking damage ends concentration may ruin that even further. But beyond that there are the Enchanter Wizard option that is potentially broken, and one can be a dwarf and at 4th grab the feat to wear heavy armor. As an added bonus you can focus on upping Con and Int and have more HP as well as some damage resistance equal to Con mod. Makes a pretty good tank wizard after all. The Enchanter Mage 2nd level feature is so crazy that some melee characters, especially fighters, might take 2 levels just for that.
It was a failing of sorts. In at least the cases of the Bard, Druid and Monk, it was a failure to support PC types that went back 30+ years, usually present in the most core of books.
Moving something well-established from core to supplement is risky to say the least. I can say anecdotally that it was a turnoff for many gamers I know, myself included. While I did warm to 4Ed a bit as it expanded, the damage was done by that point.
The Human Target
Adventurer
From the point if view if 4e, the later PHBs are not supplements, they are ad integral as the first PHB.
4e added a bunch of new(ish) stuff to the core, and they wisely decided to put some of it up front instead of hiding it in a later book.
That said, it was a bummer to have to wait for a monk. But then the monk ended up amazing, so it kinda was worth it.
4e added a bunch of new(ish) stuff to the core, and they wisely decided to put some of it up front instead of hiding it in a later book.
That said, it was a bummer to have to wait for a monk. But then the monk ended up amazing, so it kinda was worth it.
Argyle King
Legend
I would just like to say to Lokiare, in an attempt to put his mind at ease, that he should not worry. Right now, we only have playtest documents and unfinished rules. If recent history is any indication, once 5th edition is actually out, ze game will remain ze same.
They can claim to have an "everything is core" philosophy, but functionally, in the eyes of the established base, the subsequent PHBs and Powers books are supplements.
Or, to use non-loaded language: 4Ed moved certain class & race concepts out of what had been part of each edition's initial release into subsequent releases while doing the reverse with other race & class options. PC cconcepts that were at the game's traditional center were moved to its periphery while peripheral builds were bright to the forefront.
That isn't an inherently bad thing. It IS, however, inherently risky. And at least for some players, it was very problematic.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Not having read through ALL of the posts....it comes down to this, AFAIAC:
The rules need to be vague and open-ended enough so that it's easy for a DM to just make stuff up as he needs for his game/campaign/players.
Want to play a light-armored heavy-weaponed fighter? Ok. The rules need to be 'simple' enough that a DM can say "OK. You can have +1 to hit or +1 damage for every point of AC you *don't* get from armor, up to your current level +1". If doing that would "screw up the system" right off the bat...then I'd submit that the rules suck.
Want a defender wizard? A DM should be able to say "OK, you can wear up to Chain armor; however, you can't have any spell that directly damages things higher than level 2. You can 'reverse' damaging spells as protection-from spells. So, you would have "Protection from Fireball", and not "Fireball"; it protects against FB. Duration will be based as Protection from Evil". Again, if that somehow 'wrecks' the rules system...the rules suck.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Not having read through ALL of the posts....it comes down to this, AFAIAC:
The rules need to be vague and open-ended enough so that it's easy for a DM to just make stuff up as he needs for his game/campaign/players.
Want to play a light-armored heavy-weaponed fighter? Ok. The rules need to be 'simple' enough that a DM can say "OK. You can have +1 to hit or +1 damage for every point of AC you *don't* get from armor, up to your current level +1". If doing that would "screw up the system" right off the bat...then I'd submit that the rules suck.
Want a defender wizard? A DM should be able to say "OK, you can wear up to Chain armor; however, you can't have any spell that directly damages things higher than level 2. You can 'reverse' damaging spells as protection-from spells. So, you would have "Protection from Fireball", and not "Fireball"; it protects against FB. Duration will be based as Protection from Evil". Again, if that somehow 'wrecks' the rules system...the rules suck.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Similar Threads
