log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Class choices that didn't sync well with the campaign.

aco175

Hero
We are playing Elemental Evil line right now and one player is a fire cleric. It is cool and fits for the most part except when we fight fire things. He can take away the fire resistance, but not immunity. He does like things now that he has better armor and the magical pick that does +1d8 lightning.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



One of my groups will be starting the Depths in a few weeks when the current campaign ends. I'll make them pay for your troubles. ;)
It'll be a nice change of pace for them and a good throw back to the good old days.
 

ccs

40th lv DM
I suppose the closest would've been my PF Chevelier when we played Wrath of the Rightious.
His mount/mounted combat, while not completely useless, were hardly ever important. Or even practical in many situations.
I used it when I could.
Otherwise he spent a lot of time fighting as a foot knight.

Some would argue that my 5e 1/2ling warlock might fall into this category as her offense is virtually non-existent. (An intentional choice on my end)
But they overlook the fact that my intent is a tiny support & RP character. And that she has always accomplished those roles.
 

FrozenNorth

Adventurer
I have not, but that's because we discuss the general concept of the campaign in advance. The only time we've had any issues was a player who insisted on playing a wizard in 3E, when we knew we were going to start as slaves. He was all but useless until we recovered his spellbook, but whenever he complained we all reminded him he knew what he was getting into.
I second this. When I start a campaign, I try to ensure that the players have the maximum opportunity to make informed decisions. I strongly believe that surprising players is overrated.

That means not only telling players the title of the adventure, but also the overall idea of the first chapter and likely opponents.

I find that this opens more options than it closes. A player may be nervous about playing a ranger, but may be more interested if they know the first chapters are going to take place in swamp and grasslands and you will mainly be fighting orcs.
 

Mounted seems to be a big one. There aren't a lot of campaigns where there is ample opportunity to have mounted combat (SKT maybe?). Just a week or so ago a player said he wanted to play cavalier, and when I said that we would be doing Ghosts of Saltmarsh, he quickly changed his mind lol.

Yeah. It became a thing for awhile at our table how often we left mounts behind simply because they couldn't go where we could. It became what you said when you were saying you were saying the party needed to keep lean and mobile. Especially with the DM who tended to kill our friendly NPCs with stray AoE effects.

"We should buy mounts to travel faster."
"No, horses can't climb ladders."

"We should bring a wagon to haul away the loot."
"No, horses can't climb ladders."

"We should get some low level hirelings to lay down some crossbow fire."
"No, horses can't climb ladders."

About the only time I've seen a character able to pull off mounted combat is when it was a Halfling paladin riding a war dog, which in a worst case could be carried by the human barbarian. Eventually it became a custom figurine of power blink dog from his deity.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I had a player choose Cavalier in my last Eberron campaign despite its lack of mounted combat. A lot of the features were still very useful as I recall and late in the campaign the opportunity arose for him to ride a dragon in a battle against other dragons (other PCs on an airship) and it was very cool. I just remembered he also had a motorcycle they salvaged from the Mournland that he occasionally used as a mount.
 

I had a player choose Cavalier in my last Eberron campaign despite its lack of mounted combat. A lot of the features were still very useful as I recall and late in the campaign the opportunity arose for him to ride a dragon in a battle against other dragons (other PCs on an airship) and it was very cool. I just remembered he also had a motorcycle they salvaged from the Mournland that he occasionally used as a mount.
Yeah, I think the cavalier archetype is well designed in that aspect. It works for a mounted combatant or just a defensive-oriented fighter. Very few of its features only affect mounted combat.
 

I would say then that you would have the Shield of The Hidden Lord be equipped to the Shadow Sorcerer. It would then use it's powers to help out the Shadow Sorcerer. So if a Devil/Demon used True Sight, the Hidden Lord, ya know, being called the Hidden Lord, would have a trait that would interefere with the Truesight of the Devil/Demons. Then by wearing it, it would be equipped with a NPC Feat(since it technically is a character) That could help out in someway against their Magic Resistance.

True your stuck with the Shield of The Hidden Lord occupying an Attunement Slot or shield spot: But keep on mind that using the Shield of The Hidden Lord may have a price or quirks to it.

Same thing for the Fire Sorcerers: The Hidden Lord enhances their powers so that way Fire Spells bypass the fire Immunity of Devil and Demons.

Now against Archdevils and Archdemons? That's where the Hidden Lord may not be able to bend the rules so much for the Shadow Sorcerer in that case since Archdevils and Archdemons are a whole nother thing above regular Devils/Demons. (The Hidden Lord is technically an "unofficial" Archdevil so that once again allows it to bend the rules against regular Devils and Demons, but not against its superiors.)

Now if you manage to get the Sword of Zariel and it is one of your Sorcerers, then you can just have it override the Damage type of Fireball or other fire spells and have them become Radiant instead of Fire. That way your Fireball still can damage Demon/Devils because its classified as Radiant now.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I think there's even a better method... just don't create a character based on game mechanics.

Figure out who your character is first. What do they want? What are their personality quirks? Do they have family or friends? Why are they adventuring in this particular campaign with this particular group of adventurers that this particular DM is running you through? Where is this setting located? What is important to this character and what is it about adventuring in this setting and with this group that will help them get what they want?

Once all that stuff is done and you've created a narratively satisfying roleplaying character to play... then worry about what class or subclass they are going to be. Because at that point you will most likely have all of your options already narrowed down for you and they will be geared specifically for the adventures you are going to be going on. And you'll not have to worry about whether or not the game mechanics you wanted to play are going to be an actual hindrance to you rather than a help.
 

Im definately a 'tie my PC to the campaign' kind of player and DM.

For CoS I played a witch hunter (Monster Slayer/ Inquisitive) with a pistol and a pilgrim hat. For ToA it was a Thief rogue with the archaeologist background and a whip (blatant Indy rip off).

For Rime im considering a Hunter ranger Jon Snow knock off.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I think there's even a better method... just don't create a character based on game mechanics.

Figure out who your character is first. What do they want? What are their personality quirks? Do they have family or friends? Why are they adventuring in this particular campaign with this particular group of adventurers that this particular DM is running you through? Where is this setting located? What is important to this character and what is it about adventuring in this setting and with this group that will help them get what they want?

Once all that stuff is done and you've created a narratively satisfying roleplaying character to play... then worry about what class or subclass they are going to be. Because at that point you will most likely have all of your options already narrowed down for you and they will be geared specifically for the adventures you are going to be going on. And you'll not have to worry about whether or not the game mechanics you wanted to play are going to be an actual hindrance to you rather than a help.

Please unpack "and they will be geared specifically for the adventures you are going to be going on". Specifically why, (1) when working completely from the player side you know what challenges to characters are in the adventure, and (2) why those challenges do not apply to a character you envisioned regardless of who that character is and what they do. Because that's the only sentence in here that addresses the issue and I can't find any support for it elsewhere in what you wrote.

It seems like you're saying that I can envision a character, their quirks, and end up with a pyromaniac sorcerer that somehow because I know their family and backstory is fully functional against the fire immune fiends of Avernus.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I did not mean the specific challenges you will face... but rather that "Hey, the DM is running Descent Into Avernus, so once my character is created for the intention of playing that adventure path, I should then make a mechanical choice to add to it that would also work for that path so I don't find myself up the creek without a paddle."

The point being... if you focus on the narrative and roleplaying aspects of a character, you can layer on any number of game mechanics (classes, subclasses, feats etc.) to bring the character to life. Thus allowing you to make sure that you end up choosing would also be useful from the mechanics point of view.

So you don't go into the game wanting to make a "pyromaniac sorcerer"... you go into the game deciding to play a young man born to a noble family in Baldur's Gate with a touch of magic about him that he came upon accidentally. Then once your DM says "By the way, we're playing Baldur's Gate DiA"... you then decide that while a dragon sorcerer would be cool, perhaps playing a red dragon sorcerer might not be the best idea and maybe go green or white instead. Or if dragon sorcerer entirely is a bad idea... then layer on top of your character a different sorcerer subclass or perhaps even a warlock or a paladin or even a fighter with the Magical Adept feat. There are so many mechanics you can use to enhance your character concept, so don't pigeonhole yourself at the very beginning.
 

ccs

40th lv DM
I think there's even a better method... just don't create a character based on game mechanics.

Figure out who your character is first. What do they want? What are their personality quirks? Do they have family or friends? Why are they adventuring in this particular campaign with this particular group of adventurers that this particular DM is running you through? Where is this setting located? What is important to this character and what is it about adventuring in this setting and with this group that will help them get what they want?

Once all that stuff is done and you've created a narratively satisfying roleplaying character to play... then worry about what class or subclass they are going to be. Because at that point you will most likely have all of your options already narrowed down for you and they will be geared specifically for the adventures you are going to be going on. And you'll not have to worry about whether or not the game mechanics you wanted to play are going to be an actual hindrance to you rather than a help.

I did. I always do.
When I wrote up the character the class that I decided best described him was Chevelier. So that's what I made him.
It just turned out that the mounted combat aspect wasn't of much importance. So I simply stopped investing in mount/mounted combat oriented feats etc. & concentrated on what would be useful.
 

Personally I feel as though it would potentially fall under a "speak with your DM about potential campaign hurdles/build issies" umbrella. While neither the DM or player is really at fault here, it doesn't change that multiple builds are sort of sub optimized by certain types of campaigns, and it isn't just an Avernis related problem. A forest druid or ranger with poorly chosen favored enemies would equally be feeling issues too.

What I'd suggest as a good fix is speaking with your DM homebrewing some magic items or if not them feats. They are quite a good work around for this sort of things. Perhaps let you find an item that bypasses Devil's sight for your darkness spells (obviously requiring attunement), or in the case of a necromancer/spore druid I'd give them something that would let them animate devil corpses (same statblock as humanoid zpmbies/skeletons, just let's you use fiend corpses). There is even precedent for this latter example in the module with someone called Mad Magie (more specifically one of her crew). I will not say more to keep from spoiling, but if you name drop that as a reference they could look up what I'm talking about. The point is it's about working with the player to keep certain subclasses from being too handicapped.
 

Coroc

Hero
Mounted seems to be a big one. There aren't a lot of campaigns where there is ample opportunity to have mounted combat (SKT maybe?). Just a week or so ago a player said he wanted to play cavalier, and when I said that we would be doing Ghosts of Saltmarsh, he quickly changed his mind lol.
So you do know about limiting players choices after all.

This was what i meant.
Also @Bacon Bits in his post above gave a very good example on what to avoid.

It all depends on your dm style also. If i run a campaign in Ravenloft i advise players not to chose a LG classic Paladin, because his chance to survive is really low. I use the old 2e principle that a pallys presence is instantly known to a domain lord, and he will be like a beacon shining in the dark for him.
Even if that is not the case, the moral dilemmas which occur in many Ravenloft adventures hold multiple chances that a paldin becomes fallen.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
So you do know about limiting players choices after all.

I legitimately don't know what you're talking about. I can't really parse your intent from this or from your first post because the don't seem related to what I'm actually talking about. I'm not limiting anything. The player could choose to play whatever they want. But the player knew when I mentioned GoS that much of the adventure takes place where a mount isn't really feasible, and they made the decision to switch. Nothing I did changed their mind. I certainly don't "tell the player to not play a LG paladin" or anything like what you did. It seems your approach and mine are not similar.
 

Coroc

Hero
I legitimately don't know what you're talking about. I can't really parse your intent from this or from your first post because the don't seem related to what I'm actually talking about. I'm not limiting anything. The player could choose to play whatever they want. But the player knew when I mentioned GoS that much of the adventure takes place where a mount isn't really feasible, and they made the decision to switch. Nothing I did changed their mind. I certainly don't "tell the player to not play a LG paladin" or anything like what you did. It seems your approach and mine are not similar.
Yep you did not force the player gun point, but that is also not what i tried to express.

You did it the soft way by giving him info, and of course in the end it was his decision.

That is (sometimes) the same way i do it.
E.g. Ravenloft and paladins in my games.

In other campaigns i just offer a selection off classes subclasses and races especially when things are not so obvious.
Then if someone still wants to play something not on the menu i try to work it out. That is what i meant. In my take on descent to avernus a class which would by design be unproportional difficulties would not be recommended by me aka i would not offer it in the initial selection and would try to talk the player out of it if he by chance just wants to play that class.

Same goes for party composition, i do not want to master for a 5 fighter group the less for a pally tries to go along a CE necromancer. So these situations will also be discussed aka limited upfront.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Same goes for party composition, i do not want to master for a 5 fighter group

In a PbP game once, we decided to pick characters "blind" - we knew what adventure we were going to, but not what the others were picking. So we ended up with... a monk, a ranger, a paladin, a fighter (dex build meleeist) and a 2nd fighter (archer build). It was great! :)
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top