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

[pemerton]

The Encounter system generally assumes a balanced party, aka, a party made up of various classes that play off each other in some form of coordination but in practice most campaigns don't really get that. Your always going to end up with an adventuring party with shortcomings unless they really coordinate their character creation.

More to the point though roleplaying game balance in general is a very obtuse thing, what any single individual considers balanced or unbalanced is debatable. The only true form of balance D&D ever got was in 4e, in that the classes where balanced by effectively being equal within their archtype. So it didn't matter which striker or tank you chose as long as you had one so getting a balanced group, at least the discussion among players would be like "Im going striker... ok I'll go tank, ok I'll go control" and boom you have a perfectly balanced party. That was one good element of 4e. Problem with it was that it was incredibly boring in practice because as it turns out.. balanced roleplaying games are quite dry and boring.

Then there is the whole concept of in and out of combat balance... a barbarian polearmer is an awsome fighter, but outside of combat he is outright useless.

A lot of this doesn't fit with my experience.

For instance, why would a polearm barbarian be useless out of combat? S/he will be strong, which can help with lifting/carrying things; s/he might well have a good CON, allowing for running long distances or performing other feats of endurance; and there is no reason why s/he should have a terrible CHA. The polearm fighter in my 4e game is not useless out of combat, and I would think that in a bounded accuracy environment like 4e that character would have an even wider range of viable non-combat action declarations.

I also think you are exaggerating the sameness of classes, and hence the relationship between capability and balance. In 4e a ranger and a sorcerer, for instance, play very differently; and I suspect that in 5e the experiences of playing an archer fighter and a blaster wizard or sorcerer will also be pretty different. When it comes to balance within a party, I think a lot of it is down to the group "making its own luck", and working well with what they bring to bear, rather than relying on some notionally optimal or balanced distribution of capabilities.

 

[Bigkahuna]

Well we are talking circumstance, naturally if you give the Barbarian some Cha or Int to change things up he'll be more interesting to play outside of combat, but I think if you look at the builds for the Polearm Barbarian you'll notice the mix max nature of it and this is what I'm referring to. You don't put anything into Wis, Int or Cha in those builds, if you did, its not the min/maxed Barbarian we are talking about here. So yeah... IF you change the Polearm Barbarian and make him a different build, he won't be useless outside of combat.

As for 4e, I don't want to start an edition war here so lets just agree to disagree. I have played many different types of games and I have never played in a system with so little variety and substance like 4e. The combat was somewhat interesting because of the mechanics, but the classes and abilities left me quite numb and uninterested.

 

[Leatherhead]

As a person who is playing an Eagle totem barbarian:

Bear is overrated, unless you are the only person taking damage in the group. There are at least three other options I would consider depending on rules and party composition.
Wolf is worse than the Berserker if you play with Flanking rules. Otherwise, your melee buddies (and especially the rogue) will love you for it.
The other Totems are all geared to mobility in different flavors. Eagle is my favorite , but given that you can mix and match totem powers to you hearts content, it doesn't particularly matter.
Berserker is really bad if you have feats. The main draw of bonus action attacks is replicated and given out more often and/or cheaper in many ways. It's merely OK even without feats. The Reaction attack is a much better feature, but that doesn't happen until level 14, which most people don't get to mess with anyway.
The Battlerager is basically a variation of the Berseker that is better in most metrics. Unless you are fighting something that uses charm or fear, you like to fight naked, or you don't like playing dwarves and can't convince your DM to make an exception this one time.

But the real trap is feats themselves. You need ASIs to function properly as you level. Even those -5/+10 feats aren't as good for you as a bump to STR will be. Try to alternate them evenly if you want to have more than one feat.

 

[Azurewraith]

But the real trap is feats themselves. You need ASIs to function properly as you level. Even those -5/+10 feats aren't as good for you as a bump to STR will be. Try to alternate them evenly if you want to have more than one feat.

I wouldn't say you need Asis to function. What's a +1 to hit against 15ac?(a middle ground AC number) With even a +3 to hit your still on a 50% hit chance at level 1, typically what your fighting at level one has less than 15ac.

Imo the trap with feats is that some of them are hugely powerful combat boosters, others are situational RP skills and the 3rd set are pointless. Yet they all draw from the same pool.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But the real trap is feats themselves. You need ASIs to function properly as you level.

This has not been my experience with 5e.

Imo the trap with feats is that some of them are hugely powerful combat boosters, others are situational RP skills and the 3rd set are pointless. Yet they all draw from the same pool.

This seems like more an issue with playstyle than the system itself. Perhaps you could try playing in a way that makes those second and third sets more interesting/viable? <shrug> Works for us, anyway...

 

[Azurewraith]

This has not been my experience with 5e.




This seems like more an issue with playstyle than the system itself. Perhaps you could try playing in a way that makes those second and third sets more interesting/viable? <shrug> Works for us, anyway...

Your right maybe I was being a Tad selfish wanting the game to conform to my needs out the box.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Your right maybe I was being a Tad selfish wanting the game to conform to my needs out the box.

<nod> Considering no TTRPG system ever written can perform such a feat, for any consumer, I agree with your self-assessment.

 

[Kite474]

So for the OP for the most part their really are no real traps in 5e.... Well yet

Now there are unoptimal parts and there are some parts that are not the best designed.

But you can probably take this to heart: No matter what you choose you will at the very least be decent. Will you always be good? No, but decent is pretty much all you need for most games.

Just ask your DM what the game will be like beforehand and choose your class accordingly + play something you will enjoy. Don't be like me in my current game.

 

[Valetudo]

I see no class that is useless out of combat in 5th edition. Some might be better, but none are useless.

 

[Ancalagon]

So for the OP for the most part their really are no real traps in 5e.... Well yet

Now there are unoptimal parts and there are some parts that are not the best designed.

But you can probably take this to heart: No matter what you choose you will at the very least be decent. Will you always be good? No, but decent is pretty much all you need for most games.

Just ask your DM what the game will be like beforehand and choose your class accordingly + play something you will enjoy. Don't be like me in my current game.

playing something you like - or at least are curious about trying! - is of course very important.

I agree that your character will be at least decent (based on my limited experience... there may be traps I don't know about). However, it is possible to make a bad character if you *try* to do it, or if you are completely clueless (which I am not getting the impression you are). But this is true of any system.