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

[The_Furious_Puffin]

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.

I disagree with your view of back in the day. My experience with the earlier editions isn't super extensive, but, two things that spring to mind from a fairly extensive AD&D campaign:

1) Wizards didn't automatically get spells on levelling up! This is YOOGE - it totally takes the power from the player and gives it to the DM. You're not selecting from a menu of defined abilities any more. You're not selecting at all, you're taking what you've given.

If we go back to the logic of your post and my explict articulation of it - that means that point 1 isn't true and the entire logic train falls apart. This is a very significant difference between the editions and represents a massive swing towards player empowerment from AD&D -> 5E

Of course, doesn't say anything about clerics, but ya know.

2) Followers definitely addressed some of this. Literally having a small army right in the class description amped up the narrative impact of ye olde fighters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree with your view of back in the day. My experience with the earlier editions isn't super extensive, but, two things that spring to mind from a fairly extensive AD&D campaign:

1) Wizards didn't automatically get spells on levelling up!

Spells known, yes. In 1e Magic-Users had to find/buy/transcribe/research all of 'em beyond their (random or DM-selected) starting spellbook (though there were variants and outright misunderstanding of what 'know spell %' meant that were more generous).
In 2e wizards did learn a spell each time they got a new spell level - or, for specialists, each level.

This is YOOGE - it totally takes the power from the player and gives it to the DM.

Yes, and 1e was "DM Empowering" like no edition since, until 5e. Obviously, there are bits 5e has retained from editions in-between - much more permissive rules governing spell casting being among them - but that doesn't mean it's not returned to DM Empowerment quite decisively.

You're not selecting from a menu of defined abilities any more. You're not selecting at all, you're taking what you've given.

Even as a Magic-user or Illusionist in 1e you /were/ selecting the spells you memorized from a menu of known spells. And, you even had some control over what spells you knew - based on your willingness/ability to buy/barter/research spells, or transcribe scrolls into your book. Other casters - Cleric, Druid - OTOH, chose spells from their full lists.

This is a very significant difference between the editions and represents a massive swing towards player empowerment from AD&D -> 5E

I guess, if you ignore everything in-between, and only consider spells known for wizards. Or you could say the pendulum swung from lower player entitlement/high DM empowerment with 1e across 2e to the opposite extremes in 3.x/PF then swung back across 4e/E to high DM empowerment/low player entitlement, with 5e. Maybe a few player entitlements, like casting becoming ever easier in combat, lingered from those intermediate editions, maybe a few entitlements players enjoyed in 1e (like acquiring followers) got lost along the way.

2) Followers definitely addressed some of this. Literally having a small army right in the class description amped up the narrative impact of ye olde fighters.

The followers (if any) most 1e classes got were pretty trivial compared to what high-level characters could do. (Rangers and Druids were two exceptions to that statement, though). Henchmen were a lot more significant, and class didn't come into that so much, while DM judgment did.
FWIW.

 

[Jabborwacky]

It's also worth mentioning the skills and abillity checks are left open ended specifically to allow players and DMs to roleplay a variety of characters. If a player wants to play a wizard with the soldier background, it makes sense that a wizard's basic combat training would differ than a standard grunt's. It certainly doesn't make sense to have a war wizard attempt to compete in a contest of strength, so they train them to use their opponent's strength against them. The player should reasonably expect to be able to make some trip attempts using dexterity, provided he isn't purposely trying to exploit the open-ended-ness of the system.

Other examples might include a circus performer using his "fire breathing" skill with a performance check or a scavenger using her proficiency with an appropriate toolset to strip down a broken wagon.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

True in 1e, in 2e they did.

Wasn't automatically gaining spells on leveling up an optional rule in the AD&D DMG for specialist wizards? I could be wrong though, it's literally been a decade and a half(?).

If it's optional, that reinforces my point about the pendulum swinging towards player empowerment for spellcasters. Googling suggests it was, but I no-longer own the the books so I cannot check.


Edit: Someone has posted the rule in forums

First, whenever a character attains a new spell level, allow the player one new spell immediately. You can choose this spell, let the player choose it, or select it randomly.
The rationale behind this is simple: All the long hours of study and reading the character has been doing finally jells into something real and understandable.
No roll is needed to learn this spell, unless you allow the character to choose it. If the character is a specialist in a school of magic, the new spell should be from that school--if there is a spell available.

Letting the player pick it is one option, and if they pick it, they might not get it! They need to roll to larn the spell!
The difference between this and 5E is very stark. The empowerment balance is much more toward the DM in 2nd.

Even as a Magic-user or Illusionist in 1e you /were/ selecting the spells you memorized from a menu of known spells. And, you even had some control over what spells you knew - based on your willingness/ability to buy/barter/research spells, or transcribe scrolls into your book.

Yeah, but the GM has explicitly fairly total control over what you can buy, especially as ye olde magical shoppe was not part of the setting. So you don't have that same menu effect as 3.5. There is no expectation that he allows players to buy stuff or pick anything so spell access is 100% with the DM.

Other casters - Cleric, Druid - OTOH, chose spells from their full lists.

These two are interesting, and worth further discussion. I think that the relaxing of spell-casting restrictions has helped those classes a lot.

Druid wild shape has swung towards player empower - the options of shapeshift are more constrained than the options for wildshape - mostly because of the hit dice limit. Additionally, the cast time has been removed in the transition to wildshape. This has expanded the menu of options and the utility of those for druids at a given level. Additionally, druids had that exciting level cap which impacts high level play - the point in play in which the disparities between empowerment levels because much more significant. I don't remember shapeshift being as relevant as it is in 5e.

Clerics are also interesting. I remember there was an issue with cleric spell selection in AD&D that boxed you into being a heal bot. Moving that was a stated design goal of 3.5, but 5e doesn't but the cleric 'back in the box.' As you point out, the spellcasting regime is much more liberalised, and attempts have been made to give people more 'self sustain.' To me this suggests a swing towards player empowerment from 2nd, as we've tried to remove the soft constraints on the Cleric's spell suggestion.

Bottom line, I think we can see overall that the pendulum empowers players of spellcasters much more than players of non-spellcasting classes.

I'm not saying the pendulum has not swung, just that players of spell casting classes are significantly more empowered than players of non spellcasting classes in 5E. I also think this is really bad.

 

[happyhermit]

'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.'

Yes, viable is different but more or less equally subjective. If the difference is important to you, then I will state it differently. Making sub-optimal choices was quite possible in 4e, and it could lead to combinations that were much less viable than in 5e.

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.

Not a misconception actually, I am well aware of the few static DCs that existed in 4e, but we are talking about the system. As I am sure you are aware, 4e was based around "level appropriate" challenges, specifically encounters. Facing the same task with the same difficulty could happen, but anyone familiar with the system knows that was the exception rather than the rule. Encounters had specific budgets guidelines, minions were there as an alternative to lower level "mooks" (and had appropriately high defenses), skill challenges required progressively higher numbers. Pretending that things didn't scale RAW and RAI is preposterous.

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.

I have no idea where the 8 comes from. I am talking about ASIs, and the fact that if you didn't put a good chunk of them in your primary stats your character would progressively become largely ineffective within the 4e encounter and skill check framework.

'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

Nope, what is silly is that you are making assumptions based on your biases that are absolutely not true. Rather than "based on a preconceived notion" the example that came to mind was from a player that was new to rpgs. Reading the fighter, and noting the fact that they were proficient in the weapon, it was not clear to them that actually using that bow would actually "suck". The only way to know this would be to know that a standard attack from a proficient fighter, actually is relatively weak within the 4e system. Plus, they would have to know that there were not a whole lot of options (or any) at higher levels that would make the bow a viable option. A higher level of system knowledge was required than in 5e and the 4e version was less intuitive and clear. Take your example of STR weapon vs DEX weapon, 5e makes it clear to make the decision about STR and DEX depending on the type of weapons you plan to use, no similarity really. Still, this might make the difference even more obvious to someone who is not trying to ignore it; A 5e fighter that ignores what is clearly laid out in the class description regarding weapon type, and for whatever reason decides to use a weapon that doesn't use his primary stat (or is finesse) is STILL not going to be as nerfed as a similar 4e fighter with a bow. Maybe attacking with their dump stat would make them as bad, relative to the systems, but I am not even sure of that.

Then your comparison of expecting a ranger not to cast spells, really? You can't see the difference between a situation wherein reading the class description makes it absolutely clear (a whole subsection on spellcasting) that rangers use magic, and then somehow "expecting them not to" and one where reading the class description tells you that you are proficient with a weapon, and thinking using one might be a "viable" option. A better comparison would be if the 5e description of a ranger made you able to cast spells (proficient), but in actuality it was a terrible idea. Surely you can be objective enough to see the difference.

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.

It was a bigger hit in 4e, not scaling your primary numbers did not go well.

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

I agree, that is absurd.

On a non-absurd note, non-caster have not been erased, people still want to play them (myself in particular), and I have no idea what "deserving choices" has to do with anything I said.

The reality is that the martial/spellcaster dichotomy does not exist and even caster/non-caster is not based on class. There are varying degrees of casting available to all classes and even sub-classes through feats and races.

 

[S'mon]

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.

That is so not true. I even used my polearm to safely cross a trapped flagstone floor once
by laying it across the trap. Also I have CHA +1 and Persuasion & Intimidate, I'm a
charming fellow. It's not all about the 60+ damage/round at 5th level, you know.

 

[pemerton]

I think it's interesting that a lot of this stuff remains true for spellcasters in 5E.

<snip>

I think the move away from player empowerment to DM empowerment has disproportionately effected (or continues to disproportionately effect I guess, your call of your view of non martial and martial empowerment in 2/3/4) martial classes over spell-casters.

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.

<snip>

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.

I don't think there's a passage in the 5e books that says that, for a spell to take effect, the GM must agree that it does. Whereas there is this passage for checks/skills (SRD p 77):

The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.​

I think that is a significant difference.

skills and abillity checks are left open ended specifically to allow players and DMs to roleplay a variety of characters. If a player wants to play a wizard with the soldier background, it makes sense that a wizard's basic combat training would differ than a standard grunt's. It certainly doesn't make sense to have a war wizard attempt to compete in a contest of strength, so they train them to use their opponent's strength against them. The player should reasonably expect to be able to make some trip attempts using dexterity, provided he isn't purposely trying to exploit the open-ended-ness of the system.

But there's no reason in principle why spells can't be handled this way too. There are even RPGs that actually take such an approach.

And the converse, too. Non-magical utility mechanics can be designed in a "player gets to declare success" way.

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.

I think that this does not speak to [MENTION=11831]The_Furious_Puffin[/MENTION]'s point. Yes, the GM can frame the fiction so as to make certain action declarations ineffective. This can happen to spells and to skills (eg the GM can declare that the PC's tools all fell out of his/her backpack back when s/he was crossing the river, and that the lock can't just be picked using one's bare hands).

The issue is - if the fiction is apt for making the action declaration, do the mechanics interpose GM discretion/decision-making between declaration and success? When it comes to most versions of D&D, the answer is "yes" for skills and "no" for utility spells.

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.

I wonder how common the second thing is. My feeling - based on a mixture of instinct and reading forum posts - is that it's not very common.

In 1e Magic-Users had to find/buy/transcribe/research all of 'em beyond their (random or DM-selected) starting spellbook

Not quite. DMG, p 39: "Naturally, magic-user player characters will do their utmost to acquire books of spells and scrolls in order to complete their own spell books. To those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level". The book doesn't say who chooses; there is then the "% chance to know spells" rule.

Reading the fighter, and noting the fact that they were proficient in the weapon, it was not clear to them that actually using that bow would actually "suck". The only way to know this would be to know that a standard attack from a proficient fighter, actually is relatively weak within the 4e system. Plus, they would have to know that there were not a whole lot of options (or any) at higher levels that would make the bow a viable option. A higher level of system knowledge was required than in 5e and the 4e version was less intuitive and clear. Take your example of STR weapon vs DEX weapon, 5e makes it clear to make the decision about STR and DEX depending on the type of weapons you plan to use, no similarity really.

What about this comparison: a player builds a 5e fighter who uses STR weapons, but chooses leather armour rather than a heavier armour.

Anyone who looks at the rules for AC, the rules for encumbrance, and knows how attacks work in 5e, will see that Hide or a Chain Shirt are almost strictly superior to Leather or Studded Leather for a character with DEX 15 or less. But it's hard to work out how much better they are than heavy armours which give better ACs without the system mastery to understand how easy it might be to counteract - or just put up with - the Stealth penalty. And unless you read your class rules, how do you know that you won't get something to buff your AC wearing Leather (say, like 1st ed AD&D barbarians).

Similarly, anyone who knows the 4e rules for attacks will know that a longbow isn't that good without DEX; and anyone who looks through the fighter class abilities ("exploits") will quickly see that none of them buff bow attacks, and that nearly all of them require being in melee in order to be brought into play.

I don't think the relative lack of power 4e fighters have with bows is all that obscure; just as I don't think the relative inferiority of Leather armour for 5e STR fighters is all that obscure, even though they're proficient with it. And in either case, play will quickly clear things up: the 5e player will work out that there is no benefit to wearing Leather rather than Hide at least; and the 4e player will work out that a bow is only useful if your opponent is too far away to make closing, or throwing STR-based weapons, viable.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't think that second sentence is true.

The ability to make a "bad" character is a result of the system requiring "building", where different elements of a PC's build interact (eg Stats, skills, class abilities, spells, etc) to produce the character's overall mechanical effectivenss, which is itself applied in relatively complex action resolution systems (eg Init, to hit vs AC, damage, action economy, etc).

A system that lacks that sort of intricacy - say, where all you do is stick numbers against descriptors - won't let you build a bad character.

In D&D, suppose that all you had to do in building your character was stick a number (say, from an array) against each ability name, and pick either one weapon category or one school of magic. And resolution was all opposed checks, where you rolled the appropriate stat, and you could get advantage on the roll if, in the fiction, your weapon or your school of magic seemed like it would help you out.

In that system, you couldn't accidentally make a bad character. It would be completely transparent where you were placing your strengths and weaknesses, and you would get exactly what you built for.

There are more complex RPGs that still get closer to this transparent ideal than D&D. I think both RQ and RM are instances of this - because their build rules don't involve different bits-and-pieces from different lists that interact in complicated ways; and they don't have the correspondingly complicated action resolution systems.

None of this is a criticism of D&D, by the way - eg 4e is rather non-transparent compared to RQ but I much prefer it as a system. But I do think that the notion of "trap options" has relevance in D&D (other than maybe Moldvay Basic, which is simple enough to be pretty transparent) in a way that it doesn't in some other RPGs.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't think that second sentence is true.

Your argument would have swayed until I played in a 3.x campaign a few years ago with a clueless player who made an extremely vulnerable bard. Now yes yes, 3.x requires more system mastery than 5e! But the choices that player made regarding her characters, if made in 5e, still would have resulted in a bad character (a PC with no defences in a combat heavy game). I don't want to re-write that thread again, but basically low con, okay-ish dex, very light armor, no defensive spells or magical item (she came in a bit later and, this being 3e, had a bit of gold to spend on magic).

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Your argument would have swayed until I played in a 3.x campaign a few years ago with a clueless player who made an extremely vulnerable bard. Now yes yes, 3.x requires more system mastery than 5e! But the choices that player made regarding her characters, if made in 5e, still would have resulted in a bad character (a PC with no defences in a combat heavy game). I don't want to re-write that thread again, but basically low con, okay-ish dex, very light armor, no defensive spells or magical item (she came in a bit later and, this being 3e, had a bit of gold to spend on magic).

Both 3.5 and 5 easily let you make bad characters though - thats his point. Compare to apocalypse world or gammaworld 7E which do not let you make a mechanically ineffective character even if you are clueless.