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

[Gradine]

You know, as much as I enjoy the tearing down of the philosophy behind character optimization, it's still legitimate method of engaging with and enjoying the game. CharOp is only really problematic when CharOp-ers derail non-optimization based discussion by asserting loudly and repeatedly that the Rules As Determined By TheoryCrafters are the only true facts about the game. As an example, say someone asks for interesting ways to build a grappler in 3.X, and someone brings up the time their buddy's Reaping Mauler choked an owlbear to death, and thread devolves into a fruitless argument over "traps" and "enlarge person" and "CoDzilla" that clearly wasn't what the OP was asking for.

The OP, in this case, appears to be asking an optimization question. While the extent to which 5e succeeds in creating better balance than previous editions is a topic worthy of debate, it's not really relevant to discussion here. The OP seems to be asking about "traps" in everything but the name only. If you believe that "traps" only exist in the imagination of White Room Theory Crafters (not trying to pick on anyone specific here, I actually really love that term and sympathize with this position) then maybe this isn't the thread for you?

Having neither played nor seen in action a Berzerker Barbarian I can say (in my own White Room Theory Crafting) that it sounds like a lot of fun with a neat design that broadens the player's tactical choices. If I wanted to make a "Berserker" style character, I might even go with them (although I do love the options provided the Totem path also). Then again, I'm not concerned about sub-optimization or "trap" options in the least bit (having once played a 3.5 rogue through an entire campaign while never once using Sneak Attack). I'm not going to poopoo somebody because they do, however.

 

[S'mon]

So, only when a DM deigns to run the game as recommended?

I've asked previously to be shown where in the DMG this recommendation lies; no luck yet. What it actually says is that 6-8 medium-hard fights will exhaust party resources.

 

[spectacle]

This whole post reads like an assumption that disadvantage some how equates to failure. Which I find quite at odds with my considerable experiences in play. Countless rolls attempted at disadvantage have managed to succeed in spite of it, by my accounting. Heck, twice in the last year, I can distinctly recall an attack made with disadvantage scoring a critical hit.

But WRT the barbarian here. Where are we getting the base assumption that one trained in Athletics, making a roll with disadvantage, would somehow be worse at it than, say, his wizard, cleric, or rogue ally? He's still, statistically, the best man for the job.

Bounded accuracy people. A first level barbarian has what? A +5 in Athletics? That's more than the statistical penalty disadvantage is applying on most checks.

Disadvantage isn't the end of the world given expected DCs.

The fighter in the party is going to outclass the exhausted berserker in most situations involving athletics or strength. No way around it.

 

[Ancalagon]

I haven't really been able to play D&D "properly" yet...

... but I have been running a little game for my step daughter. The NPC I created to tag along with her -a two weapon fighting rock gnome ranger - seems to work just fine, even though in theory it's not an "optimal" choice.

I think that having an "optimal" character only matters if you are at a table where it's an expectation. If not, have fun!

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The fighter in the party is going to outclass the exhausted berserker in most situations involving athletics or strength. No way around it.

Will they? Are you sure? Because not all fighters are even Strength-based. Heck, most probably aren't, given the constant complaints around here that Dex is so far superior in every way. So, no, those fencers and archers are still likely not as good at making Strength-based checks as even the exhausted barbarian.

And even if there's another Strength-based PC in the group, the barbarian is still capable of succeeding at any check the other (equally strong) guy is attempting. Because, again, you seem to keep implying that disadvantage somehow equals failure. But that's far from true, IMX. I've already explained why: bounded accuracy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What it actually says is that 6-8 medium-hard fights will exhaust party resources.

Not see'n the big difference.

( Maybe I just don't want to, because so long as I don't see it that way, I can take it as one promise that 5e did come through on. I can live with that. ) ;P

The NPC I created to tag along with her -a two weapon fighting rock gnome ranger - seems to work just fine, even though in theory it's not an "optimal" choice.

An NPC being a little sub-optimal can be a fine thing, keeps the spotlight on the PCs.

 

[bid]

Because, again, you seem to keep implying that disadvantage somehow equals failure.

But disadvantage is failure. A Str10 Dex fighter will do better than a Str16 exhausted barbarian half the time.

If gaining that exhaustion had any value outisde combat, at least it'd have some RP value. But as it stands, it's nothing but a poor DPR machine. Hence a trap.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But disadvantage is failure. A Str10 Dex fighter will do better than a Str16 exhausted barbarian half the time.

Disadvantage is an increased chance of failure. That increase is smaller the more likely (than 50/50) you are to succeed to begin with. High-STR, athletics-proficient Barbarians are probably pretty darn likely to make athletics checks to begin with.

 

[Ahglock]

But disadvantage is failure. A Str10 Dex fighter will do better than a Str16 exhausted barbarian half the time.

If gaining that exhaustion had any value outisde combat, at least it'd have some RP value. But as it stands, it's nothing but a poor DPR machine. Hence a trap.

It reduces the odds of success but to me that isn't what makes it a trap. Now yes this is campaign dependent like well everything. But the healing mechanic are what make it a trap as in unforeseen levels of problems from your first look. Once clerics hit 9 other options are available but you only heal one exhaustion level during a long rest. This means if your campaigns frequently assume back to back adventuring days for a stretch of time that if you use more than one frenzy a day you start spiraling down into serious fatigue. Me, my signiture gimmick I'd like to use more than one combat a day. To me that's a trap. Not weakest thing ever, not horrible broken and can't be played but a trap. Why, because it requires a level of system knowledge to understand the weakness before diving in. If you keep it at heal rate a day it's a solid perk and whether 4-5 bonus attacks(roughly how many rounds most of our fights go for) in a fight is worth a drop in athleticism the rest of the day probably depends on how often those checks are called for.

I think it's level 6 and 14 features are solid though. And the barbarian without any path features is pretty solid on its own. Now if someone in my game thinks about playing one my current thought is allowing them to spend a hit die at a short rest to heal a level of exhaustion instead of HPs. I think that keeps the flavor, still limits it and stops it from being some death spiral due to daring to use your signiture gimmick more than once a day.

 

[77IM]

So if the frenzy were just 1/day instead of exhaustion-based you'd consider it a trap? Lots of cool stuff is 1/day, and bonus action attacks are a pretty good benefit for someone with a greataxe.

To the OP: Just so we're clear, go ahead and build a frenzied berserker if you want. The fact that people are debating means that it is at worst slightly suboptimal; if it was really a problem it would be pretty clear to everybody. (I think only Beastmaster Ranger falls into that category, and even that one is close enough to being balanced that a few easy house rules would fix it.)