log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E messy's 5e newbie questions thread

Len

Prodigal Member
31. while it's good to see that paladins aren't restricted to lawful good (or any other alignment), it seems that the tenets of all paladin oaths are geared toward good characters. am i missing something?
You're missing the basic idea of the paladin, I guess. From the PHB:
Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil.
and:
A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
let's call david's initiative question 26...

27. there seem to be three kinds of spellcasters:

wisdom-based/can prepare spell from a large list- cleric, druid, paladin, ranger.
charisma-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses- bard, sorcerer, warlock.
intelligence-based/can prep from a personal spellbook- wizard.

why did they deviate from this with the arcane trickster and eldritch knight (intelligence-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses)?
Don't think of it as a question of deviating from a particular rule structure. Think of it as holding true to a long-standing trope in D&D - that of the multi-class fighter/wizard or rogue/wizard of editions past. Those would have been Intelligence-based casters. And so they still are in 5e.

29. sleep doesn't seem to allow a saving throw to resist its effects. am i reading this right?
That's right. It affects a limited number of creatures based on their hit points, weakest first. It's a bit more like earlier editions in that respect.


32. is there a fan-friendly spell list somewhere? flipping back and forth from spell lists to spell descriptions is a bit of a hassle.
I find the spell cards by Gale Force Nine to be pretty useful. Alternatively, photocopy the list pages to have them readily available as you flip pages into the descriptions.
 

fedosu

Garbage Bear
27. there seem to be three kinds of spellcasters:

wisdom-based/can prepare spell from a large list- cleric, druid, paladin, ranger.
charisma-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses- bard, sorcerer, warlock.
intelligence-based/can prep from a personal spellbook- wizard.

why did they deviate from this with the arcane trickster and eldritch knight (intelligence-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses)?
Paladin is Charisma. The pattern was broken from the start.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
27. there seem to be three kinds of spellcasters:

wisdom-based/can prepare spell from a large list- cleric, druid, paladin, ranger.
charisma-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses- bard, sorcerer, warlock.
intelligence-based/can prep from a personal spellbook- wizard.

why did they deviate from this with the arcane trickster and eldritch knight (intelligence-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses)?
Not quite. Warlocks, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and Rangers (as well as arcane tricksters abs Eldritch knights) don’t actually prepare spells. They just have a number of “known spells” chosen from their spell list that they can cast using their spell slots without having to prepare. Clerics and druids prepare spells from their full spell list, and can cast any of their prepared spells using spell slots. This is, in effect, like being able to choose their “known spells” every day, which gives them a lot of versatility compared to other casters. Wizards are the odd class out. They prepare the list of spells they can cast from each day like clerics and druids do, but instead of choosing their prepared spells from their full class spell list, they prepare from the spells in their spell book. This is a feature unique to wizards, and seems to exist mostly for legacy reasons.

Which ability a class’s spell attacks and DC key off of is unrelated to whether the class prepares spells or has a set of known spells.

28. can a warlock with pact of the blade choose any weapon to create? so he/she could create a greatsword?
Yes, although it’s probably a good idea to use a one-handed weapon to keep the other hand free for somatic and material components.

29. sleep doesn't seem to allow a saving throw to resist its effects. am i reading this right?
You’re right that it doesn’t allow a save. Don’t get too excited though, it’s actually really bad. You roll for how many “hp worth of creature’s it can affect.” Then you start with the lowest HP creature in the area, and subtract its HP from the total you rolled. If there are points remaining, it’s affected and you move on to the creature with the next lowest hit points. Unless you really want to keep the targets alive, you would be much better off using literally any AoE damage spell.

30. does the writing at the bottom of the (beautiful) tapestry on page 73 mean something? or is it gibberish?
If I recall correctly it translates into something silly. I don’t remember what though.

31. while it's good to see that paladins aren't restricted to lawful good (or any other alignment), it seems that the tenets of all paladin oaths are geared toward good characters. am i missing something?
There are more evil-themed paths in other books. But Alignment doesn’t really mean anything in 5e. The number of mechanics that actually care abut your alignment is vanishingly small.

32. is there a fan-friendly spell list somewhere? flipping back and forth from spell lists to spell descriptions is a bit of a hassle.
Probably. Try google.
 
Last edited:

MarkB

Legend
27. there seem to be three kinds of spellcasters:

wisdom-based/can prepare spell from a large list- cleric, druid, paladin, ranger.
charisma-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses- bard, sorcerer, warlock.
intelligence-based/can prep from a personal spellbook- wizard.

why did they deviate from this with the arcane trickster and eldritch knight (intelligence-based/can prepare from a small list the player chooses)?
It feels like you're making associations that don't actually exist here. There are multiple ways of preparing and knowing spells, yes, and there is also spellcasting keyed off each of the three mental ability scores. But any association between those two things is purely coincidental.
 

Not quite. Warlocks, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and Rangers (as well as arcane tricksters abs Eldritch knights) don’t actually prepare spells. They just have a number of “known spells” chosen from their spell list that they can cast using their spell slots without having to prepare. Clerics and druids prepare spells from their full spell list, and can cast any of their prepared spells using spell slots. This is, in effect, like being able to choose their “known spells” every day, which gives them a lot of versatility compared to other casters. Wizards are the odd class out. They prepare the list of spells they can cast from each day like clerics and druids do, but instead of choosing their prepared spells from their full class spell list, they prepare from the spells in their spell book. This is a feature unique to wizards, and seems to exist mostly for legacy reasons.
Actually paladins do prepare spells...as well as get a list of oath spells they always have prepared. Rangers got hit twice with the short end of the stick here.
 




Dausuul

Legend
33. is a shield considered an improvised weapon?
That is an issue subject to much debate. Jeremy Crawford says a shield isn't a weapon but can be used as an improvised weapon. However, the answer at your table is up to your DM.

34. can a shield be used in dual-wielding? thinking about warduke here...
Even if allowed, it's highly impractical. Improvised weapons do not count as Light, so you need the Dual Wielder feat; and the only way to get proficiency with improvised weapons is to take the Tavern Brawler feat. So you're investing two feats to do this, and giving up your bonus action, for a small amount of extra damage and +1 to your AC.

Now, to the question of whether it is in fact allowed: Jeremy Crawford says no, but his reasoning is kinda unclear. He seems to be saying that you can't dual wield improvised weapons, which is an odd place to end up.

My personal ruling is that you can treat your shield as an (improvised) weapon, or as a non-weapon, but you have to choose one or the other - you can't call it a non-weapon for the Dueling fighting style and then turn around and say it's a weapon for dual wielding.

Given all this, I suggest taking the Shield Master feat instead. Then you can wade into the debate about whether you're allowed to use the bonus action to shove before you make your regular attacks. :)
 
Last edited:

messy

Explorer
35. the two-weapon fighting rules say that both weapons must be light. does this mean you can't dual-wield a double weapon (like a quarterstaff)?

36. by adding adding dexterity modifiers to damage, haven't they increased the value of dexterity even more?
 

Len

Prodigal Member
35. There's no such thing as a double weapon, as far as I know. In 5e, a quarterstaff is "versatile" which means you have the choice of using it one-handed or two-handed. To my mind, when you fight with a quarterstaff you use both ends, and that's just the normal way to do it.

36. I guess so... or you could say that they're letting dex fighters do similar damage as str fighters.
 

36. by adding adding dexterity modifiers to damage, haven't they increased the value of dexterity even more?
Yes. Many people criticize the balance of the stats, pointing to Dexterity (and to a lesser extent, Wisdom) as super stats, contrasting with Strength and Intelligence as being less generally valuable.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Yes. Many people criticize the balance of the stats, pointing to Dexterity (and to a lesser extent, Wisdom) as super stats, contrasting with Strength and Intelligence as being less generally valuable.
Back in the early days, D&D was a game for nerds. Strength was the most important stat for fighters, who were the most effective characters in the early game, but peaked early and weren’t able to keep up with the magic users, for whom Intelligence was the most important stat. Nowadays, D&D is the favored game of theater kids, and the most important stats are Dexterity and Charisma.
 

cmad1977

Hero
36: maybe. I haven’t seen this in game. Have had plenty of players with an 8-11 dex and they’ve been perfectly fine.
 


messy

Explorer
37. the spell lists seem a little strange. i just noticed that wizards don't have access to the enhance ability spell! gasp! i always thought wizards had access to all arcane spells. on the other hand, the arcane/divine designation doesn't really seem to exist anymore. regardless, this strikes me as strange. are there any other classic arcane spells that aren't on the wizards spell list?

38. similarly, earthquake is on the spell list of clerics, druids, and sorcerers, but not warlocks or wizards. it really seems like wotc made spell lists according to whatever they thought was appropriate for each class, rather than on a clearly-defined arcane/divine divide. not really a question here...
 

Len

Prodigal Member
gasp! i always thought wizards had access to all arcane spells.
No, that hasn't always been the case in the past. In 3e/3.5, for example, bards cast arcane spells and some of them were not available to wizards.

it really seems like wotc made spell lists according to whatever they thought was appropriate for each class, rather than on a clearly-defined arcane/divine divide.
I don't think there was ever a complete separation between arcane and divine spells. Certainly in 2e & 3e there were spells that were on both the wizard and cleric spell lists. The difference between an arcane spell and a divine spell isn't what the spell does, it's where the magic comes from.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
37. the spell lists seem a little strange. i just noticed that wizards don't have access to the enhance ability spell! gasp! i always thought wizards had access to all arcane spells. on the other hand, the arcane/divine designation doesn't really seem to exist anymore. regardless, this strikes me as strange. are there any other classic arcane spells that aren't on the wizards spell list?
There have been times in the past in which I believe too many spells ended up on the wizard list that had no business being there simply because someone thought along those lines - that pretty much everything arcane should end up on their list. It had a tendency to wash out any uniqueness and character of other class spell lists and made it too easy for wizards to duplicate just about anything any other caster could do.

38. similarly, earthquake is on the spell list of clerics, druids, and sorcerers, but not warlocks or wizards. it really seems like wotc made spell lists according to whatever they thought was appropriate for each class, rather than on a clearly-defined arcane/divine divide. not really a question here...
Honestly, I think that's ideal - putting spells on class lists because it makes sense for that class rather than arcane/divine divisions.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
37. the spell lists seem a little strange. i just noticed that wizards don't have access to the enhance ability spell! gasp! i always thought wizards had access to all arcane spells. on the other hand, the arcane/divine designation doesn't really seem to exist anymore. regardless, this strikes me as strange. are there any other classic arcane spells that aren't on the wizards spell list?

38. similarly, earthquake is on the spell list of clerics, druids, and sorcerers, but not warlocks or wizards. it really seems like wotc made spell lists according to whatever they thought was appropriate for each class, rather than on a clearly-defined arcane/divine divide. not really a question here...
It seems that way because that’s exactly what they did. And frankly, good on them for it.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top