D&D 5E Questions about 5thEd from a Noob

[Jester David]

Ok, I am missing something here.
I'm looking at the wolf.
+4 to hit for 2d4+2
AC is only 13
Hitpoints are only 13
The Str DC to not be knocked prone is only an 11.
That's quite a bit worse than my archer ranger.

Where are you getting the higher numbers and the 'advantage' on attacks?

Wolf has Pack Tactics that grant it advantage if an ally (aka the ranger or another party member) is within 5 feet of the target.

Also, as the companion of a Beast Master ranger, it adds the ranger's proficiency bonus to its AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and any saves or skills it knows. And its hp are 4x ranger level.

So at 4th level, it should have 15 AC, 16 hp, Perception +5, Stealth +6, and attack with a +6 doing 2d4+4 damage

 

[Sword of Spirit]

1) There are no 'monster knowledge' skills. So unless the players metagame from reading the monster manual or have already encountered a type of creature. There isn't anyway of knowing anything about them. How they act. What they can do. What they are resistant to. What they are vulnerable to. Etc... Is that right? That seems to be assuming the PC's are pretty damn stupid. So our group has just found there is a ghost in our house and are pretty much stuck just trying things at random to get rid of it. Because there is no way to know anything about them?!?

The section on Intelligence in using ability scores gives a few examples of how you can do this: Arcana for the inhabitants of the other planes; Nature for plants and animals. It's really left to the DM adjudication though.

Here's a handy scheme I like to use:

Arcana: Aberrations, Constructs, Elementals, (Celestials, Fiends)
History: Dragons, Humanoids, Monstrosities
Nature: Beasts, Plants, Fey, Oozes
Religion: (Celestials, Fiends), Undead

As you can see by the Celestials and Fiends being in two categories, I can be generous on which skills apply to which, and might allow another to apply on a case by case basis.

I also allow characters without the appropriate skill to make their Intelligence check with proficiency if they know the creature's racial language. If their character's background (lowercase "b", but their "Background" informs that) would indicate they should have knowledge of the subject matter, that would also play into it.

And of course, you also get to set whatever DC makes sense to you. Isn't it great?

 

[jasper]

So far, all it does is serve us rancid poisonous ale when we try to interact.

HMM MUST USE THIS ON MY PLAYERS WHEN THEY GET TO CHAPTER TWO.

 

[ccs]

So far, all it does is serve us rancid poisonous ale when we try to interact.

Maybe that is important.
Here in the real world a lot of ghost lore involves them haunting places because they have unfinished business, met unexpected/violent ends, etc. And with being ghosts, the spirits can't directly communicate what they want/need from you. So it becomes a puzzle.
Try & find out from locals the history of the place (and it's people).

 

[Kerato]

1) There are no 'monster knowledge' skills. So unless the players metagame from reading the monster manual or have already encountered a type of creature. There isn't anyway of knowing anything about them. How they act. What they can do. What they are resistant to. What they are vulnerable to. Etc... Is that right? That seems to be assuming the PC's are pretty damn stupid. So our group has just found there is a ghost in our house and are pretty much stuck just trying things at random to get rid of it. Because there is no way to know anything about them?!?

It's weird that your that your DM do not let you roll checks for the ghost. History for myths in the area, insight for some insight into the demeanour of the ghost. Arcana for some magical signature in the house. Religion check to glean something about death and undeath, maybe some knowledge about holy exorcism rituals or spirit communion ritual. I personally would allow a religion check for general ghost information. There is a difficulty table in the DMG to determine the DC for such checks. I personally think there are enough ways to find out about monsters. However your DM has a big impact on this in 5e.

2) There doesn't seem to be much variation in some of the basic builds if you want to be effective. I've talked to a few people about their characters so far. All three of the archers I've seen are almost identical in what they have done so far and what they are planning to do with their build in the future. The few clerics, bards, and warlocks we've discussed are also pretty darn similar. Is this typical or just coincidence?

The thing with 5e is that is that the numerical power growth is a lot slower allowing players to do fun and sub-optimal things without loosing too much power. I never go for the optimal build. The option to do this is diminished if the DM doesn't allow the optional rules for feats or multi classing. You can still make something like a valor bard archer for example if you want something less stereotypical. The trade off for uniqueness or versatility vs optimisation is not that harsh in this edition. There is more crunch in first party expansion books I do recommend though.

4) My wife is new to RPG's in general She loved the idea of the ranger's animal companion. But since it never advances in any respect, by the time you can get it or at least fairly soon thereafter is seems like it will be nearly unsurvivable and pretty ineffective. Then we read that having it do anything other than follow you around uses up the PC's action. Is that really correct? That seems way useless for a major feature of the class.

WotC are aware of this and put out a fix on there website.

5) If I am reading this correctly, your 2 good saves will go up both with your proficiency bonus and because you will probably increase those stats. But your other 4 saves never increase at all. Really? That seems like just random chance with higher level enemies (with higher save DC's) you should be failing 2 out of 3 saves. Against any intelligent enemy, you should be failing almost every single save. Any wizard is going to throw a spell at your fighter that doesn't target Str or Con, so you are just screwed. Am I missing something here?

Yes and no, As i said earlier the numerical power creep is much slower then Pathfinder or D&D 3.x. Though the saves do get harder but it is not as bad as it sounds coming form pathfinder D&D 3.x.

 

[Kerato]

Another important aspect to know is that the lesser amount of skills does not mean there is less you can do with skills. The previous larger skill list is condensed into broader categories. All skills are still there just absorbed into bigger broader categories

 

[ElterAgo]

Wolf has Pack Tactics that grant it advantage if an ally (aka the ranger or another party member) is within 5 feet of the target.

Also, as the companion of a Beast Master ranger, it adds the ranger's proficiency bonus to its AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and any saves or skills it knows. And its hp are 4x ranger level.

So at 4th level, it should have 15 AC, 16 hp, Perception +5, Stealth +6, and attack with a +6 doing 2d4+4 damage

Guess I really needed sleep that day. I totally missed the part about getting the proficiency bonus. And for some reason I just assumed the pack tactics meant it had to be a wolf ally.
So yeah, your right. It's not as terrible as I thought even if still not great. I will think about whether to take hunter or beastmaster for a ranger.