• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

5E Starter Set Cleric Sheet

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
I really like how the pregen characters don´t have the obvious backgrounds for their respective classes.

The cleric was a soldier
the fighter was a noble
and they mentioned in the video, that the wizard was an acolyte...

fighting against stereotypes. :)
 

Kobold Stew

Adventurer
The number bonuses players get from their abilities are small enough already, especially considering that ability rolls are the primary mechanic in the game. You only get up to a +5 bonus from your ability score (at least without magic items). That's a pretty small number compared to the impact of the d20. Even with a +5, things feel very "swingy", and failure is still extremely likely, even for easy tasks.
This is true, but is countered in play -- the DM shouldn't call for a roll every time, and can discriminate, asking for rolls from some but not from all.

I really like how the pregen characters don´t have the obvious backgrounds for their respective classes.

The cleric was a soldier
the fighter was a noble
and they mentioned in the video, that the wizard was an acolyte...

fighting against stereotypes. :)
Yes! And this is really the strength of the backgrounds. I'm so pleased to see them implemented in the pre-gens, finally.
 

DDNFan

Villager
It also includes 4e's Immediate and Opportunity actions.

So the class can do its job.
Cutesy reply, but misses the point.

The class could do its job even better if it didn't require a bonus action either, which is usually used for offense. At that point it becomes what matters most to your character, and whether you have another use for your reaction every round, like Protector style. We'll just have to see what the typical single classed fighter uses his bonus action for on most rounds.

Getting an automatic self heal when you take damage (as a reaction, if you want to), can mean using it after the first, second attack that lands, maybe a crit. It could save you before your next turn comes around, if enemies pile on, which as a fighter is not a rare occurrence.
 

DDNFan

Villager
I really like how the pregen characters don´t have the obvious backgrounds for their respective classes.

The cleric was a soldier
the fighter was a noble
and they mentioned in the video, that the wizard was an acolyte...

fighting against stereotypes. :)
It's very cool, but it doesn't make any sense that the character's bond to his family heirloom weapon isn't matched with specific training in how to use that weapon most effectively, by selecting the great weapon fighting style. Sure Defensive is simple, but a static bonus to AC is much less fun than damage rerolls and the wording on the sheet could be a little confusing to players if they upgrade their armor. It says this bonus is already included. I've seen many noobs over the years forget a +1 here and there, which was kind of the point of advantage disadvantage system and the way Bless spells work, which is awesome.
 
Last edited:

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
It's very cool, but it doesn't make any sense that the character's bond to his family heirloom weapon isn't matched with specific training in how to use that weapon most effectively, by selecting the great weapon fighting style. Sure Defensive is simple, but a static bonus to AC is much less fun than damage rerolls and the wording on the sheet could be a little confusing to players if they upgrade their armor. It says this bonus is already included. I've seen many noobs over the years forget a +1 here and there, which was kind of the point of advantage disadvantage system and the way Bless spells work, which is awesome.
And I don´t know what that has to do with the thing I posted...

I don´t care which fighting style someone takes. I like those characters for non stereotypic story resons.

Soldier cleric and noble fighter instead of soldier fighter. Etc.

Did I say, I really don´t care what fighting style is chosen?

p.s.: I think defensive style is a valid choice. +1 AC is half a shield. Makes you consistently better at defending, potentially standing longer in the fight and allows you to be a bit more offensive vs weak enemies.
 

thalmin

Adventurer
I don't think the pregens in a beginner's set should be fully optimized. Think how much more gratifying it will be to the new player when they figure out how to create a character that is even better than the ones in the set.
 

Mistwell

Hero
It's very cool, but it doesn't make any sense that the character's bond to his family heirloom weapon isn't matched with specific training in how to use that weapon most effectively, by selecting the great weapon fighting style. Sure Defensive is simple, but a static bonus to AC is much less fun than damage rerolls and the wording on the sheet could be a little confusing to players if they upgrade their armor. It says this bonus is already included. I've seen many noobs over the years forget a +1 here and there, which was kind of the point of advantage disadvantage system and the way Bless spells work, which is awesome.
He says, "I really like this role playing fluff!"

And you respond with, "I don't understand why they made these crunch choices!"

Your comment has no relationship to his, so why did you quote him? Can you imagine the reverse, where you made a comment about crunch, and someone replied, "But you see the fluff the fluff!"
 

DDNFan

Villager
He says, "I really like this role playing fluff!"

And you respond with, "I don't understand why they made these crunch choices!"

Your comment has no relationship to his, so why did you quote him? Can you imagine the reverse, where you made a comment about crunch, and someone replied, "But you see the fluff the fluff!"
I don't believe that fluff is separate from crunch, sorry.

Roleplaying is crunchy to me. If I play a barbarian who loves his grandma's axe SO much, I think it's just common sense to learn how to use it the best I can. That, I consider good roleplaying. Am I allowed to have an opinion here or will I get attacked for it. My playstyle is no less valid than yours. The distinction of fluff and crunch, to my mind, is anti-roleplaying. It's anti-immersion. I don't buy it.
 

the Jester

Legend
It's very cool, but it doesn't make any sense that the character's bond to his family heirloom weapon isn't matched with specific training in how to use that weapon most effectively, by selecting the great weapon fighting style.
Sure it is. You keep saying this, but you're conflating a roleplaying choice with a mechanical choice. You could have a pc whose bond was with his family heirloom weapon that he isn't even proficient in. And it would make perfect sense. Maybe my dwarven wizard's bond is his family's ancestral halberd, and he loves that thing but it wouldn't even occur to him to use it in combat.

Your bond is not "this is how I work in combat", it's "this is part of what makes me tick".

A fighter might have his ancestral dagger as a bond. Or a book, even if he's illiterate. Your flaw, bond and ideal are about playing a character, not about tweaking the numbers on your character sheet. The two are related, but distinct.
 

DDNFan

Villager
And I don´t know what that has to do with the thing I posted...

I don´t care which fighting style someone takes. I like those characters for non stereotypic story resons.

Soldier cleric and noble fighter instead of soldier fighter. Etc.

Did I say, I really don´t care what fighting style is chosen?

p.s.: I think defensive style is a valid choice. +1 AC is half a shield. Makes you consistently better at defending, potentially standing longer in the fight and allows you to be a bit more offensive vs weak enemies.
All I'm saying is, if my character's bond is with a family heirloom weapon specifically, I would personally pick a fighting style that maxes out the use of that weapon, not my overall fighting prowess.

Picking the AC choice is actually the powergamer move, since whatever extra damage you deal with the final great weapon fighting style is probably inferior to a +1 bonus to AC. And for Protector, our fighter benefits less and less from it (although it's terrific fun), as we fight multi-attacking enemies in larger groups. A +1 bonus to AC is the powergamer move here, and I agree they probably chose it for expediency and simplicity in the basic pregen, but it's certainly not a fun option. +1 bonus is the most boring thing one can think of, and that's coming from a powergamer. Min-maxing my overall character I would definitely pick either Defensive or Protector, they seem to be the strongest mechanically speaking. What I'm actually advocating here is not the overall min-maxing choice, but a crunch choice that more closely matches the bond as stated on the sheet.
 

Agamon

Adventurer
All I'm saying is, if my character's bond is with a family heirloom weapon specifically, I would personally pick a fighting style that maxes out the use of that weapon, not my overall fighting prowess.
Awesome. Luckily, you'll be able to do that. Others will be able to do what they like. It's a good system that way.
 

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
All I'm saying is, if my character's bond is with a family heirloom weapon specifically, I would personally pick a fighting style that maxes out the use of that weapon, not my overall fighting prowess.

Picking the AC choice is actually the powergamer move, since whatever extra damage you deal with the final great weapon fighting style is probably inferior to a +1 bonus to AC. And for Protector, our fighter benefits less and less from it (although it's terrific fun), as we fight multi-attacking enemies in larger groups. A +1 bonus to AC is the powergamer move here, and I agree they probably chose it for expediency and simplicity in the basic pregen, but it's certainly not a fun option. +1 bonus is the most boring thing one can think of, and that's coming from a powergamer. Min-maxing my overall character I would definitely pick either Defensive or Protector, they seem to be the strongest mechanically speaking. What I'm actually advocating here is not the overall min-maxing choice, but a crunch choice that more closely matches the bond as stated on the sheet.
I don´t disagree here, but I say, it is irrelevant to my previous post. I do really like the characters presented. Don´t sound boring at all, very interesting actually... It does not matter where you put your little things. +1 to defense is as good as 3 damage on a miss. (For me at least.) The mistake of 3e and 4e equally is highlighting mechanics too much, that get in your way of having fun. Does your fun really depend on yourchoice of +1 defense or 3 damage on a miss? Mine does not.
It is only relevant, if you need that feat, that granted you +1 to defense to later take whirlwind attack at a level where it is still useful. Those chains made the decision between +1 to hit or +1 to defense really important. At level 1 you had to decide if you go for cleave or whirlwind or weapon specialization.
Now you just take what you deem best at that moment, and if you see yourself regretting your choice, you can easily chose something different the next time.
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
I'm not a huge fan of the human +1 to everything either, but I can understand why they did it. Humans needed something to make them worth playing, and traits like darkvision don't make sense. They didn't want to give them a bonus feat because feats are optional rules. They also didn't want to give them bonus skills because that adds another decision point in character creation, and they wanted humans to be the quick and easy-to-play race. From what I've heard, though, humans will be able to trade in stat bonuses for other things, like feats. That's an acceptable solution for me.
I wasn't either but this is interesting.

I've had customized human regional races for a while...so I "could" take away a couple of pluses, replace them with the appropriate feats, maybe even say "Korsics are usually strong and athletic (+1 str standard)" and then let the PCs create their characters as they see fit.

Theoretically balanced.

I'm intrigued.
 

Dausuul

Legend
Very interesting note: The basic spell list will include revivify at level 3. If it works like 3E's revivify, it's a resurrection spell that has to be cast within 1 round of death. So you'll be able to raise the dead, albeit with tight restrictions, starting at level 5.
 

Kobold Stew

Adventurer
Very interesting note: The basic spell list will include revivify at level 3. If it works like 3E's revivify, it's a resurrection spell that has to be cast within 1 round of death. So you'll be able to raise the dead, albeit with tight restrictions, starting at level 5.
The cleric spits into his palms before rubbing his hands furiously together and pressing them on the victim's chest.

"Clear!"
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
It's very cool, but it doesn't make any sense that the character's bond to his family heirloom weapon isn't matched with specific training in how to use that weapon most effectively, by selecting the great weapon fighting style. Sure Defensive is simple, but a static bonus to AC is much less fun than damage rerolls and the wording on the sheet could be a little confusing to players if they upgrade their armor. It says this bonus is already included. I've seen many noobs over the years forget a +1 here and there, which was kind of the point of advantage disadvantage system and the way Bless spells work, which is awesome.
My father's heirloom weapon is a shotgun, but I'm trained in the M4 and the 50 cal....

go figure...


edit: I wouldn't have posted if I had read the following posts and seen the horse was already beaten to death...nothing to see here...move along.
 

Mistwell

Hero
I don't believe that fluff is separate from crunch, sorry.

Roleplaying is crunchy to me. If I play a barbarian who loves his grandma's axe SO much, I think it's just common sense to learn how to use it the best I can. That, I consider good roleplaying. Am I allowed to have an opinion here or will I get attacked for it. My playstyle is no less valid than yours. The distinction of fluff and crunch, to my mind, is anti-roleplaying. It's anti-immersion. I don't buy it.
You are allowed to have an opinion. You are not allowed to have an opinion and consider your opinion free from criticism. I found your opinion to be a poor one, to be lacking in any appreciation for fluff unless it was connected to a mechanical benefit for that fluff. I have my grandfather's typewritter and I feel an strong attachment to it - but I never type on it and would be pretty poor with it if I did. If you can only imagine having a strong attachment to something being connected to learning how to use it as best you can, then I suggest you stretch your imagination further. It's not anti-roleplaying or anti-immersion to not want the mechanics to ALWAYS match the fluff to the maximum. Because as I demonstrated with my grandfather's typewriter, real life isn't as neat and simple as all that, and sometimes we don't maximize our connections and abilities, or we express our connections to things in different ways.
 

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
GM:
Very interesting note: The basic spell list will include revivify at level 3. If it works like 3E's revivify, it's a resurrection spell that has to be cast within 1 round of death. So you'll be able to raise the dead, albeit with tight restrictions, starting at level 5.
Interesting. I hope they have one-shot magic items with a similar effect (scroll of revivify usable by anyone, or the like, I guess), and that other healers get the same or an equivalent spell at the same level, as it would provide a good buffer against "OHCRAP!" deaths (esp. if it's slightly more than one round - three seems ideal to me, to give both tension and the possibility of saving someone more than 30ft away without weird physics-question-inducing stuff).
 

Advertisement

Top