Aldarc
Legend
Perhaps its worth asking why its bad that Bilbo felt thin, sort of stretched, like butter being scraped over much bread. Your efficiency is thinned out, and it puts you behind others.
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?
- Thread starter rfkannen
- Start date
Multitalented implies that its is good at multiple things. Or at least one thing.
If you use standard array and human (because if a standard human can't do it, something's off), you get 16, 15, 14, 12, 11, 9.
If you put 16 in Str for the GWF, 15 in Dex, and 14 in Cha... You are left with 12 Con.
AC 14 and only +1 Con mod just takes you out of melee with little to make up for it.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
So...if you do that and having a higher than +1 Con. is important to you for this character you want...then don't "array" your scores that way. Live with +1 for your [so necessary] GWF or your Dex. <shrug>"I can't do everything as well as [get the bonuses] I want" is not a reason to do or not do anything in class design. You give a little to get a little. You want the combined bonuses/features/conceptfuntimes of having a paladin/monk/rogue-all-in-one (assuming that is what an "Avenger" is made to look like, but the argument applies to any other class, also)? Fine and cool. Then something has to give/be given up to achieve that.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
The two avengers I saw played in 4e (well I really also played one but only for 2 sessions) one had a sword one handed and the other a two handed axe... so I guess they don't NEED Two handed
MechaPilot
Explorer
MAD is bad for the following reasons:
1) A character who is MAD is automatically set up to be less effective at their overall suite of class abilities than a character who is SAD because they are forced to apply smaller bonuses from lower scores versus being able to simply apply a single stat bonus to all of them.
2) If you roll stats, there seems to be a significantly greater chance for of rolling rather poorly for one of your MAD character's dependent stats than there is if your character were SAD.
3) Yes, 5e has ASIs. However, ASIs are dependent on class level and not character level. This means that MAD classes don't multiclass as effectively as SAD classes because you may need to focus more levels in one class than are desired just to get your first ASI.
4) There is often a valid argument to make for other stats being relevant. Charisma is often described as force of personality. I could very easily see divine magic keying off Charisma on the rationale that it measured the strength of her commitment to her faith. Arcane magic often requires study (though not always), so Int seems relevant. However, I could also see Dex being relevant for performing the elaborate gestures and material manipulations that may be required.
In addition to making different arguments for casting stats, you can easily make different arguments for melee stats. If a character is a deceptive trickster, it would make sense that the character's fighting style would involve elaborate feints and that applying the Cha modifier to strike would be appropriate.
"I can't do everything as well as [get the bonuses] I want" is not a reason to do or not do anything in class design. You give a little to get a little. You want the combined bonuses/features/conceptfuntimes of having a paladin/monk/rogue-all-in-one (assuming that is what an "Avenger" is made to look like, but the argument applies to any other class, also)? Fine and cool. Then something has to give/be given up to achieve that.
My point is that you shouldn't have to optimize higher than the standard for an archetype to work. You can't do melee with low AC and meh HP.
Sure I can optimize it further but I shouldn't have to go higher than the standard unless the group has a higher optimization standard. That's the problem. You shouldn't have to powergame to get a past archetype to work.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
I'll just say I disagree with pretty much all/any of this, if in fact true to begin with, as "bad."
Big surprise for all of us, I'm sure.
Big surprise for all of us, I'm sure.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Interesting. Perspective is a funny thing. From where I'm sitting, that appears to be what people are insisting they get/be allowed to do. Give me all of the optimization and powergaming abilities I want and "I shouldn't have to" pay anything for it.
And you absolutely can "do melee" with a low to mediocre AC and HP...druids, rangers, thieves and some clerics have been doing it for decades. It may be unwise to go charging in "blades blazing"...but then something like an avenger isn't for doing that. Something like an avenger -whether built off of a paladin or a monk or a rogue- using a little smarts and a bit of stealth, going after one "specific target" at a time, ought to be able to operate just fine in melee...with MAD/not getting the bonuses another "full-classed" archetype would have.
For me "gifted with mojo" =/= "casts spells". I really dislike that my Paladin gets spells at 2nd level - name level as in 1e was ok. I can be a divine warrior without casting spells. C&C got it right, 5e did not.
Mouseferatu
Hero
I admit I'm not familiar with the C&C paladin, but the thing about the 5E paladin is that he doesn't have to be a spellcaster at all. Just use your spell slots purely as smite fuel; flavor it so that it's not a choice your character's making, it's literally how his power works. He still has all the other supernatural/divine paladin abilities, and he's not mechanically any weaker than other paladins.
Heck, I designed an NPC for an upcoming Necromancer/Frog God adventure that does exactly that. He has paladin levels but doesn't prepare spells; he only uses his slots to smite.
Heck, I designed an NPC for an upcoming Necromancer/Frog God adventure that does exactly that. He has paladin levels but doesn't prepare spells; he only uses his slots to smite.
