D&D 5E Discussion

[Drakron]

People are still missing the point I was making about the skill system, which had nothing to do with how skills are used or how many points someone put into it. My point is that players began to feel restricted by it that they wouldn't even try.

Thats not the point of the skill system, its simply the skill.

You have modifiers, by stats and by gear ...

10' pit. Player doesn't even attempt the jump in Pathfinder.

No, people that dont doing things they are obvious inept at it ... I would not call a fighter to go pick a lock because chances are he have shit Dex and the fighter knows that, iaccording to your logic someone that never tried swimming should jump in the water because maybe he will not drown ... and yes, there is a basic swim check but no points into it means they arent even trying.

Riding too, do you also wants someone with any skill points to go gather herbs?

Point is ... ITS FUCKING STUPID TO TRY SOMETHING THAT WILL GET YOU KILLED IF YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF OR SKILL.

Its called common sense.

In 5e, the player tries because they feel they have a better chance of success. That's what I'm talking about.

So its a shit system that means because there are no skills you can try anything and have success, NOT a skill system doesnt allow that but such rolls are simply DUMB LUCK, throwing someone into the ocean in the middle of a storm WILL likely get them killed if they cannot swim, you might make it with LUCK (and this is why we have dice rolls) but people should not jump in because they MIGHT.

I could give a shit less about which one is more accurate or which one someone likes better or why. I'm talking about players feeling as though they can at least attempt it versus just throwing up their hands in frustration.

And I dont give a shit, skills existed so non-combat situations COULD be handled without being simply basic checks, this means someone with a riding skill doesnt get kicked off a wild horse as in your system any dumbass that never seen a house can ride a wild mustang with a degree of competence.

If I am the only person in the whole world who saw this happen, I will concede the whole argument.

Your argument is ridiculous because it bogs down to "people arent going to try to do something that likely will get them killed" because people dont want to try to make a jump that if they failed, can result in their DEATH!

 

[LeStryfe79]

Taking one level of fighter with a wizard is actually a huge price to pay in 5ed.

 

[Night Goat]

A huge price for a small benefit. You've got no use for strength, wisdom or charisma, so you'll start with the maximum of 15 in dexterity, constitution and intelligence before racial bonuses. You're going to play a human or an elf, so bump that dex up to a 16 or 17. Now cast Mage Armor, and your AC is 16 - the equivalent of a fighter in chainmail. Keep a Shield spell prepared and a few level 1 slots ready, so that if you do get hit by something big you can bump that AC up to 21 - better than a fighter with platemail and a shield. Fuck you, jocks! This is a nerd's game!

 

[Havoc]

Taking one level of fighter with a wizard is actually a huge price to pay in 5ed.

And that would be?

 

[Night Goat]

The first law of optimization: thou shalt not give up levels of spellcasting. Spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game, and if you trade it for anything else you've lost.

 

[mastroego]

about skills:
I wouldn't try to jump across a pit unless I'd be confident of my chances of success, since I wouldn't want to fall into the pit.
That said, I still try Perception checks every time there's a chance, even though I have no "enhancements" and there are party members with big bonuses in that skill.

 

[Grunker]

And that would be?

Not played much5E yet but even if there was no armor penalty in 3.5/Pathfinder it would DEFINETELY be a huge mistake from a min-max perspective to take a level of fighter. Faster spell progression is much, much more important than a couple of points of AC.

 

[Caim]

The first law of optimization: thou shalt not give up levels of spellcasting. Spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game, and if you trade it for anything else you've lost.

Fun thing to do in 3.5e: Be a divine or arcane spell caster. Gain the ability to cast both level 2 divine and arcane spells without giving up any of your levels (so no multiclassing). Then take as many levels in Mystic Theurge as you can get away with. Because the game poorly words what an arcane caster and what a divine caster is you get two spellcasting levels per level, possibly ending up anywhere in between 21 to 29 caster levels at level 20.

Note: Your DM will likely not let you do this.

 

[Drakron]

That said, I still try Perception checks every time there's a chance, even though I have no "enhancements" and there are party members with big bonuses in that skill.

Sure but there are ways around it.

And DMs can force checks by situations, take riding ... someone can shoot the horse and you have to make a check to successful dismount, plus DMs can be mean by having that 10 feet chasm actually being a 18 feet chasm with a illusion spell to make it look smaller and a darkness spell, that makes life interesting.

 

[Spectacle]

Taking one level of fighter with a wizard is actually a huge price to pay in 5ed.

You can take a level of cleric instead for heavy armor proficiency though, for a smaller price. Since both classes are full casters you keep the spell slot progression, so the cost is that you're one level behind in spells known and wizard class features.

In exchange you get the mentioned heavy armor and shield proficiencies, giving you AC 20 with plate and shield, and you gain cleric cantrips and access to a bunch of first level cleric spells that will be useful throughout your adventuring career, such as Cure Wounds and Bless.

 

[Havoc]

"IT'S NOT BROKEN!"

 

[TigerKnee]

Remove Thief class in D&D 6E

 

[Night Goat]

Fun thing to do in 3.5e: Be a divine or arcane spell caster. Gain the ability to cast both level 2 divine and arcane spells without giving up any of your levels (so no multiclassing).

And you would do this how?

Then take as many levels in Mystic Theurge as you can get away with. Because the game poorly words what an arcane caster and what a divine caster is you get two spellcasting levels per level, possibly ending up anywhere in between 21 to 29 caster levels at level 20.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work this way, otherwise Mystic Theurge wouldn't be universally regarded as a trap option.

 

[ProphetSword]

Remove Thief class in D&D 6E

Or make Thief the only class option.

 

[Caim]

Fun thing to do in 3.5e: Be a divine or arcane spell caster. Gain the ability to cast both level 2 divine and arcane spells without giving up any of your levels (so no multiclassing).

And you would do this how?

Then take as many levels in Mystic Theurge as you can get away with. Because the game poorly words what an arcane caster and what a divine caster is you get two spellcasting levels per level, possibly ending up anywhere in between 21 to 29 caster levels at level 20.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work this way, otherwise Mystic Theurge wouldn't be universally regarded as a trap option.

Rainbow Servant*. Requires being able to cast 3rd level arcane spells, Knowledge (Arcana) 4 and a non-evil non-chaotic alignment. 10 levels of it grants access to the Cleric list, and all spells not on the Wizard list as well count as Cleric spells. The class got full caster progresion as well (it says so in the description, and according to the FAQ text trumps tables), so a Wizard 5/Rainbow Servant 10 has a ECL of 15. Since this allows the casting of 2nd level divine spells you now qualify for the Mystic Theurge. Do not that Knowledge (Religion) is not a class skill for the Rainbow Servant, so get those levels in advance.

Here's where things get muddy. Mystic Theurge says you get one level in an arcane casting class you belong to, and one in a divine casting class you belong to. Since it is nowhere defined what a "divine casting class" is things quickly turn into an ontological clusterfuck. Are spells divine because they are cast by a divine caster? Or are divine casters divine casters because they cast divine? More likely the latter than the former: casters do not alter the nature of their spells. Next, since Mystic Theurge does not rule out putting both levels in the same class you can use them on your Wizard level, getting two caster levels per level.

So instead of getting levels 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 like a Wizard 15 a Wizard 5/Rainbow Servant 10 gets 17, 19, 21, 23, 25. If you are an Illumian (Races of Destiny) with the Improved Sigil (Krau) feat you can quality at level 3, so you become a Wizard 3/Rainbow Servant 10/Mystic Theurge 7 with ELC 27 at level 20. And a Human with one flaw or another race with two to get to extra feats can quality at level 1 if they pick Earth Spell, Heighten Spell and Earth Sense, for a Wizard 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Mystic Theurge 9 with an ELC of 29.

The reason this is not done a lot because leveling up the already powerful Wizard's casting twice as fast is blatant powergaming, and few DMs will allow this.

(* Rainbow Servants are casters who sought out the Couatl in their jungle pyramids in order to learn from them. Taking the full 10 levels in this Prestige Class allows access to the Good, Air and Law domains at levels 1, 4 and 7, Detect Good, Evil and Thoughts at levels 1, 7 and 10, the ability to grow wings for 10 minutes per Rainbow Servant level and access to the Cleric spell list. It has very low entry requirements and can really improve the versatility for a caster. It's great on a Wizard, less so on the Bard and Sorcerer (who just become able to learn the spells instead of their own), but it really shines on the Warmage, who becomes able to cast from the Cleric spell list AT WILL. The bizarro-Warmage known as the Beguiler (PHB II) finds this Prestige Class just as useful, but the Dread Necromancer, who casts just like them, should stick to their own class because of the many class features they get.)

 

[LeStryfe79]

Taking one level of fighter with a wizard is actually a huge price to pay in 5ed.

You can take a level of cleric instead for heavy armor proficiency though, for a smaller price. Since both classes are full casters you keep the spell slot progression, so the cost is that you're one level behind in spells known and wizard class features.

In exchange you get the mentioned heavy armor and shield proficiencies, giving you AC 20 with plate and shield, and you gain cleric cantrips and access to a bunch of first level cleric spells that will be useful throughout your adventuring career, such as Cure Wounds and Bless.

You do not get heavy armor for taking a level of Cleric. Also, there is the additional cost of missing out on the Wizard's level 20 capstone, which could cost you 6 to 8 level 3 spell slots a day.

 

[Spectacle]

Taking one level of fighter with a wizard is actually a huge price to pay in 5ed.

You can take a level of cleric instead for heavy armor proficiency though, for a smaller price. Since both classes are full casters you keep the spell slot progression, so the cost is that you're one level behind in spells known and wizard class features.

In exchange you get the mentioned heavy armor and shield proficiencies, giving you AC 20 with plate and shield, and you gain cleric cantrips and access to a bunch of first level cleric spells that will be useful throughout your adventuring career, such as Cure Wounds and Bless.

You do not get heavy armor for taking a level of Cleric. Also, there is the additional cost of missing out on the Wizard's level 20 capstone, which could cost you 6 to 8 level 3 spell slots a day.

Yes you do, as long as you pick a suitable domain. And 99% of all characters will never reach level 20, so that's not very relevant. Fighter only gives heavy armor prof if you start as that class BTW, multiclassing into fighter only gives you medium.

 

[ProphetSword]

Wizards can't use armor

They can if they're Mountain Dwarves. They get proficiency in both light and medium armor. That puts them one feat away from heavy armor if a player wanted to pursue that option.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I would rather be a 5th level Wizard with fireball, than a 5th level wizard with Cure Wounds and chain mail. Furthermore, you'd have to put a high stat in strength to avoid a shit movement in the better heavy armors. A shit movement could put a wizard far more at risk than missing a couple of AC points. It's not a horrible decision to take a level of Cleric if that's what you like, but it's clearly not some OP super move to be without higher level spells every other level until the end game when you lose your capstone. That's why 5ed has by far the best multiclassing. It's got a myriad of options in a single book with as much balance as one could reasonably expect and also makes single classes seem viable. A Mountain Dwarf Transmuter would be my personal choice to wear armor and do some emergency healing at later levels. Plus, it's a character that makes sense from a lore standpoint, since i'd imagine many Dwarven Wizards are Transmuters.

 

[ProphetSword]

Once you hit around 8th level, armor class doesn't matter as much as it used to. You start encountering some big monsters that might have a +11 to hit, which means they hit the average AC of 16 on a 5 or better. Your abilities and hit points are going to be far more important in 5e once you are out of the lower levels.

 

[LeStryfe79]

 

[Grunker]

Once you hit around 8th level, armor class doesn't matter as much as it used to.

Do you mean "as it used to" as in "as it used to in previous editions"?

It is a staple of D&D criticism since AD&D that hit chance scales way, waaaaay better than armor, to the point where armor is only really worth something on lower levels. Trading off THC for damage and other perks makes sense for most characters even when you're not min-maxing (I rarely, if ever, play games that include min-maxing or anything remotely optimum).

 

[LeStryfe79]

I think the scale is slightly flatter than AD&D and far flatter than 3.X.

 

[ProphetSword]

Do you mean "as it used to" as in "as it used to in previous editions"?

It is a staple of D&D criticism since AD&D that hit chance scales way, waaaaay better than armor, to the point where armor is only really worth something on lower levels. Trading off THC for damage and other perks makes sense for most characters even when you're not min-maxing (I rarely, if ever, play games that include min-maxing or anything remotely optimum).

I mean it means less than in 3e/3.5, where I saw builds that could skyrocket someone's AC into the stratosphere.

 

[Grunker]

I mean it means less than in 3e/3.5, where I saw builds that could skyrocket someone's AC into the stratosphere.

"Builds" that focus on AC are generally accepted as some of the worst you can do in 3e. Like I said, even in our fairly casual games we tend to avoid them because they simply don't work that well, even in games where we all do fun, experimental, wildly unoptimized characters. Which is most of the games I participate in.

There are simply too many run-of-the-mill ways to completely bypass static AC on top of THC scaling better. AC meaning less than in 3E would be AC meaning nothing at all, basically.