April Survey Results, and a New Survey

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Check it: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/april-survey-results

[PhantomRenegade]

Something tells me the reason "small races" are seen as the weakest is because few people play gnomes.

[Person_Man]

The perceived weaknesses of the small races makes sense.

First, they can't use heavy weapons. So lots of melee builds don't make sense with a small race.

Second, they have ability score modfiers which limit them to very specific builds (assuming you're trying to play an optimal character). Gnome gets +2 Int, which is almost entirely useless for anyone that is not a Wizard. Lightfoot Halflings get a Charisma bonus, which is mostly useless for most Dexterity based builds. Stout Halflings get a universally useful +1 Con, but their poison Resilience is very niche/subpar ability.

This is yet another reason why I hate the fiddly weapon rules. They just end up nerfing a bunch of character concepts without adding to the balance of the game in a meaningful way.

[ChubbyRain]

Something tells me the reason "small races" are seen as the weakest is because few people play gnomes.

I laughed so damn hard.

Halflings and Gnomes are some of the best races out there.

I think the problem is not that they are weak but because of how ability score increases based on race forces Halflings and Gnomes to go into classes that not everyone plays or are atypical for a lot of classes.

Get rid of the +2/+1 bull crap (and rules that impose ability score prejudice and anti-fantasy) and just give people Race Points or whatever and you will see more GWF Halflings running around.

Seriously, played in a game or two where I was a strength/wis Halfling GWF with a glaive and thunderclap/earth tremor... Super fun running all over the place laying the smack down. And I don't even like the fighter that much.


edit



The perceived weaknesses of the small races makes sense.

First, they can't use heavy weapons. So lots of melee builds don't make sense with a small race.

Second, they have ability score modfiers which limit them to very specific builds (assuming you're trying to play an optimal character). Gnome gets +2 Int, which is almost entirely useless for anyone that is not a Wizard. Lightfoot Halflings get a Charisma bonus, which is mostly useless for most Dexterity based builds. Stout Halflings get a universally useful +1 Con, but their poison Resilience is very niche/subpar ability.

This is yet another reason why I hate the fiddly weapon rules. They just end up nerfing a bunch of character concepts without adding to the balance of the game in a meaningful way.

For 5e I think I should say "Shadow-Monk'ed" ?

[Shining Wrath]

I'm not sure which is more annoying: having to play to racial stereotypes, or the mental image of a 3' tall halfling wielding a 10' long halberd without difficulty.

Maybe we should give standard humans +2 to all ability scores, then no one will play anything else

[PhantomRenegade]

Halflings and Gnomes are some of the best races out there. I wouldn't know about best races but my point wasnt that gnomes sucked, it was that not a lot of people play them.

There's only one class, and 2 archetypes where you might want to be a gnome that's not a lot.

The percieved weakness there probably has less to do with the gnome itself and more to do with how few people actually use them.


Lightfoot Halfling is still OP for any stealth class, i dont know what people are thinking.

[DireSickFish]

The question on problem spells seems rather open ended. Not sure I know a spell off the top of my head that I'd qualify as problematic one way or the other. I haven't gone over every spell int he book or seen them all in game yet.

We have any threads on what's to OP/useless?

[ChubbyRain]

I'm not sure which is more annoying: having to play to racial stereotypes, or the mental image of a 3' tall halfling wielding a 10' long halberd without difficulty.


We need this to happen though. Fantasy is "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable".

So many people freak out over realistic situations instead of remembering that this is a fantasy game.

[PhantomRenegade]

I just posted the spells my DM doesnt like, Mage Hand, Leomonds tiny hut, stuff like that.

[DanyBallon]

We need this to happen though. Fantasy is "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable".

So many people freak out over realistic situations instead of remembering that this is a fantasy game.

You're fantasy may be different than mine.

Call me ancient, old, or boring, but my fantasy is closer to Tolkien than FF7 :smalltongue:

[Gwendol]

Kind of disappointed with the article as a whole. The small races have some disadvantage vs melee fighting in that certain styles aren't available. That doesn't really make them weak. Their racial abilities are rather well balanced in my eyes.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'm not sure which is more annoying: having to play to racial stereotypes, or the mental image of a 3' tall halfling wielding a 10' long halberd without difficulty.

Maybe we should give standard humans +2 to all ability scores, then no one will play anything else

Then make it a 5ft halberd, but dang it, let halflings and gnomes use the weapons they want. A halfling greatsword may be the equivalent of a longsword for most races, but for halflings, it does 2d6 with all the properties of a greatsword, because of the techniques halflings use to use it. Mechanical cutoffs like the weapon system are not exactly balanced, and only exist to restrict some pretty simple concepts.

[Ralanr]

Gnomes have advantage to all magical saves and halfing lucky has saved my buddy more times than I care to count.

How are these weak?

[ChubbyRain]

You're fantasy may be different than mine.

Call me ancient, old, or boring, but my fantasy is closer to Tolkien than FF7 :smalltongue:

I'm fine with that.

And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have restrictive rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, restricting fantasy... Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.

By opening up the rules people won't be dissuaded from trying new things or making more fantastical characters.

What I want is for both of us to be happy instead of one of us.

[coredump]

Get rid of the +2/+1 bull crap (and rules that impose ability score prejudice and anti-fantasy) and just give people Race Points or whatever and you will see more GWF Halflings running around.

Seriously, played in a game or two where I was a strength/wis Halfling GWF with a glaive and thunderclap/earth tremor... Super fun running all over the place laying the smack down. And I don't even like the fighter that much.


I am glad you enjoyed that. I would hate that game, and I am very gladd DnD does not operate that way.

[DanyBallon]

I'm fine with that.

And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have restrictive rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, restricting fantasy... Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.

By opening up the rules people won't be dissuaded from trying new things or making more fantastical characters.

What I want is for both of us to be happy instead of one of us.

You can see it the other way, if as a DM, I have to restrict what my players can do for in order to fit my vision of fantasy, I'll pass for a bad DM.

On the other hand, if you decide to allow wielding of large weapon to small characters, you'll pass for a great DM that allow cool stuff not allowed in the core.

It's always easier to break the rule to open new options than put restrictions on what is available in core.

Don't you think?

[DireSickFish]

I'm fine with that.

And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have restrictive rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, restricting fantasy... Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.

By opening up the rules people won't be dissuaded from trying new things or making more fantastical characters.

What I want is for both of us to be happy instead of one of us.

Restrictions aren't the antithesis of fantasy. Having hard and fast restrictions can show the difference between characters and the wide range of types available in a fantasy setting. The Drow's sunlight sensitivity really shows how they are a race that lives underground and it's rare for one to see the light of day.

The Hin folk are a race of small men living in a world full of tallies. If there is no distinct mechanic to show that they are smaller then you lose a lot of impact. I don't think having disadvantage with heavy weapons makes them unplayable. I actually have already had a hafling barbarian that liked to wield a halberd for the reach and used reckless attack to offset his disadvantage from heavy weapons. I thought it was kinda stupid, and it certainly wasn't optimal but damn if he didn't have fun.

[coredump]

I'm fine with that.

And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have restrictive rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, restricting fantasy... Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.
I'm fine with that.
And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have complete open-ended anything goes rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, dictating the type of fantasy.....Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.

IOW, just because *you* want to play a fantasy game with halberd weilding halflings, does not mean everyone else does. Heck, you could bring back Monkey-grip and anime swords, maybe allow jumping over buildings....

Historically, halflings/gnomes/weefolk/etc where a certain way. And greatsword wielding bezerkers is not it.... you are free to (easily) modify the game to allow that, but when I pay for a 'medieval fantasy' game, I don't want that included.



What I want is for both of us to be happy instead of one of us.No one is stopping you. Just remove the 'heavy' property from halberds, and give each race 3 +1's to give out. Tada... you get what you want.

[Dontdestroyme]

For problem spells everyone tell them we need more non fire spells!!!!

[Demonic Spoon]

And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have restrictive rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, restricting fantasy... Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.


This is fantasy (from Wikipedia):


Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction.


Fantasy is not "woo we do whatever we want because fantasy isn't real". Each fantasy world has its own rules and its own style.

There are different styles of fantasy. Inuyasha and Game of Thrones are both fantasy. GoT is not "the opposite of what fantasy is" because the characters don't fly around and wield weapons twice as big as they are.

The game needs to be primarily focused around one "style" of fantasy, and it is. The DM can then push that a bit (the DM can remove the limit on small creature weapon usage just as easily as he could add one if it didn't already exist). There are even guidelines in the DMG for how to do that. But there is no objectively optimal level of fantastical elements that the game must have to fit the genre.


I'm fine with that.

And as a DM you can make that call. However, when you have restrictive rules as a core you are, at the core of the game, restricting fantasy... Which is the opposite of what fantasy is.

By opening up the rules people won't be dissuaded from trying new things or making more fantastical characters.

What I want is for both of us to be happy instead of one of us.

Why are you against listing "...and the heavy property no longer restricts small characters" to your list of houserules? How is that any more burdensome than someone who wants the property as-is adding it in?

[TheOldCrow]

This may sound weird, but my aversion to stubby-legged PCs started when stubby-legged monsters started to outrun them. A freakin' kobold is faster then they are. So are goblins.

[Person_Man]

I'm not sure which is more annoying: having to play to racial stereotypes, or the mental image of a 3' tall halfling wielding a 10' long halberd without difficulty.

In my ideal D&D game, you just don't bother paying attention to weapon types. All attacks deal 1d6 + Str or Dex damage (or whatever number makes sense). Then build in extra damage and special effects via class abilities/spells/magic weapons/etc, rather then layering a bunch of small fiddly differences based on your chosen weapon.

In that setup, the DM can just rule that certain creatures can or cannot wield certain weapons according to whatever makes sense in the game world, and it doesn't have some massive impact on the game rules or player choices outside of corner cases (the DM introduces a magic weapon too big for the small race to use, or too tiny for a big race to use, or whatever).

[ChubbyRain]

Why are you against listing "...and the heavy property no longer restricts small characters" to your list of houserules? How is that any more burdensome than someone who wants the property as-is adding it in?

The problem is the base game is restrictive and turns the game into a Magical Fiction game.

If I go into an AL game and have this cool concept for a character in mind then I get told "no, that is bad wrong fun" even when it isn't unbalanced in the slightest.

When you make your vase rules to punish players instead of encouraging players then you no longer have a fantasy game.

Like in a science fiction movie, those without science lose to those that have science. Unless they have some stupid lesser science thing that makes them win outside of all logic (Independance Day... I'm look at you). Science fiction isn't fantasy, it is a sub genre of fantasy. Just like Rock isn't music itself, it is a sub genre of music.

In my ideal D&D game players don't get punished for coming into a fantasy game when they use their imaginations.

Wouldn't be so bad if D&D didnt sell itself as a fantasy game. However t does but yet goes against the very thing that makes it fantasy.

It isn't a "we do everything we want" it is about putting every player on the same level and treating everyone who aita down as equal and not punishing some for choice.

Racial ASI and punishing rules harm fantasy but does not harm the sub genres.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree with Person_Man's assessment. The two small races have bonuses which only fit certain archetypes:

Halfling: warlock, rogue who needs +1 con
Gnome: wizard, arcane trickster, Eldritch Knight

Gnomes face stiff competition from high elves, who have the same stats but gain a free cantrip. Halflings face stiff competition from wood elves, humans, and half elves, two of which have dark vision and one of which (half elf) has some of the best features around and extra skills.

Notably, the silly weapon restrictions make gnome a weaker choice for eldritch knight. Since arcane tricksters and eldritch knights have reduced casting, playing a high elf is desirable for the free cantrip. The lack of darkvision makes halflings a dubious choice for rogue.

That leaves gnome wizards, which are fine, but some people just don't like gnomes. And variant humans can achieve close to the same stats while also starting with a feat. And everybody likes feats.

So I don't think that the races are bad, there are just so many more appealing choices for most concepts. If halfling and gnome monks were possible, then I'm sure a lot of players would go for that just for the funny. But neither had the right bonuses for that class. If halfling and gnome fighters could use great weapons, then I'm sure a hefty bunch of players would go for that as well. Sadly, neither race had the stat boosts for that, either.

Houserule away the weapon restrictions, let players choose where their stat boosts go for all races, and I'm sure that gnome and halfling will be more popular.

[PhantomRenegade]

I dont really see any other races more appealing for a Rogue than a lightfoot halfling, Wood elves are a close second but their hiding option is situational as is the one gained skulker, a Lightfoot halflings ability to hide behind team mates is the only fullproof stealth option that you will get in all situations.

Well you dont get it if everybody else in the party is dead but by that point you have bigger problems.

[Easy_Lee]

I dont really see any other races more appealing for a Rogue than a lightfoot halfling, Wood elves are a close second but their hiding option is situational as is the one gained skulker, a Lightfoot halflings ability to hide behind team mates is the only fullproof stealth option that you will get in all situations.

Well you dont get it if everybody else in the party is dead but by that point you have bigger problems.

True, but that Darkvision is nice. Wisdom is also a little more useful for most rogues than CHA.

[RenaldoS]

I listed Guidance as one of the spells I found troublesome as it is just kinda annoying as the cleric is just constantly spamming it for any and every ability check. Does anyone else share my sentiment?

[Easy_Lee]

I listed Guidance as one of the spells I found troublesome as it is just kinda annoying as the cleric is just constantly spamming it for any and every ability check. Does anyone else share my sentiment?

It could be. What annoys you about it?

[PhantomRenegade]

True, but that Darkvision is nice. Wisdom is also a little more useful for most rogues than CHA.Also true, i think all three options are pretty legit, i just kinda like Halflings more buuuut i can see why other people wouldnt.

[Easy_Lee]

Also true, i think all three options are pretty legit, i just kinda like Halflings more buuuut i can see why other people wouldnt.

I too am a fan of the short folk. It is unfortunate that they are not more versatile this edition. With a strength + WIS halfling, I could build a really good BM Ranger Lancer. As is, I would have to Homebrew a dex lance to make it work properly (or refluff a rapier).

[Shining Wrath]

Then make it a 5ft halberd, but dang it, let halflings and gnomes use the weapons they want. A halfling greatsword may be the equivalent of a longsword for most races, but for halflings, it does 2d6 with all the properties of a greatsword, because of the techniques halflings use to use it. Mechanical cutoffs like the weapon system are not exactly balanced, and only exist to restrict some pretty simple concepts.

And now you are into small sized weapons with a separate column on the weapons table. They had that for 3.5; they don't have it for 5; it's a design choice. I think the idea is that halflings and gnomes aren't martial enough to invent their own weapons sized for them, which is an odd conceit.

I may have to homebrew some, because my world features halflings who are fairly militaristic, and are actually the first people to employ "squares" on the battlefield. An outer row of shield bearing spearmen, within several rows on the interior that swap between shield & spear, and sling or bow, depending on whether their side is being attacked. You get near a few dozen halflings flinging stones behind a wall of sharp points, it can be unpleasant. It makes sense they'd have invented the pike in their size.

[Shining Wrath]

I agree with Person_Man's assessment. The two small races have bonuses which only fit certain archetypes:

Halfling: warlock, rogue who needs +1 con
Gnome: wizard, arcane trickster, Eldritch Knight

Gnomes face stiff competition from high elves, who have the same stats but gain a free cantrip. Halflings face stiff competition from wood elves, humans, and half elves, two of which have dark vision and one of which (half elf) has some of the best features around and extra skills.

Notably, the silly weapon restrictions make gnome a weaker choice for eldritch knight. Since arcane tricksters and eldritch knights have reduced casting, playing a high elf is desirable for the free cantrip. The lack of darkvision makes halflings a dubious choice for rogue.

That leaves gnome wizards, which are fine, but some people just don't like gnomes. And variant humans can achieve close to the same stats while also starting with a feat. And everybody likes feats.

So I don't think that the races are bad, there are just so many more appealing choices for most concepts. If halfling and gnome monks were possible, then I'm sure a lot of players would go for that just for the funny. But neither had the right bonuses for that class. If halfling and gnome fighters could use great weapons, then I'm sure a hefty bunch of players would go for that as well. Sadly, neither race had the stat boosts for that, either.

Houserule away the weapon restrictions, let players choose where their stat boosts go for all races, and I'm sure that gnome and halfling will be more popular.

High elves get +1 to Int, gnomes get +2.

[Slipperychicken]

If a toddler-sized humanoid can use a 10ft polearm as a slashing weapon with no problems at all, then where are the 20ft long buster swords for normal-sized races?

[PhantomRenegade]

And now you are into small sized weapons with a separate column on the weapons table. They had that for 3.5; they don't have it for 5; it's a design choice. I think the idea is that halflings and gnomes aren't martial enough to invent their own weapons sized for them, which is an odd conceit.

I may have to homebrew some, because my world features halflings who are fairly militaristic, and are actually the first people to employ "squares" on the battlefield. An outer row of shield bearing spearmen, within several rows on the interior that swap between shield & spear, and sling or bow, depending on whether their side is being attacked. You get near a few dozen halflings flinging stones behind a wall of sharp points, it can be unpleasant. It makes sense they'd have invented the pike in their size. I usually just use real world shorter weapons with the same basic function and keep everything else the same.

Stilletto for a Rapier, Rhondel Dagger for Shortswords ..... Dagger for Dagger cuz, it doesnt really get much shorter than that.

[Easy_Lee]

High elves get +1 to Int, gnomes get +2.

Yes, but standard array allows for one 15 and one 14. The discerning player will generally choose two stats to get to 16, which in a wizard's case will likely be INT and DEX. Both races are equally capable of this, while variant humans can do so by taking keen mind. So the three will likely end up with identical stats in practice.

[SharkForce]

The question on problem spells seems rather open ended. Not sure I know a spell off the top of my head that I'd qualify as problematic one way or the other. I haven't gone over every spell int he book or seen them all in game yet.

We have any threads on what's to OP/useless?

planar binding is literally broken. as in, the spell simply cannot function as described without further explanation of how it is supposed to do what it says it does. i would encourage everyone to add it to their list so that it can get looked at.

more details: the spell explicitly describes being used in conjunction with magic circle to summon a creature, place it in the circle, and then use planar binding on it. however, all summoning spells are concentration-based, their duration runs out before planar binding can be cast, and even if they didn't, casting planar binding counts as concentrating on a spell and is thus incompatible with concentrating on the summoning spell to keep it running. as such, by the time planar binding is supposed to somehow extend the duration of the other spell, the other spell has both run out of duration and has run out because you haven't been concentrating on it for over an hour, and the spell's duration cannot have been extended because planar binding has not been finished casting yet, so it can't have a magical effect yet.

there is also the problem that some people insist that planar binding does not remove the concentration requirement from those spells, and yet can be made to last up to one year and a day. and some of those spells explicitly have the creature turn against you and try to kill you until the duration runs out if you stop concentrating on them. but i would say that isn't strictly a problem with the spell as written (as written, duration actually tells you whether you concentrate or not, so matching duration means matching whether you need to concentrate or not. but apparently it could still use clarification, because there have been very extensive discussions about that recently).

[Magic Myrmidon]

And now you are into small sized weapons with a separate column on the weapons table. They had that for 3.5; they don't have it for 5; it's a design choice. I think the idea is that halflings and gnomes aren't martial enough to invent their own weapons sized for them, which is an odd conceit.

I may have to homebrew some, because my world features halflings who are fairly militaristic, and are actually the first people to employ "squares" on the battlefield. An outer row of shield bearing spearmen, within several rows on the interior that swap between shield & spear, and sling or bow, depending on whether their side is being attacked. You get near a few dozen halflings flinging stones behind a wall of sharp points, it can be unpleasant. It makes sense they'd have invented the pike in their size.

But I'm not into different columns, though. Let halflings use a greatsword with 2d6, and just say that it's an appropriate size for them. Same for halberds, or any other weapon. Mechanically, there's no reason to say that halflings and gnomes can't use that array of stats for weapons.

Besides, isn't it still strange to let halflings and gnomes use longswords one handed? That'd be the equivalent of a greatsword for them, but there aren't any rules that say they have to use two hands for it.

Needless to say, I definitely agree with Person_Man regarding fiddly weapon rules.

[Celcey]

I definitely agree with the whole sized weapons things. If large creatures can use a specially sized greatsword, why can't small ones?

As a general thing for stats, I will usually go with the stats given. But if I or one of my players wants to play a certain race that doesn't work with their stats, they can change the stats they use.

[Naanomi]

Halflings: For rogues, warlocks; rarely for sorcerers, bards; beastmasters
Gnomes: For wizards; arcane tricksters

Small subsets of classes with real interest in the races; and all with a lot of competition (outside beastmasters wanting to ride their mount); particularly with the ubiquitous Variant Human

I'm surprised a few other races didn't end up on the 'short list'... tieflings and dragonborn in particular

[Totema]

Personally, I'm surprised that no one's picking on the drow. Their sunlight vulnerability is a pretty big turn off for a lot of players I know.

[eleazzaar]

True, but that Darkvision is nice. Wisdom is also a little more useful for most rogues than CHA.

Rogues are skillmonkeys. Some rogues are of the charlatan type with good social CHA-based skills.



Personally, I'm surprised that no one's picking on the drow. Their sunlight vulnerability is a pretty big turn off for a lot of players I know.

That's a tricky feature. It could be horribly debilitating, or an occasional inconvenience-- depending on the DM and Campaign and how much flexibility the party has to stay indoors all day, and go out after dark.

[silveralen]

But I'm not into different columns, though. Let halflings use a greatsword with 2d6, and just say that it's an appropriate size for them. Same for halberds, or any other weapon. Mechanically, there's no reason to say that halflings and gnomes can't use that array of stats for weapons.

Besides, isn't it still strange to let halflings and gnomes use longswords one handed? That'd be the equivalent of a greatsword for them, but there aren't any rules that say they have to use two hands for it.

Needless to say, I definitely agree with Person_Man regarding fiddly weapon rules.

Eh, it's odd in a lot of ways, but something in me rebels at the idea of a halfling dealing the same damage with a greatsword as a human. Even if it is balanced, it i like a normal sized longsword dealing greatsword damage with no explanation.

Also, not too sure that's a major issue, unless everyone is playing great weapon builds (which would probably be a greater issue).

[MrStabby]

Eh, it's odd in a lot of ways, but something in me rebels at the idea of a halfling dealing the same damage with a greatsword as a human. Even if it is balanced, it i like a normal sized longsword dealing greatsword damage with no explanation.

Also, not too sure that's a major issue, unless everyone is playing great weapon builds (which would probably be a greater issue).

Actually this seems to be the crux of it. To pull a game together that everyone agrees to play there has to be some core of rules to agree to. Sure, you can hand-wave away some restrictions if everyone wants to but there are some people who don't want to play that kind of "anything goes" type game. The core rules (explicitly open to change) simply provide a starting point. If everyone want s something different then there is no issue changing. If some people don't want to change and think some restrictions add more than they detract from the game then it becomes a bit more difficult as to who should force whom to play in a different world view.

Again not a problem if you can split a play group so everyone gets the world they want but not always possible in small communities.

[Hawkstar]

True, but that Darkvision is nice. Wisdom is also a little more useful for most rogues than CHA.

No. CHA is the second-most important stat for a rogue, after Dexterity. WIS does nothing for gaining access to places people don't want you to go. CHA opens lots of doors.

[Easy_Lee]

No. CHA is the second-most important stat for a rogue, after Dexterity. WIS does nothing for gaining access to places people don't want you to go. CHA opens lots of doors.

Everyone has different opinions of what rogues do, and I won't tell you that yours is wrong. However, wisdom controls perception, and thus traps and hidden creatures. Plus rogues gain proficiency with wisdom saves at later levels.

[weaseldust]

I've always seen the halfling as one of the mechanically strongest race options of all. Dexterity is probably the most broadly useful stat, and almost any class can benefit from one of constitution and charisma.

Stout halflings make the best ranged fighters, including as Eldritch Knights, who don't really need high intelligence. Though, for that matter, wild sorcerers and bards can get away with poor charisma and rangers can get away with poor wisdom, and any caster in fact might find they benefit more from better AC, initiative, concentration and HP than from higher spell DCs and an extra spell known or two. And charisma-based casters who do value their casting stat can just be lightfoot halflings instead.

[Giant2005]

I am a little shocked that people consider the small races to be weaker... Could that perception merely be a biproduct of the removal of the small races advantages (Hit and AC bonuses) from 3e?

Even without those bonuses, the small races are still top-tier choices. The Gnome easily makes for the best Wizard and the Halfling easily makes for the best Dex-based martial character. The latter case is particularly surprising to me considering most people seem to believe Dex is the strongest ability to have and yet the strongest Dex-based race is considered sub-par? That just does not compute.

Also, is anyone else impressed with Eslin's ability to transform any thread, regardless of its origins, into one that is about either his "caster supremacy" crusade or his "DnD is not Fantasy enough" crusade? He didn't even have a valid segue to work off, so he simply created his own. Kudos for the effort.

[Maxilian]

The perceived weaknesses of the small races makes sense.

First, they can't use heavy weapons. So lots of melee builds don't make sense with a small race.

Second, they have ability score modfiers which limit them to very specific builds (assuming you're trying to play an optimal character). Gnome gets +2 Int, which is almost entirely useless for anyone that is not a Wizard. Lightfoot Halflings get a Charisma bonus, which is mostly useless for most Dexterity based builds. Stout Halflings get a universally useful +1 Con, but their poison Resilience is very niche/subpar ability.

This is yet another reason why I hate the fiddly weapon rules. They just end up nerfing a bunch of character concepts without adding to the balance of the game in a meaningful way.

I don't agree is useless for anyone who's not a Wizard (you could make a nice thief who's second stat is INT to get to use poisons even more -easier to find plants that could be used as poisons- )

[-Jynx-]

It hasn't been mentioned yet but Halflings Lucky trait I think is phenomenal. Especially when I play with DMs who adore the horrible misfortune that befalls those who roll a 1. Having that 'get out of jail free card' is great. Though if you somehow roll two 1s back to back you probably deserve whatever was going to happen to you.

[Maxilian]

It hasn't been mentioned yet but Halflings Lucky trait I think is phenomenal. Especially when I play with DMs who adore the horrible misfortune that befalls those who roll a 1. Having that 'get out of jail free card' is great. Though if you somehow roll two 1s back to back you probably deserve whatever was going to happen to you.

These one of the main reason why Halflings are basically seen as the only good small race :P

[DireSickFish]

These one of the main reason why Halflings are basically seen as the only good small race :P

The Gnomes advantage on mental spell saves is also rather good. They just have the problem of Int only being useful for the smallest number of classes.

[-Jynx-]

These one of the main reason why Halflings are basically seen as the only good small race :P


I'm also a fan of Rock Gnomes tinker ability. I tend more toward halflings and humans admittedly but if you decided to take more of a backseat combat approach a rock gnome with some creativity and maybe a bit of wiggle-room from a DM on what they can/can't make and what they do/don't have access to could conceivably make a lot of nifty things.

[Celcey]

Personally, I'm surprised that no one's picking on the drow. Their sunlight vulnerability is a pretty big turn off for a lot of players I know.

I just ignore Sunlight Sensitivity. I don't believe in giving penalties for choosing a race.

[PhantomRenegade]

Everyone has different opinions of what rogues do, and I won't tell you that yours is wrong. However, wisdom controls perception, and thus traps and hidden creatures. Plus rogues gain proficiency with wisdom saves at later levels.This is very true, while i dont regret the fact that i gave my rogue good CHA its gotten to the point where i'm kind of afraid to go ahead of the group in stealth lest my crappy wisdom betray me once more.

Of course having a Ranger or something in the party would fix that but its still something to consider.

[ruy343]

I am a little shocked that people consider the small races to be weaker... Could that perception merely be a biproduct of the removal of the small races advantages (Hit and AC bonuses) from 3e?

Even without those bonuses, the small races are still top-tier choices. The Gnome easily makes for the best Wizard and the Halfling easily makes for the best Dex-based martial character. The latter case is particularly surprising to me considering most people seem to believe Dex is the strongest ability to have and yet the strongest Dex-based race is considered sub-par? That just does not compute.

I honestly think that if halflings and gnomes were to get back their +1 to hit and their +1 to AC, they would be far more popular. Perhaps other abilities would need to be balanced, but it would certainly give people a greater incentive to play them.

However, I'm curious as to why people refuse to play halfling monks, when they make some of the best monks in the game.

[recapdrake]

The question on problem spells seems rather open ended. Not sure I know a spell off the top of my head that I'd qualify as problematic one way or the other. I haven't gone over every spell int he book or seen them all in game yet.

We have any threads on what's to OP/useless?

Well clerics call celestial is garbage at the level that you get it (Use a level nine spell slot to get a unicorn/couatl/pegasus) everything that you can get with it gets thrashed at that level

[LordVonDerp]

Halflings: For rogues, warlocks; rarely for sorcerers, bards; beastmasters
Gnomes: For wizards; arcane tricksters

Small subsets of classes with real interest in the races; and all with a lot of competition (outside beastmasters wanting to ride their mount); particularly with the ubiquitous Variant Human

I'm surprised a few other races didn't end up on the 'short list'... tieflings and dragonborn in particular

Halfling monks, halfling paladins,

[xroads]

I'm not surprised gnomes are at the bottom of the list. But personally, I like them and think they are underrated.

I'm playing a gnome druid of the moon in one of my games and the combo works well enough for me. Something awesome about playing a 3' gnome that suddenly morphs into a 7' bear. :smallwink:

For me, dragonborn are the weakest race. They get a breath attack a few times a day at most, and that's it.

Having said that, I'm still playing one of those as well. :smallbiggrin:

[-Jynx-]

However, I'm curious as to why people refuse to play halfling monks, when they make some of the best monks in the game.

Frankly Wood Elf just does it better. Halflings have the ability to move through another creatures space which is nice and lucky is obviously neat but you give up the ability to grapple effectively and lose out on trance darkvision and enhanced speed (rather than the slower speed of your halfling) the immune to magic sleep/charm usually comes up more often than fear. Lastly mask of the wild is just as good as naturally stealthy so halfling has more cons than pluses in comparison to wood elf.

V. Humans can end up on top as monks too depending on if your build relies on feats since most characters (per the survey) make it from 1-6 or at the latest about 10-12 there's not much room for you to take feats especially if you're trying to cap or raise 1 or 2 stats (which for monk you probably are) so having the bonus feat can help make your build come online faster while still maintaining the stats you want through your ASI.

[DireSickFish]

Frankly Wood Elf just does it better. Halflings have the ability to move through another creatures space which is nice and lucky is obviously neat but you give up the ability to grapple effectively and lose out on trance darkvision and enhanced speed (rather than the slower speed of your halfling) the immune to magic sleep/charm usually comes up more often than fear. Lastly mask of the wild is just as good as naturally stealthy so halfling has more cons than pluses in comparison to wood elf.

V. Humans can end up on top as monks too depending on if your build relies on feats since most characters (per the survey) make it from 1-6 or at the latest about 10-12 there's not much room for you to take feats especially if you're trying to cap or raise 1 or 2 stats (which for monk you probably are) so having the bonus feat can help make your build come online faster while still maintaining the stats you want through your ASI.

Monks really aren't grappling fiends this edition anyway so I'm not sure why that would factor in. Dex/con is a great stat bonus spread for a monk. I don't disagree that wood elves make the best monks but saying that hafling monks are bad because they are not #1 option is silly. The ability to move through opponents squares makes them the absolute hardest to pin down monk, they are always where they want to be. Lucky is more important for monks than other classes because monks get the most attacks in a round and thus are rolling the most d20's meaning hafling monks get the most use out of the ability.

The -5ft suck more on other classes than it does for monks because of all the movement bonuses monks get offset that. Being 5ft shorter than your average orc falling back sucks because you wont get an attack in, being "only" 5 feet faster or 15 feet faster instead of 10 or 20 is not that big a deal.

I actually think poison resistance is awesome, it's a very common damage type and has come up multiple times in games I've played. Maybe we just like Yuan-ti more than we should.

[-Jynx-]

Monks really aren't grappling fiends this edition anyway so I'm not sure why that would factor in. Dex/con is a great stat bonus spread for a monk. I don't disagree that wood elves make the best monks but saying that hafling monks are bad because they are not #1 option is silly. The ability to move through opponents squares makes them the absolute hardest to pin down monk, they are always where they want to be. Lucky is more important for monks than other classes because monks get the most attacks in a round and thus are rolling the most d20's meaning hafling monks get the most use out of the ability.

They can be good grapplers but they don't have to be built that way by any means. My point was only that Wood elf and V.human probably take 1st and 2nd place as a preferred racial choice for monk before halfling. You may prefer halfing monk and that's fine I'm only giving reasoning as to why those two are probably statistically a bit better.

Lucky applies to more than attack rolls it also applies to checks and saves so to say your monk gets the most mileage out of lucky isn't entirely true if someone in your group (a rogue for example) is making far more ability checks in a day. I am still a huge advocate of lucky, and it was one of my selling points for halfling but lucky alone doesn't compensate for all of the extra bonuses wood elf gives and I'd argue still isn't as great as a beginning feat is depending on your build especially if you don't go past level 6-12.



The -5ft suck more on other classes than it does for monks because of all the movement bonuses monks get offset that. Being 5ft shorter than your average orc falling back sucks because you wont get an attack in, being "only" 5 feet faster or 15 feet faster instead of 10 or 20 is not that big a deal.

True -5 ft compared to most races is not a lot. I only used that in comparison to wood elf that gets +5 to their movement speed. So while yes as a halfing monk you're still outpacing everyone except maybe your barbarian or rogue, your wood elf monk has +10ft to your halflings speed which may or may not matter to you, but its still a selling point for wood elf.




I actually think poison resistance is awesome, it's a very common damage type and has come up multiple times in games I've played. Maybe we just like Yuan-ti more than we should.

Poison is a very campaign dependent damage type. Your DM may through all kinds of poison your way or very little (either by traps monsters or otherwise) so poison resistence can be gold or garbage. Being such an arbitrary trait I'd favor more statically useful traits like immune to sleep/charm. Poison can suck, but poison is fairly weak in 5e and I'd much rather get poisoned than slept/charmed.

[Shining Wrath]

Personally, I'm surprised that no one's picking on the drow. Their sunlight vulnerability is a pretty big turn off for a lot of players I know.

I have a player running a Drow, and added a homebrew spell: Resist Sensitivity, at the same level (2) and on the same lists as Darkvision. Drow are not idiots, and removing the sensitivity to sunlight seems about the same difficulty as adding seeing in the dark.

Since she's going to be a bard, she'll have the spell on her list natively.

[ChubbyRain]

I have a player running a Drow, and added a homebrew spell: Resist Sensitivity, at the same level (2) and on the same lists as Darkvision. Drow are not idiots, and removing the sensitivity to sunlight seems about the same difficulty as adding seeing in the dark.

Since she's going to be a bard, she'll have the spell on her list natively.

As long as Drow are casters (or have some casting) and half as smart as the like to think, sunlight sensitivity is never an issue.

Way too many good spells rely on saving throws.

I ran a Drow knowledge cleric, level 8, scary awesome. Pal of mine was a Drow Light Cleric, funny enough, also scary awesome.

We were a LE anti-drow group wanting to overthrow a Drow city and eventually lolth.

[Madfellow]

Well clerics call celestial is garbage at the level that you get it (Use a level nine spell slot to get a unicorn/couatl/pegasus) everything that you can get with it gets thrashed at that level

Conjure Celestial is a 7th-level spell, not a 9th-level, so they can get it by level 13, not 17. And they can get Planar Ally by level 11.

You were probably thinking of Gate.

[Easy_Lee]

Conjure Celestial is a 7th-level spell, not a 9th-level, so they can get it by level 13, not 17. And they can get Planar Ally by level 11.

You were probably thinking of Gate.

Both are somewhat dubious spells, not because they're good or bad but because it's difficult to determine how good they are.

[Madfellow]

Both are somewhat dubious spells, not because they're good or bad but because it's difficult to determine how good they are.

Very true. Planar Ally especially is really GM-dependent.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, but standard array allows for one 15 and one 14. The discerning player will generally choose two stats to get to 16,

The discerning player will roll for stats, because you have good odds of rolling a 16 at least once :smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

The discerning player will roll for stats, because you have good odds of rolling a 16 at least once :smallbiggrin:

If given the option, no doubt.

[Hawkstar]

Halflings are awesome. Any character concept you can do with any other race can be done as a Halfling, but in Bobblehead.

[SharkForce]

Conjure Celestial is a 7th-level spell, not a 9th-level, so they can get it by level 13, not 17. And they can get Planar Ally by level 11.

You were probably thinking of Gate.

as a 7th level spell, it gets you a CR 4 celestial. as a level 9 spell, it gets you a CR 5 celestial.

contrast to, say, conjure elemental (CR 5 as a level 5 spell, +1 CR per spell level above 5) or conjure fey (CR 6 as a level 6 spell, +1 CR per spell level above 6).

he's quite right. conjure celestial is much worse than the other conjure spells.

[Steampunkette]

Halflings and Gnomes exist exclusively for punting!

Seriously. Gnomes and Halflings just make me feel uncomfortable at a game table. It's not that I have anything against short characters (Goblin and Kobold PCs rock socks and Pixie Fairies made Hackmaster fun as hell while 4e's Pixie was my favorite race until my DM screwed me out of flight and then turned around and ignored the limitation for NPC fliers).

They're just... Weird.

Small hands... and they smell like cabbage.

[-Jynx-]

Small hands... and they smell like cabbage.

Suddenly you hear a rustle in the bushes.... snide laughter begins to fill the air and the unmistakable smell of..... cabbage..... ROLL INITIATIVE!

[Ardantis]

Racist! And just because the only small size PC races are vaguely British-flavored.

Small races get pigeonholed into certain builds/classes because Int is the least important stat and because no great weapons eliminates whole classes from consideration.

Or, what everyone else has said.

[Mjolnirbear]

I am playing a bard/dex paladin halfling. I roll a one anywhere from two to ten times a game and Lucky is AMAZING.

...did I mention my DM likes crit-fail fumble rules? FREEDOM!

Gnomes? Even if the int bonus is useless you still get to dump it with no problems in lore. But advantage on mental saves? Goodbye charm, hold person, feeblemind, hypnotic pattern, minor illusion, dominate person, commend, fear, suggestion... It's amazingly powerful.

[coredump]

Small races get pigeonholed into certain builds/classes because Int is the least important stat and because no great weapons eliminates whole classes from consideration.
.
There is no class that requires the use of a Heavy weapon. The game is full of battlemasters, paladins, barbarians, etc that are using sword and shield, or even two weapons.

I am *glad* shorties can't use heavy weapons. I am glad drow have sunlight sensitivity. This is a role playing game based on a medieval fantasy setting. There should be differences between the races.

[Theodoxus]

The hilarious thing about short races and heavy weapons is, if you re-created the weapons table from 3.5 and gave a halfling a halfling sized greatsword, it'd be a two-hander that does 1d10. Well, look at that, a longsword is versatile and does 1d10 used two handed. Huh, and it's not heavy, so no penalty.

Honestly, the only thing that bugs me regarding small races and weapons is I can't play my halfling barbarian/rogue with a greatsword longsword and sneak attack with it. It was an iconic character that I need to rework into using a rapier - so bleh.


For the survey, I mentioned that my table added the Ritual tag to just about every utility spell in the book. There are so many great spells that should have been rituals right out the gate, I am constantly shocked when looking up a spell to see it's not a ritual.

It does incentivize wizards and tomelocks, but no one was playing them anyway. Now, there's usually someone willing to grab wizard, lock or at least the ritual caster feat to help bring some badly needed utility magics.

[Naanomi]

The hilarious thing about short races and heavy weapons is, if you re-created the weapons table from 3.5 and gave a halfling a halfling sized greatsword, it'd be a two-hander that does 1d10. Well, look at that, a longsword is versatile and does 1d10 used two handed. Huh, and it's not heavy, so no penalty.
Damage Die isn't what bothers folks, it's the lack of GWM feat power without a heavy weapon

[Easy_Lee]

The hilarious thing about short races and heavy weapons is, if you re-created the weapons table from 3.5 and gave a halfling a halfling sized greatsword, it'd be a two-hander that does 1d10. Well, look at that, a longsword is versatile and does 1d10 used two handed. Huh, and it's not heavy, so no penalty.

While one certainly can say that the halfling equivalent of a greatsword is a longsword, I am not convinced that one should.

Back in 3.5e, the small races had certain size advantages, offset by their disadvantages (in theory anyway. In practice, the small race penalties only affected melee characters). In 5e, there is no clear benefit to being small; if one exists, it will be determined by the DM. So I don't think that small races should suffer limited weapon choice when they have no benefit to offset that limitation. The survey results seem to agree with that assessment.

[Gnomes2169]

Anyone else bring up simulacrum and contagion? As they were asking about spells that currently seemed to be causing problems, I decided I might as well try and get a straight response on those.

[ChubbyRain]

Anyone else bring up simulacrum and contagion? As they were asking about spells that currently seemed to be causing problems, I decided I might as well try and get a straight response on those.

As stupid as this sounds, simulacrum does exactly what the players and devs want and fits right into the game as is. The only change I would make is outtingnit under a DM list of spells that aren't OK to take without permission.

[Gnomes2169]

As stupid as this sounds, simulacrum does exactly what the players and devs want and fits right into the game as is. The only change I would make is outtingnit under a DM list of spells that aren't OK to take without permission.

The problem is that there are about 50 different ideas on what it does and why... Hence the questioning. And the multiple threads over it. And the multiple thread derailings.

Hence me posing the question of if simulacrum "chaining" was meant to be a thing in the survey. Because where is a better place besides getting a letter from WOTC directly? They also seem to be listening to the surveys, so if enough people bring it up then we can probably be pretty sure we'll get the "intended*" use out of them someday soon. And then the internet can stop arguing about it... I hope. >_>

*Also known as, "Guys, we wrote it like this. How are you getting a different reading?" Response... But filtered through several layers of PR.

[Theodoxus]

Damage Die isn't what bothers folks, it's the lack of GWM feat power without a heavy weapon

Small races aren't exempt from heavy weapons, and gaining advantage to offset the disadvantage is pretty easy - either through class abilities (reckless attack) or optional flanking rules or just slamming someone to the ground (on top of less easy methods).

If you're really set on playing a GWM Greatsword wielding halfling, you've probably researched the issues and gotten with your party to find ways to mitigate it.

[SharkForce]

The problem is that there are about 50 different ideas on what it does and why... Hence the questioning. And the multiple threads over it. And the multiple thread derailings.

Hence me posing the question of if simulacrum "chaining" was meant to be a thing in the survey. Because where is a better place besides getting a letter from WOTC directly? They also seem to be listening to the surveys, so if enough people bring it up then we can probably be pretty sure we'll get the "intended*" use out of them someday soon. And then the internet can stop arguing about it... I hope. >_>

*Also known as, "Guys, we wrote it like this. How are you getting a different reading?" Response... But filtered through several layers of PR.

simulacrum chaining is an example of something that looks like a problem but mostly is only a problem on paper. it's like pun-pun; you think anyone is actually going to get away with playing pun-pun in a real game? I very much doubt it, personally. now, the basic elements that went into pun-pun (the ability to grab supernatural abilities in general, for example) are a problem because they typically won't make your DM immediately deny them. they weren't overtly broken. things that are really obviously broken are also things that the DM is almost definitely going to just say no to.

a better example of a problem with simulacrum is using a simulacrum to make a wish on your behalf, with the penalty falling on the simulacrum (which you then replace, and repeat the process with a new simulacrum for only the cost of a simulacrum spell each time). that could use a clarification. not because it isn't overtly broken, but rather because it isn't immediately obvious how to rule it. (but denying simulacrums the ability to cast level 9 spells would go a fair distance towards solving both problems... perhaps if the simulacrum simply didn't gain the highest level of spells the thing they're copying can cast).

[Person_Man]

simulacrum chaining is an example of something that looks like a problem but mostly is only a problem on paper. it's like pun-pun;

I would quibble (slightly) with this.

Pun-pun required several supplements. Simulacrum is core.

Pun-pun requires a high degree of creativity and DM blessing to use. The RAW version of Simulacrum, without any Wish or other shenanigans, radically increases your power level.

So I would argue that such open ended "high magic" shouldn't exist in the game (Animate Dead, Polymorph, Wish, etc) unless the non-casters had the option of gaining similar open ended mythical abilities at similar class levels (which would be my preference). Doing so creates different Tiers of characters, which make it a lot more difficult for those characters to co-exist within the same party.

Having said that, I agree with you central point, that most theoretical RAW abuses never actually occur in games because DMs exist.

[SharkForce]

the RAW version of simulacrum without shenanigans is a level 8 spell with an expensive material component and a long casting time. it *should* greatly increase your power, as should all high level abilities. if not all do, that is a problem with the abilities that aren't impressive, not with the abilities that are impressive.

[Person_Man]

the RAW version of simulacrum without shenanigans is a level 8 spell with an expensive material component and a long casting time. it *should* greatly increase your power, as should all high level abilities. if not all do, that is a problem with the abilities that aren't impressive, not with the abilities that are impressive.

I agree with this statement. What I'm saying is that if the Wizard gets Simulacrum, the Fighter should get something equally cool/mythic at a similar level, and not just more low level abilities.

[silveralen]

the RAW version of simulacrum without shenanigans is a level 8 spell with an expensive material component and a long casting time. it *should* greatly increase your power, as should all high level abilities. if not all do, that is a problem with the abilities that aren't impressive, not with the abilities that are impressive.

Agreed, the problem with simulacrum comes almost entirely from wish. It offers a potential way to cast wish without the downsides. Wish also negates the two actual balancing factors of simaculum by a high degree. (time and rare expensive components).

The two spells mesh in a very disruptive way, either alone isn't that absurd or disruptive, even wish is fairly tame this time, but together they get a bit crazy.

Simulacrum has some issues as spells don't recharge yet other abilities apparently do, while healing outside of a lab isn't directly addressed and thus is a bit confusing. Your simulacrum making a simulacrum is another potential issue but I'm of the opinion that is fixable by RAI alone, a copy of a copy is still just a copy of the orginal, and you can only have one simulacrum at a time, so it'd just be a waste.

It could use erratta and clarifications, but on it's own the spell isn't that bad.

[SharkForce]

except that by wishing for a simulacrum, you're giving up other wishes, and other uses of your level 9 spell slot. and you can do some pretty danged awesome stuff with a level 9 spell slot.

(also, there can be a theoretically unlimited number of simulacrum copies of someone, so long as each is made by a different person. there is no RAI limitation on copies of copies. we can presume that the design intent was not to allow the creation of an infinite chain of simulacrums, each with their own simulacrum of the original person, but it has nothing to do with copying copies of someone)

[Easy_Lee]

except that by wishing for a simulacrum, you're giving up other wishes, and other uses of your level 9 spell slot. and you can do some pretty danged awesome stuff with a level 9 spell slot.

That's the real issue, isn't it? Level 9 spells come in varying degrees of busted, but they are all exceptionally powerful, ranging from "target with <100 HP dies" to "whatever the DM will let me get away with."

Certain classic spells cannot truly be balanced. Most spells have a clear use, such as putting targets to sleep or creating Web. We can say that the spell heat metal, while powerful, has a clear effect which could be valued. But Wish? Its value will vary wildly with use, likely tending towards the Above Average side of things. That makes it impossible to value, and thus impossible to balance.

Most of those spells are in the 6-9th level range. It could be the case that games which never get into those levels are more balanced for it.

[Theodoxus]

So I would argue that such open ended "high magic" shouldn't exist in the game (Animate Dead, Polymorph, Wish, etc) unless the non-casters had the option of gaining similar open ended mythical abilities at similar class levels (which would be my preference).

Things like Keeps and Armies are what I think are missing from 5th that helped non-casters become equivalent to casters. Animate Dead (with it's cap, even for a Necromancer) would be the equivalent to an army; basically a lot of fodder to fire arrows or take arrows. A Xth level Fighter should gain a following; folks yearning to learn from their master - or willing to trade a years service under him for a plot of land or protection, or whatever.

Polymorph is a bit harder to justify, though I suppose having a dragon hatchery or griffin aerie etc would be similar.

Wish... well, anything Wish can do can be accomplished with a lot of time and money... though it's far too open ended to really anticipate specific needs. But by 17th level, a Fighter should be capable (if not desirous) of being King or Emperor... with the power and pomp that the station affords.

Sadly, nothing is codified for these, or other extremely powerful spells, to be copied in a mundane fashion, so it'll end up being DM fiat and player desire.

Still, with a bit of work, it's certainly doable.

[ChubbyRain]

I agree with this statement. What I'm saying is that if the Wizard gets Simulacrum, the Fighter should get something equally cool/mythic at a similar level, and not just more low level abilities.

Put this on a Nerf baseball bat and beat people with it.

[Easy_Lee]

Things like Keeps and Armies are what I think are missing from 5th that helped non-casters become equivalent to casters. Animate Dead (with it's cap, even for a Necromancer) would be the equivalent to an army; basically a lot of fodder to fire arrows or take arrows. A Xth level Fighter should gain a following; folks yearning to learn from their master - or willing to trade a years service under him for a plot of land or protection, or whatever.

Polymorph is a bit harder to justify, though I suppose having a dragon hatchery or griffin aerie etc would be similar.

Wish... well, anything Wish can do can be accomplished with a lot of time and money... though it's far too open ended to really anticipate specific needs. But by 17th level, a Fighter should be capable (if not desirous) of being King or Emperor... with the power and pomp that the station affords.

Sadly, nothing is codified for these, or other extremely powerful spells, to be copied in a mundane fashion, so it'll end up being DM fiat and player desire.

Still, with a bit of work, it's certainly doable.

Wizards can have keeps too, though. Perhaps it's just my personal preference showing through, but I would very much prefer that all classes got equally powerful (or specialized) features. The idea of building oneself rather than relying on a large army appeals more to me in a fantasy setting.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Just piping up to say "agreed". I don't see why fighters or mundanes in particular are obviously meant to be rulers, while mages aren't. Doesn't make much sense that one's choice of fighting style would have any bearing on leadership. A 20th level ability should typically be measured against another 20th level ability. Gate, Wish, etc. are a little bit more versatile, powerful, flashy, and fun than having a 4th attack when you already have 3.

But these disagreements pop up frequently, and I rarely see either side budge at all.

[Steampunkette]

People tend to respect physical power and fear this which they don't understand. Martial characters should be rulers more often than arcane...

But Divine characters should be even more commonly in charge!

[Magic Myrmidon]

I can see the logic there. If divine characters had that sort of thing, though, it'd make things even less evenly powered. :p

Besides, I have a magocracy in my setting in which (nearly) everyone has magic, and those who don't are shunned. In this setting, the mages are certainly the rulers, because they're more familiar.

[MeeposFire]

People tend to respect physical power and fear this which they don't understand. Martial characters should be rulers more often than arcane...

But Divine characters should be even more commonly in charge!

IN old school D&D clerics also received a place to rule and essentially an army to fight for them. Theirs were also free to nearly free whereas a fighter tended to have to pay (depending on edition). The fighter did have the advantage of more powerful followers though.

[Steampunkette]

I recall. My point was that the rulership dodge doesn't work for 5e because it applies to Clerics and their Miracles.

[ChubbyRain]

Hell, what's good is that army if a single action, meteor swarm, can remove it from play?

Or at least enough of it so that the rest of it will not want to mess with the wizard/sorcerer.

[Hawkstar]

Small races aren't exempt from heavy weapons.
Actually, they are. The very definition of "Heavy Weapon" is "Small Races Cannot Use These"

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, they are. The very definition of "Heavy Weapon" is "Small Races Cannot Use These"

This edition it's just disadvantage, which effectively means the same thing.

[Person_Man]

Things like Keeps and Armies are what I think are missing from 5th that helped non-casters become equivalent to casters.

I mostly concur.

People seem to forget that a very, very big part of 1E/2E was having followers/henchmen/hirelings, particularly at high levels. Its what made Charisma a useful ability score (since it limited the henchmen you could have and effected their loyalty), and was one of the big reasons to play a Fighter (since he got a free keep/followers).

So if caster can build an army, then you are absolutely correct, other non-casters should have a method to build an army (outside of roleplaying, which is equally available to everyone).

Having said that, I personally disliked the "army management" aspect of 1E/2E (which is better handled by games like Warhammer that are geared specifically towards it), as did most other players, which is why they mostly removed it from 3.0. (Though not entirely, since Leadership, pets, Animate Dead, and other army making spells survived).

So I would prefer to just nerf Animate Dead so that you can't create an army with it, and then create a DM controlled workaround for people who really want it (perhaps a Legendary magic item that uncaps the number of undead controlled).



Put this on a Nerf baseball bat and beat people with it.

Wait, are you saying that you agree with me, or that you disagree with me, or that you just want to see me beat people with a padded baseball bat? I'm unclear.

[ChubbyRain]

I mostly concur.

People seem to forget that a very, very big part of 1E/2E was having followers/henchmen/hirelings, particularly at high levels. Its what made Charisma a useful ability score (since it limited the henchmen you could have and effected their loyalty), and was one of the big reasons to play a Fighter (since he got a free keep/followers).

So if caster can build an army, then you are absolutely correct, other non-casters should have a method to build an army (outside of roleplaying, which is equally available to everyone).

Having said that, I personally disliked the "army management" aspect of 1E/2E (which is better handled by games like Warhammer that are geared specifically towards it), as did most other players, which is why they mostly removed it from 3.0. (Though not entirely, since Leadership, pets, Animate Dead, and other army making spells survived).

So I would prefer to just nerf Animate Dead so that you can't create an army with it, and then create a DM controlled workaround for people who really want it (perhaps a Legendary magic item that uncaps the number of undead controlled).




Wait, are you saying that you agree with me, or that you disagree with me, or that you just want to see me beat people with a padded baseball bat? I'm unclear.

I agree and I want to see you duel wield Nerf baseball bats. Perhaps that will knock some sense into people.

But no, not literally, I was using the imagery of playfully knocking sense into someone since this is a game and not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Although a player stole my spell cards last night, bragged about it today to a mutual acquaintance, I wouldn't suggest a Nerf bat for that guy.

[Easy_Lee]

you just want to see me beat people with a padded baseball bat?

I think we'd all like to see that.

[ChubbyRain]

I think we'd all like to see that.

Personally I think Person Man should wait for a packers game so that we can blame the violence on football and not on D&D.

[Gnomes2169]

Personally I think Person Man should wait for a packers game so that we can blame the violence on football and not on D&D.

I support this and demand that someone with a camera be present.

[LordVonDerp]

People tend to respect physical power and fear this which they don't understand.
Martial characters should be rulers more often than arcane...


They tend to respect money far more than either.

[Easy_Lee]

They tend to respect money far more than either.

Depends on how immediate the threat of violence is.

[Madfellow]

People tend to respect physical power and fear this which they don't understand. Martial characters should be rulers more often than arcane...

But Divine characters should be even more commonly in charge!


They tend to respect money far more than either.

Because it's [somewhat] relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pxSRa5KRKc

[ChubbyRain]

Depends on how immediate the threat of violence is.

Yup.

Hmm screw with the fighter and get stabbed/beat up/tortured by mortals or get sent to the plane of ultimate torture?

Or maybe turned into a sheep? Depending on what you try and where you are that might be worse than you think.

Perhaps a painful and horrible death via contagion?

Sent to a plane of exstance that is a secret and keeps you alive reliving the last 24 hours on that plane of existance but you have no one to interact with so you slowly go insane... Then the mage grabs you out of there and heals you... You think someone else you know is the one that rescued you, but when you think you have freedom the mage goes *gotcha* and throws you back into the ground hog day plane of existence. But before that happens the mage shows you the simulacrum that has taken over your life and betrayed everyone you love...

And even if that isn't possible with the current rules, non-castet commoners don't know that.

[Steampunkette]

Because it's [somewhat] relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pxSRa5KRKc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMR-yPA4lsY

[LordVonDerp]

Depends on how immediate the threat of violence is.

True enough, though not particularly relevant to the topic of how one raises an army.