Dex/Con Barbarian with Str as dumpstat?

[lv99wizard]

Looking through 5e, it occurs to me that increasing STR is by far the easiest and most reliable stat to augment. There are more items and potions to increase STR than any other stat by a long way. With that in mind, would it not make sense to pump Dex/Con on a Barbarian for the AC+HP and then search for STR items? Potions of giant strength at the least should be ubiquitously available in games. Any downsides I'm overlooking?

[kaoskonfety]

Relying on magic items to augment your strength is a chat for you and the DM. How ubiquitous any magic is lies in their hands. If for instance they do random treasure generation and THEN build an adventure that makes the horde make sense (I sometime do this when stumped) you may get piles, or none ever. If they place a roughly balance non-random set of loot that 'makes sense' it will seriously depend on the adventure.

They are under no obligation to fill in a deliberate gap you left on your character, and the rest of the party might have something to say on the matter as well as you may not be the only PC to gain serious benefit from such loot (several builds leave you with a lower strength from need for several stats, blade warlocks and some paladin builds I've seen come quickly to mind.

Even if you go this route I'd recommend keeping the Strength "ok", - 13 ish - rather than dumping it (small bonuses add up with your rage advantage and you may have limited potions and such) and get some light mutli-classing under your belt (dex fighter, rogue etc.) as the barbarian capstone is alot less potent if you actively do not care about half of it.

In theory its an ok plan, but it could back fire hilariously with a few bad rolls on a treasure table.

[Dimolyth]

Looking through 5e, it occurs to me that increasing STR is by far the easiest and most reliable stat to augment. There are more items and potions to increase STR than any other stat by a long way. With that in mind, would it not make sense to pump Dex/Con on a Barbarian for the AC+HP and then search for STR items? Potions of giant strength at the least should be ubiquitously available in games. Any downsides I'm overlooking?

Depends on DM. All offensive abilities of Barbarian are keyed by Strengh using. Though, while you are out of your potions you are medicore tank (only by positioning), or medicore archer. Sure you can use reckless attack + rage - but then you are just another warrior on the board, beacause there is no "extra damage" and "extra survivability"...
The core "thing" of martials - they are better when they have no resources, then spellcasters. If your core attack is worse than a cantrip - you probably don`t use game mechanics as it was concerned.
Nevetheless, it is really cool idea for small races, wood elves, and maybe even for high elves with that new greenflame cantrip.

[Doof]

Gauntlet of Ogre Strength fixes your Str to 19 unless it's already higher.

[JellyPooga]

The only downside is surviving lower levels without getting bored. Up until you find a Strength-boosting item, you're not going to be getting any use out of your primary class features; Rage and Reckless Attack do nothing until you're attack with Str. You won't even be able to make up for not getting Rage damage with a bigger weapon because you'll be forced to use a 1d8 Rapier at best.

The other issue is character concept; you're clearly playing the metagame on this one, but coming up with a legitimate character should be a concern. I suggest a Halfling or Gnome to explain the Str:8.

Also; beware Anti-magic Fields.

[lv99wizard]

All fair points but wouldn't potions, at least, be very easily available in pretty much any campaign? I mean, it would be a particularly niche set up to have no potions, let alone magic items(belts, ogre gauntlets etc).

Could a caster create a strength giving magic item? Provided the DM agrees to use the variant magic creation rules, would making ogre gauntlets, for example, require any particular spells?

Also, would anti-magic fields nullify imbibed (strength) potions? That's something I've always wondered but haven't seen any rules regarding it.

Thanks for the feedback m8s

[DireSickFish]

You can pull off the Dex/Con barbarian. Raging isn't "seless" you just don't get the extra damage. The damage resistance you do get, and with high dex/con you will have some of the best AC in the party. Especially if you are using your ASI to bump them both to 20 ASAP. Stout hafling is the go-to race for this as it provides a bump to both dex and con.

If you put to 15's into dex/con you'll have a 16 AC at lvl1 and 17 at lvl 4, or 18/19 with shield(which you should use as your whole thing is impressive defense. Go bear or wolf totem as they'll both be useful regardless of strength.

Hill Dwarf would also make a good race. you'd have 1 less AC at lvl1 but make up for it at lvl4 by splitting your ASI to get a 16dex 18Con. The extra hp/lvl will make you even better at the thing you are already doing (tanking).

Air Genasi has a dex and con bonus as well. Plus you don't need to breath and can levitate 1/long rest.

So you have some good options for this build. Grab a rapier to dish out good damage. Might as well pick up a crossbow or longbow as you'll have the dex to be a good ranged threat.

With high dex and there level 7 feature where they get advantage on initiative checks you will almost always be going first in a combat. Which lets you charge in so the enemy focus fires and you can rage and tank all day.

Don't plan on having the str boosting item. Just think of it as a fortunate circumstance if it comes along, as you will be perfectly useful in combat without it.

[kaoskonfety]

All fair points but wouldn't potions, at least, be very easily available in pretty much any campaign? I mean, it would be a particularly niche set up to have no potions, let alone magic items(belts, ogre gauntlets etc).

Could a caster create a strength giving magic item? Provided the DM agrees to use the variant magic creation rules, would making ogre gauntlets, for example, require any particular spells?

Also, would anti-magic fields nullify imbibed (strength) potions? That's something I've always wondered but haven't seen any rules regarding it.

Thanks for the feedback m8s

The issue isn't "no potions". It's "none or very few of a very specific potion I "need" ".

If the DM allows the items creation the issue vanishes so long as you have a friendly potion brewer (PC or NPC) and spend a good slice of your disposable income on it. Doubly so if the Gauntlets/belt/whatever else can be made for you.

I've handed out I think 2 potions of strength over 20 years of play/DM'ing, both were random rolls I saw no reason to veto. This include setting where I was handing out magical loot like candy at Halloween, its kinda a very niche item. The Gauntlets I've seen 2 times? the belts once, I want to say.

I've crafted zero as a player and would have pointed out to anyone asking one of my crafting characters that I had better uses of my time (I'd have cut you a discount as a party member, but you'd have been paying for my opportunity cost to make something actually cool).

Statistically you would never see this item you want in one of my games randomly, you would need to seek them out. You'd have found them in some settings, never had a chance in others and could set up a bulk contract delivered to your home in one.

If you want to *expect* to run into this item, ask the DM. For serious.

[Demonic Spoon]

All fair points but wouldn't potions, at least, be very easily available in pretty much any campaign? I mean, it would be a particularly niche set up to have no potions, let alone magic items(belts, ogre gauntlets etc).

Could a caster create a strength giving magic item? Provided the DM agrees to use the variant magic creation rules, would making ogre gauntlets, for example, require any particular spells?

Also, would anti-magic fields nullify imbibed (strength) potions? That's something I've always wondered but haven't seen any rules regarding it.

Thanks for the feedback m8s


Maybe, maybe not. Depends on DM. Also, there are many types of magic items - even if the DM isn't restrictive with them, there's still a very real possibility of never getting the potions/belt of giant strength you need.

Also, as a DM, I would see dumping strength with the expectation of getting a strength-based magic item extremely metagamey and go out of my way not to make such things available.

[Malifice]

I go this route myself. While I font dump strength on a strength built never raise Strength - on Paladins and Bladelocks its charisma and feats. On barbarians is con and feats.

Aim for the gauntlets as soon as you can. Then hold out for a belt of giant strength.

The gauntlets usually show up at 5th with the belts coming online from 12th (in my experience).

[Person_Man]

You could also just talk to your DM about giving all PCs higher Ability Scores. Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, and most spellcasters that wants to rely on weapon attacks (as opposed to Cantrips or Shillelagh) are MAD, and will therefore do better in games with high Ability Scores and worse in games with mediocre or low ability scores. It's an unfortunate byproduct of the tradition/simulationist based nature of the rules. The Barbarian in particular has very limited options (hit stuff, Shove, Grapple, and being hard to kill), so there's nothing inherently wrong or broken with it being highly effective at those options.

[Finieous]

So you have some good options for this build. Grab a rapier to dish out good damage.


How's that work? At level 8, when you've capped your Dex, you're dealing 1d8+5/1d8+5 and that's as good as it ever gets. That's horrible. You might not feel completely inadequate until level 11+, but you're already behind pretty much everyone. Barbarian might make sense as a dip for a rogue or Dex fighter to get the resistance a couple times a day, but that's because Dex fighters and rogues have ways to improve their damage.

If I'm missing something, please clue me in!

[smcmike]

How's that work? At level 8, when you've capped your Dex, you're dealing 1d8+5/1d8+5 and that's as good as it ever gets. That's horrible. You might not feel completely inadequate until level 11+, but you're already behind pretty much everyone. Barbarian might make sense as a dip for a rogue or Dex fighter to get the resistance a couple times a day, but that's because Dex fighters and rogues have ways to improve their damage.

If I'm missing something, please clue me in!

Yeah, I read a guide on Dex based barbs the other day, and the entire time I was thinking "where's the beef (damage)." Yes, maxing dex and con will make you extremely hard to kill... But that's about it.

And if I were a DM and a player built a character based solely on the chance of getting a particular item at some point in he campaign, I'd ask him to build something else. The only way that seems like a reasonable strategy is if every PC gets to pick one item to build from.

Has anyone tried that? Might be fun starting a campaign at level 1 where everyone gets one strong item of their choice, though building encounters might be very tough.

[DireSickFish]

How's that work? At level 8, when you've capped your Dex, you're dealing 1d8+5/1d8+5 and that's as good as it ever gets. That's horrible. You might not feel completely inadequate until level 11+, but you're already behind pretty much everyone. Barbarian might make sense as a dip for a rogue or Dex fighter to get the resistance a couple times a day, but that's because Dex fighters and rogues have ways to improve their damage.

If I'm missing something, please clue me in!

Yes they will be doing 1d8+5/1d8+5. Which is fine until 11 and they get a bunch of other cool tools. The thing is the barbarian never really gets that big oomph to damage that a lot of other classes get at 11.

His next tier ability helps him do what he's meant to, survive and take big hits. It's the con save to keep fighting even from a hit that would kill you. Making them the most survivable and tanky class in the game.

Even a Vanilla Str/dex/con barb is never really dealing insane amounts of damage. The rage bonus to damage isn't huge and they don't pick up a damage boosting ability at 11. Plus if you -do- see 11 as the drop off point (which I don't) then you still have most of your adventuring career in a standard game already counted for. As much as we like to plan for 20 levels it is common (as WoTC polls have shown) to end around 12 or 13, if not earlier.

What you are doing with this build is focusing on the strengths of a Barbarian by being the absolute best tank you can be. As one of the most MAD classes there are already tradeoffs for having a high strength.

The point you are missing is that you don't need to do better damage or as good of damage as other classes because that is not the focus of the build. Weather that is something that appeals to you and your play-style or not is a whole other matter. Intentionally doing less damage is a turn off for many.

[Finieous]

Yes they will be doing 1d8+5/1d8+5. Which is fine until 11 and they get a bunch of other cool tools. The thing is the barbarian never really gets that big oomph to damage that a lot of other classes get at 11.


He takes GWM and/or PM, which offer nice synergy with reckless attack and the rage damage bonus. The Dex guy does 1d8+5/1d8+5 forever. Combat isn't all about damage, but it's at least partly about damage. I agree that your guy will be very hard to kill, because nothing will bother to attack him in the second half of the campaign. He's a tank armed with a rubber-band slingshot. ;)

[Daishain]

Little bit of a sidenote, but going by RAW, potions (and scrolls for that matter) are a foolish choice to craft or use. The crafter who makes two potions or the person who buys them each expended exactly the same resources it would have taken to craft or buy a permanent magic item with the exact same effect. So unless you're talking about an effect that you will only ever need once in the entire campaign, and even then only for a short period...

[kaoskonfety]

Little bit of a sidenote, but going by RAW, potions (and scrolls for that matter) are a foolish choice to craft or use. The crafter who makes two potions or the person who buys them each expended exactly the same resources it would have taken to craft or buy a permanent magic item with the exact same effect. So unless you're talking about an effect that you will only ever need once in the entire campaign, and even then only for a short period...

I suppose the excuse would be you have the "formula" for the potions but not for the gauntlets because the DM is handing out potion recipes but not permanent items? I know I'd be far more prone to allow very expensive expendables to be commonly made than their permanent equivalents?

And the "raw" prices are, at best, VERY broad guidelines that kinda fall short as soon as you try making a magic item economy/market.

[MaxWilson]

He takes GWM and/or PM, which offer nice synergy with reckless attack and the rage damage bonus. The Dex guy does 1d8+5/1d8+5 forever. Combat isn't all about damage, but it's at least partly about damage. I agree that your guy will be very hard to kill, because nothing will bother to attack him in the second half of the campaign. He's a tank armed with a rubber-band slingshot. ;)

An interesting approach could be to multiclass Barbarian/Rogue. Evasion + Danger sense is an interesting synergy, and Uncanny Dodge stacks with Rage. Sneak attack provides some extra damage which the Barbarian wouldn't otherwise get, and Cunning Action lets you use your bonus action. Interestingly, Rage + Athletics Expertise can make you excel at grappling even if your Strength is fairly puny (Str 12?).

Name him the Black Panther of Maharashtra, or Tarzan. :)

The main downside I see to this build is that you may find yourself relying mostly on ranged weaponry at some point, at which point it occurs to you that you're not getting very much out of your Barbarian levels since nobody ever hits you anyway, and then you wonder why you're not an Archery-specialized Fighter or pure Rogue instead. So Tarzan needs to go out of his way to mix it up in melee.

Kreegah! Tarzan Bundolo!

[VoxRationis]

Not optimal, really, but one of my favorite characters ever was a low-Strength barbarian. That was back in 3.5, however, when bonus skill points for Int were a thing.*



*No one ever expects the barbarian to be the one with the Forgery skill...

[djreynolds]

With a shield you can be very tanky indeed. But don't totally dump strength, a 13 is just 1-for-1. You're still getting advantage to strength checks so +1 or with 14+2 you can still benefit from a reasonable strength and soak up hits.

Barbarian is perhaps the one class you should not multiclass, just my opinion. Just don't totally dump strength though.

[Kryx]

Barbarians don't have a huge boost at 11 because their whole kit scales. They do plenty of damage. Dex would be less by a fair amount.

Agreed with Person_Man on higher stats - it really only benefits MAD classes and with 15 max before racials it shouldn't be too big of an issue to offer a higher level - maybe 32 or 35?

[Coyote81]

I had an interesting thought for your Barbarian. Since your planning on going Dex/Con, why not get your Int to 13 and multiclass into runemaster. It's very fitting for a Barbarian Shaman, gives you a bunch of magical action you can take even while raging since there are not true spells. I specifically was thing of benefiting from the weapon complex properties. (As far as I can tell from reading rune magic, you can have multiple runes inscribed to a weapon at the same time. So you could have a quarterstaff with both the flaming and Earthen upgrades giving you rerolls to your flaming damage and automatically knocking people prone with max damage rolls. It also gives you some unique abilities (especially if you take some of the scouting abilities like the L6 eagle aspect and combine it with the air rune attack that can attack anything you can see without a range limit. 1 Mile knockback attacks.) These are just some ideas to make a unique Dex/Con barbarian.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is (one reason) why the "set ability score at X" items were abandoned in the first place 15 years ago. You wouldn't have this issue if the Belt of Giant's Strength just added 2 to strength. And it's not like those types of items don't exist; for instance, there's the Belt of Growing a Snazzy Dwarven Beard (and other side benefits, including +2 CON).

To be honest, there shouldn't be much of a reason to do this with point buy, even if you knew you were getting that item via a highly amenable DM. A Vuman planning on nabbing that item later could start out with 14/16/16/8/10/8, in which case dumping STR is just going to flesh out your mentals. And if I were to do this, instead of pumping DEX/CON with ASIs, I'd be getting a bunch of tasty feats.

[Yorrin]

All fair points but wouldn't potions, at least, be very easily available in pretty much any campaign? I mean, it would be a particularly niche set up to have no potions, let alone magic items(belts, ogre gauntlets etc).

It's not niche at all. I give my players one or two magic items at based on level at character creations, but other than that I only have magic items in my campign when the plot dictates it, other than healing potions. Loot just isn't a big part of my DMing style. You should definitely consult your DM before making loot a part of your character concept.

[Person_Man]

It's not niche at all. I give my players one or two magic items at based on level at character creations, but other than that I only have magic items in my campign when the plot dictates it, other than healing potions. Loot just isn't a big part of my DMing style. You should definitely consult your DM before making loot a part of your character concept.

+1 to this.

Roleplaying and plots that can change according to the players' actions is what makes games with humans different than video games. Video games are better as tactical combat simulators, treasure generators, hidden map exploration, etc. It made sense for D&D to be a rogue-like dungeon exploration back in the 1970's when personal computers barely existed. But 4E taught us that it isn't particularly good at mimicking that kind of modern video game experience.

[Joe the Rat]

Dexbarian is a tricky thing. You're a heavy defense character, and your Rage acts as a damage sponge rather than an attack booster. You're melee support rather than a striker (hence wolf v bear totem). The ultimate challenge is making your opponent stick to you, rather than going for a softer, easier to hit target that is doing far more damage than you are.

[PoeticDwarf]

Looking through 5e, it occurs to me that increasing STR is by far the easiest and most reliable stat to augment. There are more items and potions to increase STR than any other stat by a long way. With that in mind, would it not make sense to pump Dex/Con on a Barbarian for the AC+HP and then search for STR items? Potions of giant strength at the least should be ubiquitously available in games. Any downsides I'm overlooking?

Maybe just go for rapier fight, you dont have extra rage damage but you have higher AC and better skills. You don't need strength as barbarian.

[Coidzor]

Maybe just go for rapier fight, you dont have extra rage damage but you have higher AC and better skills. You don't need strength as barbarian.

Depends on the skills. A Dexbarian has to dip Rogue for Expertise to have a decent Athletics, for example, and if they want to use Stealth in combat beyond an opening ambush they have to take 2 levels of Rogue for Cunning Action in order to hide with any reliability.

[JellyPooga]

Barbarian is perhaps the one class you should not multiclass, just my opinion.

For me, that award goes to the Monk. Monks lose too much by multiclassing, compared to what they might gain.

Barbarian is a solid multiclass option for a lot of others:

- Rogue is obvious; Reckless Attack + Sneak Attack, Rage Resistance + Uncanny Dodge, Uncanny Action + increased Speed. Danger Sense + Evasion. Athletics Expertise + Rage Advantage on Str checks. Lots of synergy here.

- Fighter/Paladin/Ranger all enjoy the bonus Rage damage on top of their Fighting Style (especially Dueling FS) and slight HP bump, not to mention a little extra tankiness.

- Any spellcaster looking to go melee likes the significant extra HP and the additional durability from Rage; Druid/Barbarian is arguably one of the best tanks in the game (with Paladin/Barbarian being a close contender, due to better Saves and AC).

[Shaofoo]

- Any spellcaster looking to go melee likes the significant extra HP and the additional durability from Rage; Druid/Barbarian is arguably one of the best tanks in the game (with Paladin/Barbarian being a close contender, due to better Saves and AC).

Rage prevents spellcasting and concentrating on spells. I don't think a spellcasting class would want to deal with that limitation.

Also a Druid would also never want to multiclass into Barbarian, I don't think that what a Barbarian gives a Druid would like in contrast with what he losses.

Paladin is slightly better since you could ignore spells and focus on smites and you can use Frenzy to up that burst damage.

[JellyPooga]

Rage prevents spellcasting and concentrating on spells. I don't think a spellcasting class would want to deal with that limitation.

In most cases, I agree. Certain melee spellcasters won't care though.


Also a Druid would also never want to multiclass into Barbarian, I don't think that what a Barbarian gives a Druid would like in contrast with what he losses.

One level "dip" in Barbarian at 1st level makes a Druids free HP from Wild Shape go much further and improves AC by about 2 for most combat forms (which considering the appalling AC of most beasts is a great boon). You also get the preferable Str/Con Save proficiency to Wis/Int and the tasty 12hp for 1st level. You delay your Druid abilities a little, but if you're primarily tanking, that one-level dip is invaluable.

[Ardantis]

I had an interesting thought for your Barbarian. Since your planning on going Dex/Con, why not get your Int to 13 and multiclass into runemaster. It's very fitting for a Barbarian Shaman, gives you a bunch of magical action you can take even while raging since there are not true spells. I specifically was thing of benefiting from the weapon complex properties. (As far as I can tell from reading rune magic, you can have multiple runes inscribed to a weapon at the same time. So you could have a quarterstaff with both the flaming and Earthen upgrades giving you rerolls to your flaming damage and automatically knocking people prone with max damage rolls. It also gives you some unique abilities (especially if you take some of the scouting abilities like the L6 eagle aspect and combine it with the air rune attack that can attack anything you can see without a range limit. 1 Mile knockback attacks.) These are just some ideas to make a unique Dex/Con barbarian.

I agree with this point. Thematically, Barbarian and Rune Master make for a convincing Shaman. Mechanically, since all the spellcasting ability comes from Runes (which are not spells as limited by Rage), the class abilities mesh well and are a very cool combo.

Additionally, the character isn't gimped by dumping Strength- the multiclass makes the defensive bonuses from rage mesh with non-physical damage from a non-spell source.

[Shaofoo]

In most cases, I agree. Certain melee spellcasters won't care though.

The only one that I won't see caring is paladins, every single other spell caster either would like to cast spells or require a buff of some kind.




One level "dip" in Barbarian at 1st level makes a Druids free HP from Wild Shape go much further and improves AC by about 2 for most combat forms (which considering the appalling AC of most beasts is a great boon). You also get the preferable Str/Con Save proficiency to Wis/Int and the tasty 12hp for 1st level. You delay your Druid abilities a little, but if you're primarily tanking, that one-level dip is invaluable.

Personally full Druid is invaluable since you can have unlimited wild shapes which lets you constantly refresh your form's HP.

Also personally I find it to be big cheese and unwanted any build that requires their first level be in a class that isn't their main focus. If I want to play a druid my first level will always be in druid, I don't care if it is "better" that I choose a level in barbarian first and then go full druid.

It is more of a personal problem but I will never go 1/19 or 2/18. The first level in the class is always the class that I want to focus on.

[Coidzor]

If you're actually going to 20, then, yes, you probably want to be full Barb or full Druid.

If you're in the majority of games that won't make it to 20, then it might be worthwhile to multiclass.

[JellyPooga]

Personally full Druid is invaluable since you can have unlimited wild shapes which lets you constantly refresh your form's HP.

I'll echo Coidzor on this one; a rare few games ever go to 20. I prefer to look at short term goals than long-term benefits.


Also personally I find it to be big cheese and unwanted any build that requires their first level be in a class that isn't their main focus. If I want to play a druid my first level will always be in druid, I don't care if it is "better" that I choose a level in barbarian first and then go full druid.

It is more of a personal problem but I will never go 1/19 or 2/18. The first level in the class is always the class that I want to focus on.

I don't build a class, I build a character. Why should my beserker shapeshifter character be good at Wisdom and Intelligence Saves and have proficiency in Herbalism Kits? Give me a Barbarian Path that gives me Wild Shape and I'll go Barbarian all the way; until then, I'll take Barbarian at 1st because it represents the core of my characters background and I'll go Druid from there until at least 9th because that fleshes out the shapeshifter part of the character I want. After that, I might carry on Druid, to emphasise the mystical side or go back to Barbarian for the beserker side, or I might turn to Rogue or Fighter or Warlock or any other class, depending on how I think my character has developed and where I see it going.

[Shaofoo]

I'll echo Coidzor on this one; a rare few games ever go to 20. I prefer to look at short term goals than long-term benefits.

All class considerations are taken to 20 in this forum, don't blame me because everyone wants to do that. I still think that losing out on spellcasting for a limited time is still not that good but if you want to do it then go ahead, I don't feel like arguing since I already said my piece. You do what you want I could care less what you do or what happens to you, I ain't gonna be a coach in your games.


I don't build a class, I build a character. Why should my beserker shapeshifter character be good at Wisdom and Intelligence Saves and have proficiency in Herbalism Kits? Give me a Barbarian Path that gives me Wild Shape and I'll go Barbarian all the way; until then, I'll take Barbarian at 1st because it represents the core of my characters background and I'll go Druid from there until at least 9th because that fleshes out the shapeshifter part of the character I want. After that, I might carry on Druid, to emphasise the mystical side or go back to Barbarian for the beserker side, or I might turn to Rogue or Fighter or Warlock or any other class, depending on how I think my character has developed and where I see it going.

If the main point is shapeshifting over rage then you should've gone 1st level Druid, you talk mostly about wild shape and Druids get you that first off. If you prefer the rage aspects and weapons then you go 1st level Barbarian. Why would you want to delay getting

I still stand that the 1st level is the culmination of years if not a lifetime of training and culture ingrained in the person. To just ignore that and go on another class full tilt seems to me that you are ignoring the character for the sake of mechanical benefits.

The only way I could ever see such an imbalance of levels is if something drastic happens and the player accepts it (The barbarian has had direct contact with Pelor and wishes to revere him, so now he is a Barbarian/Cleric). You can make up a reason if you want but I think that a player manufactured reason is very hollow.

When you create a character you should already know what you want to be in the end. I can only see events actually happening in the game world for the character to change. If you are undecided on what you will choose then I find the character to be unfinished. At the very least you should have a plan on what your next level is, keeping that open is just cheating for the sake of cherry picking what is best.

But that is my opinion, obviously you don't feel the same way that I do.

[VoxRationis]

All class considerations are taken to 20 in this forum, don't blame me because everyone wants to do that.

I don't want to do that. The "build for Level 20" standard is perhaps the single most ridiculous conceit of this forum, on account of its being, regardless of playstyle differences (optimized versus unoptimized, core-only v. everything-included, respect-the-spirit v. RAWONLY!, kick-in-the-door v. intrigue, "classic" characters v. [noun][noun]-types), unlikely to actually come up in play. Most games don't go to 20, and even those that do aren't at 20 for most of the game. Furthermore, the effectiveness of a level 20 build says nothing about its effectiveness through the majority of the game that was spent getting to 20. A build optimized for 20 might leave you weakened for much of your career, if you were counting on a particular feature, kicking in at 20, to make the build work.

[JellyPooga]

don't blame me because everyone wants to do that.

No blame is being apportioned. We're talking about preferences on how to build a character. One opinion is as good as another.


If the main point is shapeshifting over rage then you should've gone 1st level Druid, you talk mostly about wild shape and Druids get you that first off. If you prefer the rage aspects and weapons then you go 1st level Barbarian. Why would you want to delay getting

I still stand that the 1st level is the culmination of years if not a lifetime of training and culture ingrained in the person. To just ignore that and go on another class full tilt seems to me that you are ignoring the character for the sake of mechanical benefits.

The main point is a melee-focused character; more tank than spellcaster, possibly from a tribal or clannish background, probably young and headstrong and likely as willing to wade in to combat in human form as he is in wild shape. That Druid levels give him more of what I want out of the character (i.e. versatility of animal forms) is besides the point. His youth and adult life to date is mostly physical training, not mental. Starting as Druid just isn't appropriate. That, as an adventuring PC, he decides to develop his mystical side more than his physical side has little to do with his background.


When you create a character you should already know what you want to be in the end.

Yeah, I agree, you should have an idea of where you want the character to go, but that doesn't mean you have to stick to it religiously. If events transpire in-game, that make going a different direction better, either from a roleplaying or mechanical standpoint, then change you plan. Perhaps you find a magical artefact and decide to focus on its use more, perhaps a party member dies and you decide to try and fill the gap he left, perhaps you "find religion" or an arcane grimoire and devote time to prayer or study, perhaps you get cursed and are left unable to perform in the role you once did as well...the list goes on. I wouldn't want to limit my options on the grounds that I've got some "killer build" planned.

If you prefer single-classed builds, that's fine. If you think that refluffing or roleplaying certain aspects without mechanical benefit is preferable to building a character whichever way best suits the set of abilities you want from him, that's also fine. What I disagree with is the notion that the Class you take most of must or should be the one you take at 1st level. For me, that doesn't make the character I necessarily want; I'll cherry pick the abilities I need to make the character I want to play. Does that make me a "cheesy" gamer? Opinions vary, but I'd say not. I don't do it to optimise or powergame, I do it to be happy with the character I'm playing, both mechanically and from a roleplaying perspective.

As for this particular build, I probably wouldn't play it unless the game started at, or the character wasn't introduced until 3rd level; the concept is a beserker shapeshifter; I can't get that until at least level 3, whether I take Barbarian first or Druid. A characters backstory runs right up to the point where the character is introduced to the game, not necessarily only to level 1.

[Shaofoo]

No blame is being apportioned. We're talking about preferences on how to build a character. One opinion is as good as another.

I was talking about build planning in this forum, 20 levels is what people talk about and what I have seen constantly. Rarely do people say that higher levels aren't a consideration when planning. But then again I usually find that most theory builds fail to be fun in practice because you must wait till the higher levels to get your concept ready.




The main point is a melee-focused character; more tank than spellcaster, possibly from a tribal or clannish background, probably young and headstrong and likely as willing to wade in to combat in human form as he is in wild shape. That Druid levels give him more of what I want out of the character (i.e. versatility of animal forms) is besides the point. His youth and adult life to date is mostly physical training, not mental. Starting as Druid just isn't appropriate. That, as an adventuring PC, he decides to develop his mystical side more than his physical side has little to do with his background.

Considering that you just admitted before that gaining a level in Barbarian gave you benefits that a level 1 Druid doesn't give you kinda corrupts your story.

Personally my biggest beef with your story is where did he get his Druid training from? I find it a bit hard to swallow that come level two his lifetime of strength training and physical over mental would give him the aptitude to concentrate on the life of the forests and the trees. I personally don't tend to keep all classes into consideration when I level up. I don't care if Warlock 2 dip would go best with my Bard I would never pick it up unless my character has a reason to make a pact himself or if there even is a pact to be made, the patrons aren't gonna just give their power to the first jokel that asks for it, not even to a PC, especially if he can discern that he is only doing it for a one off and never again.

But my previous question is rhetorical, I have no interest in hearing your justification because you can very easily craft a world around your supposed character. It is a moot point when you are both player and DM, you don't need to consider the world when the world is malleable and immaterial. For the purposes of this discussion the world can be whatever and as soon as the topic dies the world you crafted dies along with it without any fanfare or tear shed. You just need the world to exist to support your character, not a world where you want to tell a story or develop. Of course you will then say that this is totally a world where you would truly develop if you could make a game and I can't prove you wrong but I don't believe it because it is so easy to make stuff up that it'd be nearly second nature to come up with stuff on command.


Yeah, I agree, you should have an idea of where you want the character to go, but that doesn't mean you have to stick to it religiously. If events transpire in-game, that make going a different direction better, either from a roleplaying or mechanical standpoint, then change you plan. Perhaps you find a magical artefact and decide to focus on its use more, perhaps a party member dies and you decide to try and fill the gap he left, perhaps you "find religion" or an arcane grimoire and devote time to prayer or study, perhaps you get cursed and are left unable to perform in the role you once did as well...the list goes on. I wouldn't want to limit my options on the grounds that I've got some "killer build" planned.

The key word to this entire argument is IF.

If none of those things happen then you should have a plan where to go next without a macguffin giving you an out into another class. The DM might never give you a chance and if your character depended on DM fiat to be able to plausibly change class then I consider it a poorly thought out character.

Also maybe you are willing to change your class on the drop of a hat but I am much more resilient.

I could find artifacts, books of power, "religion" and whatever and simply ignore them and go along my merry way. If your character is looking for any excuse to become something else I do question again why are you playing a class that you do not want other than mechanical benefits?

And if I am forced to be another class because I am cursed then I will wad up my character sheet and leave the table. If the DM pulls me aside and gives me a compelling reason to be cursed into another class then I would accept it but that will have to be because I want to, not because the DM waved a magic wand and suddenly I am another class. I do not accept character hijackings so easily, especially when they are brute force. Maybe you don't care because every class is open to you at all times but I tend to stick to one path most of the time.


If you prefer single-classed builds, that's fine. If you think that refluffing or roleplaying certain aspects without mechanical benefit is preferable to building a character whichever way best suits the set of abilities you want from him, that's also fine. What I disagree with is the notion that the Class you take most of must or should be the one you take at 1st level. For me, that doesn't make the character I necessarily want; I'll cherry pick the abilities I need to make the character I want to play. Does that make me a "cheesy" gamer? Opinions vary, but I'd say not. I don't do it to optimise or powergame, I do it to be happy with the character I'm playing, both mechanically and from a roleplaying perspective.

I prefer refluffing and roleplaying rather than rebuilding because I tend to find that refluffing gives me much more control and options than hoping some magical combination that might not come online till further down the line be best.

Your example I would prefer full Druid, I still have decent HP and can use Shillelagh for my human melee capabilities, that fulfills your concept just as well. I don't need a Barbarian's added bonuses to make the concept except for some added fluff about back story that wasn't even considered until the last minute.

I believe your system mastery is much higher than mine but I tend to be happy not being the best. I understand that wanting a lot of things makes me not so good at them all, I tend to limit myself to a couple of concepts. So in reality I would never play a person that would love to shapeshift back and forth.


As for this particular build, I probably wouldn't play it unless the game started at, or the character wasn't introduced until 3rd level; the concept is a beserker shapeshifter; I can't get that until at least level 3, whether I take Barbarian first or Druid. A characters backstory runs right up to the point where the character is introduced to the game, not necessarily only to level 1.

That is a huge strike to me, if a build requires you to start later in the game I consider it to be a bad build personally, all builds should be fun to play at all times. If I wanted to play your character (I know I said I never would but this is just in this scenario) but the DM says that he will start at level 1 then what? Do I just shelve the idea for another time? I mean if that is the character that you wanted.

[bid]

Furthermore, the effectiveness of a level 20 build says nothing about its effectiveness through the majority of the game that was spent getting to 20. A build optimized for 20 might leave you weakened for much of your career, if you were counting on a particular feature, kicking in at 20, to make the build work.
+1

I think mentioning the loss of a cap feature is more wishful thinking against the contrieved level 20 limit. If there were levels 21+, you could have your cake now and eat it later.:smallwink:

[Coidzor]

All class considerations are taken to 20 in this forum, don't blame me because everyone wants to do that. I still think that losing out on spellcasting for a limited time is still not that good but if you want to do it then go ahead, I don't feel like arguing since I already said my piece.

Well, someone's acting defensive for no apparent reason. :smallconfused:


You do what you want I could care less what you do or what happens to you, I ain't gonna be a coach in your games.

Then why reply?

[Shaofoo]

Well, someone's acting defensive for no apparent reason. :smallconfused:


Mind explaining yourself further, please?



Then why reply?

The topic isn't "Convince JellyPooga why his way of playing is a mistake and he should stop".

I don't care how he plays, I don't lose sleep whether one guy's play style doesn't mesh well with my own. He isn't in my table so there isn't a problem.

Is there a problem with me replying? What provoked you to have a problem with my comments when they weren't directed towards you?

[JellyPooga]

Stuff

All valid points and I applaud your dedication to concept. Personally, I like to have the mechanical representation there, but I'm also willing to refluff, a lot if need be, if the GM prefers not to use optional rules or wants to otherwise keep things simple.


That is a huge strike to me, if a build requires you to start later in the game I consider it to be a bad build personally, all builds should be fun to play at all times. If I wanted to play your character (I know I said I never would but this is just in this scenario) but the DM says that he will start at level 1 then what? Do I just shelve the idea for another time? I mean if that is the character that you wanted.

Character is where you find it and there are many "tiers" of play. Not every character is fun to play at every tier of play and shouldn't be. It's one of the features of a level-based system. Yes, it can be fun to play from level 1 to 20, but it's also fun to play starting at a higher level, where the PC's are already established heroes or have access to particular abilities.

Quite how they got to that level is part of their backstory and writing those backstories can be fun in itself, even if, mechanically, they'd struggle to get to that tier of play in an actual game...it doesn't matter that they might not survive those earlier levels because the fact is that, in this game, they did.

In answer to the question of the DM wanting to start at level 1 and that not fitting my concept; yes, I shelve the concept for another day and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nigh infinite characters to play in D&D; some of them suited to low level play, others to higher tiers, others still that fit across the board. A character might also be fun in one game and not in another, or with one group and not a different one. Restricting yourself to a certain type of character, one way or the other, is missing out on the possibilities available to you.

Having said that, if a particular style seems to suit you and you have fun with it, who am I to say otherwise? Myself, I like Rogues, always have and it's a rare occurrence that one of my characters is not at least a bit roguish, if not actually possessing Rogue levels. Go figure.

[Coidzor]

Mind explaining yourself further, please?

Your tone took a turn for the defensive and belligerent. Case in point, these last few posts of yours. There's really no explaining it further than that, since you acted like my simple observation and Jellypooga agreeing with it were personal attacks on you.


Is there a problem with me replying? What provoked you to have a problem with my comments when they weren't directed towards you?

Well, going by your demonstrated attitude, I'd recommend you refresh your memory of the forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).