What's your 100% non-optional character

[TheUser]

Imagine you are tasked with creating a character that would be accepted by all DM's with no variant or optional rules allowed:

-No variant humans

-No multiclassing

-No Feats!

-No UA or SCAG or even EE (EDIT: Obviously no Volo's you ***** :P)

You are tasked with playing that same PC from 1-20
I'm huge fan of Draconic Sorcerers already and playing from 1-20 as one would be a blast despite the lackluster capstone. Monks are another super well rounded class and with how MAD they are, not having feats doesn't seem like a huge problem.

I suppose this my way of asking which monoclass provides the most complete experience for you.

[Lombra]

Mountain Dwarf bladelock. Getting medium armor from the race is pretty cool, and I really like the Idea of a mad dwarf guided by something he discovered beneath a mountain.

[Puh Laden]

Human or high elf wizard. If gnomes are allowed, I might pick a rock gnome. Basically, I could play as a wizard over and over again, and the wizard concepts I like have more to do with the subclass than the race-class combo. Well, except for the dwarf and hobgoblin abjurers. :smalltongue:

[Tsubodai]

Divination Wizard - My very first character and one of the most fun. The feeling when the DM says "Ok, the dragon critical hits you" and you say "Nope, it doesn't" is just awesome.
The versatility of wizards in general is great fun as well, because you can play in so many different ways with the same character.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I'm currently playing a Mountain Dwarf Abjurer and having a pretty good time of it. My build does include some SCAG material (Green-Flame Blade) and a feat (War Caster) but I'd still be glad to play the character without them in the OP's hypothetical.

If I had to play someone else, I've been wanting to try out a half-elf archer Battle Master. I'd mostly go with support/leader-style maneuvers (let's say Commander's Strike, Rally and Trip Attack) to jive well with whoever's on front-line duty and would put a decent score in charisma, both to get millage out of Rally and to play a reasonably party face with a background (noble, maybe) that gives persuasion in addition to intimidation from Fighter.

[rudy]

Oath of Ancients Paladin, probably. Lack of feats is not a big deal for them, and the paladin saves and aura in this case goes a long way to correcting for the GM's refusal to allow the "absorb elements" spell, or the "Resilient" feat. :)

[Hypersmith]

Well, fighter is totally gone because no feats

so how about a good old Assassin rogue? Always hits the spot for me.

[rudy]

so how about a good old Assassin rogue? Always hits the spot for me.
That wouldn't be bad, but Rogues also suffer for lack of feats. Not as badly as fighters, admittedly.

[Mjolnirbear]

A DM so limited would not suit my playstyle. I wouldn't be playing.

[Toofey]

That brings a ton to the thread.

I'd probably go Monk or Wizard, the no Feats thing goes well with the monk's thirst for more stats, and Wizards are wizards, if you have magic and you're good with it you don't need much else. Probably transmute as the philosopher stone would be a lot more useful under those restrictions. probably human on both to maximize the stat bump and because in a game that restricted it'll probably make sense thematically, and stand out as people go for racial abilities.

[KorvinStarmast]

No feats? No Vhuman?

Tempest Cleric (Human)

Oath of Ancients Half Elf Paladin.

Bear Totem Barbarian, 1/2 orc or Human

Half Elf Warlock, Archfey, probably pact of the chain but maybe pact of the tome

Tempest Cleric, Mountain Dwarf

Wood Elf Monk

[druid91]

Halfling beast master ranger. Flying around on a pteranadon shooting people full of arrows.

[Cybren]

Divination Wizard - My very first character and one of the most fun. The feeling when the DM says "Ok, the dragon critical hits you" and you say "Nope, it doesn't" is just awesome.
The versatility of wizards in general is great fun as well, because you can play in so many different ways with the same character.

Weird, seeing as you have to use portent before the target rolls

[Biggstick]

Divination Wizard - My very first character and one of the most fun. The feeling when the DM says "Ok, the dragon critical hits you" and you say "Nope, it doesn't" is just awesome.
The versatility of wizards in general is great fun as well, because you can play in so many different ways with the same character.


Weird, seeing as you have to use portent before the target rolls

I was going to say the same exact thing Cybren. Portent has to be used before the roll is made by the DM.

To answer OP's question, Hill Dwarf or Elf Cleric. All the archetypes work great, but I'd play my Cleric in this type of game as one that doesn't go anywhere near the front line and expect to maintain concentration. Without Warcaster or Resilient Con, a Cleric's concentration checks are going to suck. Another reason I'd bring Cleric to the table is they are capable of solving most problems a DM presents you with, which if you're running with a DM with these kind of Player limits, will probably be many.

If not a Cleric, then an Arcane Trickster with a race that can see in the dark. Doesn't matter if they have a Dexterity bonus, as I'm spending all my ASI's maxing out Dexterity and then either putting them into Constitution or Wisdom.

[Naanomi]

No feats is tough, but a few characters I've played could be stripped of feats and still work...
-Hill Dwarf Barbarian; maximum HP drunkenness!
-Debuff-focused Wild Sorcerer
-Lightfoot Halfling 'trickster' fey/chainlock
-legion-of-minions necromancer

As mentioned by someone else above, I would absolutely never play a fighter without feats. Even if I played a race completely ill suited for fighter-ing; I would run out of meaningful things to spend ASI on

[Hypersmith]

That wouldn't be bad, but Rogues also suffer for lack of feats. Not as badly as fighters, admittedly.

hm, that's true. Maybe Moon Druid then. Can't go wrong there.

[Spiritchaser]

Wood elf moon druid... Because druid...

And just to be irritating...

I would note that you didn't specifically forbid volo's, at least not as of this writing... and while I'm sure this violates the spirit of what you intend:

Yuan Ti ancients Paladin. Already have the backstory written

No sorcerer MC for counterspell? Fine.

[Matrix_Walker]

I think I'd have to go Tempest or War Cleric... full casting and heavy armor are hard to pass up with no feats to distract you...

[coolAlias]

Divination Wizard - My very first character and one of the most fun. The feeling when the DM says "Ok, the dragon critical hits you" and you say "Nope, it doesn't" is just awesome.
The versatility of wizards in general is great fun as well, because you can play in so many different ways with the same character.


Weird, seeing as you have to use portent before the target rolls


I was going to say the same exact thing Cybren. Portent has to be used before the roll is made by the DM.
Same here - seems a lot of people think it works like the Lucky feat, but it most certainly doesn't.

100% non-optional character, I might go Paladin. Smites are still amazing for on-demand nova damage, bonus to saves, etc. Definitely would NOT go Fighter.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

If I had to play someone else, I've been wanting to try out a half-elf archer Battle Master. I'd mostly go with support/leader-style maneuvers (let's say Commander's Strike, Rally and Trip Attack) to jive well with whoever's on front-line duty and would put a decent score in charisma, both to get millage out of Rally and to play a reasonably party face with a background (noble, maybe) that gives persuasion in addition to intimidation from Fighter.

Well, fighter is totally gone because no feats
Hmm. Fair point. Given that, I'd probably shift over toward a Paladin. Let's say protection fighting style (for a bit of that leader/support vibe I wanted with the Battle Master) sword-and-board going for Oath of Devotion and keeping the half-elf race and the party face tendencies.

[Lombra]

I don't see why fighters don't get some love, they have loads of ASIs.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I don't see why fighters don't get some love, they have loads of ASIs.Yeah, but there's a diminishing return that's not very appealing. Once you've maxed strength or dex (whatever you're attacking with) having more HP or better saves is nice, but it's not exactly exciting when the rest of the party is getting new options and abilities from their class features.

[mephnick]

I don't see why fighters don't get some love, they have loads of ASIs.

Most fighter build rely on some kind of feat, although I'd maybe take the opportunity to make a true switch hitter with max Dex Str.

[Lombra]

Yeah, but there's a diminishing return that's not very appealing. Once you've maxed strength or dex (whatever you're attacking with) having more HP or better saves is nice, but it's not exactly exciting when the rest of the party is getting new options and abilities from their class features.

Well I do like big numbers on the character sheet so maybe that's why it appeals to me, but you get to max your attack and con stats earlier than the barbarian and you still can improve mental skills like the ever useful wisdom, or expand on the character concept more. I dunno maybe I like too much stat numbers.

[TheUser]

I don't see why fighters don't get some love, they have loads of ASIs.

I feel like Dex EK would be great without feats; Archery fighting style overcomes cover. Max Dex Int and Con with your extra ASI's. Eldritch Strike with high save DC's is great!

[Cybren]

I feel like Dex EK would be great without feats; Archery fighting style overcomes cover. Max Dex Int and Con with your extra ASI's. Eldritch Strike with high save DC's is great!

Champions can leverage more of their Remarkable Athlete with 20's in all their physical stats, too.

[coolAlias]

Well I do like big numbers on the character sheet so maybe that's why it appeals to me, but you get to max your attack and con stats earlier than the barbarian and you still can improve mental skills like the ever useful wisdom, or expand on the character concept more. I dunno maybe I like too much stat numbers.
An extra +1 to whatever is nice, but going from +4 -> +5 is not as big of a boost as +3 -> +4, and pretty insignificant compared to what a feat would get you especially when you are down to boosting a secondary or tertiary stat.

Compare that to most/all other classes that get to max their main stat and probably their secondary stat as well, yet still get lots of really awesome goodies (e.g. smiting, spellcasting, etc.) - the Fighter is designed with feats in mind, even though they decided to make that rule optional.

[Desteplo]

Gnome wizard, illusionist or conjuration
First last and middle character
(With some variant multiclassing imbetween)

[Citan]

Imagine you are tasked with creating a character that would be accepted by all DM's with no variant or optional rules allowed:

-No variant humans

-No multiclassing

-No Feats!

-No UA or SCAG or even EE

You are tasked with playing that same PC from 1-20
I'm huge fan of Draconic Sorcerers already and playing from 1-20 as one would be a blast despite the lackluster capstone. Monks are another super well rounded class and with how MAD they are, not having feats doesn't seem like a huge problem.

I suppose this my way of asking which monoclass provides the most complete experience for you.
1. Ancients Paladin because it's a great all-around character, and I like this kind of "roles".
2. Bladesinger Wizard, because it provides a very nice mix of abilities and require some smartness to not die stupidly (although the lack of Mobile would indeed hurt).
3. Arcane Trickster, because there are many great things to do with illusion spells and invisible hand. :)
4. Wild Magic Sorcerer, to be the OP debuffer that debunked that deadly encounter with a carefully placed Bend Luck Heightened spell or that Careful Stinking Cloud and the like. ;)

[Coranhann]

I love fighters myself, so I guess a Eldritch Knight is the one fighter archetype that can benefit from having only ASI and no feat. Boost STR (or DEX), CON and INT (and possibly WIS, just in case).

But, as it was said, Mountain Dwarf Abjurer is also very efficient to me.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Well I do like big numbers on the character sheet so maybe that's why it appeals to me, but you get to max your attack and con stats earlier than the barbarian and you still can improve mental skills like the ever useful wisdom, or expand on the character concept more. I dunno maybe I like too much stat numbers.Like I said, the stats are nice, but they're not really exciting. When you hit level 14 and the Druid can cast Alter Self at will, the Rogue gets blindsense and the Sorcerer grows wings, it's a little bit of a let down to just get +1 on wisdom saves and perception.

[Naanomi]

2. Bladesinger Wizard, because it provides a very nice mix of abilities and require some smartness to not die stupidly (although the lack of Mobile would indeed hurt).
SCAG not available according to the OP...

[Maxilian]

Halfling beast master ranger. Flying around on a pteranadon shooting people full of arrows.

I may also go with something like this, though the lack of the Mounted Combatant feat will pain this build a little.

I would most likely go Wizard (Divination or Necromancy)

Note: The lack of feat make me sad cause i would have gone with Fighter otherwise

[Theodoxus]

My current Curse of Strahd character: Standard Array, Half-Elf OoA Paladin 7/Archfey Warlock 13.
All ASIs spent on boosting Charisma then Strength. Starting 16(15+1)/12/14(13+1)/8/10/16(14+2)
Paladin 1/Warlock 1/Paladin 2/Warlock 2/Paladin 7/Warlock 13
Character level 6: +2 Chr, CL 11: +2 Chr, CL 15: +2 Str, CL 19: +2 Str

Decent, if slightly under-Con'd, swtich hitter - start with EB, close with S&B (Quarterstaff for effect) until a magic item is found...

[Naanomi]

Multiclassing is against the rules though... given the original context of the thread I wouldn't expect access to a pterodactyl either

[GlenSmash!]

Half-Orc Bear Totem Barbarian. Since feats like GWM and PM are out I'd make him a grappler, just Max Strength, and put Remaining ASI into Wis, since I can't get resilient wisdom.

Or if I've got the guts...

Non-variant Human Champion max Strength and Dex, switch hit between using Greatsword and Longbow. If I have ASIs after maxing Str, Dex, and Con, I'd pump Wis.

[Maxilian]

Multiclassing is against the rules though... given the original context of the thread I wouldn't expect access to a pterodactyl either

Well the Pterodactyl thing is based on the PHB version of it, so i guess it would work (though not like your pet will last much without Mounted Combatant or unless the DM tries not to destroy your mount :P )

Note: Then... i guess i will stay as a Wizard (they don't suffer from the lack of any of those things, and i'm a Wizard why would i need to MC :P)

[Naanomi]

Well the Pterodactyl thing is based on the PHB version of it
What I meant was that I wouldn't expect a GM who refuses access to any variant rule or resource outside the PHB to give me access in game to a pterodactyl just because I asked nicely

[Aldarin]

I'm a big fan of the Eldritch Knight. I'd go high elf, pick up Find Steed ASAP. Probably go ranged or rapier/shield.

[Nifft]

Monk (shadow or open hand).

Bard (either).

Druid (either).

Wizard (any).

Sorcerer (dragon only).

Barbarian (totem mostly).

Paladin (any).

[Arkhios]

A really hairy Stout Halfling Barbarian (Full Bear Totem for s*its and giggles), Greatclub or javelin & shield (because of reasons)

Human Paladin (Ancients), Sword & Board.

Mountain Dwarf Wizard (Abjurer or Transmuter), warhammer gish.

Human Ranger (Beast Master), TWF.

[Oramac]

Protector Aasimar Vengeance Paladin. I love paladins, I love Aasimar, and I love the Punisher vibe of the Vengeance Oath.

That said,


Divination Wizard - My very first character and one of the most fun. The feeling when the DM says "Ok, the dragon critical hits you" and you say "Nope, it doesn't" is just awesome.
The versatility of wizards in general is great fun as well, because you can play in so many different ways with the same character.

I would strongly consider a Halfling Divination Wizard for the above quoted reasons.

[GlenSmash!]

Protector Aasimar Vengeance Paladin. I love paladins, I love Aasimar, and I love the Punisher vibe of the Vengeance Oath.

That said,



I would strongly consider a Halfling Divination Wizard for the above quoted reasons.

Aasimar doesn't fit the OP's parameters. They aren't in the PHB.

[Sariel Vailo]

I guess it is either elewen high elf eldirtch knight 18 wizard 2. Darkelf vengence paladin.tiefling wild mage.
If no scag or ua. These are my choices.

[Aett_Thorn]

Gnomish Barbarian. With all of the ASI, I don't really need to worry much about stats, plus I get either proficiency or advantage against pretty much every save.

[Aett_Thorn]

I guess it is either elewen high elf eldirtch knight 18 wizard 2. Darkelf vengence paladin.tiefling wild mage.
If no scag or ua. These are my choices.

No multi-classing, either, since that's an optional feature.

[EvilAnagram]

Tiefling Wild Mage Sorcerer.

By the time I would be giving up an ASI for feats, the campaign is about to end anyways.

[Oramac]

Aasimar doesn't fit the OP's parameters. They aren't in the PHB.

Damn. Missed that. Black Dragonborn then, and damn their lack of Darkvision.

[Pex]

Imagine you are tasked with creating a character that would be accepted by all DM's with no variant or optional rules allowed:

-No variant humans

-No multiclassing

-No Feats!

-No UA or SCAG or even EE

You are tasked with playing that same PC from 1-20
I'm huge fan of Draconic Sorcerers already and playing from 1-20 as one would be a blast despite the lackluster capstone. Monks are another super well rounded class and with how MAD they are, not having feats doesn't seem like a huge problem.

I suppose this my way of asking which monoclass provides the most complete experience for you.

No character.

It is a DM's prerogative as to what he'll accept for a game, but it's my prerogative not to play it. A DM who tells me no to everything is a DM who's too controlling. I want to play the character I want to play not what the DM wants me to play. (Obligatory: Yes, yes, I don't get to play a pirate ninja assassin when the campaign is about the Holy Order of Goody-Two-Shoes.) Limited restrictions are fine. If tieflings don't exist in the world then no tieflings for PCs. It's not about any particular one thing that's not allowed. When it's a pattern of many things being not allowed that's when it's going too far.

[Spiritchaser]

Aasimar doesn't fit the OP's parameters. They aren't in the PHB.

The suggestion is valid per the OP. While I'm sure this violates the spirit of that post, I would argue that as written, that post specifically forbids SCAG, EE and UA. It does not forbid Volo's.

Nor does the OP, as currently written actually state "PHB only"

Now, I'm sure this was an oversight, but as of now, the Aasimar stands.

He can stand next to my Yuan Ti ancients pally. If he's within 10 feet he can have my resist magic aura.

I am not going to argue that by original rules, our +cha to saves should stack... Because there are limits.

[Oramac]

He can stand next to my Yuan Ti ancients pally. If he's within 10 feet he can have my resist magic aura.

I am not going to argue that by original rules, our +cha to saves should stack... Because there are limits.

I'll happily stand next to you, so long as you don't give me a good reason not to.

And per dev tweets, Aura of Protection technically does stack. :D

[Tsubodai]

Weird, seeing as you have to use portent before the target rolls

Sorry guys, I am AFB at the time of writing. That was just a random example of how fun Portent is.

[Contrast]

Same here - seems a lot of people think it works like the Lucky feat, but it most certainly doesn't.

I imagine because most DMs aren't in the habit of okaying it with their divination wizard before they roll every dice so the player is often gonna have to jump in afterwards. Up to the DM if they're going to be OK with that of course.


The suggestion is valid per the OP. While I'm sure this violates the spirit of that post, I would argue that as written, that post specifically forbids SCAG, EE and UA. It does not forbid Volo's.

Pretty sure this is the exact sort of behaviour a DM who would introduce such restrictions would have no truck with :smallwink:

I'd probably go with some sort of lore bard. Barbarian is tempting as wolf will help boost other martials who may be suffering from feats vanishing :smallbiggrin:

[coolAlias]

I imagine because most DMs aren't in the habit of okaying it with their divination wizard before they roll every dice so the player is often gonna have to jump in afterwards. Up to the DM if they're going to be OK with that of course.
When I DM, I don't okay every roll, but I do let the players know what is going on before I roll and the Diviner just has to be ready to jump in.

DM: The dragon lunges towards you <reaches for d20>
Diviner: Wait! I saw the outcome of this and it's a terrible flop - dragon rolls a 2 on its first attack!
DM: Sure enough, the dragon misses with its bite attack...

Usually the Diviner is ready to go before I even start describing things, like "If the dragon attacks me, I use my Portent roll of 2 on its first attack," or "I'm casting Suggestion on the prince and I've foreseen that it will work, he rolls a 5 on his saving throw."

I might be convinced on occasion to allow a retroactive Portent, but certainly not to negate a critical hit as that seems too much like the player wouldn't have done it if it was a normal hit. Also, that's what makes the Lucky feat so damn good.

[Maxilian]

I'm a big fan of the Eldritch Knight. I'd go high elf, pick up Find Steed ASAP. Probably go ranged or rapier/shield.

How are you picking Find Steed? (That's only on the Paladin spell book)

[lunaticfringe]

Lightfoot GOO Tomelock

Hill Dwarf Land Druid

Half Elf Open Hand Monk

Half Orc Wolf Barb

[mgshamster]

I don't think my character options would change. I'd be fine with anything from a full caster to a champ.

Heck, I already have PCs who don't pick up feats even in a feat game. No difference.

[8wGremlin]

Mountain Dwarf Acolyte Lore bard, pick up eldritch blast, and conjure animals or find steed.
Take brewers tools, make beer, wrestle and get free healing when you're injured from the local clergy.

[Dudewithknives]

In a game with no feats Warlock is much better. It really helps when every archer or person with a 2 hander is not running around with PAM, GWM, or Sharpshooter making people who do not have those look piddly on damage.

Half Elf Lore Bard cherry picker.

Monks use most of their ASL on stats anyway.

Cleric and druid are not usually very feat dependant and are fine 1 to 20 classes.

[Spiritchaser]

And per dev tweets, Aura of Protection technically does stack. :D

I had thought there was recent material to the contrary... Even if not, i doubt I'd ever do a campaign like this, though a one shot would be fun

4 Paladins in a shield wall with +lots to all saves.

[Sariel Vailo]

20 wizard than

[ZorroGames]

Well, I would have thought my Mt. Dwf. Monk (open hand) would have died by now but just made fourth level so I will go with that.

[Hrugner]

For the DM who likes to say no? Lightfoot halfling archfey chainlock with a focus on illusions. That should give me the most flexible play available given the restrictions.

A halfling open hand monk would win, but playing a monk without mobility doesn't sound fun to me.

[Finieous]

High Elf Arcane Trickster with an owl is going to rule DPR (ranged and/or melee) and have lots of exploration and social utility.

Otherwise, can't go wrong with wizard.

[ApplePen]

Half orc war cleric. Front line yourself, get heavy armour and sweet bonus action abilities out the gate. By the time you start lagging behind a fighter you have amazing spells.

[CantigThimble]

Literally any cleric. Clerics are just good, and multiclassing is too costly for them to bother with anyway so this hardly hurts them. Only thing they'd be sad about is not getting warcaster or resilient: con so they wouldn't be able to go full spirit guardians meat grinder but could still use it well.

[Arkhios]

No character.

It is a DM's prerogative as to what he'll accept for a game, but it's my prerogative not to play it. A DM who tells me no to everything is a DM who's too controlling. I want to play the character I want to play not what the DM wants me to play. (Obligatory: Yes, yes, I don't get to play a pirate ninja assassin when the campaign is about the Holy Order of Goody-Two-Shoes.) Limited restrictions are fine. If tieflings don't exist in the world then no tieflings for PCs. It's not about any particular one thing that's not allowed. When it's a pattern of many things being not allowed that's when it's going too far.

Well, I wouldn't say it's that much of a "controlling" DM, if he/she wants to keep the game as simple as possible. Imho, it's rather pity if you absolutely can't/won't step out of your comfort zone and play a game like that. There's still 12 classes and 9 races to choose from, so if that's not enough sources for inspiration, then yes, it might not be the game for you. But really, it's a shame.

I hope this isn't considered as flaming, because it isn't my intention.

[miburo]

Urrgh no feats--I view Con and Wis saves as pretty critical for almost every character, and no warcaster can be painful for sword-and-board clerics and EK fighters.

Couple of possible options:

Any Half-Elf Paladin -- Good DPR, burst potential, spells, and Cha to saving throws makes the loss of Resilient less painful. Probably Oath of Ancients for Magic Resistance which helps the party a lot.

Human Great Weapon EK - Use your prodigious ASIs for Str, Int, and Con. Maybe Wis for your save as well. You deal good damage up front, excellent defenses with Shield (no Absorb Elements kinda sucks), Fire Bolt or similar cantrip for ranged attacks and at later levels you even have some AoE. Not bad for a Fighter-type character.

Elf/Eladrin Wizards - Wizards are powerful, as always. Without Resilient: Con save, I would look at Abjurer (for the HP shield) and possibly Transmuter (to get Con saves!).

Half-Elf Draconic (Fire) Sorcerer - Spell choice is limited, but you get con saves and some fun abilities. Not having Elemental Adept kinda sucks so have some backup non-fire spells.

[Drackolus]

I'd (begrudgingly) do either half elf ancients paladin or lore bard, or a hill dwarf life cleric. May do a high elf wizard, anything but evoker is cool to me. Lightfoot halfling thief rogue is a fun thing I haven't done, but not having access to lucky would break my heart. Arcane trickster is less appealing without bb/gfb and mage hand is kinda finnicky with it's cast time and verbal component.
I'd probably just fill a role nobody else is filling.

[Biggstick]

I had thought there was recent material to the contrary... Even if not, i doubt I'd ever do a campaign like this, though a one shot would be fun

4 Paladins in a shield wall with +lots to all saves.

Pretty sure there is, and as far as I know, RAW, the auras don't stack.

When I DM though, the auras do stack whether it's intended or not. Anything I can do to encourage my group of Players to decide they want to play a legion of Paladins is a good thing imo. Or even a pair of Paladins in a game. Either way, more Paladins in my game means more interesting RP options available for me as the DM to play with.

[Drackolus]

Pretty sure there is, and as far as I know, RAW, the auras don't stack.

When I DM though, the auras do stack whether it's intended or not. Anything I can do to encourage my group of Players to decide they want to play a legion of Paladins is a good thing imo. Or even a pair of Paladins in a game. Either way, more Paladins in my game means more interesting RP options available for me as the DM to play with.
The only things that don't stack are spell effects and some magic items. Most paladin auras don't stack only by virtue of what they are - can't be double immune or resistant. Aura of protection is a flat bonus though, so it works.
There was a sage advice confirming that it stacks.

[mephnick]

For the DM who likes to say no? Lightfoot halfling archfey chainlock with a focus on illusions.

There's no way I'd play an illusion focused character with a DM that likes to say no.

I'd be an entire campaign of "I don't think it would be able to do that, it fails."

[TheUser]

For the DM who likes to say no? Lightfoot halfling archfey chainlock with a focus on illusions. That should give me the most flexible play available given the restrictions.

A halfling open hand monk would win, but playing a monk without mobility doesn't sound fun to me.

Shadow and Martial both have very easy disengage tools tbh; mobility almost feels like a waste anyways.


...May do a high elf wizard, anything but evoker is cool to me...

What? Why? Lackluster level 6?

[EvilAnagram]

The only things that don't stack are spell effects and some magic items. Most paladin auras don't stack only by virtue of what they are - can't be double immune or resistant. Aura of protection is a flat bonus though, so it works.
There was a sage advice confirming that it stacks.

You cannot benefit from the same effect twice (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMG-Errata.pdf):

Chapter 8 Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.

Sage Advice from Mearls means nothing.

[Findulidas]

Probably abjurer wizard. Perhaps gnome or high elf. If I could pick lizardfolk I would though. So many fun racial features and the natural armor means I dont have to put mage armor on.

[Rhedyn]

Skill monkey human champion fighter.
Start with all 13s and 10 in cha. Get boosted to 14s with human
Select animal handling and survival from fighter, get insight, persuasion, and alchemy from guild artisan

Put 3 as into str, then 3 in dex, last one in con. Select duelist then archery fighting styles.

You get some rolls for nearly everything but it comes down to what the gm is cool with to what you can do there. Combat wise, you are a decent fighter even if your athletics doesn't come online until level 7.

[Spiritchaser]

You cannot benefit from the same effect twice (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMG-Errata.pdf):

Chapter 8 Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.

Sage Advice from Mearls means nothing.

<.<.
.>.>

😁

Now, given that this is not original source material, would it (per the OP) need to be disregarded for the purposes of, and discussion relevant to, this thread?

[NecroDancer]

I'd use a Great Old One Warlock because my first character was a warlock and I like the way idea of a lovecraftian patron.

[LaserFace]

Literally anything. I basically never multiclass with this edition anyway. Nor do I really pick what I play based on what stat boost options are present. Or what feats. It's just... "what do I want to play ... oh look at that, it works."

To help me hone in on something, I'm going to assume we're also stuck with the standard stat array AND I'm expecting the character to die a horrible death in the Tomb of Horrors (or something equally brutal). Let's go Human Cleric. Probably Evil, too. Tempest Domain seems neat.

Edit: Oh wait we're tasked to play it levels 1 to 20 ...

But I don't play any campaigns that go 1 to 20! I'll just pass.

[Drackolus]

What? Why? Lackluster level 6?

Frankly, they don't have a single feature that impresses me, unless you count magic missile cheese (which is technically legit... But gamebreaking.) A draconic sorcerer can do more damage more often, and evocation is the one school they actually get spells from that wizards don't (fire storm, admittedly late, but it's quite a bit better than delayed blast fireball).
The evoker gets some flexibility (avoiding friendly fire is okay, but typically not necessary), and maximising is more powerful than empower, but only by a bit, and you can do it FAR less often. The real benefit of being an evoker over a sorcerer is that they get access to wizard things, like rituals and out of combat spells, and more of them. Which makes them both different and good, but I just hate the idea of focusing on a school and not really being that great at it.
I also hear a lot of people saying that the elemental restrictions are too much, but those are minor (empower works on all spells), and the school restriction of evoker is about as bad (flaming sphere, investiture spells, cloudkill, etc.)
I'd compare evoker to an eldritch knight; you get some neat stuff from the other class, but you're still not that class. All the other specializations are actually the best at their spells. Nobody raises the dead like a necromancer, controls minds like an enchanter, reshapes reality and people like a transmuter... But a sorcerer - even a wild sorcerer - is, I argue, better at doing damage with spells than an evoker.
Tldr; they're good, I'd just rather be a sorcerer.

[Hrugner]

Shadow and Martial both have very easy disengage tools tbh; mobility almost feels like a waste anyways.


Martial?

They have disengage tools at a resource cost, I prefer to be able to do so every round so as not to remain in base to base contact after my turn is over. Shadow has it most of the time at the cost of a bonus action, but I'd like to keep the bonus action available for the extra attack and would generally prefer open hand.


There's no way I'd play an illusion focused character with a DM that likes to say no.

I'd be an entire campaign of "I don't think it would be able to do that, it fails."

Yep. You make a warlock who can always just blast things with eldritch blast and little other support. Then you spend the rest of the game using illusion magic to come up with interesting alternatives to blasting things, free disguise self for infiltration, add friends for the enemies combo, free silent image for combat blinds, sprite familiar for sleep arrows, and so on. When it all gets shot down, you blast. Maybe come up with a catch phrase for blasting so it's obvious you've switched modes from creative mode to business mode.

[Merellis]

No optional or variants?

I'd still make anything then. Any combination of class and race is gonna work just fine so long as I toss the attributes into the right places and then dive in.

[GlenSmash!]

The suggestion is valid per the OP. While I'm sure this violates the spirit of that post, I would argue that as written, that post specifically forbids SCAG, EE and UA. It does not forbid Volo's.

Nor does the OP, as currently written actually state "PHB only"

Now, I'm sure this was an oversight, but as of now, the Aasimar stands.

He can stand next to my Yuan Ti ancients pally. If he's within 10 feet he can have my resist magic aura.

I am not going to argue that by original rules, our +cha to saves should stack... Because there are limits.

I stand corrected. Volo's was not forbidden. In that case I'll go Hobgoblin Necromancer.

[TheUser]

Frankly, they don't have a single feature that impresses me, unless you count magic missile cheese (which is technically legit... But gamebreaking.) A draconic sorcerer can do more damage more often, and evocation is the one school they actually get spells from that wizards don't (fire storm, admittedly late, but it's quite a bit better than delayed blast fireball).
The evoker gets some flexibility (avoiding friendly fire is okay, but typically not necessary), and maximising is more powerful than empower, but only by a bit, and you can do it FAR less often. The real benefit of being an evoker over a sorcerer is that they get access to wizard things, like rituals and out of combat spells, and more of them. Which makes them both different and good, but I just hate the idea of focusing on a school and not really being that great at it.
I also hear a lot of people saying that the elemental restrictions are too much, but those are minor (empower works on all spells), and the school restriction of evoker is about as bad (flaming sphere, investiture spells, cloudkill, etc.)
I'd compare evoker to an eldritch knight; you get some neat stuff from the other class, but you're still not that class. All the other specializations are actually the best at their spells. Nobody raises the dead like a necromancer, controls minds like an enchanter, reshapes reality and people like a transmuter... But a sorcerer - even a wild sorcerer - is, I argue, better at doing damage with spells than an evoker.
Tldr; they're good, I'd just rather be a sorcerer.

As a huge proponent of sorcerers I couldn't help but agree, however, invokers (much cooler name than evokers... eww), can cast 100% safe firewalls while your friends grapple enemies next to them. They also get 100% safe fireballs and cone of colds since they have rather large 3 dimensional indiscriminate AoE's. Thunderwaves early to boot.

Anyway...I'd also say a subtle spell sorcerer is a better enchanter than enchanters but that's a discussion for another day :P

[Drackolus]

You cannot benefit from the same effect twice (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMG-Errata.pdf):

Chapter 8 Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.

Sage Advice from Mearls means nothing.
I totally missed this part and your post. Sorry.
Not surprised I missed it though. Why is it in the dmg errata when it's a basic rule?

As a huge proponent of sorcerers I couldn't help but agree, however, invokers (much cooler name than evokers... eww), can cast 100% safe firewalls while your friends grapple enemies next to them. They also get 100% safe fireballs and cone of colds since they have rather large 3 dimensional indiscriminate AoE's. Thunderwaves early to boot.

Anyway...I'd also say a subtle spell sorcerer is a better enchanter than enchanters but that's a discussion for another day :P

The firewall doesn't ask for a save on the continual damage, so sculpt spells only works for the first hit. Fireball is usually easy enough to aim, but the vast majority of my combats are outside, so that makes a pretty big difference there. I've also never had to cast cone of cold because I was a draconic sorc and my dm threw no fire-immune enemies at me, but it doesn't sound any harder to aim.
And still, it's nice, but you can live without it. Heck, I had 6 other people to aim around. Granted, my rogue wasn't afraid and my barbarian didn't care, so I could go over them, but still.
And yeah, they make good enchanters too. Not only because they have subtle, but they can twin too, and they actually have charisma. That's a pretty good argument for them, too. The modify memory ability is really strong, but it comes late.

[TheUser]

The firewall doesn't ask for a save on the continual damage, so sculpt spells only works for the first hit.

After allies succeed on the grapple they can reposition themselves but keep the enemy in the damage zone (moving from a 5ft square on one side of a creature to another puts you outside the damage range) The first save is all that matters. I still think Sorcs are generally more potent but a good CoC on 10+ targets is rather sublime when they are in the fray with your allies (sculpt spells would work on 6 allies for CoC as well!).


If you ever get to play a subtle sorcerer after having played an enchanter there's no going back; modify memory doesn't stop bystanders from noticing you've enchanted someone only the target you enchant :(

[TripleD]

Are custom backgrounds still allowed?

If so: High Elf Champion Fighter with custom background.

Pump DEX and INT to max as soon as possible, follow with CON.

Take Mage Hand for the cantrip to give you something to do out of combat.

Initially go with Archery fighting style, later go into Dueling or Defence for when foes get close.

Use the custom Background to grab two more Knowledge skills to add on to the History proficiency you get from fighter. Turn yourself into the party encyclopedia.

Fighting is a bit plain, but increased Crits with a d10 longbow in a game with no Sharpshooter can be very welcome. I see this a more of an "out-of-combat" fun kind of character. A nerdy archer.

[Zene]

Half-orc valor bard grappler - the "luchador" build.

--Or--

Any druid, any race.

[FaceofBo]

Tried and True Dwarven Paladin. Tank for ever, good stat boosts, go for using Shield of Faith and smites, never die, smite all of the evil, then sit down and throwback some hearty drinks with friends. One of my first characters and still my favorite.

[imanidiot]

I was going to say the same exact thing Cybren. Portent has to be used before the roll is made by the DM.



My DM sometimes has a bad habit of not telling you that you're being attacked until after he's already rolled damage. "Ok, the dragon attacks you 3 times, misses both claws but crits on the bite."

No, sir he certainly does not crit on the bite. Better walk that on back.

[imanidiot]

Are custom backgrounds still allowed?


Backgrounds are themselves an optional rule.

[TripleD]

Backgrounds are themselves an optional rule.

No they aren't. You need them to get your full skill set, along with your ideals, bonds and flaws.

It says right in the Player's Guide Chapter 1 in the character creation tutorial: "Step 4: Describe your Character". The quick build for each class also recommends a background you can choose.

[mgshamster]

Custom backgrounds are part of the base rules. It would be a variant to not allow custom backgrounds.

[Rogerdodger557]

My first Adventurer's League character, I have a blast playing him, is Shamash, brass dragonborn ranger. Once won an archery/accuracy carnival game completely wasted. Good times.

Edit: That said, I wouldn't play a game limited like this. D&D is about choice and having options, which this severely limits. If the DM said this at session 0/1, I would get up and leave

[Nifft]

Custom backgrounds are part of the base rules. It would be a variant to not allow custom backgrounds.

... and yet each custom background itself would not be part of the base rules.

So you're allowed to create them, but not take one on this character.

== == ==

Anyway, my Basic Rules Party would be something like...

Forrest Gnome Rogue (Arcane Trickster) -- Minor Illusion and Darkvision go really well on a Rogue

Half-Orc Monk (Shadow) -- it's like a 1e Half-Orc Assassin, but with more awesome

Mountain Dwarf Wizard (Abjurer) -- Dolin the Rune-Thane

Human Druid (Moon) -- "Mom said I could be anything when I grew up. So I became a bear."

Half-Elf Bard (Lore) -- All the skills, all the charm.

[Biggstick]

My DM sometimes has a bad habit of not telling you that you're being attacked until after he's already rolled damage. "Ok, the dragon attacks you 3 times, misses both claws but crits on the bite."

No, sir he certainly does not crit on the bite. Better walk that on back.

Would you be one to use your Portent roll on a basic attack roll coming your way? Think about it from a more objective point of view.

Do you normally use Portent rolls on basic attacks from enemies? If so, then I might find what you're saying is justified. Personally, I've played with 3 Divination Wizards throughout my time playing 5E. I have never seen Portent used for an enemy's basic attack roll. In fact, the only things I've seen Portent rolls used on are allied/enemy skill checks or allied/enemy saving throws. I have never seen it used for an allied/enemy attack roll.

If you're implying that you as a Player have legitimately used your Portent rolls for attack rolls, only then would I (as a DM) even remotely consider allowing you to retroactively use your Portent roll. And only if I had "hit." If I've announced a critical hit, I'm definitely not letting you retroactively use the Portent roll.

This falls on you the Player to ask the DM to explain what they're doing behind the screen. If s/he has problems with that, explain that you are simply wanting to be on top of your Portent rolls and are trying to stay actively engaged in the combat portion of the game.

[mgshamster]

... and yet each custom background itself would not be part of the base rules.

So you're allowed to create them, but not take one on this character.

Why? The OP said nothing of the sort in post 1. Did he update the rules somewhere in the thread?

Otherwise, yes you could customize your background and use it for this character. That's part of the non-variant core rules. You still have to choose one of the presented background features, but you can assign any two skills and two of language or tool proficiencies.

[Nifft]

Why? The OP said nothing of the sort in post 1. Did he update the rules somewhere in the thread?

I'm including the thread title as part of the first post.

"100% non-optional" is therefore something which I see as part of the criteria.

Is there a reason to discount the thread title, or maybe there's a way to read it differently? We might both be correct, if there is.

[CantigThimble]

I'm including the thread title as part of the first post.

"100% non-optional" is therefore something which I see as part of the criteria.

Is there a reason to discount the thread title, or maybe there's a way to read it differently? We might both be correct, if there is.

I think you're being a bit too literal. For example: Is being a paladin mandatory? No. So it's optional. So it's not allowed if nothing optional is allowed.

Customizing a background is a part of the core rules by default and at no point says that it is subject to DM approval to be legal by core rules. Basically, according to the customizing background rules "Skills" "Languages/Tools" and "Feature" are all separate things that can be combined in any way you choose, it just gives you a list of potential combinations that make some sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, given that this is not original source material, would it (per the OP) need to be disregarded for the purposes of, and discussion relevant to, this thread? It is source material, by definition. Your DMG is not invalid if it is the sixth printing, which includes all errata. All errata are RAW. Go and get any of the core books that include them: RAW.

Whether or not sage advice is, or should be considered, RAW is open to discussion.

[Varlon]

Customizing backgrounds is the one thing people never realize is completely by the book. I only found out about it because I wanted to pick whatever personality traits I wanted. But it's why I laugh when I see build guides taking the time to rank every sample background (which is what the PHB calls them) according to their skill proficiencies.

[Spiritchaser]

It is source material, by definition. Your DMG is not invalid if it is the sixth printing, which includes all errata. All errata are RAW. Go and get any of the core books that include them: RAW.

Whether or not sage advice is, or should be considered, RAW is open to discussion.



Ah yes, however the SCAG is up to date, and presuming reasonable interpretation, RAW.

The SCAG is not permitted here.

Date and core would not seem sufficient for admittance per the OP...

[TheUser]

Ah yes, however the SCAG is up to date, and presuming reasonable interpretation, RAW.

The SCAG is not permitted here.

Date and core would not seem sufficient for admittance per the OP...

Most DM's don't consider errata optional but rather an update to how original rules are intended whereas a few have not been comfortable with SCAG (in my experience)

[Spiritchaser]

I admit, my point actually isn't about errata...

My point is, and has been...

You could impose rules like this to limit rules lawyering and optimization exercises, but that it won't really work.

You'll still get people looking for wiggle room in any context, and you'll still have some builds much more powerful than others.

[Talionis]

I'm kind of proud of the designers for balancing the game so well that I believe at least two people have mentioned each class. While I agree with those that say the game is too simple or limited in choices without the alternate rules, it's good to have so many different classes that work.

[Kane0]

No frills character, eh? Id pick one from my totally vanilla stock list:

Human Barbarian (Frenzy)
Halfling Bard (Lore)
Dwarf Cleric (Life)
Elf Druid (Land)
Dwarf Fighter (Battlemaster)
Halfling Monk (Palm)
Dwarf Paladin (Devotion)
Elf Ranger (Hunter)
Halfling Rogue (Thief)
Human Sorcerer (Dragon)
Human Warlock (Fiend)
Elf Wizard (Abjuration)

PHB only (not even special races), no optional rules.

[Princess]

I've played to great effect so far in 5e many characters like this, but my first 5e character was a high elf wizard (enchanter) guild artisan (calligraphy, as a scrivener/lawyer), and most recently I'm playing a wood elf monk backwoods hippie who has wandered into Barovia. There's enormous potential in base only characters, so long as the DM provides a reasonable explanation for why they want to stick to the basics.