NEW to 5e questions

[Malfarian]

** SOME EDITS MADE **
Hello all,

I'm a long time GM that's slowly getting into 5e ( I've had phb for over a year now). I have a lot of experience with AD&D and 2nd Ed as well lots of experience with non D20 games.

I've now run two sessions of 5e using premades to get PCs used to new edition, they're mainly AD&D people returning to the hobby. I've also played in 3 AL games with different characters each time.

I wanted to give that context to help give context to my questions, they may seem critical of 5e, but are not intended this way. We will be making characters soon and I'm trying to anticipate their questions.

There are of course social in game reasons to address many if these but I know my players will be mechanics focused, it's the way they were raised.

1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language.

2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too?

3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way.

4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right?

5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged?

6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves
Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.

7) I've read Rangers are awful, is that fair?

8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference.

9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it?

10) Do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot?

11) Should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already?

12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?

13) Rogue Uncanny Dodge, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?

14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.

If you are still reading, I'm very grateful for all of your help and time!

Mal

[Grod_The_Giant]

1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language.
You rolled for stats and got a lot of odd numbers? Vanilla humans are pretty bad in my opinion. Though note that the Dragonborn's breath weapon scales pretty poorly.


2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too?
Variant humans are incredible, and a top choice for any build.


3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way.
Mostly trying to fit in traditional SLAs without being overpowered, methinks.


4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right?
How so? They're two skill proficiencies and a roleplaying hook, and you can pretty explicitly swap skills around if you don't like them. They're actually pretty important, in my mind-- not only do they make up about half of the average character's noncombat ability (two out of 4-5 skills, plus maybe some tools and a fluffy bit), but they're the main way you can play against type, and have a scholarly Monk or a fast-talking Fighter or something. If you decide to remove them, you should let everyone pick ~two skills and two tools or languages of their choice.


5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged?
Pretty much. 5e balance is hard to upset.


6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves
Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.
They're a nice way to feel magic all day, but weapon attacks (assuming you play a class with any sort of combat ability) are better at all levels-- you start out adding your ability modifier to damage, you can boost them with things like combat styles and feats, you get Extra Attack as soon as the first cantrip damage boost comes online... they're a fairly weak option for most classes. (The Warlock being a notable exception).


7) I've read Rangers are great, is that fair?
A lot of people actually dislike them, mostly because their higher level abilities aren't that strong and the Beastmaster is poorly designed.


8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference.
They're both martial damage-dealers. The Barbarian gets hit more often, but gets hurt less by each attack.


9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it?
Yup! Not much else out there that gives a numerical bonus like that.


10) do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot?
I mean, they have a limit to how often they can use Inspiration, and depending on your build you might be two-weapon fighting or something.


11)should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already?
Not really. They're not really more complicated than any other spellcaster.


12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?
5e's biggest flaw is that its balance is really closely tied to the "6-8 encounters and 2 short rests per long rest" paradigm. The more short rests you get, the better Warlocks do-- and conversely, if they don't get short rests, they turn into a moderately low-powered archer with maybe one or two tricks up their sleeve.


13) Rogue uncanny action, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?
Yup.


14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.
Both medium and heavy armor top out at about 18 AC (shield optional), but with medium armor you need to invest a feat (Medium Armor Master) to reach that point. Light armor can't quite make it (17 max, or 18 with something like Mage Armor), and you can probably afford half/full plate well before you can boost your Dexterity all the way up to 20.

[Aett_Thorn]

Will answer what I can:

1) This really depends on how pick your character stats and what class you're looking to make. A +1 to all stats is great if you have a bunch of odd stats from rolling or point-buy techniques. And it you're looking to make a Wizard or Ranger or something, the +1 to all stats might be better than +2 Str and +1 Cha.

2) With Feats, I would say that humans remain popular. Without, their popularity likely drops, but they're still very versatile.

3) Just makes them different is all. Also tends to go along with their race's fluff (the story parts of a character). Also tend to prevent some overpowered options at level 1 if they don't get a bonus until level 5.

4) Not balanced per se, but they're really not that bad. They're mostly for flavor anyways, and given that even the Player's Handbook (PHB) allows you to mix and match the proficiencies and features, they're fine.

5) Yes, to some degree. I say play what you want, and you'll mainly be fine. But having a+2 in your main stat that you want is likely to help out just a bit.

6) Cantrips provide casters with a way to stay relevant when they are out of spells, but they don't really compare to weapon attacks, especially since mostly they are hit-or-miss. Meanwhile, the Fighter with three attacks will get three chances to hit and do damage. If the Wizard misses with his/her cantrip, they do no damage at all that round.

7) Where did you read this? It's pretty standard view around here that the PHB Rangers are overall a bit weak (they compete at lower levels, but fall far at higher levels). However, REVISED Rangers, which should be coming out sometime soon officially (currently only in an Unearthed Arcana) are very good.

8) Barbarians are usually tougher to take down than a Fighter (they have resistance to most weapon damage for after all). Fighters are usually more well-rounded but simpler. Barbarianss tend to be able to do great things, but only a few times per day.

9) Yes. Bards are amazing, and are a really great option for a fifth-man.

10) Depends on the Bard. But yes, they should be handling these out fairly often, especially after level 5.

11) Warlocks are best used by players who understand the importance of short-rests. If your party is not taking a lot of short rests, they can make a Warlock player feel really weak. It has nothing to do with the Warlock player, and more to do with the party as a whole.

12) See 11. It's more about the number of short rests PER encounter that matters. Running less encounters? Fewer short rests will be necessary. However, this does tend to favor the long-rest classes like Wizards and Clerics.

13) Yes

14) Half-Plate is better, but it costs more. And can still use a shield and have some Dex. But you will get fairly similar ACs between Studded Leather + 5 for max Dex, Half Plate + 2 from Dex, and Full Plate.

[Malfarian]

Hello,

Massive typo above, I heard rangers suck, oops.

Matt colville does 4d6 in order to discover your character . I don't care for random generation and was thinking of randomly assigning the array. Any thoughts on that?

[hymer]

1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language.
Any number of reasons. Most of them have to do with ending up with enough critical uneven scores. Pointbuy 15/15/15/8/8/8 and standard human is the obvious way to start with three 16s. Now play a paladin, monk or melee cleric and make good use of all those 16s.


2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too?
Standard human scores don't point them so directly at specific builds, including multiclass ones.


3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way.
Why wouldn't they? Some racial abilities get better at high levels, like resistance to necrotic and radiant damage from aasimar. You likely won't see that kind of damage until you're at least level 5, so until then it's little good. Then it get better.


4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right?
You can make your own custom background to suit your tastes. See PHB p. 125 'Customizing a background'.


5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged?
Yes, it matters less and less. But "pick what you wan't to play" may mean you want to pick the race that best suits whatever class you're going for.


6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.
If you have a bow an use it, odds are you're much better with it than the average caster cantrip. You'll get to attack several times per action, may find ways to attack with a bonus action, get to put Sneak Attack dice on your damage, find magical arrows, etc.


7) I've read Rangers are great, is that fair?
The PHB ranger can put out some serious damage at the early levels (not so much level 1, but 2-6ish), but takes a long time to get any further real bumps. So they becomes more standard with time. Overall there are issues with the ranger subclasses, but not so much the math.


8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference.
First of all, the subclasses play a big role here. That said, the barbarian is more tanky than the fighter, what with rage and d12 hp. The fighter subclasses can also add some combat versatility and variation that you won't see so much for the barbarian. In the end, if you build a fighter and a barbarian to run up to people and bash their heads in, they both do well at it and will feel very similar in play. But you can build them differently.


9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it?
Bards are really good, what with being full casters with goodies tacked on. They're nobody's poor cousin the way they often felt in 2e.


10) do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot?
Depends on what spells they pick, what feats they take, what means of fighting they want, and what items they pick up along the way.


11)should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already?
There's nothing whatever wrong with a straight warlock. They are very popular for dips, but that's no reason not to play a singleclass warlock.


12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?
Do you run more or less? It seems to me the bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers and wizards are more affected than warlocks by changes in the number of encounters. If you have fewer or smaller encounters, the casters with their spell slots per long rest are more powerful. If you do more, the warlocks and champion fighters take the lead.
I guess what I'm saying is that the encounters per adventuring day are suggested to be at those numbers for good reasons, and you should be hesitant to change that around.


13) Rogue uncanny action, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?
You mean uncanny dodge? That takes up your reaction. You only get one of those per round. If you mean Cunning Action, these use up your bonus action. You also only get one of those per round.


14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.
Depends. Heavy Armor and shield with no dex investment gets you fine AC. Basically, i you want high AC you either go high dex and medium armour or whatever dex and heavy armour.


If you are still reading, I'm very grateful for all of your help and time!

You're welcome! :smallbiggrin:

[Malfarian]

Wow the quality of replies is overwhelming. Thank you for taking the time to writes such excellent responses. I forget at times how non-toxic this community can be!

Ok Let's say I have a player debating between Fighter and Barbarian, it currently feels like Fighter might be a little weaker but more versatile, especially with some of the specialization's. I know at least one of my PCs will debate what to pick and I'm trying to figure an answer now. Any other thoughts here?

If I'm thinking about this as roles is this about right:

Front Line: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk and Paladins

Scouts: Rogue, Ranger, Bard

Healers*: Cleric, Druid

Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

*Though it seems much of this is minor action so they can engage in melee as well (You only cast one spell per turn right?)

Thank you again,
Mal

[mgshamster]

To better understand the role that backgrounds play in the game, you might want to check out the Guide to Designing Background Features (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t8u4?Bookrats-Advice-on-Designing-Background).

In addition to gaining two skill proficiencies, and two languages or tool profs, you get a nifty feature that's not reliant on dice.

[Malfarian]

To better understand the role that backgrounds play in the game, you might want to check out the Guide to Designing Background Features (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t8u4?Bookrats-Advice-on-Designing-Background).

In addition to gaining two skill proficiencies, and two languages or tool profs, you get a nifty feature that's not reliant on dice.

Thank you.

[Potato_Priest]

Wow the quality of replies is overwhelming. Thank you for taking the time to writes such excellent responses. I forget at times how non-toxic this community can be!

Ok Let's say I have a player debating between Fighter and Barbarian, it currently feels like Fighter might be a little weaker but more versatile, especially with some of the specialization's. I know at least one of my PCs will debate what to pick and I'm trying to figure an answer now. Any other thoughts here?

If I'm thinking about this as roles is this about right:

Front Line: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk and Paladins

Scouts: Rogue, Ranger, Bard

Healers*: Cleric, Druid

Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

*Though it seems much of this is minor action so they can engage in melee as well (You only cast one spell per turn right?)

Thank you again,
Mal


On the spells per turn thing: Most spells cost an action to cast. Some spells cost a bonus action to cast. If you cast a bonus action spell on your turn, you can only cast 0th level spells for the rest of that turn. This means that in many scenarios, you can only cast 1 spell per turn. There are exceptions, however.

If a spellcasting character is a fighter they can use an action surge to get an extra full action, thereby allowing themselves to cast 2 real spells on the same turn. Also, if a character has reaction spells such as shield or counterspell, and one of those is triggered on their turn, they can still use them (as long as they didn't cast a bonus action spell that turn), allowing them to cast multiple spells per turn.

Your class list is, I'm afraid, something of an oversimplification.
Monk is usually more of a skirmisher than a full on melee combatant.
Rangers can be made into capable frontliners.
Fighters can make excellent back lines archers if they are built for it.
Bards, clerics, and druids can either be healers, casters, or front-liners (and very often some combination of the three), depending on how they are built.

Overall, the in-combat party roles assigned to each character will depend more on how that character is built rather than the character's class.

[Rysto]

12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?

If you don't want to do that many encounters in a day, I'd recommend instead making rests take longer. The DMG has one variant where short rests take 8 hours and long rests a full week. The game that I'm running isn't that extreme -- I go with an 8 hour short rest and a 24 hour long rest. That allows me to run the game at a slower pace that better fits my campaign without mucking up the balance of the game.

[Malfarian]

Your class list is, I'm afraid, something of an oversimplification.
Monk is usually more of a skirmisher than a full on melee combatant.
Rangers can be made into capable frontliners.
Fighters can make excellent back lines archers if they are built for it.
Bards, clerics, and druids can either be healers, casters, or front-liners (and very often some combination of the three), depending on how they are built.

Overall, the in-combat party roles assigned to each character will depend more on how that character is built rather than the character's class.

You're talking straight specializations (The class options in phb) and NOT multiclassing right?

I'm happy to have my comments clarified or shredded if they're wrong, I put on my big boy underwear today!

Thank you,
Mal

[Malfarian]

If you don't want to do that many encounters in a day, I'd recommend instead making rests take longer. The DMG has one variant where short rests take 8 hours and long rests a full week. The game that I'm running isn't that extreme -- I go with an 8 hour short rest and a 24 hour long rest. That allows me to run the game at a slower pace that better fits my campaign without mucking up the balance of the game.

Honestly I can't imagine 6-8 encounters per day in play. Our sessions run about 4 hours due to scheduling and that would just slog it down in the timeline, I realize encounter isn't always combat, but to be fair it often is. Thanks for tip.

[Potato_Priest]

You're talking straight specializations (The class options in phb) and NOT multiclassing right?

I'm happy to have my comments clarified or shredded if they're wrong, I put on my big boy underwear today!

Thank you,
Mal

Yeah, I'm not referring to multiclassing. There's a lot of ways to build most every class in this game for different things, which is one of the things that I like about it.

[Twizzly513]

1) Humans are just meant to be your jack of all trades that isn't great at one thing, but good at anything. Dragonborn is an alright race, but the damage isn't as good as it seems. 3d6 (10.5) when you first get it isn't bad on its own, but it has a save for half (5), which is almost a waste of an action, even if you hit a few enemies, and it doesn't scale well. The damage resistance is great, and the stats are nice, especially for a paladin. Variant human is incredible (probably op) with feats, but normal human is terrible and is never picked for anything.

2) Like I said above, V Human is great at doing things, and a popular pick. Normal human is bad and is never picked. Especially with the static stat assignment, you can get all the same modifiers as if you had a +2 to your main stat at the start. 15 + 1 = 16 (+3) | 15 + 2 = 17 (+3)

3) It seems counter-intuitive coming from other editions, but it's just meant to give thematic components to races without giving them a large amount of power frontloaded on first level.

4) Yes, that is correct. Skills are the main part of background, and background is for the most part inconsequential. Homebrewing backgrounds isn't difficult, and there is a guide for it in the book.

5) Exactly. At low levels you'll be at a slight disadvantage without having as good of modifiers or special abilities boosting your class, but give it a few levels and you'll be just fine.

6) Keep in mind that martial classes get other static bonuses to damage as well as extra attack, while cantrips get no bonus to damage and only the scaling. It's meant to be something for primary casters to attack with without using up slots.

7) Clarification: Beastmaster ranger is awful. Hunter is just fine, and a good pick. Also stay away from Champion fighter, way of the four elements monk, and trickery cleric.

8) Fighters deal more damage, barbarians tank more. Really the biggest difference. Both are suitable at damage and tanking and work well as the brawn, it's just a bit different in stats.

9) It is. I love playing bards, and they're no longer a joke! Bardic Inspiration is a great way to support without being useless.

10) If you're a valor bard, you're probably dual wielding, in which case lots of competition, but for the lore bard you'll be giving it out a lot, which requires you to be wiser when you use it.

11) Yes, great idea. I do this as well. Warlock on its own isn't too hard to understand, but it will make the normal spellcasting classes seem weird, which is a bad thing.

12) Encounters shouldn't be too big of a deal. I've never had a problem trying to balance it. It really depends on the difficulty, optimization, etc. As a seasoned DM, I would advise you to simply play it by ear. It's up to you and your group.

13) Yes, you can.

14) Breastplate isn't the best but if you want AC without sacrificing Stealth and don't have access to heavy armor, that's the best way to go.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I know you've had some answers already, but more can't hurt, right? I'm sure I'll be repeating a lot of stuff, so I apologise in advance for that.


1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language.
The basic human is rarely an optimal choice. That said, most people consider the dragonborn to be pretty weak as well, unless you're playing paladins.

2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too?
WotC did a survey recently: human remains the most popular race overall. Variant human is a strong choice for pretty much any build.

3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way.
Eh, it just is. Different race features have different amounts of power, but the races can still be balanced against each other overall. For spellcasting in particular, it would be problematic if a PC had access to spells that a spellcaster of the same level couldn't learn. The game expects PCs of a certain level to have certain capabilities, and 'able to cast daylight at level one' (the DMG aasimar gets it at level 5) is not something that the game expects.

4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right?
I tend to look at background features as tools for the DM, not sources of power for the PCs. Thus it doesn't matter if some seem better than others.

5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged?
Yeah, I can agree with that.

6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? (I know warlock loves them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.
Combat cantrips are an important part of a mage's armoury. They'll never compete with bow-based archery (except eldritch blast), but the rider effects can be useful in a variety of situations. Utility cantrips like minor illusion are also very important. Ultimately, a spellcaster doesn't have enough spell slots to be throwing full spells around every turn, so cantrips give them interesting things to do the rest of the time.

7) I've read Rangers are awful, is that fair?
The PHB ranger is sub-par, particularly the beastmaster. And that's not just from an optimisation perspective; they don't succeed in capturing the 'feel' of being a ranger either. There have been various fixes, including a UA (Revised Ranger) that I'm quite fond of, plus new subclasses in Xanathar's Guide that manage to overcome some of the default ranger's failings.

8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference.
See below.

9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it?
Yeah, bards are very useful. Bardic Inspiration is a good feature... "amazing" might be overselling it. I mean, there are other, more compelling reasons to play bards besides that.

10) Do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot?
Eh, they're no worse off than rogues and monks.

11) Should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already?
Warlocks can be confusing for new players, since their mechanics cut against the grain of everyone else's. Still, I imagine most people are capable of figuring them out. I wouldn't discourage them for that reason alone.

12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?
Again, I'd say 'not really'. The number of encounters you have per day has an impact on every class, after all.

13) Rogue Uncanny Dodge, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?
Once per round. You only get one reaction per round. Otherwise it's unlimited.

14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.
Yes. 20 is the benchmark for what I'd call 'good AC' on a PC.

Ok Let's say I have a player debating between Fighter and Barbarian, it currently feels like Fighter might be a little weaker but more versatile, especially with some of the specializations. I know at least one of my PCs will debate what to pick and I'm trying to figure an answer now. Any other thoughts here?

There are a few way to approach that. One is to present the classes fluff-first. So the barbarian is a primal warrior who fights in a bloody rage, while the fighter is a more cultured weapon master who wears armour, studies tactics and leadership and maybe even knows a bit of magic. Secondly, you can highlight the main difference, which is that the fighter gets more and better* attacks, but the barbarian has more HP and damage resistance, making it a choice between attack and defense. Thridly you could point out some things that might get missed at first glance, like how a barbarian can't cast spells while raging, so it's generally unwise to multiclass them with a spellcasting class, whereas fighters can do that much more effectively. Fighters also get more feats over the course of their careers.

*with subclass features & fighting styles.


If I'm thinking about this as roles is this about right:

Front Line: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk and Paladins

Scouts: Rogue, Ranger, Bard

Healers*: Cleric, Druid

Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

As Potato says, most classes can be built for a variety of roles. My take on the 'typical' roles is:

Barbarian: tank and melee DPR
Bard: face and utility/support
Cleric: support and healing. probably the most flexible in terms of potential builds
Druid: tank with support and healing abilities
Fighter: physical DPR
Monk: skirmisher who shapes the battlefield to the benefit of others
Paladin: nova. also fairly tanky
Ranger: versatile character with excellent ranged DPR
Rogue: skillmonkey with decent DPR as long as they get sneak attack
Sorcerer: crowd control and face
Warlock: magic DPR
Wizard: utility and loremaster

Homebrewing backgrounds isn't difficult

I... uh... wait. What?! I've written homebrew material literally every day for the last year, and backgrounds are by far and away the hardest thing to put together. I'm sure all of my MHP colleagues would agree. They take forever, require absurd amounts of creativity and it's almost impossible to come up with good, unique, interesting features that haven't been done before and that don't provide any mechanical power. So far, I've written a grand total of 9 backgrounds. And it almost killed me.

[Samayu]

** SOME EDITS MADE **

6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves
Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.

Mal

Coming from the old days, cantrips are my number one favorite improvement to the game. At low levels, a magician has fewer spells per day than there are encounters. With cantrips, you have something to do! They scale only every few levels, so the damage is pretty good at first and fifth, etc., but not as good at fourth and tenth, etc.

[Provo]

Honestly I can't imagine 6-8 encounters per day in play. Our sessions run about 4 hours due to scheduling and that would just slog it down in the timeline, I realize encounter isn't always combat, but to be fair it often is. Thanks for tip.

It is difficult to consistently do a 6-8 encounter day. My group has a system that seems to work well. Note that we have 2.5 hour sessions.

When traveling or near town we ignore the 6-8 encounter expectation, but when in or near a dungeon (or other area of significant danger) the DM will try to enforce the 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

Out of the dungeon: Short rest classes may be a bit weaker, but they won't feel gimped. They are still useful, and combat isn't the focus here.

In the dungeon: there is less expectation of roleplay, so the number of encounters shouldn't be too rough. Feel free to end the session on a short rest if need be. It won't upset anybody.

[mgshamster]

So a few things about 5e:

There's nothing so under or over powered that you'll really notice it, as a player or a DM. If, as your PCs level up, you start to see things that feel overpowered, it's usually an adventure design issue, not a PC issue.

Regarding Humans, a lot of people claim the standard human sucks, but it does just fine, and a lot of people still pick it. In one human-only game I'm running, three of my four players chose the standard human over the variant human.

Regarding weak vs strong races, none of them are so great in 5e that they override the flavor you're going for. It's better to pick based on the concept than the stats. It'll all work out. I have plenty of PCs who have only a +2 as their highest stat bonus, and they work just fine.

Regarding classes, a lot of people claim one class is super weak compared to another, but again, it's not really true. First, practically all the math shows that PHB Rangers compare just fine with other classes, even the beast master. The issue with the beast master is that a lot of people struggle with how the mechanics work - so it's an issue with the feel rather than the power. The UA Ranger fixed this issue, but that doesn't mean it's any more powerful.

If you're familiar with the tier system for 3.X, pretty much every class is tier 3. Yes, there are power differences, but they're generally minor.

In 5e, there are no trap options. To make a bad character, you have to try. You're not going to make a bad PC by accident.

The 6-8 encounters per day is a bit of a mis-representation. The DMG doesn't actually state this, it's just what people have figured out through the math of encounter design. More importantly, that's 6-8 Medium to Hard encounters per Adventuring day. Note the "adventuring." That's important. It doesn't mean each and every day of the PCs lives. It means those days where they delve into a dungeon. So when you design a specific dungeon, they should have 6-8 medium to hard encounters with two short rests.

The math also says that it can be anywhere from 2-32 encounters per adventuring day, where the 2 is Deadly and the 32 is easy. It's all based on XP allocation. Just remember: the fewer encounters you give, the more prone your players will be to Nova (use all their best abilities at once). This will make Nova PCs feel.more powerful than sustained PCs. That's an adventure design problem, not a PC or class problem.

One of the ways I've learned to deal with this is to make my players feel like they could always have many encounters per day; they never know when I'm going to give out just 2 or many encounters. So when they get the 2, they don't Nova. The way to do this is to make about 50% of your adventuring days adhere to the higher rate of encounters. This keep your players on edge enough to avoid the Nova issue. And when I do want them to Nova, I just flat out say it. When I don't want them to Nova and they do anyways, I give extra encounters so the sustained PCs will feel like they're doing their part.

[Vykryl]

I'm fairly new to 5e, with only an AD&D background. Biggest issue I have outside book layout and index is the Monsters Manual. My wife is helping her friend (the DM who's background is Rifts) with story stuff while I'm building the planet (I like world building). The 5e MM is rather thin on monsters compared to the AD&D MM. Many times I can't find the monster I remember and want when looking through the 5e MM. We've been going through homebrew sites, looking for stand ins from 5e, and converting from 2nd to 5th.

[Unoriginal]

I... uh... wait. What?! I've written homebrew material literally every day for the last year, and backgrounds are by far and away the hardest thing to put together. I'm sure all of my MHP colleagues would agree. They take forever, require absurd amounts of creativity and it's almost impossible to come up with good, unique, interesting features that haven't been done before and that don't provide any mechanical power. So far, I've written a grand total of 9 backgrounds. And it almost killed me.

Really? They don't seem too hard, as long as you're not trying to re-invent boiling water.

Exemple:


Retiree:

Bards tell tales of great heroes in their prime, everyone look up to masters at the height of their career, and young hopeful ones often dream of taking their places. But prime come to pass, career fades, and young hopeful can grow sick and tired of the paths they've walked. As a Retiree, you've decided to quit your profession, be it due to age, lack of need thanks to success, or an incident that left you unable or unwilling to continue. And maybe the lack of use has dulled your skill some. But you're not done yet, and you've got your knowledge of things of old and your experience with life and people. Like one wise man said: "Has-been, perhaps. But has-been might be again"

Skill Proficiency: History, Insight

Tool Proficiencies: One type of artisant's tools, kit or musical instrument

Languages: one of your choice

Equipment: The set of tool, kit or musical instrument you've selected, a book, a set of well-made but out-of-fashion and slightly worn down clothes, a symbol of your old profession and a pouch containing 10 gp

Feature: Member of the Old Guard

You were once pretty well-known, and the older generation, as well as those who've grown up hearing about you, still remember you, and you have friends in those circles. Unless you have done something to earn their enmity, people who are aware of who you are and who respect your former profession are willing to assist you with lodging, finding favorable deals, or to do you minor favors that doesn't cost them much in exchange of your advice, opinions on their own performance, stories of the good old times, or even your autograph (or similar deeds).

Not perfect by far, true, but I've done less than an hour.


Honestly I can't imagine 6-8 encounters per day in play. Our sessions run about 4 hours due to scheduling and that would just slog it down in the timeline, I realize encounter isn't always combat, but to be fair it often is. Thanks for tip.

One session isn't a day. You don't have to give a long rest before and after each session.

[Pex]

The generic human is a bargain when using Point Buy. Because of the racial bonuses of the other races they tend towards particular classes from an optimization standpoint. Dragonborn want to be fighter or paladins. Half-Elves want to be bards, sorcerers, or warlocks. Halflings want to be rogues. If you want to play that combo of race and class, great, but if you don't, you will be less effective as a Dragonborn Wizard or Dwarf Warlock, or Halfling Barbarian. You won't be The Suck, but you'll be noticeably underpowered in some way.

As a human you can play whatever you want, and the math of Point Buy makes it easy for you. As a personal bias I believe in the "adventurer's tax" of having Constitution of at least 14. The extra 2 hit points per level puts you in a comfortable hit point amount for your class as you level. Only needing to buy a 13 to let human make it 14 saves you 2 points. That works for all the odd scores. Paying for an 11 to get a 12 saves you a point. It's points you can invest elsewhere. You may want to buy two 15s to get two 16s. For a paladin, you can get 16 ST 14 CO 16 CH for 23 points. You have 4 points left over for your other scores as you see fit. Personally I'd spend 3 for an 11 in WIS to make it 12, 1 in DX for a 9 to make it 10, and dump IN for 0 points to have an 8 be a 9. You get to play around depending on class and personal taste.

As others said, if you use rolling then human is best if you rolled a lot of odd numbers.

[Unoriginal]

Or you could play a Dragonborn Rogue and not still not have to worry.

[mgshamster]

Really? They don't seem too hard, as long as you're not trying to re-invent boiling water.

Yeah, I've found them to be fairly easy. I find designing spells, feats, and classes much more difficult. But I can do races fairly well and backgrounds with ease.

Heck, it's why I wrote the guide to designing background features. :)

Your example is pretty solid, too.

[Unoriginal]

Heck, it's why I wrote the guide to designing background features. :)

I should read it.



Your example is pretty solid, too.

Thanks!

[mgshamster]

I should read it.

It's linked above in the thread, but I also keep a link in my signature.

[MxKit]

1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language.

Vanilla humans aren't the best, but they aren't the worst either! There can be a few reasons to play a human over another race, especially a rare one like Dragonborn. You're the GM, right? How rare are Dragonborn in your campaign world? Will they run into any trouble for playing a Dragonborn, ICly? I know you said they'll focus on mechanics over social, but

There's that, of course, but there's also stat adjustment. Yeah, humans getting +1 to everything isn't the best if you haven't rolled a lot of odd stats, but remember too that instead of raising one stat by +2 when it comes to stat-raisin' time, you can raise two stats by +1 each. So even the +1 to every stat human feature leaves you with a fair amount of odd-numbered stats, you can fix two of them when you hit level 4. Not ideal, but not awful.

Better, too, is the fact that you can decide exactly where those ability score increases go! Or, rather, they go everywhere. Besides what's already been said about the Dragonborn's breath weapon not scaling very well, the race also has +2 to Strength and +1 to Charisma. Period. This is great for Barbarians, most Paladins, many Fighters, and some Clerics and Warlocks, and not that bad for Bards or Sorcerers; you can also finagle a good Strength-based Monk or Rogue if you really try. Pretty good sample of classes there, right? Well, it's not so useful if you're playing a Druid, or a Ranger, or a Wizard; it's not useful for most Monks or Rogues. Basically, unless you are playing a character that needs high strength, or a character that needs high Charisma and you don't mind having a +2 to a stat you don't really care about, Dragonborn's not going to do much for you. With even the vanilla human, at least you know you're getting that +1 to Dex, and/or Wisdom, and/or Intelligence.

(If you're not allowing feats at your table but sort of want to allow variant humans because you're not a fan of vanilla humans, maybe switch out the feat at first level with something else. Make it so two ability scores of your choice increased by two, or grant them a free thematically appropriate cantrip, or give them the equivalent of the Prodigy racial feat in Xanathar's -- meaning "vanilla human" would then be getting +1 to every ability score, one skill proficiency of their choice, one tool proficiency of their choice, two extra languages of their choice instead of one, and expertise in one of the skills they're proficient in.)


2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too?

Humans can still be anything -- again, see the benefits of even the vanilla human over a class that has ability score increases locked into stats that you don't need at all. What good is being a High Elf or Forest Gnome to a Barbarian? What benefit would a Ranger get from being a Tiefling? (Well, other than the winged variant, if allowed.) Variant humans might not be The Best option for anything, but they're always a decent enough option for everything. And as mentioned, variant humans are definitely a top choice for pretty much any build.

Also, I've seen that a lot of people just like playing humans. They've kind of got their own built-in popularity!


3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way.

People have definitely answered this one better than I could. :P


4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right?

Backgrounds aren't balanced but aren't that big of a deal, it's true. They're more flavor that confers some extra bonuses, imo -- though those extra bonuses can be very useful (proficiency in Perception!). The Player's Handbook also mentions that you can completely customize a background, so if you really feel a particular background is unnecessarily underpowered, but one of your players likes the flavor of it, you can let them tweak it -- giving the Urchin proficiencies in Stealth and Perception, for example, for your player who wants to play a street-rat-turned-Wizard, or even allowing a patchwork background mix-and-matching from several of the ones given in the book(s).


5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged?

Agreeing with everyone else, it matters mostly at early levels and then doesn't matter much at all late game. It's nice to have one of your critical stats get boosted by your race (either by 1 or by 2!), but so long as it's not getting a negative modifier you're good. (So... basically it's not a great idea to play a Kobold Barbarian or an Orc Wizard. You still can, but you might never match up to where you want to be in that class. Everything else? You should be fine; even if you're not optimized you'll still be able to pull off great stuff. So... as you say, pick what you want!)


6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves
Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.

Unlimited cantrips are great and absolutely do play a role at higher levels, yes. I don't feel like they're superior to a bow intrinsically... It just depends on what you want to do with your character. If you want to play an archery-based Fighter or Ranger, you're going to be able to do some cool stuff with your bow. If you want to play a magic caster, you're going to be able to do some cool stuff with your magic. If you want to do cool magic stuff, pick a class that has magic. Sometimes I'm playing a character and I just do not want to worry about magic, in which case I wouldn't be jealous of the other people at the table using magic.


7) I've read Rangers are awful, is that fair?

Rangers in the Player's Handbook are... from an optimizer's POV, awful. From what I've heard from people who don't care about optimizing, they're perfectly playable at the table, albeit not perfect. One of the good things about 5th Edition is that even a class like Ranger, where everyone agrees it needed to be revised to be what it should be including the developers, isn't actually going to fall terribly behind the other classes -- just far enough behind that it will feel terrible to some players.

If your players are ones that would feel like they're missing out, though, then I would recommend they stay away from the Beastmaster Ranger, Four Elements Monk, Trickery Cleric, and maybe the Champion fighter, though Champion's honestly fairly solid from what I've seen, just boring. Rangers as a whole aren't awful, though; the Hunter and Monster Slayer subclasses are good, the Horizon Walker is great, and the Gloom Stalker is incredible.


8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference.

Other people have, again, already answered this one better than I could. ;)


9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it?

Bards are really amazing, and have some great subclasses to boot! College of Whispers is the only "bad" one, and quite frankly if you're in a low-combat high-intrigue game it's going to be a pretty great pick. College of Valor is good (though College of Swords does what it was trying to do only better, imo), College of Glamour and College of Satire are both quite good and both have great fun flavor to them, and College of Lore and College of Swords are exceptional.


10) Do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot?

Others are right that this depends, and you can also decide how much you want to use bardic inspiration while character building. If you want to use it a lot, don't choose too many spells and fighting maneuvers, etc., that would eat up your bonus action (though having some variety in case you need it is always nice). If you're not as fussed about it, go wild.


11) Should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already?

Warlocks are actually fairly good for new players, IME. I mean, there's always the fact that any spellcasting class can be more complicated for a brand new player to figure out, so if you're keeping that in mind and encouraging them to stay away from spellcasters entirely for their first character that's one thing. But it's honestly hard to build a really bad Warlock. Eldritch blast is probably the best cantrip in the game, and a new player can get by in most battles by spamming it, especially if you encourage them to take Invocations that do fun things with it (extra damage, pushing enemies away, slowing enemy speed, etc.).


12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?

I mean, what other people have said is true, but again it's kind of hard to make a class completely useless in this game. With fewer than 6 encounters per day, you might not want a party full of Warlocks, but I doubt an individual Warlock player will feel underpowered.


13) Rogue Uncanny Dodge, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?

What others have said.


14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.

There are honestly quite a few ways to get high AC. Some combination of armor, Dex, spells, racial features, class features... If you're a Barbarian, you're not going to want armor at all, you'll want a shield and as high Dexterity and Constitution as you can justify getting. If you're a Monk, you'll want to be unarmored, with no shield, and pumped-up Dexterity and Wisdom. As a Rogue, you're definitely not going to want half plate or heavy armor. Unless you're wearing heavy armor, you're going to want a Dex score of at least 14; if you don't need to be sneaky at all and you want to go Strength over Dex, you're going to want full plate armor with a shield ASAP. As a Tortle, you're going to want a shield maybe but you have insane natural armor and need no manmade armor at all (you have AC 17, period, no Dex modifier; AC 19 with a shield; this is one of the classes that could really benefit from going Monk or especially Barbarian since from what I can tell they should still be able to add their Wisdom or Constitution modifiers to that, just not their Dex). Etcetera.


Ok Let's say I have a player debating between Fighter and Barbarian, it currently feels like Fighter might be a little weaker but more versatile, especially with some of the specialization's. I know at least one of my PCs will debate what to pick and I'm trying to figure an answer now. Any other thoughts here?

If I'm thinking about this as roles is this about right:

Front Line: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk and Paladins

Scouts: Rogue, Ranger, Bard

Healers*: Cleric, Druid

Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

I also want to note that healing during battle is always going to be a move of desperation, not something that your Healer Character should be designated to doing. I mean, when it's necessary, it's going to be very necessary and they will need to know when to do it. But they're going to want to have something else they're doing for much of the battle.

I'd say that depending on subclass and how they're built -- and not even getting into multiclassing, no -- it would actually look more like the following:

Front Line: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Tank: Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin
Skirmisher (getting in and getting back out): Bard, Cleric, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Wizard
Back-Line Archer: Bard, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue
Scout: Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue
Spy/Information Gathering: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Rogue, Warlock, Wizard (list gets bigger if you include Intimidation)
Caster: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Healer: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer (in a pinch), Warlock (ditto)

I'm probably even missing some possibilities in there. Basically, at some point it comes down to what exactly they want to do, looking at the subclasses as well as the main classes and figuring out which one will let them do what they want to do best, and/or just deciding the flavor they want to go with. Yeah, if this particular player wants to be an amazing tank, they could easily go either Barbarian or Fighter. They could go Totem Warrior Barbarian, Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, or the Cavalier Fighter. But if they really can't choose between those three, do they like the idea of having a heavily armored, sometimes mounted, hold-the-line, knight-style character? Or does having a wilder type who calls on the spirit of the Bear or the spirits of his warrior ancestors to lend him strength and protection do it for them better? At some point, it might just have to come down to fluff (...and whether they'd prefer not to worry about armor, things like that...).

When it doubt, though, yeah, ask them if they think they might ever want to multiclass into a caster class. If they do, they should go Fighter, because you can't cast while Raging.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm fairly new to 5e, with only an AD&D background. Biggest issue I have outside book layout and index is the Monsters Manual. My wife is helping her friend (the DM who's background is Rifts) with story stuff while I'm building the planet (I like world building). The 5e MM is rather thin on monsters compared to the AD&D MM. Many times I can't find the monster I remember and want when looking through the 5e MM. We've been going through homebrew sites, looking for stand ins from 5e, and converting from 2nd to 5th.

It's true that the 5e Monster Manual contains a finite number of monsters. However, that leaves room for things like Volo's Guide to fill in the gaps and bring back old favourites that got passed over in the MM.

With the guidelines in the DMG, it's possible to homebrew pretty much any monster you can think of. I post at least one new monster every Sunday on my tumblr (https://nailsofvecna.tumblr.com/), which could be useful for people who feel stifled by the MM but don't have time to write their own stuff.


Exemple:

That example is pretty good, though the feature seems rather similar to the acolyte and folk hero features. Finding something that hasn't been done before remains a real challenge.

However, I note you haven't included tables for subtype (in this case I'd have done 'former career'), personality trait, ideal, bond and flaw. I find most of the difficulty with backgrounds is coming up with unique entries to those tables. Lots of time staring at the screen trying to think of things.

[Unoriginal]

That example is pretty good, though the feature seems rather similar to the acolyte and folk hero features.

Thanks! Admittedly, I got inspiration from the folk hero and guild artisan, but it was mostly to make sure I didn't make the feature too strong


Finding something that hasn't been done before remains a real challenge.

Everything has been done in a way or another. Something I've read on this forum: originality is just using old things in new ways.



However, I note you haven't included tables for subtype (in this case I'd have done 'former career')

Same.



I find most of the difficulty with backgrounds is coming up with unique entries to those tables. Lots of time staring at the screen trying to think of things.

Fair enough, but again, there is no reason to try to reinvent the butter knife for each table. Plenty of background tables have similarities, for good reasons.

[Strangways]

** SOME EDITS MADE **

1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language.

2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too?

3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way.

4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right?

5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged?

6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves
Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think.

7) I've read Rangers are awful, is that fair?

8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference.

9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it?

10) Do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot?

11) Should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already?

12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks?

13) Rogue Uncanny Dodge, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?

14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.

If you are still reading, I'm very grateful for all of your help and time!

Mal

1) Regular (non variant) humans aren't that great, but they'd still be preferable to a dragonborn if you're playing a class (e.g. rogue) for whom the STR and CHA bonuses of a Dragonborn are useless.

2) Regular (non variant) humans aren't that popular, but variant humans are extremely popular because starting with a feat is quite powerful for some classes/builds and because of the flexibility of being able to choose where your stat bonuses go.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by "leveling bonuses." Every race and every class levels at the same rate. If you're referring to the spells that a Tiefling can cast at certain levels, that's just part of the overall package and not unbalanced.

4) Backgrounds are useful in that they get you a bit of starting money and some skills, but they're not super-critical. They do, however, help to add flavor to a character.

5) Generally, your choice of race is strongly influence by your choice of class. If you're playing a wizard and your primary attribute is therefore intelligence, you're going to gravitate towards a race with a bonus to intelligence. Absent racial bonuses (or the variant human's starting feat), you can't start with an attribute higher than 15, which means the difference between +2 and +3 when you're starting out, and that's a major difference at low levels.

6) Wizards of the Coast (publisher of D&D these days) wanted to away from the olden days where wizards cast their 2 or 3 spells, then were reduced to firing a crossbow until the next day. Unlimited use cantrips are designed to enable casters to do a basic level of damage so they're not useless in combat even if they've run out of spell slots to power their level 1+ spells. Of course, many cantrips are utility rather than combat spells, and those help the party overall and help to keep the game moving. So you can cast Prestidigitation to clean that monster's guts off your armor instead of having to search for water and a cloth.

7) The Beastmaster subclass of ranger is generally regarded as awful. Definitely something to be avoided. The hunter subclass has always been fine, but it suffers in the shadow of the beastmaster's bad reputation. However, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, published a couple of weeks ago, introduced 3 new ranger subclasses, Gloom Stalker, Horizon Walker, and Monster Slayer, and all 3 have received a much more enthusiastic reception than the original subclasses in the PHB, so the popularity of the ranger may be on the upswing.

8) Can't really say much here as I don't play either Fighters or Barbarians, but speaking as someone who has seen a lot of them from my safe distance in the back of the lines as an arcane caster, I can say my general impression of them is that Barbarians primarily about raw damage output and tanking incoming damage, while fighters have a lot of tricky weapon moves. Obviously, they're both front line melee classes, but from this observer's viewpoint, the feel of playing one is quite different than the feel of playing the other.

9) Bards are extremely useful now compared to the way they were in certain earlier editions. Every 5e party is happy to have a bard in it. Personally, I'm not a big fan of playing bards, but I certainly recognize their value to a party.

10) That probably depends on the Bard's overall build as some will have better bonus action options than others. Also, the Bard has a pretty good supply of Bardic inspiration to hand out, but he's still got to exercise some restraint. He shouldn't be blowing it all on that first combat with a couple of minor ruffians. You can't always be guaranteed the opportunity for a short rest before the next combat.

11) Warlocks are somewhat complicated because their class abilities are carved up into so many different things (Pact Magic, Arcanum, Pact, Invocations etc.) versus something like a Wizard where spell casting is basically everything. On the other hand, the sheer volume of what a Wizard should know is probably just as great, if not greater, even if the organization of that knowledge is simpler. I wouldn't discourage someone from playing any class they're really determined to play but, if I were the DM, I'd be inclined to be lenient with new players who want at some point to fix some mistaken choice they made early in their character's career, before they really knew what they were doing.

12) Six to eight encounters per day can include social encounters and encounters in which combat is successfully avoided. It doesn't mean 6 to 8 battles per day. Warlocks are very unusual for full spell casters in that they recover all their spell slots on a short rest. All other full spell casters recover their spell slots on a short rest. The price the warlock pays for this is the warlock has hardly any spell slots. But they're not going to be crippled by that provided they get a reasonable number of short rests. They shouldn't be able to take a short rest whenever they feel like it, 10 times a day, after every encounter, no matter how trivial, but if they never get the chance to short rest, only long rest, then they will feel crippled compared to other full casters. The problem I've found in this general area is having a party that recovers fully only on a long rest (like a wizard), or doesn't care about resting very much at all (like a rogue), combined with 1 player who recovers on a short rest (warlock, or monk, for example). Then that one player can end up having to nag the rest of the party to stop for short rests. It's not a huge issue of course, but it's something to think about.

13) Uncanny Dodge costs the rogue his reaction, and once you use your reaction, you don't get another one until your next turn. So if enemy 1 hits the rogue, and the rogue halves that damage with uncanny dodge, then enemy 2 gets his turn before the rogue does, and enemy 2 then hits the rogue as well, the rogue won't have his reaction available to use uncanny dodge and will take the full hit, assuming enemy 2 can hit him. Assuming he has his reaction available, however, the rogue can use uncanny dodge round after round. It will never run out. One of the great strengths of the rogue is that it he's largely immune to resource considerations. He'll never run out of spell slots, ki points, inspiration dice etc., he can just keep fighting as long as necessary.

14) A breastplate (AC 14) Shield (+2) and 14 DEX (another +2) gives you 18 AC, which is a very good AC at low levels. Note that wearing medium armor (such as a breastplate) will cap your dex bonus at +2, so this isn't generally a good idea for a rogue, for example, who will end up with studded leather (AC 12) and a dexterity of 20 (+5) for a total of AC 17 (rogues don't get shield proficiency). You can find various ways to graft medium armor proficiency onto a rogue, but the cost isn't really worth it for the slightly better armor. Generally, the front line people will end up in heavy armor eventually, but that's not as important for ranged attackers with high dexterity.

[Malfarian]

Thank you for the feedback.

[Lombra]

12) IMO no, if you build the encounters following the DMG rules for experience, you can very well do 3 hard-deadly encounters/day with short rests in between, and everyone gets what he needs. Be mindful about CR, and about the damage that some monsters can dish out, sometimes a CR1 monster could have enough damage output to rend unconcious a level 2 fighter, or may have some abilities that the party isn't ready to face yet. Remember: common sense first, numbers later. But I find that the encounters by XP building process works very well.

[Corsair14]

1) why would I pick a human over a dragon born if we don't use feats? Given no class relies on all attributes, DB with breath weapon and resistance seems cooler than human with extra language. Because variant humans get feats at level 1. DB breath weapon quickly becomes superfluous.

2) An old rational for humans was they could be anything, with this gone did their popularity drop too? Nope, humans are very popular.

3) why do some races have leveling bonuses? tiefling and duergar and drow seem odd this way. Not aware of this

4) backgrounds don't feel balanced to me but also don't seem that critical, is this right? Its whatever skill set they offer benefit you the most(more to this later)

5) is it fair to say race matters less and less as you level up? So pick what you want to play, you won't be disadvantaged? the initial skills and abilities are the only important part

6) unlimited cantrips seems very strange to me, do they play much of a role at higher levels ? ( I know warlock loves
Them) if I had a bow I'd feel a little cheated I think. Cantrips are absolutely ridunculous this edition. I miss spell slots

7) I've read Rangers are awful, is that fair? The revised ranger fixes many things. Check Unearthed Arcana

8) What thematic role does a barbarian play over the fighter? Or is it just a flavor difference. Flavor, both are beat sticks but one wears armor and the other is topless.

9) Bards seem really useful now, Bardic Inspiration seems amazing, is it? I hate bards

10) Do bards get a lot of competition for this bonus action or are they handing this d6 out a lot? no clue, I have hated bards since 2nd

11) Should I discourage warlocks for new players as they seem best for someone who knows many classes already? I would block eldritch blast as it makes archers pointless.

12) if I don't run 6-8 encounters per day should I discourage warlocks? should be fine.

13) Rogue Uncanny Dodge, can you use this an unlimited number of times ( once per turn but every turn)?

14) Armor: seems like breastplate with good dex and shield is ideal for high AC is that fair? Yes it costs a lot, I'm simply trying to anticipate questions.


My observations as a long time 2nd and 3rd player who has switched over to this lesser system :P Armor is pointless, they have made dex such a valuable skill that you almost don't need it. When weapons and armor are tied to the same attribute as closely as they are, why bother with armor? Its also so easy to hit things that it further makes high AC almost pointless. You can indeed take out a higher level party with goblins. The mindset between 2nd and 5th has changed over the years. If you listen to the forums, the idea is no longer to have a cool character with lots of room for development and so forth, but to make the most optimized character as you can. Thus variant humans and their starting feat and so forth. Used to be a character developed over time in their class(es) since you multi-classed at level 1. Now players look for the classes that give them the most advantage and dip into a class here and a class there just for the perks. I am half tempted to try a campaign that you start multi-classed and you divide the exp between the classes evenly, but get the perks of both classes at the same time just because the current system annoys me so much.

I think a lot of this comes from that wretched 4th edition crap that came out that was basically WoW on pen and paper. Newer players don't seem to understand its not a competition to have the highest DPS and to do the most stuff. Its about character(not stat) development, exploration and adventure. You might not have a problem having veteran players as I have had with new ones. Even 3.5 was fairly character not stat driven although anyone can see the direction that was heading with all the splat books with options that quickly came out. I noticed the real change though in 4th onward and while 5th tamped that down a bit, its still there as obvious on the forum where half the posts trying to optimize their characters to be the best EVAR.

Also the change in proficiencies between 2nd and 5th bugs the hell out of me. Used to be the party needed a nice mix of skills in order to survive. Now anyone can do anything with only a small modifier to tell the difference. Be funny to here your impression on them.

[Joe the Rat]

That example is pretty good, though the feature seems rather similar to the acolyte and folk hero features. Finding something that hasn't been done before remains a real challenge.

However, I note you haven't included tables for subtype (in this case I'd have done 'former career'), personality trait, ideal, bond and flaw. I find most of the difficulty with backgrounds is coming up with unique entries to those tables. Lots of time staring at the screen trying to think of things.Why does the background feature have to be wholly unique? If you look at the published offerings, you can reduce a lot of them to:

Upkeep and Assistance (Acolyte, Clan Crafter, Entertainer, Folk Hero, Knight of the Order)
Special Access (Charlatan*, Cloistered Scholar, Far Traveler, Noble)
Contact-finder (City Watch, Criminal, Courtier, Mercenary Veteran)
Environment Master (Outlander (wilds), Urchin (city))
Plot Hook (Hermit, Inheritor)


So Having the feature be Upkeep with a group, special access to a locale, or resource-finder is fine. You're in good company.
Personality/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws: Do what SCAG did; crib it from other backgrounds. A lot of time I write my own for each character regardless of the background options.

Now if you're trying to build for publication, that's where you need to get creative, since that is an audience that expects new, clever features.


-------
On Cantrips and Warlocks:

Question. Which do you expect a wizard to do: Throw bolts of energy, or whip out a crossbow? if you prefer magic users to use magic, welcome to the world of at-will damage. You can toss firebolts or magic stones or inflict holy radiance on people all day, rather than stop and switch from caster to archer when you don't want to drop a big bomb. Also note the more limited number of spells casters get. It doesn't take long burn through them if you use a lot of magic.

Of course, your fledgling wizard will do more damage with that crossbow assuming he has a decent Dex - by default, attack cantrips don't get stat bonuses to damage. It's at later levels when they start scaling that they do better. Unless you are an archer with Extra Attack, in which case your stat boost keeps you ahead. Oh, and you can get magic, or class abilities to boost your damage. And you can shoot in an antimagic field, and not have to shout jibber-jabber while doing it. Oh, and you can split up those attacks, unlike most cantrips.

Which brings us to Eldritch Blast, and Warlocks. Here's a creepy caster that has built-in heavy crossbow damage (if you take the cantrip - and yes, it is possible to play blastless Warlock), and can even invest some class resources to make it exactly like a heavy crossbow with stat-to-damage... and as you level (5th+) can target multiple targets like a true archer. It's a dedicated magic blaster. The earliest incarnation was an at will blaster... and at-will just about anything else they could do as well. So we aren't changing much here.

So what is the archer doing instead?
As a Fighter? You're getting expanded crits (Champion), or can add effects besides "push" and "pull" (Battle Master), or have your own set of magic tools to play with (Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer).
As a Ranger? Extra extra attack, or added damage (Hunter), plus being able to load spells onto a shot.
As a Rogue? Sneak Attack for days. You'll have the best no-cost single-shot ranged damage. And you can hide quite well to make sure that happens.
As a Paladin? You really ought to reconsider your life choices.
And all of those can do melee just as easily, with better hit points and armor. (even if using light armor - you can focus on Dex for everything, not just to not get shot)

Warlocks and new players:
If you have someone who's never played a caster, Warlock is actually a decent starter. You start learning about how magic works, and have an enforced resource conservation, through the short rest slots. You can't blow through a days worth of spell slots in one encounter. You run out of juice, take a break. It helps to be heavy-handed with your "take a short rest" suggestions. But this is something several classes will need anyway: Fighters, Monks, Clerics, Druids, Bards... all have short rest resources. Heck, Wizards have a 1/day short rest resource. And everybody can spend hit dice to recover a few hp.

If you have someone who's played casters before... Warlock is a useful teaching tool, thanks to the automatic upcasting. Every time you use a spell slot, it's at maximum power - everything is upcast as far as it can go. Now you probably will be fine pointing out "You can cast that at a higher level to get an extra nDwhatsit damage," but having a side-by-side can be useful.

[GlenSmash!]

Lots of good posts in this thread.

I just wanted to add my thoughts on Standard Human. +1 to all stats looks a lot more attractive when you are planning on going with something MAD like a weird multiclass combo or a Strength Based Ranger. It's even more attractive with point buy.

Point Buys of 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8 or 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 work better for Human than any other Race.

16, 14, 14, 12, 14, 9 not only makes a good Strength based Ranger, but is a pretty decent Fighter or Barb too. Not as good as getting a feat probably, but not bad by any means.

[Malfarian]

Lots of good posts in this thread.

I just wanted to add my thoughts on Standard Human. +1 to all stats looks a lot more attractive when you are planning on going with something MAD like a weird multiclass combo or a Strength Based Ranger. It's even more attractive with point buy.

Point Buys of 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8 or 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 work better for Human than any other Race.

16, 14, 14, 12, 14, 9 not only makes a good Strength based Ranger, but is a pretty decent Fighter or Barb too. Not as good as getting a feat probably, but not bad by any means.

Glen thanks for that point, I was toying with having several standard arrays, all with point buys and then having pcs roll to see which array they get, I may instead offer a choice, I don't know yet.

[GlenSmash!]

Glen thanks for that point, I was toying with having several standard arrays, all with point buys and then having pcs roll to see which array they get, I may instead offer a choice, I don't know yet.

There is a random generator somewhere that essentially "rolls" valid point buy options. It's good if you like the randomness of rolling, but want the balance of pointbuy.

[Cynthaer]

Why does the background feature have to be wholly unique? If you look at the published offerings, you can reduce a lot of them to:

Upkeep and Assistance (Acolyte, Clan Crafter, Entertainer, Folk Hero, Knight of the Order)
Special Access (Charlatan*, Cloistered Scholar, Far Traveler, Noble)
Contact-finder (City Watch, Criminal, Courtier, Mercenary Veteran)
Environment Master (Outlander (wilds), Urchin (city))
Plot Hook (Hermit, Inheritor)


So Having the feature be Upkeep with a group, special access to a locale, or resource-finder is fine. You're in good company.
Personality/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws: Do what SCAG did; crib it from other backgrounds. A lot of time I write my own for each character regardless of the background options.

Now if you're trying to build for publication, that's where you need to get creative, since that is an audience that expects new, clever features.
Agreed.

If you're taking a purely mechanical view of backgrounds, like the OP suggests his players are inclined to do, they are simply this:

Pick any 2 skills
Pick any 2 tool proficiencies and/or languages
Pick a background feature from any published background (or something close, as described above)
Pick an equipment package from any published background (unless you're using the "buy all gear at level 1" approach, or the DM is flexible)

In other words, the hard mechanical impact is to give all characters two floating skills that aren't restricted by their class, two tools/languages, a minor adventuring/plot skill, and a little bit of gear.

From this perspective, the actual list of officially printed backgrounds is nothing more than a set of unique features and equipment packages to choose from at will, or to use as yardsticks for your own features/starting equipment.

The reason WotC printed them as a set of distinct backgrounds with distinct fluff and personality traits is to make it very easy for new players to (A) flesh out their characters, (B) get some mechanical benefits without being overwhelmed by choices, and (C) make their mechanics and backstory match a little. They're not intended to be a straitjacket for experienced players who would rather customize.