Noob thoughts on D&D 5e

[J-H]

I just got my PHB and have played one session (my only ever in person session, at levels 1-2).

Here are my first impressions. Please tell me if I'm way off on anything. I haven't had a chance to read through all of the spells yet.

General
Hit points inflate some as you level up, but not to the extend of 3.5. AC and to-hit do not, so everyone can expect to take more hits. Damage numbers by non-casters do not inflate substantially, but there's no penalty on iterative attacks. I still think martials may fall behind at higher levels, but not as much. Individual classes have their options.

Since AC doesn't inflate much, everyone's going to take hits. Healing is pretty important (we had 3 characters shot to 0hp in the first round of an encounter with 4 gnoll archers at 1st level), but there are more in-combat options that just use bonus actions.

Proficiency bonuses means that a 10th-level bard has about the same to-hit chance as a 10th-level warrior, although the warrior will have some class abilities that help.

Magic items are almost entirely optional, and a +1 or +2 will be very meaningful on to-hit rolls throughout the game.

The paths within each class provide meaningful and flavorful differences.

Spell lists are shorter and more manageable. Most of the "never used" stuff is gone. Rituals allow some out-of-combat spell use. Nobody gets bonus spell slots from ability scores, and nobody gets more than 1 8th or 9th level spell per day. This helps reign in caster supremacy substantially. Yes, the Wizard can reshape the battlefield with an 8th level spell - but he only has one for the whole day.

CR is a completely different system than 3.5. Destroy undead CR4 at 17th level? Bears at CR1?

Classes
Barbarian: Heavy damage, likely to get the best to-hit in the game by level 20 thanks to breaking the STR cap. Buffed STR + CON means you may be better off going unarmored unless you have a magic armor option. You don't dodge hits, you eat them. Maxes out at 2 attacks without multiclassing. Minor battlefield control options. Totem warrior gives more options; frenzied warrior gives more damage. Reasonable, but likely to be outshined for anything aside from blocking hits with his muscles.

Bard: No extra attack, so stay out of melee. You're supposed to be a skillmonkey/caster. Typical 5th wheel. Bardic inspiration is for one dice roll for one ally at a time, so it's much weaker than 3.5. The spell list goes all the way up to 9ths. Useful, but never the star of the show.

Cleric: Turn Undead has been simplified, yay. Domains give extra spells and some useful abilities. I'm not seeing melee as a great option unless there are some spells that boost it. The holy flame cantrip (reflex or 1d8 damage) was really good at first level.

Druid: I've made a 3rd level druid for this weekend's game. Shapeshifting looks marginal, as the ability bonuses aren't that great - I think maybe the utility options (flight, extra attacks) are the attraction for Druids of the Moon. Spells give the usual great flexibility, as well as offering healing. Always has something to do in combat.

Fighter: The only class to get more than 2 attacks, aside from Monk. They get to be the super-mundane thanks to extra ability score improvements, which will help a few skills or make them stronger/tougher/faster. Champion is kind of meh, although since you just roll a number to crit, 4 attacks per round with a 18-20 crit range means you'll crit every other round on average. There are no extra effects aside from bonus damage, though. Battlemaster gets weak maneuvers and has to spend a very small pool of dice to access them for minor bonus damage. Not impressed with Battlemaster. Eldritch Knight is going to depend on how good the spells are. I would be tempted to grab that option for versatility if I had to pick a fighter. The big attraction is "hits a lot of times" and that is a boon.

Monk: Extra hits, minor abilities. Decent defenses but not great. Not likely to keep up with the fighter or barbarian when it comes to damage. Way of Shadow looks useful. Four Elements gets ATLA element bending. This is another gish like Eldritch Knight. Probably a weaker class although more survivable.

Paladin: Only one extra attack; combat utility comes from healing/spells. Solid overall though. Smite draws on your spell slots (ouch). Save bonuses are nice as an aura. I'd be happy to have a Paladin in the party for that alone. Devotion lets the Paladin get up to a +5 to-hit bonus from CHA for one minute; great for a boss fight and competitive with a Barbarian. Vengeance gives some battlefield control, but looks underwhelming compared to the others. Ancients is pretty meh...except for resistance (half damage) from spells as an always-on aura. That's pretty good.

Ranger: Utility options. Sneaky. Hunter give some nice combat options to pick from. Beast master gives companions, but doesn't buff survivability for them. Hunter looks stronger and like a decent option.

Rogue: Mobile, useful. Assassin is very dependent on being the one to kick combat off. I suspect big synergy with poison. Arcane Trickster rolls in a bit of spellthief at high levels.

Sorcerer: Metamagic for flexibility. Draconic stuff helps make you tougher. Wild magic is at the DM's discretion, and that path also has a bit of very weak Fatespinner in it. I would stay off of Wild Magic unless it was a silly game.

Warlock: A few spells, a few invocations...it's a pocket theurge! Pretty similar to 3.5 Warlock I think...invocations all day long.

Wizard: Schools are all useful, too much to go through unless I'm building a wizard. Plenty of choices.

[EggKookoo]

Bard: No extra attack, so stay out of melee. You're supposed to be a skillmonkey/caster. Typical 5th wheel. Bardic inspiration is for one dice roll for one ally at a time, so it's much weaker than 3.5. The spell list goes all the way up to 9ths. Useful, but never the star of the show.

Just some corrections here. Valor bard gets Extra Attack, so that's two and if you dual wield you can get three. Also, Bardic Inspiration can be used on more than one ally at a time. It's just that a given ally can only have one inspiration die at a given time.

[Skyblaze]

Based on how you phrased your barbarian segment, you can only get 3 base attacks in an action (without any spells or magic items) by getting 11 levels in fighter. Taking 5 barbarian/5 fighter will still only get you 2 base attacks per round as extra attack does not stack at the same level.

Battlemaster's maneuvers are more than just a little extra damage. They provide a fair amount of utility as well.

Vengance and Ancient paladin have a lot of use and are regarded (?) as the better two of the 3 base PHB paladin archetypes. Their extra spells and abilities help a lot.

[Man_Over_Game]

I just got my PHB and have played one session (my only ever in person session, at levels 1-2).

Here are my first impressions. Please tell me if I'm way off on anything. I haven't had a chance to read through all of the spells yet.

General
Hit points inflate some as you level up, but not to the extend of 3.5. AC and to-hit do not, so everyone can expect to take more hits. Damage numbers by non-casters do not inflate substantially, but there's no penalty on iterative attacks. I still think martials may fall behind at higher levels, but not as much. Individual classes have their options.

Spot on so far.


Since AC doesn't inflate much, everyone's going to take hits. Healing is pretty important (we had 3 characters shot to 0hp in the first round of an encounter with 4 gnoll archers at 1st level), but there are more in-combat options that just use bonus actions.

Damage is a pretty big deal in the first few levels, especially if players don't invest in high-defense options. Once you hit level 3, people will stop dropping nearly as quickly (when your health is doubled but damage from attacking is nearly the same). Early-on, DMs should be lowering damage on most creatures, giving burst damage to creatures with low hit rates. If they don't do this (and by default, the game doesn't), then people drop like flies early on.


Proficiency bonuses means that a 10th-level bard has about the same to-hit chance as a 10th-level warrior, although the warrior will have some class abilities that help.

Roughly, yes, but the Martial classes all have abilities that improve their attack benefits. Everyone has the same "stats" to hit, but only a Barbarian has Advantage to hit, +3 damage, extra crit damage, an extra attack, and other things. Just because a Bard *can* hit doesn't mean that an attacking Bard is an effective contribution to the team.


Magic items are almost entirely optional, and a +1 or +2 will be very meaningful on to-hit rolls throughout the game.
All true. I wouldn't say they're necessarily "optional", but they should absolutely be much more rare than you're used to.


The paths within each class provide meaningful and flavorful differences.

:smallsmile:


Spell lists are shorter and more manageable. Most of the "never used" stuff is gone. Rituals allow some out-of-combat spell use. Nobody gets bonus spell slots from ability scores, and nobody gets more than 1 8th or 9th level spell per day. This helps reign in caster supremacy substantially. Yes, the Wizard can reshape the battlefield with an 8th level spell - but he only has one for the whole day.
All true.


CR is a completely different system than 3.5. Destroy undead CR4 at 17th level? Bears at CR1?
CR is a bit wonky in 5e. Because of how bounded accuracy works (AC and To-Hit doesn't increase much), weaker units can participate. As a result, an army of CR4 undead can really mess up a high level group that doesn't have an answer for it. Also, CR is generally weaker than it used to be, since it's expected for a group to have about 4 combats (including mild skirmishes) before a Long Rest.


Classes
Barbarian: Heavy damage, likely to get the best to-hit in the game by level 20 thanks to breaking the STR cap. Buffed STR + CON means you may be better off going unarmored unless you have a magic armor option. You don't dodge hits, you eat them. Maxes out at 2 attacks without multiclassing. Minor battlefield control options. Totem warrior gives more options; frenzied warrior gives more damage. Reasonable, but likely to be outshined for anything aside from blocking hits with his muscles.
Barbarians do exceptionally well against Bosses, since Bosses generally are going to hit anyone they want to anyway (and the Barbarian mitigates damage by taking hits and halving the damage). They are known for being exceptionally strong early game, but taper off halfway through.


Bard: No extra attack, so stay out of melee. You're supposed to be a skillmonkey/caster. Typical 5th wheel. Bardic inspiration is for one dice roll for one ally at a time, so it's much weaker than 3.5. The spell list goes all the way up to 9ths. Useful, but never the star of the show.
On the contrary, their list of skills, control-oriented spell list, common main attribute, and healing abilities puts Bards at one of the most versatile and valuable additions to a group. They do have a few subclasses (Valor, Swords) that give them the means to perform in melee combat, but mostly as a secondary choice.


Cleric: Turn Undead has been simplified, yay. Domains give extra spells and some useful abilities. I'm not seeing melee as a great option unless there are some spells that boost it. The holy flame cantrip (reflex or 1d8 damage) was really good at first level.
Tempest and War can perform in melee quite well, they just have to remember that they shouldn't be the primary melee combatant in the party. They have healing, so they should use it.


Druid: I've made a 3rd level druid for this weekend's game. Shapeshifting looks marginal, as the ability bonuses aren't that great - I think maybe the utility options (flight, extra attacks) are the attraction for Druids of the Moon. Spells give the usual great flexibility, as well as offering healing. Always has something to do in combat.
Moon Druids are a bit...unbalanced compared to most other classes. In the "Jesus that's strong" kinda way. Turn into a CR1 Bear at level 2 that has an extra attack each turn, 30 HP, and they can shift into that bear twice per short rest.

And that's before including the fact that after you get rid of the bear (twice, remember), you'd dealing with a full caster who's specialty is close-mid range AoE spells.


Fighter: The only class to get more than 2 attacks, aside from Monk. They get to be the super-mundane thanks to extra ability score improvements, which will help a few skills or make them stronger/tougher/faster. Champion is kind of meh, although since you just roll a number to crit, 4 attacks per round with a 18-20 crit range means you'll crit every other round on average. There are no extra effects aside from bonus damage, though. Battlemaster gets weak maneuvers and has to spend a very small pool of dice to access them for minor bonus damage. Not impressed with Battlemaster. Eldritch Knight is going to depend on how good the spells are. I would be tempted to grab that option for versatility if I had to pick a fighter. The big attraction is "hits a lot of times" and that is a boon.
You're mostly spot on.
Champion is pretty dull as a class mechanic choice. It's fine if you want to RP all of your actions, but it's not that strong and neither that interesting.
Eldritch Knight is very strong when you consider things like Shield, Absorb Elements, or the spells added from the Sword Coast book (Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade). All the melee prowess of a fighter, with added solo versatility.
Battlemaster is very good, due to the fact that their stat used to control the battlefield is the same stat that they use to attack with, and usually they can do both at once. Rather than being a Bard who controls the battlefield OR attacks, the Battlemaster can do both. Also, their resource refreshes on a Short Rest, and you're supposed to have 2 Short Rests per Long Rest, which means they should be able to use all of their resources 3 times. Since Battlemasters can add their abilities to Strength, Dexterity, Ranged, Melee, on top of an attack that they'd already be making or using a Bonus Action or not, it's *really* hard for any non-magic user to justify not considering a Battlemaster level.


Monk: Extra hits, minor abilities. Decent defenses but not great. Not likely to keep up with the fighter or barbarian when it comes to damage. Way of Shadow looks useful. Four Elements gets ATLA element bending. This is another gish like Eldritch Knight. Probably a weaker class although more survivable.
The Monk is a little bit less survivable, due to not having access to higher AC and a lower hit die. They make up for it in versatility, high damage, and shrugging off debuffs. They can attack 3 times at level 2, and 4 times at level 5, which is pretty hard to beat. However, attributes are much more important to Monks than other classes, especially early on.


Paladin: Only one extra attack; combat utility comes from healing/spells. Solid overall though. Smite draws on your spell slots (ouch). Save bonuses are nice as an aura. I'd be happy to have a Paladin in the party for that alone. Devotion lets the Paladin get up to a +5 to-hit bonus from CHA for one minute; great for a boss fight and competitive with a Barbarian. Vengeance gives some battlefield control, but looks underwhelming compared to the others. Ancients is pretty meh...except for resistance (half damage) from spells as an always-on aura. That's pretty good.
Pretty spot on here. Paladins are considered some of the best right now.
Devotion: Generic Paladin, does well as a ranged combatant that uses auras in the middle of your team.
Vengeance: Best melee damage dealer, focuses on "selfish" enhancements, so it's best in a small team.
Ancients: Basically a Paladin that never dies, just don't expect to do much else.


Ranger: Utility options. Sneaky. Hunter give some nice combat options to pick from. Beast master gives companions, but doesn't buff survivability for them. Hunter looks stronger and like a decent option.
Ranger is pretty weak at the moment. All of their class benefits stop being useful past level 6.

Beastmaster is considered one of the worst class options in the game, due to the fact that your beast is easily killed, is difficult to replace, has all of your class features, and at best allows you to spend an attack to attack. Where other subclasses (Devotion Paladin) improve your few attacks, and others (War Cleric, Berserker Barbarian) give you more attacks, the Beastmaster Ranger can only spend an attack to make an attack, so...it's a bit of a slap in the face. Check out the Revised Ranger Unearthed Arcane for the Beast Conclave, which is a bit more healthy as a Ranger choice.


Rogue: Mobile, useful. Assassin is very dependent on being the one to kick combat off. I suspect big synergy with poison. Arcane Trickster rolls in a bit of spellthief at high levels.
All very true.

Dice damage doubles on a crit, Poison does dice damage, Assassins crit more often. You can do the math. Because Surprise and Stealth aren't really done that much, it's generally considered a weaker subclass.
Arcane Trickster is very much like the spellthief. Has a lot of versatility and is a crowd favorite (definitely one of mine).
Thief is...meh. It does what it does, but it's hard to determine how valuable "object interaction" really is without a *really* good DM.


Sorcerer: Metamagic for flexibility. Draconic stuff helps make you tougher. Wild magic is at the DM's discretion, and that path also has a bit of very weak Fatespinner in it. I would stay off of Wild Magic unless it was a silly game.
Wild Magic is actually quite good. It has more positive effects than negative, and you can gain Advantage on your spells by rolling the wheel.
Sorcerer as a whole is considered pretty weak, due to its lack of versatility with spell choices. You can't pick very many spells.


Warlock: A few spells, a few invocations...it's a pocket theurge! Pretty similar to 3.5 Warlock I think...invocations all day long.
The major concern with Warlocks is that they have fewer spells but refresh on a Short Rest. Many DMs don't use many Short Rests, so unless your DM has 2 Short Rests per day (as is suggested), Warlocks are going to be a lot weaker than any other caster. Still, many take a few levels into Warlock as a multiclass option to have more consistent low level spell slots (to fuel things like Absorb Elements or Shield).


Wizard: Schools are all useful, too much to go through unless I'm building a wizard. Plenty of choices.
They are. A key thing to note is that the weaker the spell list is (like Divination magic), the stronger the Wizard subclass for it. Transmutation, for example, is incredibly strong in the wizard spell list, and as a result, the subclass for it is pretty lackluster. Divination has a weak spell list, but it's subclass is considered one of the strongest.

As a result, being a Wizard in a specific subclass, using their school's spells, you'll generally be balanced against all other options.

Except Necromancy. It's pretty weak early on and kinda weak later on, and is at it's strongest in the mid-tier levels (level 6-14). Once again, this will require a good DM to get the most out of this subclass.

[ad_hoc]

You shouldn't compare the game to 3e. It is its own game.

In my experience the people who have the most trouble learning and understanding 5e are 3e players, partly because of this mentality.

[qube]

Druid: I've made a 3rd level druid for this weekend's game. Shapeshifting looks marginal, as the ability bonuses aren't that great - I think maybe the utility options (flight, extra attacks) are the attraction for Druids of the Moon. Spells give the usual great flexibility, as well as offering healing. Always has something to do in combat.moon druid tank hits like no other. They are on par with barbarians in eating hits.
(and barbarian druids ... well ... )


Rogue: Mobile, useful. Assassin is very dependent on being the one to kick combat off. I suspect big synergy with poison. Arcane Trickster rolls in a bit of spellthief at high levels.rogue are the epitome of skill users.
At lower level it's just expertise, but at higher level you get stuff like ("if you roll less then 10, it counts as having rolled 10")
As DM, at some point, I just stop asking the rogue to roll is stealth check. Once your minimum is 20 ... yeah ...


Vengance and Ancient paladin have a lot of use and are regarded (?) as the better two of the 3 base PHB paladin archetypes. Their extra spells and abilities help a lot. Vengeance paladin: (a) advantage (b) hunters mark .

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience the people who have the most trouble learning and understanding 5e are 3e players, partly because of this mentality. My brother still calls a move "Move Action" ... and I finally stopped caring.

[J-H]

Oh, I see I missed the "gain the transformed form's HP" as a bonus in wildshape. Shift into a bear, get 34hp. Lose those hp, and you're still back to normal hp.

That's good. Double or triple your HP pool if you don't need to cast.

[OverLordOcelot]

Here's a few comments on things you seem to have wrong:

Bard: No extra attack, so stay out of melee. You're supposed to be a skillmonkey/caster. Typical 5th wheel. Bardic inspiration is for one dice roll for one ally at a time, so it's much weaker than 3.5. The spell list goes all the way up to 9ths. Useful, but never the star of the show.

Not sure where you get the idea that bards are never the star of the show - being the skillmonkey with CHA as a caster stat means they're best suited for being the party 'face', and being the face means being the star of the show while you're facing. Also, for the love of all that's holy never tell a bard they're not the star of the show, they generally don't need any encouragement to showboat.


Cleric: Turn Undead has been simplified, yay. Domains give extra spells and some useful abilities. I'm not seeing melee as a great option unless there are some spells that boost it. The holy flame cantrip (reflex or 1d8 damage) was really good at first level.

The standard form of melee for a 5th level cleric (that's where everyone else gets extra attacks) is to cast guardian spirits, walk into the middle of the enemy, and do utility stuff or just dodge while the spirits destroy enemies.


Druid: I've made a 3rd level druid for this weekend's game. Shapeshifting looks marginal, as the ability bonuses aren't that great - I think maybe the utility options (flight, extra attacks) are the attraction for Druids of the Moon. Spells give the usual great flexibility, as well as offering healing. Always has something to do in combat.

Have you looked at the stats of CR1 beasts vs those of the party? A dire wolf has more HP than a 3rd level fighter or barbarian, and when they kill it you can turn into a second one, plus still have your HP on top. Moon druids can tank 'this would kill the entire rest of the party' levels of damage in Tier 1 (I did it several times). It levels off as you get into Tier 2 (5-10th level), but 3rd level druid is right in the middle of the peak time for wild shape.


Fighter: Battlemaster gets weak maneuvers and has to spend a very small pool of dice to access them for minor bonus damage. Not impressed with Battlemaster.

If you waste your maneuvers for minor bonus damage, then battlemaster will be unimpressive. What you can do is convert a miss into a hit when you need it, or put bad statuses on the enemy. For example, I have an archer battlemaster with the sharpshooter feat. When she uses that feat for -5 to hit/+10 to damage, anytime she misses by a small amount she can add a die to probably turn that into a hit for D10+13 damage (not just a bonus from the die). She can shoot someone and spend a die to force them to make a save, and if they fail they're frightened of her - so get disadvantage on attacks and ability checks, and can't move closer (the use of forcing someone to stay away as an archer should be obvious). She can also trip someone, giving melee attackers advantage until they spend half their movement to stand up. And she can combine that with action surge, so if it doesn't work the first time she can get a second attempt.


This is another gish like Eldritch Knight.

Eldritch Knights are not a 'gish' in the sense of being someone who mixes full casting and melee; instead they are a powerful melee combatant who has some spells on top of that. If you play one, you want to remember that you're primarily a fighter and don't expect to be dealing massive spell damage.


Paladin: Only one extra attack; combat utility comes from healing/spells. Solid overall though. Smite draws on your spell slots (ouch).

Not really - typically a paladins' combat utility comes from smiting, to the point that most people would say that spells draw on your smite slots instead of the other way around. While they certainly should get use out of spells, their biggest combat trick is doing extreme spike damage by smiting, especially smiting on critical hits.

[GlenSmash!]

Oh, I see I missed the "gain the transformed form's HP" as a bonus in wildshape. Shift into a bear, get 34hp. Lose those hp, and you're still back to normal hp.

That's good. Double or triple your HP pool if you don't need to cast.

The best Moons druids, Cast, then shift as a bonus action, fight as an animal, then when out of animal HPs, cast and shift again.

Throwing an AOE spell, or crowd control spell, -EDIT: or summoning spell- before going beast mode is huge advantage to the party.

[Benny89]

I

Paladin: Only one extra attack; combat utility comes from healing/spells. Solid overall though. Smite draws on your spell slots (ouch). Save bonuses are nice as an aura. I'd be happy to have a Paladin in the party for that alone. Devotion lets the Paladin get up to a +5 to-hit bonus from CHA for one minute; great for a boss fight and competitive with a Barbarian. Vengeance gives some battlefield control, but looks underwhelming compared to the others. Ancients is pretty meh...except for resistance (half damage) from spells as an always-on aura. That's pretty good.

Actually Vengeance is one of best Oaths, and 100% best offensive Oath. The only single underwhelming thing about Vengeance is his 7th level feature which can still work well with Haste + Sentinel + PAM but overall it's meh. But he has one of best (if not best if we want to be offensive) Channels, best hands down Oath Spells and best imo 15th level feature.

They get only one extra attack as class, but typical PAM Vengeance Paladin with Haste on + 15 level feature + VoE look as 4-5 attacks per turn.

Which makes Vengeance best Nova class and best melee burst single-target damage dealer. If you wonder what is most complained class in 5e that deletes DM "epic" bosses- that is PAM Vengeance Paladin.

Generally even non-Vengeance Oaths are best melee Novas and are extremelely tanky.

Lay Down Hands is basicelly a huge effective HP boost to Paladin. At level 20 it's 100 extra HP points on demand. Which basicelly makes Paladins having highest effective HP in the game.

Also- Paladins mostly use their slots either for Smite, self buff (which they can have only 1 at time) or in "ow shat!" situations. Mostly every Paladin just cast Bless or Haste (Vengeance) and focus on Smites. So most Paladins cry when they have to use spell slot for something else than Smite, not other way around :D

[PeteNutButter]

Actually Vengeance is one of best Oaths, and 100% best offensive Oath. The only single underwhelming thing about Vengeance is his 7th level feature which can still work well with Haste + Sentinel + PAM but overall it's meh. But he has one of best (if not best if we want to be offensive) Channels, best hands down Oath Spells and best imo 15th level feature.

They get only one extra attack as class, but typical PAM Vengeance Paladin with Haste on + 15 level feature + VoE look as 4-5 attacks per turn.

Which makes Vengeance best Nova class and best melee burst single-target damage dealer. If you wonder what is most complained class in 5e that deletes DM "epic" bosses is PAM Vengeance Paladin.

Generally even non-Vengeance Oaths are best melee Novas and are extremelely tanky.

Lay Down Hands is basicelly a huge effective HP boost to Paladin. At level 20 it's 100 extra HP points on demand. Which basicelly makes Paladins having highest effective HP in the game.

Also- Paladins mostly use their slots either for Smite, self buff (which they can have only 1 at time) or in "ow shat!" situations. Mostly every Paladin just cast Bless or Haste (Vengeance) and focus on Smites. So most Paladins cry when they have to use spell slot for something else than Smite, not other way around :D

So true. Paladin's don't get spell slots. They get smite slots, that can sometimes be used as spells.

I'd argue the paladin subclasses are probably the most balanced of all the classes in the PHB. Most of the classes get one or two duds and one or two clear winners, but each paladin subclass has great perks.

Devotion's 3rd level ability is very strong, but their 15th level ability can be game breaking. Aberrations, Celestials, Fey, Fiends, and Undead have permanent disadvantage to hit you. That's basically everything scary short of dragons.

Ancients' 7th level ability is extremely potent. Since it extends to the party, it easily makes this the best team player paladin.

Vengeance has the best spells, a solid 3rd level ability against bosses, a build dependent 7th level ability and a solid 15th level feature.

[noob]

Balancing encounters is wacky at best.
The cr of the monsters is in no case an indication of the danger of the monsters when in group.
Due to how armor caps out rather fast a swarm of Cr 1/4 monsters is probably approximately as dangerous as the sum of the crs thanks to action economy and how they will still hit often.
So it does not makes you feel very epic when you see that at higher level you manage low monsters only because you need to be hit way more than before for falling unconscious.
I think they should make some guides about choosing the appropriate cr for an encounter.

[Benny89]

So true. Paladin's don't get spell slots. They get smite slots, that can sometimes be used as spells.

I'd argue the paladin subclasses are probably the most balanced of all the classes in the PHB. Most of the classes get one or two duds and one or two clear winners, but each paladin subclass has great perks.

Devotion's 3rd level ability is very strong, but their 15th level ability can be game breaking. Aberrations, Celestials, Fey, Fiends, and Undead have permanent disadvantage to hit you. That's basically everything scary short of dragons.

Ancients' 7th level ability is extremely potent. Since it extends to the party, it easily makes this the best team player paladin.

Vengeance has the best spells, a solid 3rd level ability against bosses, a build dependent 7th level ability and a solid 15th level feature.

Yup, imo Devotion is best all around Paladin, mixing well damage, tankiness and support while Vengeance is just best pure damage dealer among Paladin classes and ancient is best tank among them. While Conquest - best control.

[J-H]

I was looking at the low DCs (11-13) on Battlemaster abilities. However, I just realized... without proficiency bonuses to Strength saves, a level 20 wizard being targeted by one of these is no better off than 1st level wizard if it hits. It's just D20+STR...so most wizards will be rolling 1d20+1 or 1d20+2 vs DC 11-13....that's a reasonable chance of landing.

[Boci]

You shouldn't compare the game to 3e. It is its own game.

People makes comparisons netween things they know, even when they share only a genre, and these share a label. And even if that weren't the case, not comparing 5th ed and 4rd ed is only useful if you are choosing one forever. If you are still open to playing either, comparing them will held you and your group decide which system would work better for a particular game idea.


In my experience the people who have the most trouble learning and understanding 5e are 3e players, partly because of this mentality.

In my expirience the few things you need to unlearn from 3.5 still leaves you way ahead just by knowing what D&D is, which someone knew to the game will need to learn.

[ad_hoc]

People makes comparisons netween things they know, even when they share only a genre, and these share a label. And even if that weren't the case, not comparing 5th ed and 4rd ed is only useful if you are choosing one forever. If you are still open to playing either, comparing them will held you and your group decide which system would work better for a particular game idea.

I know people do it, which is why I say they shouldn't. The rules of each game should not be conflated even if they sound similar.




In my expirience the few things you need to unlearn from 3.5 still leaves you way ahead just by knowing what D&D is, which someone knew to the game will need to learn.

Everyone I have taught the game to who hasn't played RPGs before had no problem picking it up. I even had someone who played 2 sessions go and start their own game straight away. The only problems I've ever had with people are ones who are coming from 3e.

This is also my experience online. People post all sorts of trouble understanding things and most of the time it is because they are looking at a 5e rule through a 3e lens.

In the campaign we just started we had 1 3e player who kept saying that he is using X skill rather than just describing what he is doing. Despite explaining it a few times he kept getting frustrated by it. Interacting with the world was intuitive to everyone else. He ended up quitting the campaign, not sure if the reason was not understanding the game but I bet it contributed.

[Boci]

I know people do it, which is why I say they shouldn't. The rules of each game should not be conflated even if they sound similar.

They shouldn't be conflated but they should be compared. Otherwise how will you know which game system to play if you're not suppose to compare the two?


Everyone I have taught the game to who hasn't played RPGs before had no problem picking it up. I even had someone who played 2 sessions go and start their own game straight away.

I find that very hard to believe, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other, so, shrug.

[EggKookoo]

I find that very hard to believe, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other, so, shrug.

I don't. It jives with my own experience. I've had players new to D&D and TTRPGs entirely who picked up how to play 5e pretty much instantly (I mean as a player, of course, not DMing). Even my 7yo daughter grasped it with the first session, even correcting her mom on which die was what, although her attention span makes it hard to play for more than an hour at a time. But she has no conceptual trouble with it. I've also had long-term 2e players, and players with decades of TTRPG but not specifically D&D experience, pick it up right away. The 2e players definitely do the comparison thing but they have no trouble keeping things straight.

I haven't tried running experienced 3e players through 5e but it's worth pointing out that those experienced TTRPG players above reacted pretty negatively to 3e when I ran a campaign. And it wasn't that they didn't try to meet it halfway -- one player resorted to bringing a calculator to games. I mean, they put the effort in, in the hopes that the convolution would resolve out to something satisfying and deep, but it never really happened (they were very happy to switch to 5e). Bear in mind these are some old 1e/2e players complaining about 3e's obtuseness!

[Boci]

I don't. It jives with my own experience. I've had players new to D&D and TTRPGs entirely who picked up how to play 5e pretty much instantly (I mean as a player, of course, not DMing).

The claim was they started DMing after only playing 2 sessions.

[Dienekes]

The claim was they started DMing after only playing 2 sessions.

Why would that be hard to believe? I started GMing after playing one session. It was ****, and I messed up more than I can remember. But I wanted to show the game to my other friends.

[Boci]

Why would that be hard to believe? I started GMing after playing one session. It was ****, and I messed up more than I can remember. But I wanted to show the game to my other friends.

The claim was made in the context of how easy 5e was for new people. Sure, its possible they did what you describe, but that's hardly unique to 5th ed, as it can happen with any game. Claiming someone started DMing after just 2 sessions in the context of a game being easy for new comers to learn implies it was successful too.

If that wasn't meant to be implied, then yeah, I started DMing D&D 2nd edition after 1 session, with similarly poor results, but me and my friends enjoyed it.

[EggKookoo]

The claim was made in the context of how easy 5e was for new people. Sure, its possible they did what you describe, but that's hardly unique to 5th ed, as it can happen with any game. Claiming someone started DMing after just 2 sessions in the context of a game being easy for new comers to learn implies it was successful too.

If that wasn't meant to be implied, then yeah, I started DMing D&D 2nd edition after 1 session, with similarly poor results, but me and my friends enjoyed it.

I don't know about how many sessions you need to play in before DMing, but I have no trouble believing a newbie player can pick up DMing in 5e much sooner than a newbie player could pick up DMing in 3e.

[LudicSavant]

Hi J-H! Welcome to 5e! :smallsmile:


Here are my first impressions. Please tell me if I'm way off on anything. I haven't had a chance to read through all of the spells yet.

Will do!


Classes
Barbarian: Heavy damage, likely to get the best to-hit in the game by level 20 thanks to breaking the STR cap. Buffed STR + CON means you may be better off going unarmored unless you have a magic armor option. You don't dodge hits, you eat them. Maxes out at 2 attacks without multiclassing. Minor battlefield control options. Totem warrior gives more options; frenzied warrior gives more damage. Reasonable, but likely to be outshined for anything aside from blocking hits with his muscles.

Berserker has a few problems that often lead to it dealing less damage than Totem in practice, such as the fact that it has to eat Exhaustion every time it frenzies, and Exhaustion is a big deal in 5e. For example, let's say you have 4 rages per day. If you frenzied on each of those rages, it would take you 4 days of long rests to get rid of all that exhaustion. Note that even 1 rank of exhaustion has some severe effects, and the penalties escalate dramatically at each rank (and you die outright at 6 ranks).


Bard: No extra attack, so stay out of melee. You're supposed to be a skillmonkey/caster. Typical 5th wheel. Bardic inspiration is for one dice roll for one ally at a time, so it's much weaker than 3.5. The spell list goes all the way up to 9ths. Useful, but never the star of the show.

Bards can totally be the star of the show in 5e. Magical Secrets allows for some particularly powerful combinations. And don't underestimate the value of being able to add dice to d20 rolls in 5e; such bonuses are relatively few and far between in 5e, and can make a significant difference.

Also, you actually can get Extra Attack as a Bard; you just have to be a Valor Bard (or, with supplements, a Swords Bard).


Cleric: Turn Undead has been simplified, yay. Domains give extra spells and some useful abilities. I'm not seeing melee as a great option unless there are some spells that boost it. The holy flame cantrip (reflex or 1d8 damage) was really good at first level.

There are indeed spells that boost it. Stuff like Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon + certain subclasses can make Clerics into very effective frontliners.


Druid: I've made a 3rd level druid for this weekend's game. Shapeshifting looks marginal, as the ability bonuses aren't that great - I think maybe the utility options (flight, extra attacks) are the attraction for Druids of the Moon. Spells give the usual great flexibility, as well as offering healing. Always has something to do in combat.

This one's way off. Moon Druids are well known for being a top of the line choice at low levels, so I'm sure plenty of others will cover this one.


Fighter: The only class to get more than 2 attacks, aside from Monk. They get to be the super-mundane thanks to extra ability score improvements, which will help a few skills or make them stronger/tougher/faster. Champion is kind of meh, although since you just roll a number to crit, 4 attacks per round with a 18-20 crit range means you'll crit every other round on average. There are no extra effects aside from bonus damage, though. Battlemaster gets weak maneuvers and has to spend a very small pool of dice to access them for minor bonus damage. Not impressed with Battlemaster. Eldritch Knight is going to depend on how good the spells are. I would be tempted to grab that option for versatility if I had to pick a fighter. The big attraction is "hits a lot of times" and that is a boon.

This one's way off, at least on the Battlemaster front.

First of all, the bonus damage isn't all that minor, since you can add a maneuver to multiple attacks per turn. If you are rolling 1d8+3 for damage on an attack, rolling 2d8+3 is not a negligible increase. Neither is, say, using riposte to just plain get another attack (since you seem to place so much value on extra attacks).

Additionally, (most) maneuvers can't have their basic damage wasted, because you declare whether or not to use one after seeing whether you hit, miss, or crit.

And that's before we count an even more important factor than the damage bonus, the effects of the maneuver itself. For example, knocking an enemy prone with Tripping Attack will grant you Advantage on all of the rest of your attacks during the round... and benefit allied attacks too. Advantage is a big deal in 5e, and can add up to a very significant difference in your average damage per round (or "DPR"). Not only does Advantage make it significantly more likely that you'll hit, it makes it more likely you'll crit too (for example, a Champion making a normal attack crits 10% of the time. A Battlemaster attacking with Advantage crits 9.75% of the time).

For another example, say you're an archer hitting a big melee enemy with Menacing Attack. They now not only have Disadvantage on all their attacks, but are actually unable to move closer to you. They're stuck. That charging triceratops now basically spends its turn doing nothing at all.

And let's not forget that you can layer these. You can totally do things like Action Surge and make an enemy roll saves against 6 different debilitating effects.

As for the pool being "very small," note that it recharges on a short rest, which the game expects you to get 2 of during a standard adventuring day. So right from level 3 you'd be expected to be able to use 12 on a standard adventuring day. Incidentally, this is enough to use a maneuver on every attack of every turn that you use an Action Surge, making for some mean novas.

As for the EK, they really benefit from spells like "Shield" or "Absorb Elements."


Monk: Extra hits, minor abilities. Decent defenses but not great. Not likely to keep up with the fighter or barbarian when it comes to damage. Way of Shadow looks useful. Four Elements gets ATLA element bending. This is another gish like Eldritch Knight. Probably a weaker class although more survivable.

One of the highlights of the Monk is their ability to force several saves in a single turn against a particularly debilitating effect, Stunned, that almost nothing is immune to.

Also, you said you haven't checked the spells yet, so it's probably worth noting that you should check the spell list before judging how durable the EK is (a lot of their durability comes from their spells).


Paladin: Only one extra attack; combat utility comes from healing/spells. Solid overall though. Smite draws on your spell slots (ouch). Save bonuses are nice as an aura. I'd be happy to have a Paladin in the party for that alone. Devotion lets the Paladin get up to a +5 to-hit bonus from CHA for one minute; great for a boss fight and competitive with a Barbarian. Vengeance gives some battlefield control, but looks underwhelming compared to the others. Ancients is pretty meh...except for resistance (half damage) from spells as an always-on aura. That's pretty good.

Paladins are very strong in 5e. They've come a very long way from the "Paladins are just nerfed Clerics" place they used to live in throughout 3.5e.

It's hard to overstate just how good that level 6 aura is (again, bonuses of this sort are few and far between in 5e. The Paladin's boost to saves is pretty much the best around). They combine this with a potential for high burst damage and a good spell list (boasting options that are particularly good for their spell level like Bless and Find Steed).

Also, Vengeance and Ancients are probably the best Paladin subclasses in the game, not the other way around. This is partly due to the quality and synergy of their spell lists. A Vengeance Paladin, for instance, will be very thankful to have access to things like steed-shared Haste, Misty Step, or Hunter's Mark.


Ranger: Utility options. Sneaky. Hunter give some nice combat options to pick from. Beast master gives companions, but doesn't buff survivability for them. Hunter looks stronger and like a decent option.

Ranger is often considered one of the weaker classes in 5e.


Rogue: Mobile, useful. Assassin is very dependent on being the one to kick combat off. I suspect big synergy with poison. Arcane Trickster rolls in a bit of spellthief at high levels.

Other martials probably synergize better with poison than Rogues do.

Arcane Tricksters can actually be built to be pretty good tanks.

[JoeJ]

The claim was they started DMing after only playing 2 sessions.

The very first time I played any RPG, I was the DM. It was Blue Box D&D, although soon afterward we switched to 1e AD&D. I won't say I was an especially competent DM back then, but we had enough fun that we kept doing it, which is all that really matters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know about how many sessions you need to play in before DMing, but I have no trouble believing a newbie player can pick up DMing in 5e much sooner than a newbie player could pick up DMing in 3e.

For myself, I picked up DMing (and playing) with 4e. First session was as a DM (edit: in a custom world as well). Then later I played a few sessions of 5e before I DM'd 5e, but not many.

Contrast that with PF, which I played briefly. Even with a wealth of system knowledge in related systems and 5 years experience DMing 4 and 5e, I still wouldn't want to DM PF out of sheer workload concerns (not to mention disliking the system).

[Boci]

I don't know about how many sessions you need to play in before DMing, but I have no trouble believing a newbie player can pick up DMing in 5e much sooner than a newbie player could pick up DMing in 3e.

I don't either, since 5e is a simplet system.

[Sigreid]

The claim was they started DMing after only playing 2 sessions.

Well, I'm sure a number of DMs have started DMing without ever even having seen the game played. I mean, a group has to start somewhere. And all DMs screw up. Even the experienced ones.

[MaxWilson]

The claim was they started DMing after only playing 2 sessions.

That's 2 more sessions than Gary Gygax had before he started DMing!

[EggKookoo]

When I was 12-ish, a friend of mine at the time bought Villains & Vigilantes, read the rules, and GMed us. I'm not sure he ever played an RPG before. It worked fine.

[Petrocorus]

Moon Druids are a bit...unbalanced compared to most other classes. In the "Jesus that's strong" kinda way. Turn into a CR1 Bear at level 2 that has an extra attack each turn, 30 HP, and they can shift into that bear twice per short rest.

And that's before including the fact that after you get rid of the bear (twice, remember), you'd dealing with a full caster who's specialty is close-mid range AoE spells.

+1
And in addition, they can wildshape into a spider and outscout the Rogue in many situtations (as long as there is some space under the doors).




Ancients: Basically a Paladin that never dies, just don't expect to do much else.

Protecting the whole party against spell?



Ranger is pretty weak at the moment. All of their class benefits stop being useful past level 6.

Check out the Revised Ranger Unearthed Arcane for the Beast Conclave, which is a bit more healthy as a Ranger choice.

IMHO, even the revised ranger is still lacking.



The major concern with Warlocks is that they have fewer spells but refresh on a Short Rest. Many DMs don't use many Short Rests, so unless your DM has 2 Short Rests per day (as is suggested), Warlocks are going to be a lot weaker than any other caster. Still, many take a few levels into Warlock as a multiclass option to have more consistent low level spell slots (to fuel things like Absorb Elements or Shield).

I must add that Warlock is the most customizable class, so the less beginners-friendly.

[sophontteks]

Well, you got literally everything wrong which is impressive in its own right! :smallbiggrin:

Just keep playing and keep an open mind. You're going to be pleasantly surprised, I think.

[ad_hoc]

The claim was made in the context of how easy 5e was for new people. Sure, its possible they did what you describe, but that's hardly unique to 5th ed, as it can happen with any game. Claiming someone started DMing after just 2 sessions in the context of a game being easy for new comers to learn implies it was successful too.

If that wasn't meant to be implied, then yeah, I started DMing D&D 2nd edition after 1 session, with similarly poor results, but me and my friends enjoyed it.

This seems to come from limited life experience. Or at least a limited social exposure.

5e is intuitive. All they needed was me demonstrating the flow of the game, a published adventure, and the main books to reference here and there. And they taught a group of their friends who had also not played before and they had great success. The closest they came to hobby game culture were light hobby board games.

This is likely why 5e is so popular. Keep in mind that the vast majority of 5e players had never played an RPG before and weren't hobby gamers.

[J-H]

There were two 3rd-level one-shot games going today.

The other table had a revised Beastmaster that gave the animal companion its own action in the initiative order, instead of tying it to the ranger's action. I only caught a few bits, like the dire badger (or giant badger?) critting for 40 damage and killing an ettin.

Instead of rolling weapon damage again, they run crits as "roll your normal damage, and then add your max possible damage on" (so a d12+5 on a crit is d12+5+12+5).

I played a Druid. We lured both Hill Giants across 40' of Spike Growth for 35 (16d4) damage each. Then after another couple of rounds of combat, one of them got lured back across for another 16d4 damage that proved fatal. Our 21-hp non-tanky Paladin get one-shotted by a crit from the remaining Hill Giant (45 damage). It was a lot of fun. As an Arctic Druid, it seems like I can cover battlefield control, a bit of blasting damage, and melee tank all in one character.

5e runs so much more smoothly and easily than 3e.

[Petrocorus]

I was looking at the low DCs (11-13) on Battlemaster abilities. However, I just realized... without proficiency bonuses to Strength saves, a level 20 wizard being targeted by one of these is no better off than 1st level wizard if it hits. It's just D20+STR...so most wizards will be rolling 1d20+1 or 1d20+2 vs DC 11-13....that's a reasonable chance of landing.

The DC will not be so low. It's 8 + Prof + Stat, and the stat is either Dex or Str. It will be maxed out. Even more so than on a caster who is less SAD and has less Ability Score Improvement. So your starting DC at level 3 will be 13 at least, with point buy. If you roll for stats and are lucky, you can have a save DC of 15 at level 3.
At level 17, your DC will be 19 without magic. Without Resilient (Constitution), your average Wizard is not going to make it, level 20 or not, if you manage to land a hit on him.



Paladins are very strong in 5e. They've come a very long way from the "Paladins are just nerfed Clerics" place they used to live in throughout 3.5e.

"Paladin is a 2-levels long class."

"Best Paladins use no level in the Paladin class."

[KorvinStarmast]

"Paladin is a 2-levels long class."

"Best Paladins use no level in the Paladin class." Says who? Someone who has never played one?

[LudicSavant]

Says who? Someone who has never played one?

Think he's referencing the 3.5e Paladin, because people who play 3.5e say those things all the time.

Back then, you could indeed build a better character with a paladin concept by NOT taking any levels in Paladin. And people would sometimes dip it 2 levels for Divine Grace.

Point is, Paladins are in a way better place than that in 5e.

[noob]

You can still do something close to the paladin concept with the following: a cleric with the right domain, a valor bard, a fighter, a barbarian, a refluffed wizard with the right school and low int high str and con.
Being a Paladin is about standing out righteously to defend the weak and martyrdom and other stuff like that (and also possibly being a knight in a shining armor but you might refluff your mage armor into being a shining armor and so on it is all a matter of refluffing).

[JackPhoenix]

Dice damage doubles on a crit, Poison does dice damage, Assassins crit more often. You can do the math.

Dice damage doubles on crit. Most sources of poison damage can't crit, as they rely on saving throw, not attack. Thieves are better poison users than assassins, because they can apply them as BA, while assassins get no interaction with poisons outside proficiency with poisoner's kit (that can be gained in other ways, like feats, background or just training)

[Petrocorus]

Says who? Someone who has never played one?

Said this forum about the 3.5 Paladin.
The quote i replied to was about the 3.5 Paladin. Of course no one is saying this about the 5E Paladin.



Back then, you could indeed build a better character with a paladin concept by NOT taking any levels in Paladin. And people would sometimes dip it 2 levels for Divine Grace.

You could go up to level 4 for the Turn Undead, or maybe up to level 7 for the Holy Mount. But beyond that, this was just a waste.
Even on my own Paladin build list, i have only a few builds that use more than a couple of Paladin level, and a significant number that use none.

[KorvinStarmast]

Said this forum about the 3.5 Paladin.
The quote i replied to was about the 3.5 Paladin. Of course no one is saying this about the 5E Paladin. Ah, well that certainly clears things up. Sorry if my tone was a little snarky.

[Petrocorus]

Ah, well that certainly clears things up. Sorry if my tone was a little snarky.

No problem. I saw the misunderstanding.

[LudicSavant]

I was looking at the low DCs (11-13) on Battlemaster abilities. However, I just realized... without proficiency bonuses to Strength saves, a level 20 wizard being targeted by one of these is no better off than 1st level wizard if it hits. It's just D20+STR...so most wizards will be rolling 1d20+1 or 1d20+2 vs DC 11-13....that's a reasonable chance of landing.

You seem to be forgetting that you add your proficiency to your save DCs. A Battlemaster's DCs should be 13-19, not 11-13. The average level 1 Battlemaster will have DC 13 saves (8 + 2 Proficiency + 16 primary stat using point buy), and it just goes up from there as you gain levels and attribute bonuses.

Not only are the Battlemaster DCs better than you expect, but the Battlemaster also can force several saving throws in a single round, which makes it significantly less likely for an enemy to get off the hook if you really need to land a particular status effect.

[OverLordOcelot]

I was looking at the low DCs (11-13) on Battlemaster abilities. However, I just realized... without proficiency bonuses to Strength saves, a level 20 wizard being targeted by one of these is no better off than 1st level wizard if it hits. It's just D20+STR...so most wizards will be rolling 1d20+1 or 1d20+2 vs DC 11-13....that's a reasonable chance of landing.

Where were you looking at these DCs? Battlemaster abilities use the same formula for DC as a spell caster's spells, they just key off of STR or DEX. If a particular Battlemaster fighter only has a DC 11 save for his abilities, that's not a weakness of the class, that's a weakness of the character only having a 12 in their prime stat. A third level battlemaster with a 16 Dex or STR has a DC 13 for her abilities, and more ASIs to get her Dex or STR up to 20 than a wizard does - if you're using point buy or standard array, it's not unreasonable for a battlemaster to have 20 STR/DEX by level six, while a caster can't do that at all (no ASI at sixth level) and, depending on campaign, is quite likely to want either war caster, resilient con, or spell sniper before maxing his casting stat. If you're making an optimized fighter, battlemaster abilities start at DC 13 and should generally be 16 by 8th level.

[J-H]

I think I was just looking at the save at my level on the initial read-through.

[LudicSavant]

I think I was just looking at the save at my level on the initial read-through.

Assuming point buy, no magic items, and increasing main stat as fast as possible, a Battlemaster's DCs will look like this:
Level 1-3: DC 13
Level 4: DC 14
Level 5: DC 15
Level 6-8: DC 16
Level 9-12: DC 17
Level 13-16: DC 18
Level 17-20: DC 19

[Yora]

As another noob, who doesn't actually believe that CR is an exact tool and more a first reference for eyeballing the difficulty when you have no other points of reference yet, I've been sitting down to get a closer look at what the encounter building guidelines predict for various combinations of monsters and PCs.

The results were quite interesting.

A single PC of 1st level is estimated to have a slim chance to defeat one CR 1/2 creature. (Deadly encounter.)
A single PC of 4th level is estimated to have a slim chance to defeat one CR 2 creature.
A single PC of 8th level is estimated to have a slim chance to defeat one CR 5 creature.

But even when you assume a party of 4, a single creature with a CR matching their level generally comes out as a Hard encounter.
And interestingly, the numbers of creatures of matching CR are almost identical for a Hard encounter for 4 PCs and a Medium encounter for 6 PCs.

But I got really surprised when I made comparisons of how much more dangerous enemies become for a given party when their number increases from one to two or even three. Especially when you get to the "higher level" creatures like Yuan-ti abomination at CR 7. I don't think most people would think of regular Yuan-ti from the book as high level threats, but that only holds true for a single one.

Going with the guestimate resulting from the charts, a single abomination is rated as being more than deadly for a single Level 1 PC. Though I am sure that there is plenty of cheese for a player to turn it into a cakewalk. But for a party 4 to 6 7th level characters, it simply rates as medium.
For a 10th level party it's rated as medium for a party of 3 or 4, and as easy for a party of 5 or more.

Make it two abominations, and the picture changes significantly. For an 8th or 9th level party, this is rated as deadly. This makes me discard the idea of using these guys as groups. Instead, they make more sense as commanders leading lesser minions.

I also tried to get the predictions for parties up to 10th level fighting an aboleth (CR 10). A single one is quite doable for mid level parties. Four 9th level PCs or six 6th level PCs get such an encounter rated as Hard.
But two aboleths? Even for six 10th level PCs it goes beyond deadly.

I also compared a single CR 4 monster against three CR 4 monsters. For a group of four 6th level PCs, the charts put out ratings of "Easy" for one and beyond "Deadly" for three. :smallconfused:

How much actual value this holds for play remains debatable. But as someone with no extensive play experience of mid- and high-level encounters yet, I get the impression that the seeminly low CRs in the Monster Manual are quite deceiving. This looks very different from the conventional wisdom from the 3rd edition days that you don't really have to bother with anything that has a CR lower than the party level.
I am going to be rather cautious when it comes to preparing the early encounters for my first campaign.

[LudicSavant]

As another noob, who doesn't actually believe that CR is an exact tool and more a first reference for eyeballing the difficulty when you have no other points of reference yet, I've been sitting down to get a closer look at what the encounter building guidelines predict for various combinations of monsters and PCs.

The results were quite interesting.

A single PC of 1st level is estimated to have a slim chance to defeat one CR 1/2 creature. (Deadly encounter.)
A single PC of 4th level is estimated to have a slim chance to defeat one CR 2 creature.
A single PC of 8th level is estimated to have a slim chance to defeat one CR 5 creature.

But even when you assume a party of 4, a single creature with a CR matching their level generally comes out as a Hard encounter.
And interestingly, the numbers of creatures of matching CR are almost identical for a Hard encounter for 4 PCs and a Medium encounter for 6 PCs.

But I got really surprised when I made comparisons of how much more dangerous enemies become for a given party when their number increases from one to two or even three. Especially when you get to the "higher level" creatures like Yuan-ti abomination at CR 7. I don't think most people would think of regular Yuan-ti from the book as high level threats, but that only holds true for a single one.

Going with the guestimate resulting from the charts, a single abomination is rated as being more than deadly for a single Level 1 PC. Though I am sure that there is plenty of cheese for a player to turn it into a cakewalk. But for a party 4 to 6 7th level characters, it simply rates as medium.
For a 10th level party it's rated as medium for a party of 3 or 4, and as easy for a party of 5 or more.

Make it two abominations, and the picture changes significantly. For an 8th or 9th level party, this is rated as deadly. This makes me discard the idea of using these guys as groups. Instead, they make more sense as commanders leading lesser minions.

I also tried to get the predictions for parties up to 10th level fighting an aboleth (CR 10). A single one is quite doable for mid level parties. Four 9th level PCs or six 6th level PCs get such an encounter rated as Hard.
But two aboleths? Even for six 10th level PCs it goes beyond deadly.

I also compared a single CR 4 monster against three CR 4 monsters. For a group of four 6th level PCs, the charts put out ratings of "Easy" for one and beyond "Deadly" for three. :smallconfused:

How much actual value this holds for play remains debatable. But as someone with no extensive play experience of mid- and high-level encounters yet, I get the impression that the seeminly low CRs in the Monster Manual are quite deceiving. This looks very different from the conventional wisdom from the 3rd edition days that you don't really have to bother with anything that has a CR lower than the party level.
I am going to be rather cautious when it comes to preparing the early encounters for my first campaign.

There's a big issue with your premises here. Namely, that you seem to be under the impression that "Deadly" means "slim chance to defeat." It's not even close to that. Deadly means that, and I quote
"A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat."

That's it. That's all it means. Deadly means "you can die" not "you will very probably die." Game assumes that an average party can handle 6-8 medium or hard encounters per day, and fewer if you throw in deadly encounters. Not that throwing in deadly encounters is going to defeat the party more often than not.

Deadly means you are actually under threat of more than having your resources drained.
Hard means there's a slim chance of weak characters getting taken out.
Medium means a speed bump that might consume some resources.
Easy means a pushover that is unlikely to even tax the party's resources.

This is very different from 3.5e's CR scale.

[J-H]

I don't have the MM, but here are some numbers from actual play.

6 level 1 PCs vs. 1 gnoll and 4ish gnoll zombie things: Substantial HP damage to the guy on watch who got surprised. No other casualties.
6 level 1 PCs vs. 4 gnoll archers who got us at range: 3 of us dropped to 0 during this battle. Close to TPK.
6 level 2 PCs vs. 2 gnolls, a gnoll caster of some sort, and two low-level demons with big mouths and grappling: No casualties
4 level 3 PCs vs. a Chimera: 1 player dropped to 0.
4 level 3 PCs vs. 4 "death dogs": (2-headed evil dogs): No casualties, some HP damage.
4 level 3 PCs vs. 2 hill giants: 1 player character killed outright by a crit. Giants heavily damaged before battle, and one ultimately killed, thanks to Spike Growth. Without Spike Growth BFC, likely substantially more hurt on the players.

[Yora]

6 level 1 PCs vs. 4 gnoll archers who got us at range: 3 of us dropped to 0 during this battle. Close to TPK.
Charts say "Deadly"

4 level 3 PCs vs. a Chimera: 1 player dropped to 0.
Charts say "Hard"

4 level 3 PCs vs. 2 hill giants: 1 player character killed outright by a crit. Giants heavily damaged before battle, and one ultimately killed, thanks to Spike Growth. Without Spike Growth BFC, likely substantially more hurt on the players.

Two hill giants make a deadly encounter for 4 level 6 PCs. One makes a deadly encounter for 4 level 4 PCs. Even with the benefit of less hit points, that's still way beyond the deadly rating.
Which again shows that with ingenuity and some luck, players can defeat very powerful opponents. Just not reliably to any degree. It just isn't an exact science.

[LudicSavant]

Charts say "Deadly"

Charts say "Hard"


Two hill giants make a deadly encounter for 4 level 6 PCs. One makes a deadly encounter for 4 level 4 PCs. Even with the benefit of less hit points, that's still way beyond the deadly rating.
Which again shows that with ingenuity and some luck, players can defeat very powerful opponents. Just not reliably to any degree. It just isn't an exact science.

Again, note that "Deadly" doesn't mean the same thing as in 3.5e. It absolutely does not mean that the Deadly encounter is necessarily more likely to win than the PCs. As we can see, even with data coming from a newbie, the Deadly encounters didn't result in the party actually being defeated by Team Monster.

[Yora]

Of course, it's not unwinable. But I think in practice "quite likely that some PCs will die" is something most GMs won't want to throw against their players, and most players would be very hesitant to risk unless dramatic developments in the campaign convince them that this would be a good way to die and the real risk of death is worth it.

Things obviously change a lot once the party get the ability to raise their fallen or resurrection is a readily available service. That lowers the percieved risk significantly.

Deadly isn't "don't use it", but it still looks to be "they players have to really want this".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course, it's not unwinable. But I think in practice "quite likely that some PCs will die" is something most GMs won't want to throw against their players, and most players would be very hesitant to risk unless dramatic developments in the campaign convince them that this would be a good way to die and the real risk of death is worth it.

Things obviously change a lot once the party get the ability to raise their fallen or resurrection is a readily available service. That lowers the percieved risk significantly.

Deadly isn't "don't use it", but it still looks to be "they players have to really want this".

That's the default setting, anyway. There are lots of DMs who believe that anything that doesn't risk a TPK is meaningless. Mainly because they only want to run 1-2 encounters per day. The real risk in 5e is attrition, not any particular fight. Even if each individual medium fight only drains a bit of resources and would be a speedbump when full, after a bunch of them you're running a bigger risk of failure because you just don't have that many resources left to drain.

For a new DM, getting a handle on the flow of an adventuring day is important. And it will vary by group. My groups tend to the 4-ish Hard fights/day end due to the time constraints on the groups. Others might go more for the "tons of little fights" end. Each has consequences and needs to be adjusted for.

[J-H]

The gnoll archers that dropped 3 of us to 0 were 90' away, got to act first, and we were all in the middle of a street with no cover.

The only one the chimera dropped was a low-HP bard played by our most distracted (baby) and least adept player.

The hill giants? We did have surprise and time to set up a plan. They were the boss encounter and we saved the kids we were trying to save.

[LudicSavant]

Of course, it's not unwinable. But I think in practice "quite likely that some PCs will die" is something most GMs won't want to throw against their players, and most players would be very hesitant to risk unless dramatic developments in the campaign convince them that this would be a good way to die and the real risk of death is worth it.

Things obviously change a lot once the party get the ability to raise their fallen or resurrection is a readily available service. That lowers the percieved risk significantly.

Deadly isn't "don't use it", but it still looks to be "they players have to really want this".

It's not really "quite likely that some PCs will die" or "slim chance to defeat the encounter."

"Hard" doesn't mean "an individual encounter is hard" it means "if you fight a ton of these a day, it might be hard for players of average skill."
"Deadly" doesn't mean "an individual encounter is probably going to beat you." It means "An individual encounter has an actual chance of threatening players of average skill with mortality." Not necessarily a very big chance (how big a chance depends on how many levels above the "Deadly" threshold it is).

Like PhoenixPyre says, the general expectation in 5e is that no single encounter is particularly dangerous. Deadly is recommended for use if you're not using a large number of encounters per day, not a "this is too strong for PCs to fight" cutoff point.

[J-H]

I'm reading through the spell list, and have a couple of questions:
1) Circle of Death is a 6th level spell that does around 24 damage (6d8 if I recall) around the caster, save for half. Is there an intended use for this?
2) Does Create Undead require the material component (onyx) to be expended each day?
3) Similarly, if a Contingency spell does not go off, is the material component consumed? The component must stay on the caster's person, so it isn't consumed at casting.

[LudicSavant]

I'm reading through the spell list, and have a couple of questions:
1) Circle of Death is a 6th level spell that does around 24 damage (6d8 if I recall) around the caster, save for half. Is there an intended use for this?
2) Does Create Undead require the material component (onyx) to be expended each day?
3) Similarly, if a Contingency spell does not go off, is the material component consumed? The component must stay on the caster's person, so it isn't consumed at casting.

Components aren't consumed unless they specifically say they're consumed. So, for example, Contingency does not consume its component at all, whether it goes off or not.

Circle of Death is about as lame/niche as it looks.

[Petrocorus]

I'm reading through the spell list, and have a couple of questions:
1) Circle of Death is a 6th level spell that does around 24 damage (6d8 if I recall) around the caster, save for half. Is there an intended use for this?
It's 8d6 so 28 on average.

It's a damage spell with a long range and a very wide AoE. I think this is mostly a mook killer, when you're facing a lot of low level minions protecting your BBEG.




2) Does Create Undead require the material component (onyx) to be expended each day?
No. If a spell consumes the material component, it explicitly say so.



3) Similarly, if a Contingency spell does not go off, is the material component consumed? The component must stay on the caster's person, so it isn't consumed at casting.
Normally, a material component is required and hence consumed (if so) at the moment of casting. And the spell Contingency states that you cast the contingency spell at the time you cast Contingency.

[ad_hoc]

1) Circle of Death is a 6th level spell that does around 24 damage (6d8 if I recall) around the caster, save for half. Is there an intended use for this?


It is 8d6 (so 28), it is a point within 150ft, and it is a 60' radius sphere (120' diameter) which is absolutely huge.

[LudicSavant]

It is 8d6 (so 28), it is a point within 150ft, and it is a 60' radius sphere (120' diameter) which is absolutely huge.

Yeah it's basically something for the BBEG to laugh evilly as they kill a crowd of innocents. Or something you can cast at a battlefield.

It's just not really something you use for everyday adventuring.

[noob]

Yeah it's basically something for the BBEG to laugh evilly as they kill a crowd of innocents. Or something you can cast at a battlefield.

It's just not really something you use for everyday adventuring.

Wrong.
You should prepare it every single day in order to be sure to not be tpked by swarms of small monsters because those are Infinitely dangerous because of 5e balance which favors swarming so much it is not fun.
If you meet two of such swarm then tpk happens unless you have two casters or more.
If you have bigger aoe spells then prepare those.(except for meteor swarm because there is much better uses for the ninth level spell slot)

[sophontteks]

There are a lot of AOE options that don't require a 6th level spell. I think Ludic is assuming those are available and the massive aoe is just overkill, even with swarms.

[LudicSavant]

There are a lot of AOE options that don't require a 6th level spell. I think Ludic is assuming those are available and the massive aoe is just overkill, even with swarms.

This. Even against enemy swarms I generally feel other spells do the job better.

[noob]

There are a lot of AOE options that don't require a 6th level spell. I think Ludic is assuming those are available and the massive aoe is just overkill, even with swarms.

Did you hear about ranged swarm that are spread because it is a good tactic?

[LudicSavant]

Wrong.
You should prepare it every single day in order to be sure to not be tpked by swarms of small monsters because those are Infinitely dangerous because of 5e balance which favors swarming so much it is not fun.
If you meet two of such swarm then tpk happens unless you have two casters or more.
If you have bigger aoe spells then prepare those.(except for meteor swarm because there is much better uses for the ninth level spell slot)


Did you hear about ranged swarm that are spread because it is a good tactic?

If you are that ill-prepared for dealing with swarms that you think that such enemies are "infinitely dangerous" and think that Circle of Death is where it's at for dealing with them, there may be an issue with your own tactics. For example, a recent encounter I saw that had a massive number of enemies (e.g. dozens spread out over a large map firing ranged attacks and the like), the Forge Cleric just sort of walked in alone using Dodge + a Spirit Guardians usage from a previous combat they were still concentrating on and wiped them all out with hardly a scratch, because it's actually really really hard for low level mooks to hit a decent AC with Disadvantage. For example, a Bandit has a 2.25% chance of hitting AC 21 with Disadvantage. That means if you get targeted by 50 attacks a round you'll be hit by only one on average.

Not quite so "infinitely dangerous" for players who know what they're doing.

Additionally, if you're dungeoneering, Fireball is already quite a large area of effect. A 20-foot radius is will hit enemies 40 feet apart. And a 40*40 room is a big bloody room. And if enemies are truly that spread out around you, you have to make sure that you're not catching any allies in the middle of your giant AoE. Alternatively, if you're surrounded by a ton of ranged enemies it can be effective to just create some terrain and limit the firing lines in your favor.

[noob]

If you are that ill-prepared for dealing with swarms that you think that such enemies are "infinitely dangerous" and think that Circle of Death is where it's at for dealing with them, there may be an issue with your own tactics. For example, a recent encounter I saw that had a massive number of enemies (e.g. dozens spread out over a large map firing ranged attacks and the like), the Forge Cleric just sort of walked in alone using Dodge + a Spirit Guardians usage from a previous combat they were still concentrating on and wiped them all out with hardly a scratch, because it's actually really really hard for low level mooks to hit an AC over 20 with Disadvantage. For example, a Bandit has a 2.25% chance of hitting AC 21 with Disadvantage. That means if you get targeted by 50 attacks a round you're likely to get hit by exactly one.

Not quite so "infinitely dangerous" for players who know what they're doing.

Additionally, if you're dungeoneering, Fireball is already quite a large area of effect. A 20-foot radius is will hit enemies 40 feet apart. And a 40*40 room is a big bloody room.
It is not knowing what they are doing: it is having high ac.
High ac helps a ton but not everybody can have it.
For example if you did not have good rolls you might not have high ac.
Furthermore the enemies were quite bad if they did not manage to get an advantage from one source or another.

Look for example at the kobold:

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters:Kobold#content

It gets advantage if there is any ally near and it got massive attack rolls(+4) so they just have to get a long range weapon and have one get close to you by surprise(maybe an underground undead incorporeal ally could be here to provide advantage)

Provided they attack at a full moon night(or that one of the adventurers have no darkvision and so that it have to use a source of light) they get no disadvantage to attacks and can see well.

By the way a kobold is cr 1/8 so you might face a lot of them.

[sophontteks]

Did you hear about ranged swarm that are spread because it is a good tactic?
So, its not a swarm at all, really. Its an army.

So, this really shouldn't be a common situation for your party, where you managed to tick off an entire army and are now facing them surrounded in the open. If you are constantly afraid an entire army will surround you any given day its time to rethink some things. Maybe fire your scout.:smallbiggrin:

[LudicSavant]

It is not knowing what they are doing: it is having high ac.
High ac helps a ton but not everybody can have it.
For example if you did not have good rolls you might not have high ac.
Furthermore the enemies were quite bad if they did not manage to get an advantage from one source or another. So is your position now changed from "infinitely dangerous" to "if you rolled poorly, have a low AC, and no defensive abilities to aid it?"

Putting aside the fact that any class can get a decent-ish AC, especially against ranged (since you should be taking advantage of cover at every opportunity for +2 or +5 AC), and the fact that that was but one example of many possible ways to deal...

You will note that my original statement that you feel is so "wrong" is that it had a niche for a battlefield (like, fighting an army on an open field), but wasn't often useful for everyday adventuring. Frustratingly, you seem to be arguing that I'm wrong because it's useful against armies, even though I already said it had a battlefield niche. :smallannoyed:

So let's say you're in an everyday adventuring scenario and you're in a dungeon flooded with kobolds. Hundreds of kobolds! Well, in that dungeon, you're not going to have the ability to hit a 120-foot diameter sphere full of kobolds. To get an idea of how big that area is, the White House is like 80x150 feet. And the kobolds are flowing out from every corner through tiny little holes to try to surround you, you aren't hitting them all without hitting your allies, or hitting them all period because of line of effect. I have better things to do with my 6th level spell slot here.

[sophontteks]

There should be plenty of ways to gather intelligence before rushing into hundreds of kobolds. And even going in blind there are plenty of ways to scout ahead to avoid such an ambush. If those kobolds are bottlenecked, they are screwed.

But the spell is great against that. No one is disagreeing with this. Its a great spell vs. armies. The only disagreement is how often this situation occures. Certainly its nice to have a spell handy that can deal with hundreds of kobolds when the situation occurs.

[noob]

So is your position now changed from "infinitely dangerous" to "if you rolled poorly, have a low AC, and no defensive abilities to aid it?"

Putting aside the fact that any class can get a decent-ish AC, especially against ranged (since you should be taking advantage of cover at every opportunity for +2 or +5 AC), and the fact that that was but one example of many possible ways to deal...

You will note that my original statement that you feel is so "wrong" is that it had a niche for a battlefield (like, fighting an army on an open field), but wasn't often useful for everyday adventuring. Frustratingly, you seem to be arguing that I'm wrong because it's useful against armies, even though I already said it had a battlefield niche. :smallannoyed:

So let's say you're in an everyday adventuring scenario and you're in a dungeon flooded with kobolds. Hundreds of kobolds! Well, in that dungeon, you're not going to have the ability to hit a 120-foot diameter sphere full of kobolds. To get an idea of how big that area is, the White House is like 80x150 feet. And the kobolds are flowing out from every corner through tiny little holes to try to surround you, you aren't hitting them all without hitting your allies, or hitting them all period because of line of effect. I have better things to do with my 6th level spell slot here.

What would you do with a 6th level slot in that case?
If you have a seventh level slot you might teleport yourself out of the mess with your allies.(teleport is a quite good choice for a level 7 slot)
You spend a contingency every 10 days.
Disintegrate is a good choice when you need to get rid of a very very dangerous door or against a single target but otherwise it is not really a spell that good to prepare each day.
Flesh to stone might be used against a single target but it is not as if good single target spells were rare.
freezing sphere while being overall better deals even more damage to allies if they are caught within.
Globe of invulnerability is going to be very good against spellcasters of a level lower than yours otherwise it is not really good.

On the other hand guards and wards is a really good spell for dungeon exploring: it will definitively confuse the heck Out of the initial dwellers of the dungeon when you basically make life hard in their own dungeon while you can make your allies unaffected.
Cast it from the entrance of the dungeon while having allies watching.
Wall of ice have a less wide effect than circle of death and eats up your concentration that could be used on polymorph on an ally or other useful stuff like that.

True seeing is really good but guessing when to cast it is hard.

Programmed illusion while being a really good spell is a spell that needs planning to be properly useful.

Move earth might be used to try to collapse parts of the dungeon but it is not nearly as good as guard and wards for dungeon exploration

Magic jar is a good spell but it can kill you easily because trust me when that spell is cast somehow a maleficent force called the gm will manage to create the conditions that kills you.

Irresistible dance is a really good single target spell but monsters can be immune to it

Mass suggestion can again face immune monsters but it have a lot of out of battle uses.

Out of that list there is 3 spells that stands out for dungeon exploration with dangers of swarming: true seeing(so much useful when facing whatever needs true seeing to be seen), guards and wards(good in dungeons) and circle of death.

[LudicSavant]

Think you're underselling a lot of these spells (and just not mentioning a lot of relevant options), but for brevity's sake I will only address a couple.


What would you do with a 6th level slot in that case?You spend a contingency every 10 days. No. No you don't. You spend a Contingency, then use it within 10 days, then cast another Contingency.


freezing sphere while being overall better deals even more damage to allies if they are caught within. Your goal should generally be to not hit allies with your AoEs at all.

Anyways, Freezing Sphere has a 60 foot radius (same as Circle of Death) and deals more damage than Circle of Death, with the same save type. And you can give the sphere to a minion to throw instead of using your own actions. Which goes to show just how niche Circle of Death is.

To really make use of it, you don't just need to be using it on a battlefield, you need to be using it in a case where it's better than Freezing Sphere. Which generally means synergy with a particular subclass ability. Very niche. Not for general use.

Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards puts it thusly:

Circle of Death: This is a kaboom spell that does the same damage as a 3rd level fireball on average. The damage is necrotic and the save is Constitution. It’s just awful. Wait, I forgot the 500gp material component. What’s worse than awful? This is the parasite that infects the feces of whatever is worse than awful.

[Astofel]

IMO the correct response to being surrounded by a huge number of mooks isn't Circle of Death, Freezing Sphere, or any AoE spell. It's Dimension Door.

[J-H]

I've seen references in a class ability or two to basically being immune to having your maximum HP total reduced. What would cause that? I have not run across (yet) negative levels as a thing. Does Necrotic damage have some special "hard to heal" rule that I missed?

[KorvinStarmast]

Does Necrotic damage have some special "hard to heal" rule that I missed? not by itself. (http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=78)


Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.
Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are
spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon.
Lightning. A lightning bolt spell and a blue dragon’s breath deal lightning damage.
Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and some spells, withers matter and even the soul.
Piercing. Puncturing and impaling attacks, including spears and monsters’ bites, deal piercing damage.
Poison. Venomous stings and the toxic gas of a green dragon’s breath deal poison damage.
Psychic. Mental abilities such as a mind flayer’s psionic blast deal psychic damage.
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric’s flame strike spell or an angel’s smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power. If you are the DM an you want it to do that, just make sure and tell your players about it. My brother made a ruling that radiant damage suffices for "fire" damage against trolls. I see why he does that and I like it, but not all DM's will agree with him.

One thing our group learned while playing is that poison damage does not, by itself, inflict the poisoned condition. Some attacks that do poison damage do that, but not all. It took us a while to grok that. Similar thing with necrotic. some attacks that do necrotic damage do other stuff that makes healing tough, but not all do by default.

[LudicSavant]

I've seen references in a class ability or two to basically being immune to having your maximum HP total reduced. What would cause that? I have not run across (yet) negative levels as a thing. Does Necrotic damage have some special "hard to heal" rule that I missed?

Certain monster manual creatures can reduce your HP total.

Necrotic damage is not very special.

If you're curious about how often damage types are resisted, this will help calibrate your expectations:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're curious about how often damage types are resisted, this will help calibrate your expectations:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage
Was there a version of that done for Volo's and Mords?

[J-H]

A few more questions:

Does Enhance Ability help with attack rolls, damage, and spell DCs? It only mentions ability checks, and I'm not sure if an attack counts as an ability check.
Are spell areas, origin points, etc., calculated using intersections and traveling along the lines between squares, as in 3.5? This is relevant for aiming spells, and is also why Lightning Bolt is 2 squares wide in 3.5.
Do Force effects hit creatures on the ethereal plane, and can they travel from the Ethereal to the Material plane?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A few more questions:

Does Enhance Ability help with attack rolls, damage, and spell DCs? It only mentions ability checks, and I'm not sure if an attack counts as an ability check.
Are spell areas, origin points, etc., calculated using intersections and traveling along the lines between squares, as in 3.5? This is relevant for aiming spells, and is also why Lightning Bolt is 2 squares wide in 3.5.
Do Force effects hit creatures on the ethereal plane, and can they travel from the Ethereal to the Material plane?

Attacks, ability checks, and saves are separate things. Spells and such must specifically say they affect each type.

Playing on a grid is not the default, so mu. But yes, on a grid origins are at intersections.

Only if they say they do. The rule for 5e is that it will specifically say what it does, and it does that and nothing else. There are no general rules for force damage other than as a damage type like any other.

[Petrocorus]

A few more questions:

Does Enhance Ability help with attack rolls, damage, and spell DCs? It only mentions ability checks, and I'm not sure if an attack counts as an ability check.
No.
There are three type of checks:
- Ability checks (with or without skills)
- Attack rolls
- Saves

Enhance Ability (and Guidance) only helps with ability checks. If a spell help for attack rolls or save roll, it explicitly says so.
And bonus or advantage to an ability check does not translate into secondary stats like AC or Save DC, unless it explicitly says so, or the DM rules it does.

Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) may translate into a +5 to the passive score if the DM agrees.



Are spell areas, origin points, etc., calculated using intersections and traveling along the lines between squares, as in 3.5?
Yes, if you use a grid, the point of origin is an intersection between squares, with a few explicit exceptions (like Flaming Sphere)



Do Force effects hit creatures on the ethereal plane, and can they travel from the Ethereal to the Material plane?

There's no general rule about this as far as i know.

Edit: Got ninja'd.

[ad_hoc]

Yes, if you use a grid, the point of origin is an intersection between squares, with a few explicit exceptions (like Flaming Sphere)


Where does it say this?

[LudicSavant]

Where does it say this?

DMG pg251.

Note that for some stuff (auras) you measure from all 4 corners of the character's space, so for example a 10 foot aura is bigger than a 10-foot radius. Incidentally, this is (according to JC) the reason he says that he won't do Large PCs. Make of that what you will...


Was there a version of that done for Volo's and Mords?

If there was, I don't have a link to it handy.

[ad_hoc]

DMG pg251.

Note that for some stuff (auras) you measure from all 4 corners of the character's space, so for example a 10 foot aura is bigger than a 10-foot radius. Incidentally, this is (according to JC) the reason he says that he won't do Large PCs. Make of that what you will...



If there was, I don't have a link to it handy.

Oh I see.

The diagram on pg 87 of XGtE has different rules.

I think that one makes more sense for effects originating at the caster. I think if you are placing a template at range then you should put it at an intersection.

[OracularPoet]

No.
There are three type of checks:
- Ability checks (with or without skills)
- Attack rolls
- Saves

Enhance Ability (and Guidance) only helps with ability checks. If a spell help for attack rolls or save roll, it explicitly says so.
And bonus or advantage to an ability check does not translate into secondary stats like AC or Save DC, unless it explicitly says so, or the DM rules it does.

Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) may translate into a +5 to the passive score if the DM agrees.


Yes, if you use a grid, the point of origin is an intersection between squares, with a few explicit exceptions (like Flaming Sphere)



There's no general rule about this as far as i know.

Edit: Got ninja'd.

Not clear to new players re: ability checks, but initiative is an ability check. So things that help with DEX ability checks also help with initiative. Like Enhanced Ability, Guidance, Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete.

[qube]

Not clear to new players re: ability checks, but initiative is an ability check. So things that help with DEX ability checks also help with initiative. Like Enhanced Ability, Guidance, Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete.quite true, that's why, when explaining, I explicitely use the phrashing "when you roll a d20" - when you roll a d20, it's either an attack roll, save - all others are ability check.
if there is ever an exception (like rolling a d20 on a table) we'll cross that bridge when we get there, but that way it's clear.

[SirFrog]

You shouldn't compare the game to 3e. It is its own game.

In my experience the people who have the most trouble learning and understanding 5e are 3e players, partly because of this mentality.

Hogwash; most 3.X players I know have had zero problems adjusting to 5E. Same for 2E and 1E. Statements like this are condescending to a large part of the 5E community

[J-H]

This has been a really helpful thread.

Are there any scaling spells that are actually worth the scaling? I guess, sure, Magic Missile in a 9th level slot for 11d4+11 damage is useful in a pinch if you have something that's incredibly hard to hit but low on HP (Demilich?)...but most of the scaling options don't look very worthwhile.

Delayed Blast Fireball's delay mechanic is actually good...first DBF that has looked decent.

Most of the high level spells so far (I think I'm in the M's) are either utility, or for strategic bombardment (Storm of Vengeance, Meteor Swarm, etc.).
Disintegrate doesn't look so hot either.

[LudicSavant]

This has been a really helpful thread.

Are there any scaling spells that are actually worth the scaling? I guess, sure, Magic Missile in a 9th level slot for 11d4+11 damage is useful in a pinch if you have something that's incredibly hard to hit but low on HP (Demilich?)...but most of the scaling options don't look very worthwhile.

Delayed Blast Fireball's delay mechanic is actually good...first DBF that has looked decent.

Most of the high level spells so far (I think I'm in the M's) are either utility, or for strategic bombardment (Storm of Vengeance, Meteor Swarm, etc.).
Disintegrate doesn't look so hot either.

Scaling spells being worth it is rather situational. For example Magic Missile scales well with the Evoker/Hexblade build that makes it do triple digit damage at tier 3.

In many cases the main benefit is having some flexibility with that prepared spell choice.

[OverLordOcelot]

Are there any scaling spells that are actually worth the scaling? I guess, sure, Magic Missile in a 9th level slot for 11d4+11 damage is useful in a pinch if you have something that's incredibly hard to hit but low on HP (Demilich?)...but most of the scaling options don't look very worthwhile.

Damage spells don't scale well in general, I think it's pretty clear that the designers wanted to see a variety of spells used instead of just upcasting lower level spells. For the most part, upcasting damage spells is more for 'I don't really have a 4rd level spell that's appropriate here, I'll use a 4th level slot to upcast this one instead' Spells that scale by number affected or size can be really useful to upcast - hold person is just absurdly good at that, and fog cloud can get to a silly radius very easily. Conjuration spells can work well for that too.

[OracularPoet]

Are there any scaling spells that are actually worth the scaling?

Spirit Guardians?

[J-H]

Scaling spells being worth it is rather situational. For example Magic Missile scales well with the Evoker/Hexblade build that makes it do triple digit damage at tier 3.

In many cases the main benefit is having some flexibility with that prepared spell choice.

What's this?
I'm assuming Hexblade is not a PHB class, don't recall seeing it.

[JNAProductions]

What's this?
I'm assuming Hexblade is not a PHB class, don't recall seeing it.

Subclass in Xanathar's, for the Warlock.

[McSkrag]

What's this?
I'm assuming Hexblade is not a PHB class, don't recall seeing it.

Hexblade is a Warlock subclass in Xanathar's Guide to Everything which added to and expanded a lot of PHB content.

[sophontteks]

This has been a really helpful thread.

Are there any scaling spells that are actually worth the scaling? I guess, sure, Magic Missile in a 9th level slot for 11d4+11 damage is useful in a pinch if you have something that's incredibly hard to hit but low on HP (Demilich?)...but most of the scaling options don't look very worthwhile.

Delayed Blast Fireball's delay mechanic is actually good...first DBF that has looked decent.

Most of the high level spells so far (I think I'm in the M's) are either utility, or for strategic bombardment (Storm of Vengeance, Meteor Swarm, etc.).
Disintegrate doesn't look so hot either.
Warlocks benefit most from damage scaling, because they always cast at max level. Some spells stick out as being superior options with scaling

Damage scaling tends to fall vs. new spells but some stand out: Armor of Agyths, Shatter (not everyone gets fireball), Hellish Rebuke, Thunder step.

Outside of damage scaling, spells that add targets are always good. A bit too many to list actually. Blindness/deafness stands out because its a mediocre spell unless upcast. Upcasting blindness/deafness gives casters a non-concentration multitarget CC spell, a very rare thing.

[solidork]

This has been a really helpful thread.

Are there any scaling spells that are actually worth the scaling? I guess, sure, Magic Missile in a 9th level slot for 11d4+11 damage is useful in a pinch if you have something that's incredibly hard to hit but low on HP (Demilich?)...but most of the scaling options don't look very worthwhile.

For Clerics, casting Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon at higher levels is always effective and is one of the cornerstones of their primary combat strategy. Additionally, spells that get extra targets at higher levels are quite potent. Here is a list of spells that have been upcast to good effect:

Command
Blindness/Deafness
Spirit Guardians
Spiritual Weapon
Aid
Bless
Hold Person
Enhance Ability
Bestow Curse (If you cast it at 5th level it doesn't take concentration)
Invisibility
Fly
Armor of Agathys
Counterspell
Dragon's Breath (from Xanthar's Guide to Everything)

[Petrocorus]

Scaling spells being worth it is rather situational. For example Magic Missile scales well with the Evoker/Hexblade build that makes it do triple digit damage at tier 3.

What is this build?
I have a hard time figuring out how Magic Missile could make triple digit damage. Not until 14th level at least.

[solidork]

What is this build?
I have a hard time figuring out how Magic Missile could make triple digit damage. Not until 14th level at least.

It has to do with a JC ruling that you only "roll" the damage for magic missile once and then use that amount for each missile, so that class abilities like Hexblade Curse and Empowered Evocation add to each missile.

[Petrocorus]

It has to do with a JC ruling that you only "roll" the damage for magic missile once and then use that amount for each missile, so that class abilities like Hexblade Curse and Empowered Evocation add to each missile.

Yeah, forgot about this. One roll for Magic Missile but 3 rolls for Scorching Ray.
Someone left his consistency in his Secret Chest and lost the replica.

[LudicSavant]

What is this build?
I have a hard time figuring out how Magic Missile could make triple digit damage. Not until 14th level at least.

Empowered Evocation (Evoker 10) = +5 damage to each bolt
Hexblade's Curse (Hexblade 1) = +Proficiency to each bolt

This means the level 1 shot is doing up to 43.5 DPR and each extra bolt is adding an average of up to 14.5 DPR (depending on your proficiency). And I say DPR because that figure is already including the miss chance (which is zero).

Between this and Overchanneling AoEs and DoTs, not to mention all the practical bennies of Sculpt Spells, Evoker is able to do some really serious damage when they want to. On top of all the stuff that already makes Wizards so good.

Hexblade 1 also provides some other important benefits for Wizards. Namely, it gives them Medium Armor + Shield for 19 base AC, and then gives them a regenerating spell slot for the Shield or Absorb Elements spells. In other words, they become a not-glass cannon from that 1 level dip.

[Man_Over_Game]

Empowered Evocation (Evoker 10) = +5 damage to each bolt
Hexblade's Curse (Hexblade 1) = +Proficiency to each bolt

This means the level 1 shot is doing up to 43.5 DPR and each extra bolt is adding an average of up to 14.5 DPR (depending on your proficiency). And I say DPR because that figure is already including the miss chance (which is zero).

Between this and Overchanneling AoEs and DoTs, not to mention all the practical bennies of Sculpt Spells, Evoker is able to do some really serious damage when they want to. On top of all the stuff that already makes Wizards so good.

Hexblade 1 also provides some other important benefits for Wizards. Namely, it gives them Medium Armor + Shield for 19 base AC, and then gives them a regenerating spell slot for the Shield or Absorb Elements spells. In other words, they become a not-glass cannon from that 1 level dip.

Caster level 10 can cast level 5 slots.

(5-1) x 14.5 =58

58 + 43.5=101.5 unavoidable level 5 slot damage. That's...uh...pretty solid.

[LudicSavant]

Caster level 10 can cast level 5 slots.

(5-1) x 14.5 =58

58 + 43.5=101.5 unavoidable level 5 slot damage. That's...uh...pretty solid.

The 5th level slot is 87.5 damage when you hit level 11 (first time you can use the combo), because your proficiency would only be +4. But you'll be able to do triple digits soon after that.

It is quite good. Especially considering that as a Wizard, it need not be all of your damage in the round (for example, you're concentrating on Animate Objects, or a minion throws a Freezing Sphere, or your Animated Dead unleash a volley, etc etc).

[Petrocorus]

Empowered Evocation (Evoker 10) = +5 damage to each bolt
Hexblade's Curse (Hexblade 1) = +Proficiency to each bolt

This means the level 1 shot is doing up to 43.5 DPR and each extra bolt is adding an average of up to 14.5 DPR (depending on your proficiency). And I say DPR because that figure is already including the miss chance (which is zero).

If i count well, 14,5 is the average on 1d4 +1 +5 (Int) + 6 (Prof). So those are the damage at level 17?



Between this and Overchanneling AoEs and DoTs, not to mention all the practical bennies of Sculpt Spells, Evoker is able to do some really serious damage when they want to. On top of all the stuff that already makes Wizards so good.

DoTs? Damage over Time?

[LudicSavant]

If i count well, 14,5 is the average on 1d4 +1 +5 (Int) + 6 (Prof). So those are the damage at level 17? The scaling is 12.5 DPR/bolt at 11, 13.5 at 13, and 14.5 at 17. Hence "Up to 14.5, depending on proficiency."

Which is very good scaling, since that's actual DPR (rather than damage-on-hit) that just straight up ignores things like Legendary Resistance and Magic Resistance.

So for example, let's say you have a level 13 Hexblade 1/Evoker 12. They want to kill a Storm Giant. They could choose Disintegrate, or they could choose Magic Missile.

Despite the Storm Giant having a weak Dexterity save and lacking many of the defenses that big single targets at higher tiers often have (like Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance), Disintegrate only does 56.25 DPR (normal) or 60 DPR (Hexblade's Curse).

By contrast, if they cast Magic Missile, they simply ignore saves, magic resistance, and legendary resistance and straight up do 108 DPR, nearly twice as much as a normal caster using Disintegrate against a monster with a weak Dex and no special defenses.


DoTs? Damage over Time?
Yes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, forgot about this. One roll for Magic Missile but 3 rolls for Scorching Ray.
Someone left his consistency in his Secret Chest and lost the replica.

I fail my resistance to snark and say "it's D&D, consistency is a forbidden thing of the Far Realms".

[Petrocorus]

The scaling is 12.5 DPR/bolt at 11, 13.5 at 13, and 14.5 at 17. Hence "Up to 14.5, depending on proficiency."
Oups, misread this sentence.



Which is ..... defenses.

Thank you for the explanation.

I must confess i never looked too much into the Evoker due to my usual disregard for blasting (old 3.5 habits).

[Max_Killjoy]

Someone check my math (TIA).

Character has:

Dex 14
Chainmail shirt
Shield
Requisite Proficiencies


What is their AC?

[LudicSavant]

Someone check my math (TIA).

Character has:

Dex 14
Chainmail shirt
Shield
Requisite Proficiencies


What is their AC?

If by "chainmail shirt" you mean "chain shirt," their AC is 17.

[Max_Killjoy]

If by "chainmail shirt" you mean "chain shirt," their AC is 17.

Yes, "chain shirt". (Though if it were being shortened, it should be to "maille shirt" or "mail shirt", since really "chainmail" is a bit like "shirmp scampi" as a term.)

Thank you -- it didn't seem like a hard thing to figure out from the rules, but it also seemed pretty high in the context to a couple of the comments about AC being static and fairly low.

[Petrocorus]

Yes, "chain shirt". (Though if it were being shortened, it should be to "maille shirt" or "mail shirt", since really "chainmail" is a bit like "shirmp scampi" as a term.)
Wholeheartly agree.



Thank you -- it didn't seem like a hard thing to figure out from the rules, but it also seemed pretty high in the context to a couple of the comments about AC being static and fairly low.
AC tend to be quite static after a few level. But it can rise much above this 17.

Dwarven Forge Cleric can have 19 at level 1, 21 once he has the money for full plate, 23 if he use Shield of Faith.
A Dex Barbarian optimized for AC can have 18 at level 1, 19 at level 4. Naked.

Actually, the average melee specialist will often have 16 to 19 AC right off the start. The specialist tank will have 21 at level 4 or 5 (money money!).

And that's not even mentioning Bladesingers and some other stuffs.

[GlenSmash!]

Yes, "chain shirt". (Though if it were being shortened, it should be to "maille shirt" or "mail shirt", since really "chainmail" is a bit like "shirmp scampi" as a term.)

Thank you -- it didn't seem like a hard thing to figure out from the rules, but it also seemed pretty high in the context to a couple of the comments about AC being static and fairly low.

Now, now if we start in on this can of worms we'll be talking about studded leather, lamellar, gambesons and the like.

I'm staying out of that rabbit hole.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, "chain shirt". (Though if it were being shortened, it should be to "maille shirt" or "mail shirt", since really "chainmail" is a bit like "shirmp scampi" as a term.)

Thank you -- it didn't seem like a hard thing to figure out from the rules, but it also seemed pretty high in the context to a couple of the comments about AC being static and fairly low.

The normal range for mundane ACs are (in my opinion) about 15-20, and not much on either side unless you really build for it (or have serious AC-boosting magic items).

Unarmored (Barb/Monk): 10 + DEX + CON/WIS caps at 20 if you max both stats. 22 if you cap CON at 24 as a level 20 barbarian and cap DEX at 20.
Mage armor (or equivalent): 13 + DEX caps at 18 if you max DEX, which most casters don't. 15-16 is normal for a mage armored caster.
Light armor: 12 + DEX caps at 17 (without +AC items), 19 with a shield (although most light armor folks can't use shields).
Medium armor: 16 + MAX(DEX, 2) caps at 18, 20 with a shield.
Heavy armor: 18 flat (plate), 20 with a shield.

Defense fighting style can push you up to 21 with a shield as a static thing.

Light armor usually caps by level 8 or so (2nd ASI at the latest). Medium armor caps as soon as you can afford half-plate, but many stop at a breastplate so they can be stealthy. That's as soon as level 5, level 6 at the latest. Heavy armor can take till level 8 or so, unless you loot some plate. Unarmored is the slowest, and frequently doesn't cap unless you dump everything into ASIs.

So "low" and "static" are both good descriptors for most of play. Low by comparison to 3e or 4e, both of which had high-level ACs in the 40-range for those that cared. Static because it caps by the time the campaign is getting serious, around level 6-7 (except for unarmored barbarians or monks, who have other defenses).

There's really only a range of about 3-4 various values for mundane ACs. Even monster ACs are mostly in the 13-18 range. Rare monsters that are much lower (zombies) or much higher (ancient dragons) are notable.

Of course, you can use magic items or spells to pump it up, at a cost.
Shield gives you +5 for a round and can cause the triggering attack to miss.
Shield of faith gives someone +2 for a minute, but concentration.
+X magic armors are one step rarer (except shields) than their weapon counterparts, so they're definitely not supposed to be widespread. The lowest one (+1 armor) is rare, something the party might see 10 of total, including all rare+ items if running by DMG standards.

[Max_Killjoy]

Now, now if we start in on this can of worms we'll be talking about studded leather, lamellar, gambesons and the like.

I'm staying out of that rabbit hole.

I live in that rabbit hole.




The normal range for mundane ACs are (in my opinion) about 15-20, and not much on either side unless you really build for it (or have serious AC-boosting magic items).

Unarmored (Barb/Monk): 10 + DEX + CON/WIS caps at 20 if you max both stats. 22 if you cap CON at 24 as a level 20 barbarian and cap DEX at 20.
Mage armor (or equivalent): 13 + DEX caps at 18 if you max DEX, which most casters don't. 15-16 is normal for a mage armored caster.
Light armor: 12 + DEX caps at 17 (without +AC items), 19 with a shield (although most light armor folks can't use shields).
Medium armor: 16 + MAX(DEX, 2) caps at 18, 20 with a shield.
Heavy armor: 18 flat (plate), 20 with a shield.

Defense fighting style can push you up to 21 with a shield as a static thing.

Light armor usually caps by level 8 or so (2nd ASI at the latest). Medium armor caps as soon as you can afford half-plate, but many stop at a breastplate so they can be stealthy. That's as soon as level 5, level 6 at the latest. Heavy armor can take till level 8 or so, unless you loot some plate. Unarmored is the slowest, and frequently doesn't cap unless you dump everything into ASIs.

So "low" and "static" are both good descriptors for most of play. Low by comparison to 3e or 4e, both of which had high-level ACs in the 40-range for those that cared. Static because it caps by the time the campaign is getting serious, around level 6-7 (except for unarmored barbarians or monks, who have other defenses).

There's really only a range of about 3-4 various values for mundane ACs. Even monster ACs are mostly in the 13-18 range. Rare monsters that are much lower (zombies) or much higher (ancient dragons) are notable.

Of course, you can use magic items or spells to pump it up, at a cost.
Shield gives you +5 for a round and can cause the triggering attack to miss.
Shield of faith gives someone +2 for a minute, but concentration.
+X magic armors are one step rarer (except shields) than their weapon counterparts, so they're definitely not supposed to be widespread. The lowest one (+1 armor) is rare, something the party might see 10 of total, including all rare+ items if running by DMG standards.


IMO, that's better than the "magic mart" feel of older editions, magic weapons and armor should be special. Again, IMO.

Anyway, I'd be comparing those to what looks like +11 on the attack roll at level 20 with 20 in the applicable stat and the level 20 proficiency bonus, with other things tacked on... so hitting more than half the time against an AC of 20... yeah, the ACs might come in as "low" in context. Huh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO, that's better than the "magic mart" feel of older editions, magic weapons and armor should be special. Again, IMO.

Anyway, I'd be comparing those to what looks like +11 on the attack roll at level 20 with 20 in the applicable stat and the level 20 proficiency bonus, with other things tacked on... so hitting more than half the time against an AC of 20... yeah, the ACs might come in as "low" in context. Huh.

I agree about the magic mart.

I mathed it out once--against "level appropriate" foes[1], a high-AC person should expect to get hit about 40% of the time by attacks. Low-AC people (ie wizards) should expect to get hit about 60-70% of the time. As for saves, people fail primary, proficient saves about 30% of the time and non-proficient, tertiary saves about 70% of the time. And this is consistent across levels with only small variation.

[1] level appropriate =/= CR = level. Taking a weighted average of the DMG guidelines says that the median foe at level 20 should be about CR 10-11 and come in packs of about 2 per PC. Throw in a few "solo" encounters (or big boss + a few low minions) of about CR ~ level + 2-3 infrequently.

[Astofel]

I live in that rabbit hole.
IMO, that's better than the "magic mart" feel of older editions, magic weapons and armor should be special. Again, IMO.

Anyway, I'd be comparing those to what looks like +11 on the attack roll at level 20 with 20 in the applicable stat and the level 20 proficiency bonus, with other things tacked on... so hitting more than half the time against an AC of 20... yeah, the ACs might come in as "low" in context. Huh.

I believe that the 'lowness' of 5e ACs is by design. The idea is that missing, either as a player or a DM, is not fun, since it usually amounts to 'nothing happens'. That said it can be frustrating when you're a player who has invested resources into getting a higher AC and you still get hit fairly regularly. That's why I don't normally bother with getting the best AC, since no matter what I do bounded accuracy means I'm still going to get hit.

[Yora]

Now, now if we start in on this can of worms we'll be talking about studded leather, lamellar, gambesons and the like.

I'm staying out of that rabbit hole.

Studded leather armor and the fighting in Return of the King got me intetested into medieval weapons and armor. They both just make no sense.

[Petrocorus]

Studded leather armor and the fighting in Return of the King got me intetested into medieval weapons and armor. They both just make no sense.

What do you mean?

[Man_Over_Game]

I believe that the 'lowness' of 5e ACs is by design. The idea is that missing, either as a player or a DM, is not fun, since it usually amounts to 'nothing happens'. That said it can be frustrating when you're a player who has invested resources into getting a higher AC and you still get hit fairly regularly. That's why I don't normally bother with getting the best AC, since no matter what I do bounded accuracy means I'm still going to get hit.

5e compensates by having HP be a massive bulk as part of leveling up, but at the same time not have damage scale as dramatically to compensate.

For example, the Rogue gains 1d6 damage every two levels, but gains 2x (1d8 + Con) at the same rate.

This means that battles last longer, players can afford to take multiple actions to change their fate rather than it being decided before their initiative turn, and also that those actions are not wasted due to a miss from overly high AC. I prefer this well over the previous renditions of AC and survivability.

----------------

High AC does do one thing of importance: It makes your high HP value more efficient.

A level 3 Rogue with 20 HP wearing armor to make the chance to hit him from 50% to 25% doubles his effective survivability against attacks. That 20 HP now translates to 40 effective HP.

However, a level 3 Paladin with 28 HP, also making the chance to hit him from 50% to 25% has an effective 56 HP.

Both have the same AC value, but because the Paladin has more health, the same high AC translates to the Paladin being able to mitigate an effective 16 more damage than the Rogue despite having only 8 more hitpoints and the same AC.

So while it doesn't matter too much for people who's survivability is already low, AC can be incredibly important for character who have a lot of HP and plan to stand in the front.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

That's the default setting, anyway. There are lots of DMs who believe that anything that doesn't risk a TPK is meaningless. Mainly because they only want to run 1-2 encounters per day.

In my experience, that's backwards. If you only want to run fights where the characters risk dying because you think that's exciting, you end up running only 1 or 2 fights a day because the characters run out of resources quickly.


I've seen references in a class ability or two to basically being immune to having your maximum HP total reduced. What would cause that? I have not run across (yet) negative levels as a thing. Does Necrotic damage have some special "hard to heal" rule that I missed?

Not on its own but a bunch of special abilities and spells that do Necrotic damage have that effect as a rider. Similarly, Radiant damage doesn't automatically do extra damage to undead, but a bunch of things that do extra damage to undead happen to use radiant damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my experience, that's backwards. If you only want to run fights where the characters risk dying because you think that's exciting, you end up running only 1 or 2 fights a day because the characters run out of resources quickly.


It's both cause and effect. You want to amp up the fights, so you throw hard fights. The party (rationally) novas them to survive. But then they're out of resources, so you only have 1-2 fights per day. But since the nova potential of a group is enormous, you have to amp up the fights to make them a challenge. And so it continues.

This spiral has several negative (in my opinion) consequences.
1) anyone who can't nova gets left behind and feels useless. CF warlocks or monks.
2) Damage optimization is the only relevant factor in the extreme cases--either you optimize for max DPR or you die. And that cuts out a lot of fun characters.
3) The campaign has to make room for you resting after every few fights. Many campaign/adventure structures make such things horribly irrational.
4) the value of certain abilities, spells, etc. gets way distorted. Durations stop mattering, because the party's only active a couple minutes.
5) at a certain point, mere bad luck is enough to TPK a group. Or good luck turns it into a cakewalk. But not much in the middle. Which kinda ruins the point of having a challenging fight, if it's down to who hits who first.

[noob]

It's both cause and effect. You want to amp up the fights, so you throw hard fights. The party (rationally) novas them to survive. But then they're out of resources, so you only have 1-2 fights per day. But since the nova potential of a group is enormous, you have to amp up the fights to make them a challenge. And so it continues.

This spiral has several negative (in my opinion) consequences.
1) anyone who can't nova gets left behind and feels useless. CF warlocks or monks.
2) Damage optimization is the only relevant factor in the extreme cases--either you optimize for max DPR or you die. And that cuts out a lot of fun characters.
3) The campaign has to make room for you resting after every few fights. Many campaign/adventure structures make such things horribly irrational.
4) the value of certain abilities, spells, etc. gets way distorted. Durations stop mattering, because the party's only active a couple minutes.
5) at a certain point, mere bad luck is enough to TPK a group. Or good luck turns it into a cakewalk. But not much in the middle. Which kinda ruins the point of having a challenging fight, if it's down to who hits who first.

dpr is the only thing that matters if you do not have other good options than killing the stuff.
if you can start casting teleport to make your whole team flee or just have a full party of sneaking people or if you can find a weakness of the opponent(like an opponent who have problems with obstacles due to low maneuverability or even worse that can not fly) then you can probably find stuff to trivialize the encounter(such as simply teleporting to a place without the monster)

[PhoenixPhyre]

dpr is the only thing that matters if you do not have other good options than killing the stuff.
if you can start casting teleport to make your whole team flee or just have a full party of sneaking people or if you can find a weakness of the opponent(like an opponent who have problems with obstacles due to low maneuverability or even worse that can not fly) then you can probably find stuff to trivialize the encounter(such as simply teleporting to a place without the monster)

Here's the thing. High level play is relatively meaningless. Most campaigns end by level 11-12, so "routine teleport" (which isn't really a thing, since even at level 20 you're casting 3/day max) won't even be possible. And you can escape pretty well (although unless you have an associated object you're at best accurate 75% of the time), but offensive teleport (teleporting to a location you've only seen through scrying or the like) has only a 25% chance of working right.

And most of the time, the big bad monster is protecting the thing or place you're trying to go, so teleporting to somewhere else is indistinguishable from losing.

[J-H]

Is Enhance Ability as useless in battle as it seem? The best thing I've come up for is non-combat checks (charisma/stealth/agility/searching).

Aside from a Barbarian, who's most likely to be able to go toe to toe with a dragon and deal massive damage? Or is that really the Barbarian's thing (thanks to resistance)?

[Astofel]

Is Enhance Ability as useless in battle as it seem? The best thing I've come up for is non-combat checks (charisma/stealth/agility/searching).

Aside from a Barbarian, who's most likely to be able to go toe to toe with a dragon and deal massive damage? Or is that really the Barbarian's thing (thanks to resistance)?

Enhance Ability has niche combat uses, namely boosting initiative, helping the rogue hide, and helping out with Counterspell and Dispel Magic, but otherwise yeah, there are normally better spells for you to cast in combat. As for the dragon, paladins can dish out quite a lot of damage with their smites, plus they're often more likely to make the save against the dragon's breath weapon than the barbarian because of their charisma bonus to saving throws.

[LudicSavant]

Aside from a Barbarian, who's most likely to be able to go toe to toe with a dragon and deal massive damage? Or is that really the Barbarian's thing (thanks to resistance)?

Arcane Tricksters, good Fighter tanks (especially Eldritch Knights), all Paladins, certain melee caster builds.

Arcane Tricksters can make pretty decent tanks in this edition.
- They have an at-will reaction that halves the damage of any one attack (it can stack with Resistance).
- Evasion severely cuts down the threat of breath weapons and the like.
- They get the most important saving throws (Dexterity and Wisdom in particular. Int isn't a bad one either; mind flayers and such are just as mean as any of the bad cases for failing Wisdom saves, they're just a bit less common). Throw in Resilient (Constitution) and they've got everything covered.
- Have access to potent defensive spells like Shield, Absorb Elements, Blur, and Mirror Image.
- Booming Blade Sneak Attack Warcaster Opportunity Attacks makes leaving their threatened area deadly.
- Cunning Action provides a lot of versatility.
- They get an extra ASI over most classes, which can be spend on something to help them tank. Even just taking Tough with this will catch them up to a Barbarian's HD.
- The Moderately Armored half feat boosts Dexterity and gives them shield proficiency and Medium Armor + Shield. Alternatively, a 1 level Fighter dip gives them that and the Defensive fighting style, too. Or a 1 level Hexblade dip gives that and Hexblade stuff.

Eldritch Knights are basically the tankiest Fighters in a pinch, mostly because of access to stuff like Absorb Elements (which will give them Resistance to the dragon's breath weapons and boost the Fighter's damage while they're at it), Shield, Blur, and Mirror Image. And fighters in general can really bring the damage with Action Surge.

Paladins have a game-changing aura, powerful burst damage, and various spells that help them tank.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Is Enhance Ability as useless in battle as it seem? The best thing I've come up for is non-combat checks (charisma/stealth/agility/searching).

Enhance ability is mostly non-combat. However, one niche use that will come up is if you're fighting a monster that makes lots of grapple or trip attacks (which aren't rare) it's not often not bad to pop it on Strength (for PCs resisting with Athletics) or Dexterity (for PCs who use Acrobatics). Unless the PC already has Expertise or something along those lines, of course.

That said, the best combat bonus from Enhance Ability is probably to use it to make your stealth rolls ahead of time so you surprise the enemy.

[sophontteks]

Upcasting enhance ability (dex) gives multiple party members advantage in stealth checks and advantage on initiative rolls.

Telekinesis requires an ability check using the caster's spellcasting attribute. Enhance ability would give the caster advantage on those checks.

Enhance ability is mostly out of combat, though its a really good and flexible out of combat spell. Targetting wisdom will give a player +5 to their passive perception.

[OverLordOcelot]

Both have the same AC value, but because the Paladin has more health, the same high AC translates to the Paladin being able to mitigate an effective 16 more damage than the Rogue despite having only 8 more hitpoints and the same AC.

So while it doesn't matter too much for people who's survivability is already low, AC can be incredibly important for character who have a lot of HP and plan to stand in the front.

You always want to take effective health calculations with a grain of salt; high AC only protects against attacks that go against AC. High level enemies and especially 'boss' type monsters usually have a number of abilities that require a saving throw or ability check instead of a regular attack, and all enemies can use shoves and grapples which make your AC much less effective. Also past a certain point, enemies will leave one or two guys to occupy the high AC guy and the rest will just ignore him and find weaker targets. It's not that AC is useless, or that there's anything wrong with realizing that AC has increasing returns against AC-based attacks, it's just not the be-all, end-all of survival, and there isn't MMO-style tanking in the game where you can basically guarantee that all hits go on the 'right' target.

There was a thread recently where a guy decided to model combat using effective health, and determined that he should be able to easily tank 6 CR15 monsters while tossing heals on allies for 9 rounds if a ring of protection went to him instead of anyone else. But in reality (gameality?), 3 of the 4 actual CR15 creatures would actually destroy him before round 2 because they have spells and breath weapons that completely bypass armor as a defense, and the 4th (purple worms) would have a difficult time even getting six of them into melee with him because of their size, though they do only have melee attacks.

[ad_hoc]

You always want to take effective health calculations with a grain of salt; high AC only protects against attacks that go against AC. High level enemies and especially 'boss' type monsters usually have a number of abilities that require a saving throw or ability check instead of a regular attack, and all enemies can use shoves and grapples which make your AC much less effective. Also past a certain point, enemies will leave one or two guys to occupy the high AC guy and the rest will just ignore him and find weaker targets. It's not that AC is useless, or that there's anything wrong with realizing that AC has increasing returns against AC-based attacks, it's just not the be-all, end-all of survival, and there isn't MMO-style tanking in the game where you can basically guarantee that all hits go on the 'right' target.

Yeah, or in other words the AC that matters is the lowest one in the party.

It doesn't matter if you're the last one alive, you're still going to die in the end once your party is dead.

[LudicSavant]

It doesn't matter if you're the last one alive, you're still going to die in the end once your party is dead.

Very true.


Yeah, or in other words the AC that matters is the lowest one in the party.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification too, just in the opposite direction.

If a tank's just letting you choose targets freely, they're not a tank, they're a turtle. Totally different beast.

A good tank can make it strategically costly to choose to attack people other than themselves, even if they're a bit less durable.

You probably already know that, the comment is more for the benefit of the people in this thread that are new to the game.

[ad_hoc]

Very true.



I think that's a bit of an oversimplification too, just in the opposite direction.

If a tank's just letting you choose targets freely, they're not a tank, they're a turtle. Totally different beast.

A good tank can make it strategically costly to choose to attack people other than themselves, even if they're a bit less durable.

You probably already know that, the comment is more for the benefit of the people in this thread that are new to the game.

It's just not how 5e is designed. There are few abilities that allow someone to stop enemies from attacking those they like and there are usually many enemies.

There is a general 'wisdom' on this board that as long as you don't walk into melee and stay there that you're invincible. To me that just sounds like the party isn't being challenged.

[LudicSavant]

There are few abilities that allow someone to stop enemies from attacking those they like

That isn't actually true, though. And you don't even need to actually make it impossible to attack someone else, you only need to make it sufficiently costly to do so that it's no longer a winning strategic option. Same as any other game with human controlled opponents and a tanking role.

It's true that some people build ineffective tanks in 5e, but that shouldn't fool you into thinking that you can't make one.


There is a general 'wisdom' on this board that as long as you don't walk into melee and stay there that you're invincible. To me that just sounds like the party isn't being challenged.

I agree that this 'wisdom' is also mistaken.

[OverLordOcelot]

A good tank can make it strategically costly to choose to attack people other than themselves, even if they're a bit less durable.

You probably already know that, the comment is more for the benefit of the people in this thread that are new to the game.

The ability of a tank to do that is much more limited than people used to MMOs (or people on forums) tend to think and requires much more active engagement. There seems to be a mindset of 'take sentinel, grapple once in a while, and the rest of the party is safe no matter what' which just isn't true. Ranged and spell attackers select targets mostly at will, creatures with reach can often get at anyone in a room, and lots of enemies are mobile. If enemies are having too hard of a time hitting a tank's AC, they can use abilities that don't go against AC like shove and grapple (or spells if they have them). They can also just accept the strategic cost - sentinel only gives 1 extra attack per turn, so if half a dozen hobgoblins want to mob a wizard, they can simply run for the wizard and take the lone hit.

Again, I'm not saying that trying to tank is a totally hopeless endeavor, but I see a lot of theorycrafting posts where people assume that a tank is somehow forcing lots of enemies to focus fire on him and that doesn't work unless the DM just decides enemies will work that way. For the new people, you can certainly shape the battle and offer some control, but it's quite possible for enemies to soak a sentinel attack, bury the 30AC tank under a pile of grappling minions, or attack from multiple directions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The ability of a tank to do that is much more limited than people used to MMOs (or people on forums) tend to think and requires much more active engagement. There seems to be a mindset of 'take sentinel, grapple once in a while, and the rest of the party is safe no matter what' which just isn't true. Ranged and spell attackers select targets mostly at will, creatures with reach can often get at anyone in a room, and lots of enemies are mobile. If enemies are having too hard of a time hitting a tank's AC, they can use abilities that don't go against AC like shove and grapple (or spells if they have them). They can also just accept the strategic cost - sentinel only gives 1 extra attack per turn, so if half a dozen hobgoblins want to mob a wizard, they can simply run for the wizard and take the lone hit.

Again, I'm not saying that trying to tank is a totally hopeless endeavor, but I see a lot of theorycrafting posts where people assume that a tank is somehow forcing lots of enemies to focus fire on him and that doesn't work unless the DM just decides enemies will work that way. For the new people, you can certainly shape the battle and offer some control, but it's quite possible for enemies to soak a sentinel attack, bury the 30AC tank under a pile of grappling minions, or attack from multiple directions.

Or fake out the OA with a weak minion--you've eaten their reaction and the rest can stream by unmolested. And once you grapple one...you can't grapple another.

A big thing is that naive theorycrafting tends to assume that you only have 1 or 2 enemies. That's not representative of 5e combats in the main (at least by the design assumptions). It's better to assume that you have between 1 and 3 enemies per PC for many fights, with solos being the exception. Tactics that work against one big enemy fail hard against a swarm of little ones.

[LudicSavant]

There seems to be a mindset of 'take sentinel, grapple once in a while, and the rest of the party is safe no matter what' which just isn't true.

I've said basically the same thing no less than twice on this page.


The ability of a tank to do that is much more limited than people used to MMOs (or people on forums) tend to think and requires much more active engagement.

Yes, but we also get the opposite problem: People who are used to MMOs who learn that you can't tank in the World of Warcraft style who then (quite wrongly) conclude that if you can't tank in that style, you can't tank at all.

You can absolutely tank in D&D, and you do so in much the same way that you do in most games that involve human controlled opponents and tanking roles. Which, as you say, requires more active engagement.


Ranged and spell attackers select targets mostly at will, creatures with reach can often get at anyone in a room, and lots of enemies are mobile. If enemies are having too hard of a time hitting a tank's AC, they can use abilities that don't go against AC like shove and grapple (or spells if they have them). They can also just accept the strategic cost - sentinel only gives 1 extra attack per turn, so if half a dozen hobgoblins want to mob a wizard, they can simply run for the wizard and take the lone hit.

For an example of how to do better, look at some of the optimized Arcana Cleric tank builds. Those guys can absolutely deal with ranged attackers, spellcasters, and swarms. You shouldn't assume that just because one build you've seen is bad, all builds are similarly limited.

[Lyracian]

Having just moved from 3.5 to 5e I am also finding this a great topic. The PBH and Xanthar's Guide seem like they are good for character options. Having ASI build into the class, and multi classing being a lot weaker, means you really have to make choices about taking a dip into another profession.

Looking at Booming/Green Fire Blade thought they seem to be overpowered. Sure it only works for characters with one attack a round but you get to add cantrip damage to your normal attack. I can see why all the guides talk about people taking them.

I also like the point buy/array for quick character builds you do not have to roll any dice but still have the option if you want to.

Looking at the spells is there any point to having Magic Missile now? It hardly does more damage than Firebolt and Shield spells is a lot easier to cast now it is a reaction. It still has the auto hit bonus and occasionally multi-target. Is that enough for it to still be used?

Do Goodberry and Disciple of Life interact to make each Berry heal 4 HP or is it just +3 to one target? Is it only +3 to the first Berry each person eats on a day? For instance if one person eats 6 and another 4 they would heal 9 HP and 7 HP respectively.

[Man_Over_Game]

The ability of a tank to do that is much more limited than people used to MMOs (or people on forums) tend to think and requires much more active engagement. There seems to be a mindset of 'take sentinel, grapple once in a while, and the rest of the party is safe no matter what' which just isn't true. Ranged and spell attackers select targets mostly at will, creatures with reach can often get at anyone in a room, and lots of enemies are mobile. If enemies are having too hard of a time hitting a tank's AC, they can use abilities that don't go against AC like shove and grapple (or spells if they have them). They can also just accept the strategic cost - sentinel only gives 1 extra attack per turn, so if half a dozen hobgoblins want to mob a wizard, they can simply run for the wizard and take the lone hit.

Again, I'm not saying that trying to tank is a totally hopeless endeavor, but I see a lot of theorycrafting posts where people assume that a tank is somehow forcing lots of enemies to focus fire on him and that doesn't work unless the DM just decides enemies will work that way. For the new people, you can certainly shape the battle and offer some control, but it's quite possible for enemies to soak a sentinel attack, bury the 30AC tank under a pile of grappling minions, or attack from multiple directions.

I think that's true, even in something like a video game. One option can't (and shouldn't) do it all. But, even in DnD 5e, there is a solution to virtually any problem.


Need to stop enemies from engaging in melee combat? Conquest Paladin.
Need to stop enemies from being mobile and moving around you? Crown Paladin.
Need to stop a boss's damage? Ancestral Guardian.
Need to stop a boss's mobility? Cavalier.
Need to never die and have combat utility? Ancients Paladin
Need to never die and have high damage? Totem (Bear) Barbarian




The options are there, but there's no solution that just straight up "taunts everything, never die".

Having played an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian for quite a while, I can definitely say that they can get anyone's attention. However, they are not very good at the surviving part, on top of being super boring. But as long as you know what you're doing, it's not that difficult.

Online games have to adjust for the fact that everyone is random, so they give every class a solution to every possible scenario (similar to AL).

Usually (unfortunately), people build their characters without really considering what the rest of the party is interested in. Which results in:

An Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is going to feel like a pathetic tank against multiple enemies or no healer.
A Crown Paladin feels really useless without a melee party to back him up.
A Conquest Paladin who doesn't contribute much against bosses in an AoE damage team.


------------

I think tanking works just fine, I just don't think people are willing to change their characters for the sake of teamwork, and that's what's needed to fill a "tanking" niche.

[Petrocorus]

While we're talking about this, according to you what are the best features for a tank to push the NPC to attack him instead of his teammates?



optimized Arcana Cleric tank builds.
I'm interested in those.
We should have a build collection somewhere.

[Man_Over_Game]

While we're talking about this, according to you what are the best features for a tank to push the NPC to attack him instead of his teammates?

Hands down, Ancestral Guardian. On hit, each turn, on a class that can increase his accuracy (albeit at the cost of his defense), on a class that halves the most common forms of damage, that has the highest amount of HP of any class.

And unlike the Cavalier or similar effects, it doesn't just cause the enemy to have an increased chance to miss, but it also halves the damage it does to your allies.

Plus, if something hits your allies, not only can you mitigate it by 7-14 damage every turn, but you can reflect half of the mitigated damage back at the enemy as Force (unresistable) damage.

Literally every feature but the one ribbon is designed to punish enemies for attacking anything that's not you. Naturally, this makes you public enemy number one, so...pack those healing potions, folks.

-------------------

The Cavalier comes close for a number 1 spot, but it's not quite as focused as a tank. Rather than being specialized into just making him the only worthwhile target, he compensates by being a lot more versatile. He deals damage, keeps enemies from attacking friends, keeps enemies from moving around him. He has a lot of good things going for him, but he doesn't quite make the team as indestructible as an Ancestral Guardian does.

It's tanking equivalent of selling your Shield Master feat for Polearm Master.

------------------

Crown is probably the next closest thing, being able to "grab" multiple enemies on a short rest cooldown. The main concern is that this also takes away his ability to heal himself and others, so you'd mostly use it when the enemy team has more melee combatants than yours. Grab all the enemies you can while you let your friends start sniping them like fish in a barrel.

Overall, though, with the fact that your self-healing is also the same resource for your taunting feature, and that one of your big abilities is to take damage in your allies' stead at melee range, the Crown Paladin is probably best in a team with a lot of healers or melee combatants (who he can absorb damage for and heal all at once)

-----------------

I guess there's one other form of "taunting", which is just making yourself a more dangerous target while making yourself easier to hit. This is the concept behind Reckless Attack, which is why it's a standalone level 2 ability. A boss can't afford to ignore you when you're easier to hit and you're dealing more damage than everyone else, so he'll just start wailing on you. Even if you do take half damage from Rage, there's a good chance you're the best possible target for the enemy to focus on. Lots of people using the GWM/PAM/Sentinel combo fall into this bracket, mostly because it's simple, reliable, and in the worst case scenario you're a massive pain in the rear.

[OverLordOcelot]

For an example of how to do better, look at some of the optimized Arcana Cleric tank builds. Those guys can absolutely deal with ranged attackers, spellcasters, and swarms. You shouldn't assume that just because one build you've seen is bad, all builds are similarly limited.

Why not give a link to what you're talking about? I don't buy that an arcana cleric can actually stop ranged attackers, spellcasters, and swarms in realistic configurations from targetting other party members, but link the build so we can all learn from it if it really can. If by 'deal with' you only mean that they have some way in their toolbox to fight them, then sure, lots of characters have ways to 'deal with' various situations and I never said they didn't, and for that matter didn't claim that any particular build was bad. But AFAIK they don't have a way to force all attacks to go against their armor class, and their biggest trick is only 15' range.


I think that's true, even in something like a video game. One option can't (and shouldn't) do it all. But, even in DnD 5e, there is a solution to virtually any problem.

[LIST]
Need to stop enemies from engaging in melee combat? Conquest Paladin.
Need to stop enemies from being mobile and moving around you? Crown Paladin.

For the benefit of new people, none of the things on the list actually do what the list says, and expecting them to do it will lead to disappointment. I'll look athe first two: Conquest Paladin and Crown paladin both have abilities with limited range (30') that give the enemy a save and can only be used once per rest. These abilities have a baked in failure chance, and enemies with legendary saving throws can automatically nullify said abilities. The abilities also both rely on channel divinity, which works once per rest. Crown paladin forces enemies who fail the save to stay within 30' of the crown paladin when moving, but that doesn't stop them moving around him. If you're in a confined area (like the dungeon part of dungeons and dragons), 30' is often enough space to get to the back line, if you're in an open space 30' isn't enough to catch every enemy. Also enemies can break this by having some run to one side, then one push the paladin away from them, which will take them out of the area. The basic push action or grapple+move breaks this, as do a variety of abilities. Meanwhile the conquest paladin's ability doesn't work on enemies who are immune to fear and allows a save every round. It doesn't stop enemies from engaging in melee, it just keeps them from getting closer to the paladin - if the geometry works right that might prevent melee, but in an open area they can just go around the paladin.

These are good, solid abilities, but even in their particular sphere of effectiveness do not work like the list says, and can only be used once per rest. This doesn't mean 'X build sucks', but it does mean 'X build doesn't actually stop all enemies from engaging in melee combat the way the list implies it does'.

[LudicSavant]

I'm interested in those.
We should have a build collection somewhere.

Sure. I can post a build later if I have time.


But AFAIK they don't have a way to force all attacks to go against their armor class

I have repeatedly said that the manner by which you tank in D&D 5e, as in most human vs human games with tanking roles, isn't via a World of Warcraft style hijacking of the enemy and forcing them to attack you, let alone only your armor class. So I don't know why you're talking about that or asking for me to post links to how to do that.

Doesn't matter whether it's Reinhardt in Overwatch, Asana in Atlas Reactor, Warriors in Guild Wars PvP, or Nautilus in League of Legends. These characters are all tanks, and they're all good at it, and not a single one of them actually forces enemy targeting via a "taunt" or the like.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Hands down, Ancestral Guardian. On hit, each turn, on a class that can increase his accuracy (albeit at the cost of his defense), on a class that halves the most common forms of damage, that has the highest amount of HP of any class.

To be fair, that's what Warding Maneuver is for and it grants an AC bonus that stacks nicely with the disadvantage they give attackers with Warding Maneuver, to boot. Plus, as a fighter, you can attack more enemies in a round to impose that disadvantage than a Barbarian can. And the bonus action attack from Warding Maneuver is supposed to stand in for the damage from your spirits on the Ancestral Guardian. Not to mention infinite attacks of opportunity laced with Sentinel lite if you make it to high levels. That said, Ancestral Guardian is a really nice tank and maybe slightly better than Cavalier at pure tanking, thanks in part to the greater survivability of being a Barbarian instead of a Fighter. Physical resistances and more hitpoints are really nice in the role. So we're largely in agreement.


For the benefit of new people, none of the things on the list actually do what the list says, and expecting them to do it will lead to disappointment. I'll look athe first two: Conquest Paladin and Crown paladin both have abilities with limited range (30') that give the enemy a save and can only be used once per rest. These abilities have a baked in failure chance, and enemies with legendary saving throws can automatically nullify said abilities. The abilities also both rely on channel divinity, which works once per rest. Crown paladin forces enemies who fail the save to stay within 30' of the crown paladin when moving, but that doesn't stop them moving around him. If you're in a confined area (like the dungeon part of dungeons and dragons), 30' is often enough space to get to the back line, if you're in an open space 30' isn't enough to catch every enemy. Also enemies can break this by having some run to one side, then one push the paladin away from them, which will take them out of the area. The basic push action or grapple+move breaks this, as do a variety of abilities. Meanwhile the conquest paladin's ability doesn't work on enemies who are immune to fear and allows a save every round. It doesn't stop enemies from engaging in melee, it just keeps them from getting closer to the paladin - if the geometry works right that might prevent melee, but in an open area they can just go around the paladin.
This, on the other hand, is a gross misrepresentation of the Conquest Paladin's abilities, as they have plenty of ways to inflict Fear, not just the one ability [including the Fear spell which doesn't allow subsequent saves if they can still see you], AND an ability that stops Frightened foes from being able to move at all that starts with a pretty terrible range, but grows a bit.

Immunity to being Frightened can still pose an issue, of course (Legendary resistances, less so, provided there are other spellcasters in the party, you can burn through those quite fast). Of course, one can then fall back on being really good damage dealers because they're paladins.

[J-H]

Are there any feats that people actually take at levels 4 or 8? It seems like ASIs are more valuable until you hit a 20 in your main stat, with very few exceptions. Some feats do include a +1 ability score, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are there any feats that people actually take at levels 4 or 8? It seems like ASIs are more valuable until you hit a 20 in your main stat, with very few exceptions. Some feats do include a +1 ability score, though.

Lots of them. The math is fine with a +3 attack stat until tier 3. GWM, PAM, CBE, SS are the prime DPR feats and are usually taken as early as possible, while my players tend to take lucky or Mobile at 4 or 8.

[Skylivedk]

As for tanking, I've seen some surprise contenders: arcane trickster / swashbuckler+Sorcerer+hexblade is surprisingly effective. So is a hexblade level 2 / abjurer X. My own pure hexblade's main issue as a tank is that enemies try to stay out of the way of his murder cloud.

They don't "force" attacks, but they're damn hard to ignore, extremely sticky and have a lot of answers:
- temp hp that deals damage from Armour of Agathys. Extra powerful with warding bond. If you want quattro formaggi you can combine it with a cavalier and ancestral barbarian and watch the enemies bear themselves to death
- counterspell and dispel magic to deal with a lot of spell based attack
- mirror image/blur/improved invisibility to deal with the enemies that have single big attacks
- Shield and absorb elements both provide solid options for mitigation
- for the rogue: most primary saves are with proficiency later in the game
- the abjurer can recharge his ward between fights and it provides both him and allies with extra hp
- plus he is very tough against spells later on

I've a player who's a gold dwarf forge cleric 1 / abjurer X. His appearance makes it unlikely for him to be a primary target for his weakest stat (strength). Of course smart enemies might figure that ought, but otherwise it almost takes metagaming as a DM to have a reason to grapple him. He's still a Wizard, so ignoring him is painful... But then again. That party is pretty well build. The most squishy is either the open hand monk or the devotion paladin.

In other campaigns, I've noticed that the medium armoured (non Arcana) clerics, rangers and warlocks are very exposed to danger to their combination of mediocre defenses and mobility.

In general, when you tank in 5e, the key points to remember are:
- what are your team members' weak points? (Ie an ancient Paladin is a lot valuable in a party of high level monks)
- how do you divert attention from the party members who are the most exposed in a given fight?
- how do you mitigate debuffs and damage when the plan meets reality?

[LudicSavant]

I'm interested in those.
We should have a build collection somewhere.

Okay. Here's one that's pretty similar to one we played in a long-running campaign from low to high levels.

Example Arcana Cleric build:
Azorius VHuman Arcana Cleric 1-20
Stat Priorities: Wis > Con > Dex 14, other stats to taste
ASIs: War Caster, Magic Initiate (Shillelagh/Thorn Whip/Absorb Elements), Max Wis, Resilient (Constitution), Lucky
Cantrips: Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Word of Radiance, Toll the Dead, Guidance, Mending, Light
Gear to look for: Basically you want anything that raises your defenses, like AC/saves. Also, getting a Strength-boosting item is a popular alternative to taking Shillelagh, since they're relatively easy to come by in many campaigns (including AL, apparently) and also open up shove/grapple options.

Build itself is pretty simple, and works well at all levels. But as is often the case with caster builds, just posting the build doesn't really tell you why it's so effective. The trick is knowing what to do with it, because these guys get a lot of tools. They know over a hundred spells and I don't have the time to go over every single one of them and all their interactions and combos and situational uses and such. I mean, I could dedicate an entire thread to discussing some of these single spells. But I'll try to at least give an idea of the sort of things you're bringing to the table here.

So here are just a few examples of what they can do:

1) Booming Blade is a lot more dangerous than usual from these guys, because Potent Spellcasting adds your Wisdom on both the melee attack and the rider, and because Warcaster means that walking outside of the Cleric's threatened area to go punch someone else triggers the rider and then another Booming Blade and then another rider too. This works out to a significant chunk of damage at any level, especially considering it's not all of your action economy (you've still got your Concentration, your bonus action, and possibly minions).

While it doesn't "force" an enemy to stay still, it punishes them severely for not doing so. If they opt to walk over to someone with a couple less points of AC, the benefit of this is offset by living for less rounds and therefore being able to take fewer harmful actions. And staying still has numerous disadvantages of its own (like getting stuck in hazards, having Disadvantage on ranged attack rolls, being unable to adjust line of effect, etc).

2) Spellbreaker is antimagic gold, and there's an awful lot of things you can do with it.

For example, casting Regenerate provides an hour long, Concentrationless buff that gradually heals over 600 hp throughout its long duration, helping to keep ally hp topped off between combats and picking up allies off the 0hp gate at the start of their turn without so much as a bonus action cost. But with Spellbreaker, it also removes a spell effect you don't like every round, again with no action cost from you. It’s like an hour long “every turn get a mini Healing Word / Dispel Magic at the start of your turn.”

For another example, Mass Healing Word is kinda like a bonus action Dispel Magic that targets your whole party and, as a bonus, also heals people a bit and picks them up off the 0hp gate.

For another example, Heal is an effective burst heal that also removes a variety of negative effects.

3) If you want even more antimagic, you can pick up Counterspell from the Azorius background from GGtR.

4) Warding Bond is a great 1 hour, Concentrationless buff that gives an ally +1 to AC and all saves (so, basically like a ring of protection. Or to put it another way, imagine if Divine Shield exchanged 1 point of its AC bonus for +1 to all saves, then lasted 60 times as long and didn't take Concentration), and that's before it even does its primary job: Damage splitting. Also, unlike some other damage split mechanics in 5e, the damage you take on your end can be mitigated by your own resistance (such as from Absorb Elements).

It's not the only good Concentrationless buff you have either. Freedom of Movement prevents all kinds of things for an hour, and Death Ward is an 8 hour one that gives the target an extra death gate. Sanctuary is a ranged bonus action that requires enemies to make a Wisdom save to target a creature at all and only costs a level 1 spell slot (and can interfere with action choices less than you might expect if you're attentive to action order and the like; you can use it at the end of your turn right after hitting someone, and simply maintaining spells you already cast like Spirit Guardians doesn’t end it). There's even stuff like, say, an upcast Continual Flame giving protection against magical darkness with an unlimited duration (since Darkness can't darken areas illuminated by a spell of 3rd level or higher, period). These things add up.

5) Minions! You can create and maintain a bunch of animated dead on your days off, who can then do things like spam grapples at people or just stand in front of allies to grant them cover against ranged attacks or block the movement of melee attackers, while firing ranged attacks of their own. They can also do things like administer potions to teammates, per the DMG rules. Don't forget that you can give general commands so that you don't have to use a bonus action every turn.

More situationally, you can also use things like Planar Ally and Planar Binding to contract bigger fish.

6) Spirit Guardians lasts 10 minutes, which is long enough for numerous encounters in a dungeoneering situation (meaning that it'll often already be up when a fight starts). SG not only creates a large zone of hurt that leaves your actions free on every round after you cast it, it also halves the speed of everything in that area without a save (and stacks with Difficult Terrain and the like). For melee foes, this can straight up prevent them from being able to reach your party. For ranged ones, it limits their firing lines (such as for firing around cover) and ability to kite.

7) Your lack of reliance on your Action to be threatening (thanks to powerful Concentration effects, bonus action tools like Spiritual Weapon, punishing reactions, and minions), you can totally do stuff like use the Dodge action if you need to, and still keep your DPR relevant. I've seen these guys just jump into a crowd of enemies with a Spirit Guardians they cast 3 encounters ago and use Dodge until they all melt (mook swarms tend to have a pretty hard time hitting a decent AC with Disadvantage). This is but one of many examples of how these guys are versatile and adaptable with their action economy.

As I put it in another thread:



Our sixth level cleric waded into a pack of gnolls using Dodge action and Spirit Guardians. It was amazing how often that disadvantage thing caused a miss. Two rounds later, the remaining gnolls were trying their best to flee. (Needless to say, our other party members were also attacking, but that aura of angry spirits was very effective).
He had to make one con save, and made it easily.
Mathematically, a half-decent AC and Disadvantage makes it almost impossible for low-attack bonus enemies to hit you, which makes Spirit Guardians + Dodge a very effective way of taking out swarms.

For example, here's a gnoll's chance of hitting with Disadvantage at various ACs:

AC 19: 6.25% (1 in 16 attacks hit)
AC 21: 2.25% (1 in ~44.44 attacks hit)
AC 23: 0.25% (1 in 400 attacks hit)

8) You have tons of CC spells. For example, you can use Banishment to lock a dangerous target out of the fight while you clean up everyone else. Not to mention that Divine Word is like an AoE, bonus action, instantaneous Banishment against celestials, elementals, fey, and fiends (regardless of their hp) and also debilitates mooks or wounded foes with no save. Hold X is basically a death sentence if it lands (because of the autocrits). Command is a rare no-Concentration CC at low levels that can affect multiple targets if upcast. Arcane Abjuration and Turn Undead are effectively extra Concentrationless CC spell slots, too (up to 3/short rest).

9) Big Damn Wizard Spells. This part only comes online at level 17+ so I won't spend too much time on it, but you get a 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level Wizard spell known, and there are some golden choices on the Wizard list for your purposes, like Contingency or Foresight.

10) Your AoE damage isn't bad at all. Spirit Guardians just sort of passively melts things, but if that's not enough you've got options like Potent Spellcasting boosted Green-Flame Blade or Word of Radiance, or spells. Sure, stuff like Flame Strike and Fire Storm might not be the best AoEs around, but it's still enough to kill off swarms when stacked with Spirit Guardians and it's a heckuva lot more AoE potential than most martials get.

11) As long as you're up, actually taking allies out of the fight is hard. Even if enemies can get at your allies through all of your CC and pressure and buffs and such, allies at 0hp just pop right back up and many status effects just get cleansed. Even an ally who actually dies will get popped back up by Revivify while things like SG/SW/minions keep ticking away.

12) A high perception score at the front of the party's marching order helps to protect against Surprise, traps, and the like. Also has access to a variety of divinations and "information wars" abilities.

13) An important thing to understand is that you're never really doing just one of these things at a time. Your action economy is great. Just be careful to budget your resources properly for however many encounters a day you expect to fight (you should have enough for 6-8 encounter days if you're doing it right).

[Mitsu]

If we talk about tanking: all Paladins are great tanks.

I think many people kind of forget that Paladins have very high effective HP with Lay Down Hands. At level 4 a Paladin wiht 14 CON has 36 HP + 20 as bonus action, making it effective 56 HP. A number that may not maybe impress Moon Druid or Bear Barbarian, but let's add how much more Paladin adds with his kit. Also- raw HP is not all. Having an perma +5 to save throws is kind of worth more in long run as tank than more HP.

Also while not strictly a tank, I found Vengeance Paladin/Hexblade to be a very scary and effective tank, especially with Booming Blade + PAM + Relentless Avenger and Shield spell on their disposal, they are really sticky and can position well and force that Booming Blade procs, punishing for entering and leaving his range. And having that 27 AC when needed (Plate + Shield + Shield of Faith + Shield) can really screw enemy plan.

Also while all Paladins can tank, I found that V-Pally is good tank cause the faster you kill boss, the less you have to tank really.

I think people often miss tank with "turtles" or "Hit sponge". It's not all about damage reduction.

Sure in theory Bear Barbarian can stand in front of the dragon longer but if you can kill dragon in 2 turns by smitting it to death- does it matter?

I think 5e make tanking little less about "just take it to the face and stand" and more about being versitile and being able to control battlefield.

I still think that properly build Moon Druid who can both wild shape and keep great concetration spell on + having Sentinel feat can make best tank. Especially with monk dip for that lovely +5 to AC... Not because he can take much dmg but can also do much more. One successful Entangle on group of enemies is worth more than any Barbarian

You know in one session I had a Moon Druid tank simply let other team member get on his back, took him to the full cover and returned to battle. Since he was Large - other players could ride him. This was one of those moments where tank did more by being versitile then just stand and take hits to the face.

I like Barbarians but they are quite one-dimensional. I think Paladin, Moon Druid, Fighter/Abjurer Wizard can be better tanks not by raw HP but by more tools in their sleeves that make a really good tank who can really change course of battle.

Just my opinion.

[BreaktheStatue]

If we talk about tanking: all Paladins are great tanks.

I think many people kind of forget that Paladins have very high effective HP with Lay Down Hands. At level 4 a Paladin wiht 14 CON has 36 HP + 20 as bonus action, making it effective 56 HP. A number that may not maybe impress Moon Druid or Bear Barbarian, but let's add how much more Paladin adds with his kit. Also- raw HP is not all. Having an perma +5 to save throws is kind of worth more in long run as tank than more HP.

Also while not strictly a tank, I found Vengeance Paladin/Hexblade to be a very scary and effective tank, especially with Booming Blade + PAM + Relentless Avenger and Shield spell on their disposal, they are really sticky and can position well and force that Booming Blade procs, punishing for entering and leaving his range. And having that 27 AC when needed (Plate + Shield + Shield of Faith + Shield) can really screw enemy plan.

I found the same. It's extremely versatile, and a nice combination of survivability and "You Can't Ignore Me" damage-dealing nova. You also have eldritch blast to help deal with mobs that get away from you.

[ChildofLuthic]

In the campaign we just started we had 1 3e player who kept saying that he is using X skill rather than just describing what he is doing. Despite explaining it a few times he kept getting frustrated by it. Interacting with the world was intuitive to everyone else. He ended up quitting the campaign, not sure if the reason was not understanding the game but I bet it contributed.

I had a former 3.5e player tell me "Can I use Gather Information?" and when I asked him "What do you do to gather information?" he looked at me like I was talking Greek.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm interested in those.
We should have a build collection somewhere.

Another one to add that's fairly simple: Arcana Cleric with Ritual Caster.

Why?

Because sometimes you want to do wizard things but you also need to heal. Between the Cleric and the Arcana subclass, there's only one spell that has any overlap with Ritual Caster (Wizard): Detect Magic.


This way, you can do all the interesting arcane abilities of a Wizard while still being able to wear medium armor. This is an ideal solution for a small team that lacks a caster, as this lets you fill multiple roles at once.

[Petrocorus]

Example Arcana Cleric build:
Azorius VHuman Arcana Cleric 1-20
Stat Priorities: Wis > Con > Dex 14, other stats to taste
ASIs: War Caster, Magic Initiate (Shillelagh/Thorn Whip/Absorb Elements), Max Wis, Resilient (Constitution), Lucky
Cantrips: Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Word of Radiance, Toll the Dead, Guidance, Mending, Light
Gear to look for: Basically you want anything that raises your defenses, like AC/saves. Also, getting a Strength-boosting item is a popular alternative to taking Shillelagh, since they're relatively easy to come by in many campaigns (including AL, apparently) and also open up shove/grapple options.

I am totally saving this.
Especially since i was working on something like this with a Wood Elf Arcana Cleric with the Wood Elf Magic feat. But i was more concerned about the DPR. I am contemplating the idea of using this in a forthcoming ToA campaign.

I still have some questions. Do you go for WarCaster or Magic Initiate first? Is there ways to have an AC above 19 (half-plate + dex + shield) or 18 if you care for Stealth?

[noob]

I had a former 3.5e player tell me "Can I use Gather Information?" and when I asked him "What do you do to gather information?" he looked at me like I was talking Greek.

the problem comes from the following thing: if you actually goes and start talking to people to gather information the gather information skill does not helps and it becomes stuff like psychology that helps.
If you go into a specific building and start listening again gather information does not helps and it is instead whichever skill you use to hear people that helps.
Basically gather information have no use if you roleplay whichever you do for gathering information because then it is other skills which does the job.

Gather information is badly designed if you do not want to use it in an abstract way or just roll it and have the skill tell you where to go and what to go for gathering information(which is again rolling first thinking later).

[JoeJ]

the problem comes from the following thing: if you actually goes and start talking to people to gather information the gather information skill does not helps and it becomes stuff like psychology that helps.
If you go into a specific building and start listening again gather information does not helps and it is instead whichever skill you use to hear people that helps.
Basically gather information have no use if you roleplay whichever you do for gathering information because then it is other skills which does the job.

Gather information is badly designed if you do not want to use it in an abstract way or just roll it and have the skill tell you where to go and what to go for gathering information(which is again rolling first thinking later).

Which is why it was a good decision not to make it a separate skill proficiency in 5e.

It's important, too, to keep in mind the difference between skill and tool proficiencies. A tool proficiency lets you do something you otherwise couldn't, such as pick a lock, or make jewelry. A skill proficiency means you're better than average at something that anybody can do, like recall arcane lore, or persuade an NPC to do something for you.