Character Combinations That Need Help

[Amechra]

So, I was recently looking at Shifters (as one does), and I was struck that they'd simultaneously make fantastic and frustrating Barbarians. The flavor is perfect, and Beasthide Shifters literally have both a perfect set of stat-bonuses and synergistic shifting benefit. However, both Rage and Shifting take a bonus action, so you'll maybe get one or two rounds worth of Shifting+Rage in an encounter. Back in 3.X or 4e there'd probably be a racial feat that let you combo them, but feats don't work that way in 5e.

Similarly, you have a Monk/Rogue multiclass where you inflict deadly nerve-strikes to slay your enemies... except you can't, because you can't sneak attack (or smite) with an unarmed strike. Oops!

Want to play a lightning-focused Storm Sorcerer? I hope you're satisfied with Lightning Lure, Shocking Grasp, and Witch Bolt, because that's all you're getting until 5th level (when you pick up Lightning Bolt or 7th level (Storm Sphere). Want other lightning spells? Hah, how droll. Yeah, this happened to me once - I was punished for trying to build to a tight theme, and I never even got a chance to grab Call Lightning.

---

Are there any character options that you wished were a little easier to pull together?

[LudicSavant]

Are there any character options that you wished were a little easier to pull together?

There are so many I don't even know where to begin listing them all.

Racial modifiers alone are a considerable impediment for a wide variety of options. As one WotC writer complained: "There are over 1,000 unique race/class combinations in fifth edition D&D, but only a small handful of them are worth playing from a character optimization standpoint." I could go on all day listing iconic fantasy concepts that we never really see in 5e just because of this.

Pretty much any Dragon Sorcerer element that isn't Fire is worse than fire by an uncomfortable margin. And the Sorcerer chassis in general has some mechanical design elements that discourage tight theming, which I think is a missed game design opportunity.

Lots of things on the weapon table are just plain inferior for no particular reason, and never get used as a result.

[Sam113097]

Lots of things on the weapon table are just plain inferior for no particular reason, and never get used as a result.

Tridents... could've been something really cool, but they're just spears that are harder to get proficiency with.

I really wish it was easier to pull off a Pact of the Blade Warlock without taking Hexblade or multiclassing. You can pretty much only do it if you've got great stats, because you'll need good Cha, Dex (because you can only get light armor without a feat), Con, and Str (unless you choose to wield a rapier). I've always wanted to play a Celestial Bladelock with a giant glowing warhammer, but it seems like I'd fall behind other party members due to the extreme MAD.

I also wish Dex-based barbarians and Str-based Monks were a bit easier to pull off.

[T.G. Oskar]

Similarly, you have a Monk/Rogue multiclass where you inflict deadly nerve-strikes to slay your enemies... except you can't, because you can't sneak attack (or smite) with an unarmed strike. Oops!

If I want to be pedantic, I could mention that you could use a Dagger or Shortsword or any weapon that has Finesse AND is a Monk Weapon for your Sneak Attack. You still get to use Unarmed Strikes with Flurry of Blows or your bonus action attack, but you can only land Sneak Attack once. So it's not like it's a real loss, and after all, by the end your Shortsword will be dealing 1d10 damage anyways.


Are there any character options that you wished were a little easier to pull together?

A Purple Dragon Knight. Good grief, that thing's a mess! It's mostly a concept of what you can do with the Fighter chassis; the Champion, which should be the one that relies more on the Fighter chassis, has Remarkable Athlete which is amazing and Improved/Superior Critical is incredibly good too with Advantage. Heck, the package is actually very good! PDK, on the other hand...you're not thinking of Charisma, and the Fighter's class features are meant to be used on himself, so timing is virtually impossible to land.

Another would be non-Vermin, non-snake Beastmasters. If you go for a Flying Snake, Giant Poisonous Snake or Giant Wolf Spider, you have a very reliable Beast Companion. But if all you want is a Hawk or Panther or even a Cat? Tough luck - they're not as meaty or as good. Sure, you can say the Revised Ranger's Beast Conclave is better, but YMMV on it. And the Beasts of Earth/Air are cool, but they really feel like patches. I'd love to see them as options and not mere patches, because I like the flexibility of choosing Beast Companions for their special attacks and unique traits.

P.S.: Is that Madison on your avatar?

[Nikushimi]

Tell me about it. I wanted to create a Cold themed caster, but found out pretty quickly that there is almost no cold spells, much like lightning.

You have Frostbite and Ray of Frost as cantrips, okay. Then you get Ice Knife at level 1. You could also take Chromatic Orb and just use the Cold part of it, but eh. Then, level 2 you can get Snilloc's Snowball Storm, and....that's it till you can get 4th level spell slots cause there is absolutely NO level 3 Cold spell.

Then, you only get one level 4 spell, and have to wait again until you get 5th and 6th level spell slots. After that you won't get another cold spell till you can cast level 8 spells if you consider Control Weather to even be a Cold spell. So, cold casters get gipped.

And yeah, there's Armor of Agathys and Hunger of Hadar if you have access to it, but my point is there is a distinct lack of cold spells. Least imo, and especially depending on the class you choose.

So, personally I wish there was a way to change damage types, but that's up to DM and player to talk through together.
---

Side note, I feel that there's a lot of potential in characters that aren't exactly ideal.

For your example. Shifter Barbarian. Yeah, you may have to use your Bonus Action for both your rage and your shifting, but perhaps that's how their people do it. Before they can enter a rage they have to be Shifted first. Afterwards, they enter their rage.

Now, in my group we allow the use of forgoing an Action to use another Bonus Action, but some groups don't, and if yours is one of them then simply use your Action to do something else like perhaps "psych" your character up or even do something else.

Next turn, now that you're turned, rage. They both last a minute, and in combat that's 10 rounds. 1st is used to Shift (and if your DM allows you to trade Action for Bonus Action, you rage, otherwise use it for something else). 2nd round you rage and attack. You have 8 more rounds. If the encounter is done by then...that's one hell of an encounter. Most encounters, unless they're the boss or something, rarely last more than 5 or so rounds. Least for my group.

I would also honestly suggest Wildhunt for a Shifter Barbarian. Literally while you're shifted no enemy within 30ft of you can gain advantage on their attack against you. Reckless attack all day every day when you're in melee combat and shifted. You have advantage, but they don't cause you're shifted. As long as they're within 30ft anyways.
---

Long story short. I think some class and race combos, while not the best paired, can still be done and fun. That being said though, I do wish there was a bit more room to maneuver and do things in. Particularly in themed builds with casting. It's a bit annoying having to rely on other spells to supplement your theme such as using Necrotic with Cold or Thunder with Lightning just to fill out your spell list, but versatility is good too cause no good caster will be without some kind of backup if their attacks don't work.

[MrStabby]

There are a few - the rogue who always seems to have the right tool/wand/magic device for the job. To actually have the tool you end up chasing a rogue/artificer and you need to be stupidly high level before anything comes together.

A wizard that actually focuses on a school of magic - you lose far to much and gain too little from a narrow focus.

With the sorcerer - I actually feel it is the shadow sorcerer that gets the worst deal: like how many spells are there that actually create darkness? Well there are a few but they all seem to be on the warlock list. The sorcerer subclass gives you one darkness spell (darkness) from the subclass but it is a spell you could take anyway.


I feel that the answer to a lot of these is more support for different thematic spell lists: imagine a "cold" spell list that any class could chose instead of it's class list, something that would sacrifice a lot of versatility for a bit of flavour but might at least make some options a bit more viable.




There are so many I don't even know where to begin listing them all.

Racial modifiers alone are a considerable impediment for a wide variety of options. As one WotC writer complained: "There are over 1,000 unique race/class combinations in fifth edition D&D, but only a small handful of them are worth playing from a character optimization standpoint." I could go on all day listing iconic fantasy concepts that we never really see in 5e just because of this.

Pretty much any Dragon Sorcerer element that isn't Fire is worse than fire by an uncomfortable margin. And the Sorcerer chassis in general has some mechanical design elements that discourage tight theming, which I think is a missed game design opportunity.

Lots of things on the weapon table are just plain inferior for no particular reason, and never get used as a result.

I would slightly disagree with the dragon sorcerer thing, at least from an optimisation perspective. My belief is that the sorcerer's most powerful functions are not generally about doing damage (although I won't argue that w well placed fireball at low levels isn't effective). This means that even with a damage bonus most of your spells are not going to be benefiting from that +cha to damage. Where it does make a difference is in those spells that you are likely to cast most frequently which will tend to be cantrips. Given the relative efficiency of twinning cantrips and the desire to use spell slots for non damaging effects I would argue that the viability of different dragon types is based around which elemental cantrips are best. This makes me rate cold damage highly as you get ray of frost AND frostbite on the sorcerer list; I rate the added control elements that these spells brings more highly than the 1pt of damage per die you would get from firebolt. Furthermore cold is a bit less resisted than fire AND you get cantrips that work off attack rolls and saves (can be useful of you are a drow for example, or if someone might stand next to you).

[Amechra]

If I want to be pedantic, I could mention that you could use a Dagger or Shortsword or any weapon that has Finesse AND is a Monk Weapon for your Sneak Attack. You still get to use Unarmed Strikes with Flurry of Blows or your bonus action attack, but you can only land Sneak Attack once. So it's not like it's a real loss, and after all, by the end your Shortsword will be dealing 1d10 damage anyways.

I mean, I could... but that's not the same as "I prod you and you explode". I understand why you can't use sneak attacks and smites with unarmed strikes (the devs were probably afraid of how it would combo with Flurry of Blows), but still.


P.S.: Is that Madison on your avatar?

Yep, that's her, putting away some books.

[LudicSavant]

Furthermore cold is a bit less resisted than fire

Yes, but only a bit. For example, there's 136 resistances or immunities to cold in MM, VGtM, and MToF, as opposed to 145 for Fire (though Fire has a higher proportion of Immunity). Lightning isn't much better, at 116. Acid is all the way down at 52. Poison has a whopping 203 (and unlike the rest, almost all of those are immunity).


I would slightly disagree with the dragon sorcerer thing, at least from an optimisation perspective. My belief is that the sorcerer's most powerful functions are not generally about doing damage (although I won't argue that w well placed fireball at low levels isn't effective).

It's not so much a question of "damage vs control" so much as it's a question of how many spells you get to choose from and how good those spells are.

There are 4 "multi-element" type spells. Chaos Bolt, Prismatic Spray, Chaos Bolt, and the only really notable one for optimization, Dragon's Breath. (I'll be excluding these from the future lists so I don't keep repeating them).

There are 17 spells that can deal Fire damage on the Sorcerer's list (not including the aforementioned 4), and many of them are useful things you'd consider taking anyways. They're not even all pure blasting spells.

There are just 2 on the Acid list: Vitriolic Sphere and Acid Splash.

There are just 4 on the Poison list: 2 subpar cantrips (Poison Spray and Infestation) and 2 rather meh leveled spells (Cloudkill and Ray of Sickness). And the situation with Poison resistance is worse than fire.

There are just 6 on the Lightning list: 2 are not-so-amazing cantrips (Lightning Lure and Shocking Grasp). Two are blasts that are often less useful than their Fire counterparts (Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning). One is Witch Bolt (Might as well not exist). One is Storm Sphere, which is decent.

There are just 7 on the Cold list: 2 are solid cantrips (Ray of Frost and Frostbite). 3 are just damage (Cone of Cold, Ice Knife, and the awful Snilloc's Snowball Swarm). 1 is one of the Investiture spells (none of which I think are great). Besides that, there's just one leveled Cold spell that has an actual CC effect, and it's a rather modest one: Ice Storm. A Fire Dragon Sorc is just as good as Ice as using things like Sleet Storm. And the Sorcerer spell list is actually missing stuff like Freezing Sphere or Wall of Ice.

[Amechra]

Yeah... D&D has a history of making poisons really potent and then handing out immunity like candy. Which is a shame, because it completely blocks off some pretty cool themes.

[Catullus64]

Strength-based archers. I know that the rules would have to be fundamentally adjusted to allow for this, but I like the image of a muscular warrior, bending back a terrifically heavy war bow that a lesser man could never hope to shoot, like Odysseus or William the Conquerer or those %*#$ balcony archers in Anor Londo. As is, a character who can shoot effectively thanks to a high Dexterity derives no further benefit from high Strength other than better Athletics checks and carrying capacity.

[Lille]

I mean, I could... but that's not the same as "I prod you and you explode". I understand why you can't use sneak attacks and smites with unarmed strikes (the devs were probably afraid of how it would combo with Flurry of Blows), but still.

AFAIK you can smite with unarmed attacks, unless it's been errata'd. In my PHB, at least, Smite just requires a melee weapon attack, rather than a melee weapon, and an unarmed attack is a melee weapon attack. You still can't use it for BB/GFB or a Bladelock's abilities, since those require weapons, but you can Divine Smite with it.

Of course, trying to make a multiclass build using Paladin and Monk has its own problems, but you could just use Tavern Brawler or that new UA unarmed fighting style or something.

[T.G. Oskar]

Strength-based archers. I know that the rules would have to be fundamentally adjusted to allow for this, but I like the image of a muscular warrior, bending back a terrifically heavy war bow that a lesser man could never hope to shoot, like Odysseus or William the Conquerer or those %*#$ balcony archers in Anor Londo. As is, a character who can shoot effectively thanks to a high Dexterity derives no further benefit from high Strength other than better Athletics checks and carrying capacity.

Not exactly. You'd have to reinstate the Composite Longbow concept.

As per 3.5, Composite Longbows used Dexterity to hit, but added your Strength modifier to damage up to a specific amount (typically up to +5). However, you needed to have a Strength score equal to or higher than the amount needed to add the Strength modifier, or you took a proficiency penalty to-hit.

In 5e, it could be simplified: you use your Strength for to-hit and damage, but you need a minimum Strength of...say, 13 or higher, or the attack is made at disadvantage. You're still proficient, you just can't get the right pull.

That said: more than a Strength-based archer is a Barbarian archer. The Barbarian's key class feature, Rage, only works on melee weapons, so if you're trying to strike from a distance, you're screwed. Technically, the schtick of the Barbarian is focusing on close-range damage and being consistent with it (hence, the damage bonus applying to every hit instead of static damage, and even then, there's a reason why the Zealot is popular and the Storm Herald isn't), but just as certain classes get subclasses that provide an alternative way to play (Kensei Monks, Bladesinger Wizards, Hexblade Warlocks, Oath of Vengeance Paladins, etc.), the Barbarian could easily get a subclass focused on archery. I'd dare say even Mounted Archery, thus giving us the concept of Mongolian steppe riders wielding shortbows and utterly decimating everything in their path. Sure, it'd come with bonuses when mounted, but the concept alone could be interesting.


Yep, that's her, putting away some books.

Huh. Small world. Who'd have imagined I'd find another fan of Megazone's webcomic in this forum...