Moving to D&D 5.0 from 3.5

[Entessa]

Hello,
I've been having some difficulties sorting it out how to make the move. I'm not a DM, I'm a player. So far, these are the issues I'm meeting:

1) I don't understand anymore the balance of the different classes. There are so many changes, that I'm kinda left undecided on which class to go for. The two classes I was very curious to try in 3.5 were druid and bard. Are these two still good options?

2) When I played 3.5, the options felt endless. Hearing the last session of my dm, it was very generic. My dm said that fighter has been improved. Good, I guess, but it feels like everything has been levelled out to be extremely generic in this edition. Is it a bad impression, or roleplaying possibilities have diminished?

3) Feats: I remember to having taken feats for roleplay, like strong stomach. Did they add new roleplaying feats?

4) Are there druid and bard handbook anywhere, or are these classes still being explored?

5) I would be playing a Bhaalspawn. Is it a good idea to be a druid or a bard in this case?

6) My Dm said that alignment is not there anymore in this edition. So how am I supposed to roleplay with druid? Their neutrality was a concept I have never embraced fully, finding it always really odd.

[Kane0]

- Proficiency bonus is used for skill/ability checks, attacks and saving throws instead of BAB, save progressions and skill points. It's all based off Stat + Proficiency, and the numbers are lower and scale slower. HP and abilities/options are the primary differentiation between low and high levels.
- Due to reduced scaling of basic numbers (skills, attacks, damage, AC) it is expected that low CR creatures remain a threat to higher level parties in significant numbers. This is intended.
- You have a saving throw type for each attribute.
- You can't have a stat higher than 20 by normal means, nor a stat higher than 30 by any means.
- Movement is not an action, and actions can happen between movement. Bonus actions are like swifts, reactions are like immediates. No action can be traded for another type. You can also make one interaction (grab a weapon, open a door, etc) per turn for free.
- Attacking does not impede your ability to move (ie ‘Full Attack’) and you can in fact move between attacks if you have multiple.
- Attacks are classified oddly but they mostly boil down to a combination of [melee or ranged] and [weapon or spell] - You cannot delay, only ready an action.
- By default only one thing provokes an AoO: Moving out of a creatures reach.
- Learn the advantage / disadvantage mechanic, it replaces 90% of fiddly +1s and -2s.
- Dying works differently. You only die outright when you take damage equal to your max HP in one hit after reaching 0. When reduced to 0 you make saving throws, three successes stabilizes you and 3 failures you die. Taking damage while making death saves counts as one failure.
- Damage resistance, reduction and vulnerability is simplified. It's half damage, doesn't exist (as such) and double damage respectively.
- There are two kinds of rest: short and long. There is expected to be two short rests for every long on average, which is important to maintain balance short rest classes (monk, warlock) against long rest classes (paladin, sorcerer).
- Everybody can heal via hit die, which are spent during short rests.
- Concentration is a thing casters should learn well. Most buff, debuff and control spells need concentration, and you can only concentrate on one thing at a time. You have a chance to lose concentration each time you take damage.
- There are relatively few permanent or near-permanent bonuses/buffs
- All casting is 'spontaneous', as in you don’t put individual spells into slots, you just have a collection of spells available to you and spell slots to fuel them with. Your spells will either be prepared or known based on class.
- High casting stat doesn’t give you additional spell slots, but does affect your spell attack bonus and spell DC (which is the same across all spell levels).
- Spells scale by spell slot rather than by caster level, which makes multiclassing considerably more friendly for casters
- Cantrips are notable now, offering viable damage output based on PC level not caster level
- There is a rule that restricts how many levelled spells you can cast on your turn, but it’s... complicated.
- Levels 1-3 are supposed to go by very quickly, and 4-5 fairly quickly. The majority of PC time is angled to be spent in the level 6-11 range.
- Encounter design and challenge rating is also different. A CR 6 enemy is an easy (little resource expenditure & low chance of falling) challenge for a level 6 party of 4, not an easy challenge for a single level 6 character. You are expected to deal with half a dozen or so medium encounters during an adventuring day, not one or two hard ones.
- Don't use any optional rules to start with. This includes multiclassing and feats.
- The core math of the game does not expect you to get magic items by default. You can play through levels 1 to 20 without seeing a magic item at all, anything you get/give is a bonus.
Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different in subtle ways that become very apparent in play.

Edit: sorry if that doesnt address your questions directly but i’m sure someone else will be along shortly to cover those

[Amnestic]

1) The power 'spread' between classes has been lowered between 3.5 and 5e. While some classes are still viewed as more powerful than others (notably full casters, due to flexibility and number of tools), any class is viable. Power balance between the classes also varies depending on what level you're playing, with some (sub)classes spiking at different points. All in all, you shouldn't worry about the viability of playing any (sub)class. They can all perform just fine. Bard and druid are both good.

2+3) A number of 3.5 feats are now 'baseline' (like weapon finesse, for example), meaning that the floor of what classes can do has been raised. Conversely, you don't receive as many feat opportunities as you did in 3.5. There are still some feats that are more 'roleplay' focused than 'pure power' like actor, keen mind, and chef. These are usually 'half-feats', where you get one stat boost and a feat's effect (as opposed to 'full feats, which have no stat boost), though that's not to say that full feats aren't roleplay opportunities as well.

4) A number of them for sure. These (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/classes/bard/) two (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/classes/druid/) are quite popular, though they're certainly not the only ones knocking around. I wouldn't worry too much about optimisation if it's your first foray into the system though.

5) Love a good bhaalspawn. They work for every class. I've got a druid and a bard(/warlock) bhaalspawn in my game.

6) Alignment still exists in 5e, there's a section for it in the PHB, however its importance both mechanically and narratively is reduced compared to 3.5. It's intended not as a proscriptive tool ("You're true neutral, you have to act like this"), but as a descriptive one ("I usually act like this, so I'm probably true neutral"). Classes likewise don't have any sort of alignment/morality restriction, so chaotic monks, lawful bards and evil paladins are all fine. Some subclasses might make you want to lean towards one alignment more than others (A Redemption Paladin that's Chaotic Evil is a bit...odd) but you can play it pretty much however you like.

[Tanarii]

Is it be a bad impression, or roleplaying possibilities have diminished?wow. I don't think I've ever seen someone associate character building flexibility with roleplaying possibilities before.


6) My Dm said that alignment is not there anymore in this edition. So how am I supposed to roleplay with druid? Their neutrality was a concept I have never embraced fully, finding it always really odd.
Your DM is wrong. Alignment, along with Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw, are all there for your use as a player as a roleplaying tool in 5e.

See this thread for an overview 5e Alignment Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545215-5e-Alignment-quot-Guide-quot-amp-end-of-2017-argument-thread)



6) Alignment still exists in 5e, there's a section for it in the PHB, however its importance both mechanically and narratively is reduced compared to 3.5. It's intended not as a proscriptive tool ("You're true neutral, you have to act like this"), but as a descriptive one ("I usually act like this, so I'm probably true neutral"). Classes likewise don't have any sort of alignment/morality restriction, so chaotic monks, lawful bards and evil paladins are all fine. Some subclasses might make you want to lean towards one alignment more than others (A Redemption Paladin that's Chaotic Evil is a bit...odd) but you can play it pretty much however you like.
IMO 5e alignment is neither proscriptive nor descriptive. it is motivational. It's best used as a roleplaying tool by the player.

[OldTrees1]

1) Assume everything is balanced. 5E has a higher floor and a lower ceiling compared to 3E. Out of combat utility can get a bit unbalanced in tier 3-4 but combat stays rather balanced.

2) You are noticing a decrease in 3 areas: Amount of content, amount of customization per character, and feature density. However that does not decrease the roleplaying possibilities. Rather it just moves more of the rules to a generic ability check resolution system.
2b) The Fighter has been improved in some ways, but personally I like the 5E Paladin if converting a 3E Fighter.

3) Strong Stomach as a 3E feat filled a role as a niche customization rule. The 3 decreases in 5E all but removed these kind of rules. However there are 2 kinds of these feats in 5E.
3a) Feats like Actor, Athlete, Dungeon Delver provide these niche customization rules. However you get fewer feats and fewer of these feats were published.
3b) Feats like Skilled, Skill Expert, and Prodigy give you more and better ability checks. Your DM might use ability checks to resolve things that 3E required a feat for.

4) https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?377491
You can always count on the forum for having a guide somewhere.
5E forum -> 5E Notable Threads (pinned at the top) -> Guides, Tables, and other useful tools for 5E D&D -> Druid / Bard

5) Anyone could be a bhaalspawn.

6) Amnestic summarizes alignment well. 5E makes it easy for alignment to be minimized or ignored because it does not get in your way. Lots of mechanics tied to alignments (like Paladin Smites or Detect Evil!) were made alignment agnostic in 5E. That does not prevent you from roleplaying your character or from describing your character with an alignment.

[Silly Name]

Focusing on point 1 and 2...

The classes are mostly balanced, especially compared to 3.5. Yeah, spellcasters still are rated as the best option, but even at high levels you'll feel like Rogues and Paladins contribute to the party meaningfully and don't just sit back while the Wizards solves every encounter.

That said, there are a couple bad options. PHB Ranger is probably the least efficient class to pick, doubly so if you go Beastmaster. Way of the Four Elements Monk seems fun but needs to be tweaked in order to be able to use its features regularly. Champion Fighter is "baby's first character" and becomes boring very fast, so I'd suggest steering away from it: Battlemaster is far more fun and just as easy to approach for new players.

While it's true that 5e has made many feat chains into stuff you can just do, it's also true you overall have less things to tinker with and mess around and try for strange combinations. I find 3.5 to be far more fun when it comes to character building, especially when you don't particularly care about maximising optimisation. 5e focuses less on multiclassing and feats and more on play itself being the way to make your character truly yours. There are still a few mechanical options that can greatly influence your character, but overall what subclass you pick is the main character-defining moment.

You also don't have Prestige Classes anymore. Some of 3.5's PrCs have been effectively ported into subclasses, but I think apart from some very specific and niche stuff, you can replicate most anything thanks also to the streamlined system (as an aside: 5e is still pretty rules-heavy, it's just slimmer than its predecessors).

Overall, in 5e the more books you have available for the campaign means you have far more options in the form of feats, races and subclasses, as well as items and backgrounds. PHB-only is ok for beginners but I find most players want to "graduate" to having more options very fast.

[Tanarii]

That said, there are a couple bad options. PHB Ranger is probably the least efficient class to pick, doubly so if you go Beastmaster. Way of the Four Elements Monk seems fun but needs to be tweaked in order to be able to use its features regularly. Champion Fighter is "baby's first character" and becomes boring very fast, so I'd suggest steering away from it: Battlemaster is far more fun and just as easy to approach for new players.
Rangers, especially Beastmasters, are efficient balance-wise. Same with Four Elements Monks. Champions boredom level is player personality dependent, although for an experienced 3e player it might be a good recommendation, it's definitely not universal.

[kaoskonfety]

Was playing 3rd/3.5 for alot of years with a core group: it was fun but had serious issues all over the place, then again this same group also played Old DND though Second edition; they were alot of fun but had serious issues all over the place.

Converting from 3.5 to 5th:
- there is ALOT less material
- all the classes are much better "balanced" primarily meaning it is much less likely for a single character to be grossly out of wack on usefulness on all mechanical fronts.
- alot of the mechanics we took for granted (charge action and flanking specifically came up the most in the first few sessions) are gone, alot of the stuff that shares a name works drastically differently.

1) re: Balance, I as a DM and player never cared one drop for "balance", so long as everyone has stuff to *DO*, in 3rd/3.5 there were *often* times some players could not interact with a challenge or encounter. This has been pretty drastically reduced, and is a good thing. If you are looking for the "strongest" class or what have you, you will have issues finding it. For my part a couple of the bard and druid abilities stand out: moon druid wild shape in the early levels is impressive for sustain due to the hit point layering thing tho this tapers off later in play you are still a full caster, and bard overall skill *thing* and ability to poach from any spell list is astonishing for rounding out what little you may be missing; or just take FIREBALL - fireball solves everything. Both remain good choices, and frankly bard is drastically stronger on most fronts than I recall from 3rd, especially later game bard from 3rd.

2)RP options are baked into character generation, you need to have a background, ideal, flaw and bond. All of which root your character in the world in theory and provide opportunities to build a unique experience.
- are there less options mechanically? God yes. But 95% of the time in 3rd what I was seeing wasn't "more RolePlay options", it was people going shopping for cool powers and tricks to stack in new and fascinating ways to make everyone have to stop and preform a strict reading. The mechanics are less granular, there are fewer details to fuss over, and so is the character generation. My current gripe is that its kinda challenging to make a character *bad* without some significant effort. The ceiling is lower, and the floors been raised.

3)Alot of what were feats are class options, alot more of it is on the feats list again, and a bunch is no longer relevant due to the lower level of fine rules detail. Thinking back I have no idea what you are talking about for 3rd edition "roleplay feats" unless you mean skill feats, or actual cosmetic options stuff like "spell thematics" which I tended to offer for free to anyone who actually wanted it? 5th has a selection of definite "roleplay and skill" feats like Chef, tavern brawler, and one of my my favourites, ritual caster. They have bonuses attached but not in the "this feat changes combat in the following way" kind. There are still those too of course.

4) there are as far as I know, no class "handbooks" at this time. Xanathars guide and other expansion material has a number of good alternate sub-classes to play with, far less than 3.5, but (opinion as a DM and player) 3.5 got pretty bloated.

5) as far as I know there are no "official" details on Bhaalspawn for 5th, should be pretty easy to roughly port over, and I'm not clear how I would assess the class your character is would particularly matter to your dark linage with whatever homebrew gets cooked up.

6) alignment exists, forced alignment (which I have to assume they are talking about or they have not read the book) does not. Evil paladins are perfectly fine if you can stick to your oaths, Chaotic good druids are perfectly legal and your bard can be lawful. Your DM may also have opted to drop it from the game (AKA home brew), it does FAR less mechanically now and removing it would not do nearly as much as it would in 3rd.

[Willie the Duck]

I will shift the order of these a bit.

When I played 3.5, the options felt endless. Hearing the last session of my dm, it was very generic. Is it be a bad impression, or roleplaying possibilities have diminished?
…
3) Feats: I remember to having taken feats for roleplay, like strong stomach. Did they add new roleplaying feats?
You’re going to get a lot of confused reactions from this. Predominantly because it is not required for there to be a large number of character build toggles and optional widgets to facilitate roleplay. Yes, they certainly let you distinguish your character from someone else’s mechanically, but it has never been the case that they were needed to facilitate roleplay. Personally, I have found it quite beneficial not to feel like I needed to take such and such a character build component simply because it was published and seemed to align with a roleplay desire on some level. Here is an example – even in 5e, there are a few feats which are named in the same way as one might describe a character for roleplay purposes, such as Keen Mind, or Observant. Now, both are fine feats and I’d certainly consider one for a character with an odd mental stat (they each give a +1 to int or wis, along with other benefits), particularly if I considered one of the side-benefits better than whatever else I could do with half a feat (the other option might be to take a simple ASI and get to +1s to stats to distribute around my stats). That said, never have I felt compelled to take either of those feats simply because I want to create a character who I think of as being particularly observant or having a keen mind. I am not saying that you are wrong to feel that you should want mechanical components to represent roleplaying hooks (3e is certainly not singular in that trend, TTRPGs as diverse as GURPS and FATE also lean into that setup), simply that it is not mandatory to roleplay.
Anyways, to answer this, no, the game is not generic. Most of what goes into a character stays very much the same. Wizards still have ten levels of spells (0-9) to choose from and each has a different set of rules. Fighters still choose between swords and bows and so forth (and have in-combat options like tripping, grappling, disarming). Druids still get to turn into animals. It is really only around the edges and the specifics where things are that different – you get fewer feats but they are more influential, there are fewer fiddly little + and – 1s everywhere, you don’t distribute a decidedly insufficient number of skill points around every level, etc.

1) I don't understand anymore the balance of the different classes. There are so many changes, that I'm kinda left undecided on which class to go for. The two classes I was very curious to try in 3.5 were druid and bard. Are these two still good options?
Overall, the classes are significantly more balanced. There aren’t any classes where you can readily say ‘don’t bother playing one after level ______’ or feel the need to massively tweek out with an internet-derived build just to stay remotely competitive (although there are winners and losers, particularly at upper levels and also depending on how well your DM mitigates any 5/15-minute workday effects). Druids and bards are great classes. They are probably the two classes I’d least recommend for someone new to the edition. Druids can choose from any spells on the druid list each day, as well as change into a huge number of creatures through wild shape. To play them, it behooves you to be familiar with a huge number of spell entries, monster manual entries, manage both short and long rest rechanging resources, and deal with the concentration mechanics (there are a lot of spells a druid might want to cast at the same time, and remembering that you can only have one up at a time is another thing of which to keep track). Bards don’t get to choose from the entire bard list every day, but instead have to choose a small list of them semi-permanently (there is some slow swap-out, but only when you level). They too have a bunch of spells that will be fighting for your concentration. Between those two limits, a bard often feels like the guy with a solution to every problem except what they want to do this specific round. If you want to drink from the fire hose, go ahead, but personally I’d suggest starting with something else.

6) My Dm said that alignment is not there anymore in this edition. So how am I supposed to roleplay with druid? Their neutrality was a concept I have never embraced fully, finding it always really odd.
This is just plain incorrect. There is alignment. It has been reduced in mechanical importance. Whether they are now descriptive, motivational, aspirational, or whatever is a matter of hairsplitting – they exist, but you the player get to decide how that influences your character’s actions.

[Entessa]

Before starting this post, I would like to thank each one of you. I will first answer your post singularly, then try to recap the questions I would like to ask



cut

You know, after reading this, I would say that my idea about going bard and druid was bad, because I do not have anymore the foundations to optimally play magical classes.


cut

Reading about the power spread being lower, gives me a little of hope. I've had friends that actively told me to never play a paladin in 3.5, but I was checking the class now and it seems to have been improved a lot.

Question: How does your DM behaves with the fact that Bhaal is now alive and you play a Bhaalspawn?



wow. I don't think I've ever seen someone associate character building flexibility with roleplaying possibilities before.
Is this meant as a compliment? :P I mean, I feel like what I've said should be "natural".



cut
Thanks for the link and for the guide on how to consult the forum. And thanks for pointing how these feats. I will be looking for them around.


cut

cut

In the end I felt like going paladin is the best choice. Lack of prestige classes is something that I should take a look at.

I will check the alignment thread, thank you.


cut.
Nice comparation, and you actually sold me the new edition. I will play it with renewed interest.



People, I've got a few questions:
1) If you play a Bhaalspawn in your campaign, how does your DM behave towards them, given that Bhaal is resurrected?
2) If I played a Bhaalspawn and I would like a weapon and an armor that is based on my essence (and even getting stronger when I level up or when so), which manual should I check, to help my DM sort it out on how to do things?
3) Does Monkey grip (two handed weapon in one hand) still exist? Worth using as a paladin?

[kaoskonfety]

People, I've got a few questions:
1) If you play a Bhaalspawn in your campaign, how does your DM behave towards them, given that Bhaal is resurrected?
2) If I played a Bhaalspawn and I would like a weapon and an armor that is based on my essence (and even getting stronger when I level up or when so), which manual should I check, to help my DM sort it out on how to do things?
3) Does Monkey grip (two handed weapon in one hand) still exist? Worth using as a paladin?

My only interaction with Bhaal Spawn was the Baldur's Gate games, so grain of salt...

- the tiefling and a few other offer spells once a day or bonus cantrips that unlock as you level, this could be fleshed out a bit more and used. Heck one of my current players is running "a literal Marid banished to the material plane and striped of much power" built on a Tiefling Genie Pact Warlock chassis and playing some mix and match with the powers to get water STUFF in place of devil stuff. They are *basically* their own patron and are trying to overcome their banishment, which felt rad.

- you don't need pluses in this system: the game balance assumes you come as you are. I might suggest you discuss a damage resistance or 2 slowly growing into the armour (say necrotic, and later non magical slashing if we want a kinda deadened skin 'becoming undead-like' is a slant) over something kinda dull like a +1, similarly a "magic weapon" whose only base bonus is that it *is magic* is quite the boon on its own. How strong you DM will entertain it growing from there is more table dependant, so I'm not sure I can comment.

- as far as I know no "monkey grip" feat exists, the closest match is the versatile weapons - one handed weapons you may wield 2 handed for a better damage die (or are they technically 2 handers you may wield one handed? Their own type? I have no idea and am not looking it up right now)

[EggKookoo]

- as far as I know no "monkey grip" feat exists, the closest match is the versatile weapons - one handed weapons you may wield 2 handed for a better damage die (or are they technically 2 handers you may wield one handed? Their own type? I have no idea and am not looking it up right now)

Versatile is a rider attached to certain weapons that allows you to use one or two hands, usually with a damage die size increase for the latter at the cost of not being able to use that second hand for anything else (two-weapon fighting or a shield). It's not a weapon type as such.

[Tanarii]

Is this meant as a compliment? :P I mean, I feel like what I've said should be "natural".

No but what I wrote also wasn't intended to sound as bad as it did to me in a second read. :/

I hasn't seen it before and I don't see the connection, and so it surprises me. Ability to roleplay is usually considered an independent/unlinked thing from available number of build options in the system. Of course no one can agree what roleplaying actually means. :smallwink:

It is not, however, independent from rules designed specifically to impact it. E.g. 5e has roleplaying tools available in Alignment, Personality Traits, and Inspiration.

[Amnestic]

Question: How does your DM behaves with the fact that Bhaal is now alive and you play a Bhaalspawn?

I'm the DM and in my game I simply set the timeline back to the timeline with Baldur's Gate 1+2 (1369DR), so Bhaal's still dead and there's more bhaalspawn around.

[ZRN]

Versatile is a rider attached to certain weapons that allows you to use one or two hands, usually with a damage die size increase for the latter at the cost of not being able to use that second hand for anything else (two-weapon fighting or a shield). It's not a weapon type as such.

In 3.5e terms, 5e longswords (and a couple other weapons) work basically like 3.5e bastard swords with proficiency. There's no monkey grip in 5e.

For the Bhaalspawn thing, it sounds like you're looking for a way to have a magical weapon/armor that gets more powerful as you level? A couple options: one, obviously, is just have your DM give you a magic weapon that powers itself up over time.

The option that's more in your hands would be to multiclass between a paladin and a Hexblade warlock. This actually happens to be one of the most powerful character builds in the game, so hey, you stumbled into some character optimization! Basically Hexblade lets you do all your melee attacks (with your chosen weapon) with Charisma instead of Strength added to hit. (The class also gives you spells and other magical benefits, of course.)

"Magical warrior" is actually a concept that there are a bunch of different ways to build in 5e, but in terms of both mechanical optimization and matching the flavor you describe, I'd say hexblade/paladin for sure.

If you're interested, here's a long, detailed guide on options: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?543107-The-Return-of-the-Padlock-A-post-Xanathar-Hexblade-Paladin-Optimization-Guide

You'll honestly be just fine without wading too deep into that, though - 5e doesn't have a lot of "trap" options, so if you just pick powers and spells that seem cool you'll be in good shape.

[J-H]

Congratulations! I made the jump a couple of years ago and have not regretted it. There are a few character concepts that don't transfer as well (psion, dragon shaman, etc.) but 5e is much faster/smoother to run at the table, at high levels, and as a DM.

1) I don't understand anymore the balance of the different classes. There are so many changes, that I'm kinda left undecided on which class to go for. The two classes I was very curious to try in 3.5 were druid and bard. Are these two still good options?
The optimization floor is higher and the ceiling is lower. All of the base classes are viable in play from levels 1 to 20 and can contribute in most situations... unlike 3.5 where the power level ranged from CoDzilla down to Truenamer and CW Samurai. Ranger is most likely to be considered the weakest, but they still can do quite well. A few of the subclasses are sub-par, but again, all the base classes are stronger and useful.

2) When I played 3.5, the options felt endless. Hearing the last session of my dm, it was very generic. My dm said that fighter has been improved. Good, I guess, but it feels like everything has been levelled out to be extremely generic in this edition. Is it a bad impression, or roleplaying possibilities have diminished?
There are more options in play, but many of them are not as mechanically gated. Instead of the 30-40 skills (pick 2 if you're a fighter) of 3.5, there are around 15-20 (don't know exact #, AFB), and you'll start with at least 5 or 6... and can pick up proficiency in 3 more with a single feat. You can climb, jump, swim, sneak, know stuff, etc. much more easily in 5e as most classes than the corresponding class can do in 3.5.

3) Feats: I remember to having taken feats for roleplay, like strong stomach. Did they add new roleplaying feats?
Feats are an alternative to ASIs. Pick one or the other at levelup, not both. They are more mechanically significant as a result. There are still some with RP implications, especially if you count the feats from Tasha's.

4) Are there druid and bard handbook anywhere, or are these classes still being explored?
See links in the stickied thread in the forum.

5) I would be playing a Bhaalspawn. Is it a good idea to be a druid or a bard in this case?
Cool! I will be running BG2 after my current campaign concludes. Whatever class you can go with, I'm sure you can come up with some good tensions between the divine impulse to murder/kill and whatever ideals you'd rather follow. Maybe your powers tend more towards enchantment (bard) or towards the bloody side of nature (druid).

6) My Dm said that alignment is not there anymore in this edition. So how am I supposed to roleplay with druid? Their neutrality was a concept I have never embraced fully, finding it always really odd.
Alignment is mechanically much less relevant. You're free to choose your alignment. What does your druid value? How was he raised? What's important? What's not important?
Cycle of life? Civilization vs. wild? Appropriate technology vs. primitivism? Blood sacrifices vs. living in harmony? Comfortable with caves, dwarves, etc., or tree-hugging elf? Loyalty to friends over loyalty to principles?

[OldTrees1]

Before starting this post, I would like to thank each one of you. I will first answer your post singularly, then try to recap the questions I would like to ask

Thanks for the link and for the guide on how to consult the forum. And thanks for pointing how these feats. I will be looking for them around.

In the end I felt like going paladin is the best choice. Lack of prestige classes is something that I should take a look at.


Due to the higher power floor, you don't need much of a foundation in order to play a magical class. A new player could make suboptimal choices for a 5E wizard and still have a functional character. Since you have some knowledge from 3E, I see no reason to discourage you from playing a Druid or Bard.

5E Paladin is a well designed class and is a bit higher on the feature density (which is a plus for 3E players).



People, I've got a few questions:
1) If you play a Bhaalspawn in your campaign, how does your DM behave towards them, given that Bhaal is resurrected?
2) If I played a Bhaalspawn and I would like a weapon and an armor that is based on my essence (and even getting stronger when I level up or when so), which manual should I check, to help my DM sort it out on how to do things?
3) Does Monkey grip (two handed weapon in one hand) still exist? Worth using as a paladin?

3)
No Monkey Grip does not exist in 5E. The Versatile weapon property gives a small damage boost to wielding a one handed weapon in two hands. That is not the same but it is the closest 5E has so far.

Paladins can use any weapon effectively but generally use any martial melee weapon. Common weapons are Longsword, Battle Axe, Rapier, Quarterstaff, Spear, Greatsword, Glaive, Lance. Shield Master, Polearm Master, and Great Weapon Master feats might be relevant. But some Paladins don't bother with weapon feats since the base combat effectiveness is high enough.

2)
Talk to your DM. There is no manual for that (No Weapons of Legacy) but they might include a magic item in the loot the party finds.

1)
If I remember my lore "Chaos will be sown from their passing", but not every Bhaalspawn needed to die before there was enough essence to conclude the Throne of Bhaal. However the canon end and means of Bhaal's return was the death of the last Bhaalspawn. So if your character is a bhaalspawn that would require a retcon. The easiest retcon would be to allow Bhaal's return whenever Abdel Adrian died. That allows the possiblity of some surviving Bhaalspawn.

Since citizens of the world (although maybe the previous generation) experienced the chaos sown by the "passing" (traveling) and "passing" (deaths / slaughter) of the bhaalspawn, they might see a Bhaalspawn as a bad luck charm that causes chaos and destruction. So there may be some unwarranted negative interactions.

Ask your DM

Personally I might consider setting the campaign before Bhaal returned but keeping the campaign separate from the conclusion of Throne of Bhaal.

[Unoriginal]

Bhaal is both alive and more or less stuck in mortal form, currently (both due to the new rules Ao imposed on the deities). He's not literally stuck, but renouncing his mortal form (or getting killed) would seriously mess up his current goals, so he's limited to it unless he scraps everything and start again (although if the choice was between that and death he'd likely choose to go back to his full godhood).

There's no reason he couldn't spawn more Bhaalspawns if he saw a point to do it.

[WaroftheCrans]

I'm not familiar with bhaalspawn but they seen like fiendish creatures who infuse items with essence based on what you've said. To that end, I'd recommend a modified tiefling and some from me inmate magic item advancement. You've got a few options for this as far as I can see. The first being to take different rarities of swords or armor and link them as a progression: i.e. Starting off with that common rarity sting rip off from lotr, and eventually progressing to the holy avenger at high levels. A second option that comes to mind is using either directly or modified vestiges of divergence from the wildemount book. These improve based on the character and significant story points, allowing you to stick with one item that gets stronger the more "essence" you have.
The third option is good old homebrew, either poached from some hexblade advancement you find elsewhere or just done from scratch, there's no stigma to homebrew.

Also, 5th edition Paladins are awesome, and useful no matter what. They're fun and can vary in complexity based on how you want to play them.

[Nhym]

Druids are one of the best utility classes because they just offer so many options. Also, summoning is really strong in 5e and Druids make the best summoner. If you are interested in a non-moon druid, take a look at this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXgYqPxkEHaCisQ0tteFF-KtsmfJxkOQojeWwHf22n4/edit?usp=sharing

[bid]

You know, after reading this, I would say that my idea about going bard and druid was bad, because I do not have anymore the foundations to optimally play magical classes.
Read Treantmonk's Guide to 5e Wizards and you should be good.

Most class guides give spell ratings, enough to form your own foundation.

[J-H]

Druids can change out their spells overnight. They're pretty newbie-friendly as a result. Their biggest challenge is that most of their good spells require Concentration, and you can only maintain one Concentration spell at a time.

[Unoriginal]

Read Treantmonk's Guide to 5e Wizards and you should be good.

I strongly disagree. Treantmonk's work shouldn't be read by people new to 5e, especially if they come from 3.X.

Even if you think his work is good (I don't), Treantmonk bases his advice on specific expectations and mindset, and never explains it's just his specific expectations and way to play the game. As a new 5e player it's better to avoid being given the impression those are the typical standards for the game.

[HPisBS]

... Bards don’t get to choose from the entire bard list every day, but instead have to choose a small list of them semi-permanently (there is some slow swap-out, but only when you level). They too have a bunch of spells that will be fighting for your concentration. Between those two limits, a bard often feels like the guy with a solution to every problem except what they want to do this specific round....

Hahahaha! As someone who loved playing a Lore Bard (which was also my 1st ever PC) - and who also suffers from chronic Analysis Paralysis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW2cCKLNUf4) - I've gotta say: Never have truer words been written! 😆😆😆


1) You don't need to worry about balance overly much as a player. Unless you're restricted to plain original Rangers, any pure class can easily be on par with any other pure class.

2 & 3) Feats are optional now. Truly optional. There are very potent options among the ever-growing list of feats, but any PC can be powerful, even if they use every ASI for actually improving their ability scores - even after maxing their primary stats. (Though certain Fighters can feel a bit short on out-of-combat features without feats.)

4) No "handbooks," but everything you need is right in their class (and subclass) description(s), and online guides can help you get a feel for how they work. Both can be very powerful, and all of their subclasses offer their own theme – both roleplay- and mechanics-wise.

5) I'm guessing Bhaalspawn would translate into some flavor of tiefling (a humanoid with fiendish blood).

6) Alignment exists, it's just a RP tool, rather than a mechanical one in 5e. Feel free to go wild with it.

[ad_hoc]

You should stop trying to compare things to 3.5e.

5e is a brand new game. Try to come to it as though you don't know anything about it.

I've found the players who have the hardest time learning 5e are 3e players. Every new to D&D player I've introduced it to has picked it up quickly but I've seen players from 3e struggle for a long time as they try to apply rules and terminology from that game to this one.

[noob]

You should stop trying to compare things to 3.5e.

5e is a brand new game. Try to come to it as though you don't know anything about it.

I've found the players who have the hardest time learning 5e are 3e players. Every new to D&D player I've introduced it to has picked it up quickly but I've seen players from 3e struggle for a long time as they try to apply rules and terminology from that game to this one.

It is still way more similar to 3.5 than to basic dnd.
In fact it is because 50% of the rules are copied that the players switching from 3.5 are confused with the 50% of the rules that are not copied.
If dnd 5e was not mostly "we are redoing 3.5 but with less content and some slight attempts at balancing" and more "we make a dnd from scratch with modern rpg design rules" it would confuse way less people switching editions.
Like why still having ability checks?
Why having attack rolls?
Why even bothering with 3.5 like stats and not for example directly have the modifiers or not having stats at all?
Why having saves and saving throws (and it is actually more complicated in 5e because there is now 6 saves)?
Each of those decisions were done based on the idea to make a dnd closer to 3.5: basic dnd did not have most of those things(for example attack rolls were not against ac and stats had no effect unless exceptional which was usually not the case).
I do think 5e should have tried to be more like basic edition: way less rule heavy.
Regardless it explains why switching from 3.5 to 5e is more confusing than from 3.5 to basic.

[Unoriginal]

You should stop trying to compare things to 3.5e.

5e is a brand new game. Try to come to it as though you don't know anything about it.

I've found the players who have the hardest time learning 5e are 3e players. Every new to D&D player I've introduced it to has picked it up quickly but I've seen players from 3e struggle for a long time as they try to apply rules and terminology from that game to this one.

Quite true. The less expectation the better.

[HPisBS]

I only saw this after my earlier comment, so I'll put my response to this here

People, I've got a few questions:
1) If you play a Bhaalspawn in your campaign, how does your DM behave towards them, given that Bhaal is resurrected?
2) If I played a Bhaalspawn and I would like a weapon and an armor that is based on my essence (and even getting stronger when I level up or when so), which manual should I check, to help my DM sort it out on how to do things?
3) Does Monkey grip (two handed weapon in one hand) still exist? Worth using as a paladin?

1) "Bhaalspawn" sounds like a kind of tiefling, so
To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus - overlord of the Nine Hells - into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children's children will always be held accountable.

Infernal Bloodline
Tieflings are derived from human bloodlines, and in the broadest possible sense, they still look human. However, their infernal heritage has left a clear imprint on their appearance. Tieflings have large horns that take any of a variety of shapes - some have curling horns like a ram, others have straight and tall horns like a gazelle's, and some spiral upward like an antelopes' horns. They have thick tails, four to five feet long, which lash or coil around their legs when they get upset or nervous. Their canine teeth are sharply pointed, and their eyes are solid colors black, red, white, silver, or gold with no visible sclera or pupil. Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red. Their hair, cascading down from behind their horns, is usually dark, from black or brown to dark red, blue, or purple.

Self-Reliant and Suspicious
Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect.

Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling's companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, a tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a friend or ally for life.
Also,
Alignment: Tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there. Evil or not, an independent nature inclines many tieflings toward a chaotic alignment.

Also also, there's a subrace of tiefling for Baalzebul which may or may not be related afaik. (They get +2 Cha, +1 Int, Fire Resistance, Common & Infernal languages, Darkvision, and some innate spellcasting: Thaumaturgy at lvl 1, then 1/day Ray of Sickness at lvl 3, and 1/day Crown of Madness at lvl 5 – both as 2nd level spells that use your Charisma.

2) I think that "An armor that gets stronger as I level up" sounds like either Monks' / Barbarians' Unarmored Defense feature, or the Armor of Agathys spell, which is generally a Warlock exclusive (though anyone can get it via the Magic Initiate feat, since it's a 1st level spell).

Nothing else really comes to mind except stuff like Artificers' "Enhanced Defense" infusion (which is applied to an actual set of armor). Various races have their own version of Natural Armor, but those only "increase as you level up" insofar as you use your ASIs (to raise your Dex).

3) As others have already said, I'm afraid there's no 1-handing a 2-handed weapon in 5e thus far. The closest thing to that is 1-handing a "versatile" weapon like the longsword, which requires you to downgrade the damage die. Otherwise, a DM might let you wield a heavy weapon like a greatsword with one hand if somebody casts Enlarge / Reduce on you (though you'd have to pick the weapon up after it's cast, since the spell enlarges or reduces everything you're carrying / wearing at the time).

- Btw, 5e's main feat to compliment heavy weapon use is Great Weapon Master (critting or downing a creature with any melee weapon lets you make an extra attack as a bonus action, and you can take a -5 penalty to a heavy weapon's attack roll(s) for a +10 damage bonus). Also, the Fighting Style "Great Weapon Fighting," (reroll 1s and 2s on damage dice for 2-handed or versatile melee weapons) which Fighters, Paladins, and anyone who takes the Fighting Initiate feat from Tasha's can choose.

[Willie the Duck]

Hahahaha! As someone who loved playing a Lore Bard (which was also my 1st ever PC) - and who also suffers from chronic Analysis Paralysis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW2cCKLNUf4) - I've gotta say: Never have truer words been written! 😆😆😆

It's one of the reason why I tend to play sword or valor bards. A bard will never keep up with a fighter or like for combat damage, but those rounds where you have plenty of spell slots available but no spells known pertinent to the given situation 2-3 1d8+dex (potentially +1d6 per attack, since Fey Touched feat making it easy to pick up Hunter's Mark or Hex) attacks is a lot better than doing nothing worthwhile.

[HPisBS]

It's one of the reason why I tend to play sword or valor bards. A bard will never keep up with a fighter or like for combat damage, but those rounds where you have plenty of spell slots available but no spells known pertinent to the given situation 2-3 1d8+dex (potentially +1d6 per attack, since Fey Touched feat making it easy to pick up Hunter's Mark or Hex) attacks is a lot better than doing nothing worthwhile.

Eh, "nothing worthwhile" is a bit harsh. Even dealing piddling damage while applying disadvantage to 1 enemy's next attack roll is worthwhile imo (if only just barely lol).

... It's just a lot less worthwhile than if you, say, incapacitated an entire group with Hypnotic Pattern, or Polymorphed the Barbarian into a Giant Ape.
(*sigh* If only the Barbarian weren't determined to be right in the middle of the enemies. And must every room have such a low ceiling?!? lol)

And of course, there's almost always Bardic Inspiration to give out with your bonus action. Or to spend on Cutting Words if Lore.

[Kane0]

You know, after reading this, I would say that my idea about going bard and druid was bad, because I do not have anymore the foundations to optimally play magical classes.

2) If I played a Bhaalspawn and I would like a weapon and an armor that is based on my essence (and even getting stronger when I level up or when so), which manual should I check, to help my DM sort it out on how to do things?
3) Does Monkey grip (two handed weapon in one hand) still exist? Worth using as a paladin?

Just make sure you read up on how spellcasting works (Concentration, slots, DCs, etc) and you’ll be fine. All casters are good.

2) magic items aren’t assumed standard, just work something out with your DM. Keep in mind attunement

3) no, but a magic item or custom feat is certainly possible in order to replicate it. Staple it onto savage attacker i’d say.

[Entessa]

Guys, thank you.

I've chosen to go for a paladin, with either Oath of vengeance/Oath of conquest/Oath of the ancients.

I've been watching some videos on the .net to better take a grasp of these oaths, and sometimes people make a reference to polearm mastery being the best with Oath of conquest, due to the empowered weapons.

I take that if I wanted to play a full-fledged knight, the best thing would be oath of conquest? I admit that I dislike being "dependant" on a mount because most of the times the dungeons we explore are many. But the idea of a knight coming with a pegasus to get you, is really really cool to me.

So.... do you think that a mounted rider could work well
> Without polearms?
> Without oath of conquest?

Note that I would like to be with sword and shield on horse, but I don't know if it pays off.

[Kane0]

Lance works well without any feats or fighting styles devoted to it, especially with paladins who get access to the summon steed spells.

And going for polearm mastery works with any paladin. Its not required however, even a sword & shield paladin is plenty good.

Ancients, vengeance and conquest are all fine oaths too. Ancients is known for its resilience against magic, conquest for its potent use of fear and vengeance for getting advantage on attacks using their channel.

[Tawmis]

Hello, I've been having some difficulties sorting it out how to make the move. I'm not a DM, I'm a player. So far, these are the issues I'm meeting:
1) I don't understand anymore the balance of the different classes. There are so many changes, that I'm kinda left undecided on which class to go for. The two classes I was very curious to try in 3.5 were druid and bard. Are these two still good options?


It depends on the type of PLAYER you are. If you are interested in the Druid or the Bard - you can make it good. By stepping in and making the most of it. Every class is a good class if you're willing to enjoy yourself.

It boils down to - are you wanting to "Roleplay" or "Roll Play." Because in my book - there's a difference. One (Roleplay) - you step into the character and become that character. Embrace the good and the bad that comes with it. There's also the other (Rollplay) where you're mostly just looking to crunch numbers and maximize the most out of your character. There are some who say you can do both - which may be true for them - but for me, one of the aspects I enjoy playing is if a character is flawed. I don't always want to do the most damage, be the quickest, have the most HP, or whatever. I just want to play a class and character I can enjoy. Which so far, for 5e - has been pretty much every class (I've not yet played a Wizard, however).



2) When I played 3.5, the options felt endless. Hearing the last session of my dm, it was very generic. My dm said that fighter has been improved. Good, I guess, but it feels like everything has been levelled out to be extremely generic in this edition. Is it a bad impression, or roleplaying possibilities have diminished?


Options don't make "roleplaying" - you can be handed a piece of paper that says "Bob, Human Fighter" and some stats - and come up with a personality for Bob and roleplay the hell out of him without other details.

That said, there's still PLENTY of options - especially between all the books (PHB, Tasha's, Xanthar's, etc). Not only options in class branches - but races as well. With more coming.



3) Feats: I remember to having taken feats for roleplay, like strong stomach. Did they add new roleplaying feats?


There are feats in 5e. You can grab one pretty much every 4 levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 20) if you don't want to do a stat improvement.



4) Are there druid and bard handbook anywhere, or are these classes still being explored?


No, there's not one specific made for Druids (like in 2e).



5) I would be playing a Bhaalspawn. Is it a good idea to be a druid or a bard in this case?


Everything's a good idea if you have the imagination for it and your DM allows it.



6) My Dm said that alignment is not there anymore in this edition. So how am I supposed to roleplay with druid? Their neutrality was a concept I have never embraced fully, finding it always really odd.

That's a custom rule... there's alignment. But most people don't pay it much heed (alignment is always something feel too "imprisoned" by - like someone who is Lawful Good being too restricted to do something illegal under certain circumstances for the better cause... or whatever).

[noob]

That's a custom rule... there's alignment. But most people don't pay it much heed (alignment is always something feel too "imprisoned" by - like someone who is Lawful Good being too restricted to do something illegal under certain circumstances for the better cause... or whatever).

Lawful is not about the laws of the country in which you are.
Lawful is about following codes, your own word(except when coaxed from you through force or mind control) and the rules you impose on yourself so you might be lawful while never obeying any law of any country you go in and even be a lawful aligned rebel that fights against all governmental institutions.
Lawful often aligns with legal ex: the prison guardian who wowed to keep their prisoners in the prison until their sentences are over, the cop that engaged themselves to keep order in the streets and so on.
But you could have someone who made the wow to always try to undermine any sort of governmental institutions and if that persons keeps itself up to that code then this person is lawful.

So feel free to play a lawful aligned rebel because many rebels in fiction are actually lawful aligned and it is only misunderstandings about the meaning of the lawful alignment that makes people think that lawful is opposed to such concepts.

Regardless if you are seeing alignment as prescriptive(as a thing that forces behaviour) then it traps you: alignment will not be a trap for you only if it is descriptive (ex:you are lawful because your behaviour was and not the reverse and this person is evil because they did a lot of evil actions even if they only had nice intents in the long term)

The issue is that descriptive alignment can not be given to a character in advance (it can be only given after you see the actions of the character in the situations where their choices are meaningful) and so since people playing with alignments generally want the players to write the alignments before the first session then the players feels forced to play prescriptive alignment.

[OldTrees1]

Guys, thank you.

I've chosen to go for a paladin, with either Oath of vengeance/Oath of conquest/Oath of the ancients.

So.... do you think that a mounted rider could work well
> Without polearms?
> Without oath of conquest?


A mounted rider could work well regardless of weapon choice or subclass. The only issue is whether you will be able to remain mounted during the campaign For that you should ask your DM about how feasible being mounted will be in the campaign.

Vengeance and Conquest focus on offense. Ancients specializes in Aura of Protection. Remember how your auras have a short range of 10ft? If you want multiple people in your aura, you are incentivizing the enemy to use damaging AoEs life Fireball (which are good in 5E). Ancients Paladins's Aura of Warding addresses that concern. This means you will be able to keep more people within your aura. Basically active offensive vs passive defensive. Pros and Cons to both.


Oh did you notice, since you summon your steed with a spell, your steed is an immortal intelligent telepathic companion rather than just a mount?




The issue is that descriptive alignment can not be given to a character in advance (it can be only given after you see the actions of the character in the situations where their choices are meaningful) and so since people playing with alignments generally want the players to write the alignments before the first session then the players feels forced to play prescriptive alignment.

Pro tip you might already know:
If you create a character personality during character creation, you can think about them in various situations. That lets you write down an initial descriptive alignment before the campaign. Just don't use pen, that way you can change it later to continue to describe the character if the description changes. Before session 1 does not have to mean before characterization.

[Unoriginal]

Vengeance and Conquest focus on offense.

Not quite. A Conquest Paladin focuses on inflicting the Frightened condition on enemies, making it harder for the enemy to attack, so the Conquest Paladin's focus is more debuff/control.

They're still perfectly capable of offense, of course, but most of their powers aren't based on that.



Pro tip you might already know:
If you create a character personality during character creation, you can think about them in various situations. That lets you write down an initial descriptive alignment before the campaign. Just don't use pen, that way you can change it later to continue to describe the character if the description changes. Before session 1 does not have to mean before characterization.

Indeed. Even if you don't want to imagine a backstory for the PC you can just imagine how they behave in X situation.

And each background gives suggestions about what would make a character be of one alignment or another.

[Tanarii]

So.... do you think that a mounted rider could work well
> Without polearms?
> Without oath of conquest?

Note that I would like to be with sword and shield on horse, but I don't know if it pays off.
Being a mounted combatant basically just means being a Paladin for Find Steed or a Cavalier for mounted combat class Features, or taking the Mounted Combat Feat, taking one of those classes and the feat.

Wether or not it pays off depends entirely on your campaign and how often you'll be outdoors in situations that allow a horse, but also don't allow faster ranged enemies to kite the heck out of you. Check with your DM. (For example, if they're going to run some WotC adventures-arc hardcovers the answer is clearly no, and for others it's very much yes.)


Regardless if you are seeing alignment as prescriptive(as a thing that forces behaviour) then it traps you: alignment will not be a trap for you only if it is descriptive (ex:you are lawful because your behaviour was and not the reverse and this person is evil because they did a lot of evil actions even if they only had nice intents in the long term)

The issue is that descriptive alignment can not be given to a character in advance (it can be only given after you see the actions of the character in the situations where their choices are meaningful) and so since people playing with alignments generally want the players to write the alignments before the first session then the players feels forced to play prescriptive alignment.
Since alignment isn't descriptive, you write down your alignment's associated but not consistent nor constant typical behavior before your first session so you can keep it in mind when roleplaying (making decisions for you character in the fantasy environment). Same as any other personality trait. They also aren't descriptive.

Since alignment also isn't proscriptive, you don't make every decision based on your alignment's associated but not consistent nor constant typical behavior. Same as any other personality trait. They also aren't proscriptive.

[noob]

Being a mounted combatant basically just means being a Paladin for Find Steed or a Cavalier for mounted combat class Features, or taking the Mounted Combat Feat, taking one of those classes and the feat.

Wether or not it pays off depends entirely on your campaign and how often you'll be outdoors in situations that allow a horse, but also don't allow faster ranged enemies to kite the heck out of you. Check with your DM. (For example, if they're going to run some WotC adventures-arc hardcovers the answer is clearly no, and for others it's very much yes.)


Since alignment isn't descriptive, you write down your alignment's associated but not consistent nor constant typical behavior before your first session so you can keep it in mind when roleplaying (making decisions for you character in the fantasy environment). Same as any other personality trait. They also aren't descriptive.

Since alignment also isn't proscriptive, you don't make every decision based on your alignment's associated but not consistent nor constant typical behavior. Same as any other personality trait. They also aren't proscriptive.

I am quite sure that personality traits are a way to describe part of a personality.
Describing does not means being 100% accurate or only saying things that were actually true (When you describe a character the description you do is that you believed to be true about it and not necessarily what was true).

[Tanarii]

I am quite sure that personality traits are a way to describe part of a personality.
Describing does not means being 100% accurate or only saying things that were actually true (When you describe a character the description you do is that you believed to be true about it and not necessarily what was true).
Personality traits are a roleplaying tool. You use them to remind yourself how you generally want to play the PC. I like the term "motivational", as in an actor's "what's my motivations?", but for some reason that term doesn't seem to resonate or capture the concept for some people.

Regardless it is neither descriptive (written after the fact based on actions taken, often with the DMs judgement considered the final arbiter) nor proscriptive (requiring certain behavior just because it's been written down, and being accused of not doing it right if not followed the way someone else things you should).

Just like 5e Alignment. IMO.

[kaoskonfety]

So.... do you think that a mounted rider could work well
> Without polearms?
> Without oath of conquest?

Note that I would like to be with sword and shield on horse, but I don't know if it pays off.

Caveat: I've not played "big weapon, big critical" person in 5th yet, I've seen a couple in play as DM, but that is not the same. From the DM "receiving the damages" side: when it works *IT-WORKS*, but it can leave your round by round slightly underwhelming, and any roll that's not a critical starts feeling like a miss (say a 10 damage regular hit vs a late game smite feuled critical of 90+).

Polearm Master is one of the big bell and whistle combat feats: its good, synergies with several other combat abilities and feats and such forth. You do not *need* it, despite what some guides will say, but I can't dispute it's hilarious. You will function just fine without it, but its a good feat pick if you want to be slightly more bad-arse and intend to use them alot.

Oath of Conquest: at a glance this is a pretty Lawful Evil slanted oath, or generously Lawful Neutral. I'm not seeing anything in here that screams "mounted combat"... guided strike I guess?, heck the aura of conquest ability takes some of the teeth out of mounted build as it kinda overrides your built in speed advantage being mounted grants you by reducing the foes speed to zero.
- even the "worst" oaths are pretty good, and will drive your roleplay ALOT, I'd worry less about the exact power spread the oath grants, and check in with the rest of the party/ DM for play expectations, this one smells a bit despotic, and some goodie two-shoes groups may chafe. I say may; I can't remember the last time I had such a group...

Sword and shield on a horse is fine. Not good, not bad, honestly being mounted doesn't *DO* much, which always bothered me a bit. I think the lance is the only weapon that really interacts with being mounted in any meaningful way, and even that is basically just a slightly bigger die than typical.

Using the spell "Find Steed" really does more to define you as a mounted combatant than the rest of this stuff.