DEX-based fighter

[tchntm43]

Wanted to get some opinions on what other people would find an acceptable bending of RAW rules here. In a new campaign group, we have a halfling fighter using a dexterity base (light armor, rapier weapon, shield). For the starting information for this character, there are a couple things that seem wrong going by what the book says.

First, she gets proficiency in Strength and Constitution. The second one is fine, but would you permit this character to swap proficiency in Strength for proficiency in Dexterity, since it makes no sense to character build to have proficiency in Strength? This would be a fairly consequential change for the overall competence of the character, but I feel like I would be kind of screwing over this player if I force her to take proficiency in something that doesn't fit the character at all.

Second, one of the starting equipment lines allows her to have a longbow. But since she is a halfling, she doesn't want a longbow as she would have disadvantage using it. It seems like I should be able to let her swap that for a shortbow. Would you permit that in your game?

[Mastikator]

Dex saves are way more important than strength save, so I'd counter with "you can swap con for dex".

As for the equipment, I'd let them just sell starter items and buy other items with the gold. A longbow is 50 gold and a shortbow is 25, so she could not only swap the longbow for a shortbow but also get 25 gold for doing so. She probably has 10 gold starter, she could even sell her leather and have just enough for a studded leather. Which nets her a +1 to her AC.

[diplomancer]

Wanted to get some opinions on what other people would find an acceptable bending of RAW rules here. In a new campaign group, we have a halfling fighter using a dexterity base (light armor, rapier weapon, shield). For the starting information for this character, there are a couple things that seem wrong going by what the book says.

First, she gets proficiency in Strength and Constitution. The second one is fine, but would you permit this character to swap proficiency in Strength for proficiency in Dexterity, since it makes no sense to character build to have proficiency in Strength? This would be a fairly consequential change for the overall competence of the character, but I feel like I would be kind of screwing over this player if I force her to take proficiency in something that doesn't fit the character at all.

Second, one of the starting equipment lines allows her to have a longbow. But since she is a halfling, she doesn't want a longbow as she would have disadvantage using it. It seems like I should be able to let her swap that for a shortbow. Would you permit that in your game?

No for the first question. Every class gets one important save (Con, Wis or Dex), and one secondary save (Str, Int or Cha). Maybe you could give her a choice of getting Int or Cha instead if she wanted to; Str saves are more frequent than those, but the consequences of falling an Int or Cha save tend to be more serious.

I'd answer yes to the second question, but even if you were to be very strict, she could still use the light crossbow that Fighters get, for better damage than the Short Bow, and switch over to the short bow (or to hand crossbow, if she's going the Crossbow Expert route) once she reaches level 5.

[Keltest]

No for the first question. Every class gets one important save (Con, Wis or Dex), and one secondary save (Str, Int or Cha). Maybe you could give her a choice of getting Int or Cha instead if she wanted to; Str saves are more frequent than those, but the consequences of falling an Int or Cha save tend to be more serious.

I'd answer yes to the second question, but even if you were to be very strict, she could still use the light crossbow that Fighters get, for better damage than the Short Bow, and switch over to the short bow (or to hand crossbow, if she's going the Crossbow Expert route) once she reaches level 5.

All saves are important. Common and Uncommon is a better term IMO, especially because it makes it sound less like a deliberate powergaming move on their part.

[diplomancer]

All saves are important. Common and Uncommon is a better term IMO, especially because it makes it sound less like a deliberate powergaming move on their part.

I'm fine with that; however, if I'm not mistaken, once you factor in all the different NPC attacks, Str saves are about as frequent as Wis saves, it's just that failing Wis saves tends to be a lot worse.

And I'm not thinking it's a powergaming move by anyone. They might not know that design intent at all. Still, the design intent is there, and it's safer to respect it.

[Keltest]

I'm fine with that; however, if I'm not mistaken, once you factor in all the different NPC attacks, Str saves are about as frequent as Wis saves, it's just that failing Wis saves tends to be a lot worse.

And I'm not thinking it's a powergaming move by anyone. They might not know that design intent at all. Still, the design intent is there, and it's safer to respect it.

I haven't taken an exhaustive list or anything, but my impression is that a lot of STR defended NPC attacks do so via an athletics check, not a str save.

And I agree, its probably not a powergaming move. In this case the language choice is specifically to avoid the appearance of accusing them of doing so and therefore putting them on the defensive over the request.

[da newt]

Longbow - I'd allow straight trade for short bow or light Xbow without a second thought.

ST save vs Dex save - probably no for the same reasons as everyone else. Dex saves are more impactful, especially with a high Dex so this is a bit of an upgrade over ST saves. But if you are looking for a way to grant a Dex save proff swap, I'd look for there to be some sort of cost - nothing too big, but a little something to offset the upgrade (maybe just proff -1). At lower levels ST saves are fairly common but not very significant - as you level up they get less common and even less significant. Dex saves have the opposite trend.

[stoutstien]

Honestly for the vast majority of tables letting players pick any 2 Saving throw types that fit best is going to cause next to zero issues.

Use the books to make your game rather than try to make your game go by the book.

[Keltest]

Honestly for the vast majority of tables letting players pick any 2 Saving throw types that fit best is going to cause next to zero issues.

Use the books to make your game rather than try to make your game go by the book.

This is a fair argument, but make sure you understand what youre getting into when you start violating the assumptions that the game is built around.

[Leon]

No to the save. want it that much either start in a class that has it or get the feat that lets you add one of choice
swap the Long for short

[stoutstien]

This is a fair argument, but make sure you understand what youre getting into when you start violating the assumptions that the game is built around.

Yes and no. The whole idea of common and uncommon saves/checks/challenges is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ideally the frequency and urgency of each one should be roughly equal on the larger scale. This doesn't mean that every session needs to have them all occurring in equal amounts or anything that solidified but if your players are gravitating to certain combination it's a good indication that you should reevaluate your design habits.

[kazaryu]

Wanted to get some opinions on what other people would find an acceptable bending of RAW rules here. In a new campaign group, we have a halfling fighter using a dexterity base (light armor, rapier weapon, shield). For the starting information for this character, there are a couple things that seem wrong going by what the book says.

First, she gets proficiency in Strength and Constitution. The second one is fine, but would you permit this character to swap proficiency in Strength for proficiency in Dexterity, since it makes no sense to character build to have proficiency in Strength? This would be a fairly consequential change for the overall competence of the character, but I feel like I would be kind of screwing over this player if I force her to take proficiency in something that doesn't fit the character at all.

Second, one of the starting equipment lines allows her to have a longbow. But since she is a halfling, she doesn't want a longbow as she would have disadvantage using it. It seems like I should be able to let her swap that for a shortbow. Would you permit that in your game?

so one of the design ideas was that every class would have proficiency in one strong save and one week save. this is why monks don't have both dex and wis save proficiency. However, i don't believe that you're going to break anything by having them swap from str to dex. the difference will be most noticeable once you start getting into the higher tiers anyway. and as far as the longbows...i just straight up ignore the rule about small creatures anyway. small races get nothing to compensate for them being both slower (generally) and unable to weild certain weapons, and i think its dumb to punish someone for wanting to play a small character. However, if you'd like to keep the rule, then yeah, letting them take a shortbow should be fine.

[Ionathus]

Another factor that nobody's mentioned about swapping saves:

Their character is already decent at DEX saves, by virtue of having a high DEX. Sure, it's not a super-high save, but they're essentially spreading the benefit around to multiple saves now, by getting prof bonus to STR and their modifier to DEX.

Lots of classes have "common" save proficiencies that don't really benefit from their main stat. Wizards and Warlocks have WIS despite having no incentive to bump it. Bards have DEX, Artificers have CON. The temptation is always to bump your main stat, but it's natural and okay to diversify your saves & skills a little bit - having some variety makes the game fun and gives each character a unique feel.

"My halfling fighter isn't inherently strong, but knows how to take a punch and has a low center of gravity, so can shrug off Strength-based effects better than you'd think." There are lots of ways to find flavor and opportunity in that!

[diplomancer]

Another factor that nobody's mentioned about swapping saves:

Their character is already decent at DEX saves, by virtue of having a high DEX. Sure, it's not a super-high save, but they're essentially spreading the benefit around to multiple saves now, by getting prof bonus to STR and their modifier to DEX.

Lots of classes have "common" save proficiencies that don't really benefit from their main stat. Wizards and Warlocks have WIS despite having no incentive to bump it. Bards have DEX, Artificers have CON. The temptation is always to bump your main stat, but it's natural and okay to diversify your saves & skills a little bit - having some variety makes the game fun and gives each character a unique feel.

"My halfling fighter isn't inherently strong, but knows how to take a punch and has a low center of gravity, so can shrug off Strength-based effects better than you'd think." There are lots of ways to find flavor and opportunity in that!

This is a good point. I've never done the math, but I also tend to think that, in general, it's best to have more "average" saves, than some really good ones and some really bad ones. For one thing, if you're able to get advantage on the save from somewhere, the effect of the advantage is higher the closer the die you need to roll is to the average.

The one exception to that rule is probably casters and Con saves, they really get a lot from being able to have consistent Concentration saves.

[Ionathus]

This is a good point. I've never done the math, but I also tend to think that, in general, it's best to have more "average" saves, than some really good ones and some really bad ones. For one thing, if you're able to get advantage on the save from somewhere, the effect of the advantage is higher the closer the die you need to roll is to the average.

The one exception to that rule is probably casters and Con saves, they really get a lot from being able to have consistent Concentration saves.

For sure! Artificers and Sorcerers really benefit from that CON proficiency: after level 9, and especially with Warcaster, I found I became way more likely to drop to 0 before I dropped concentration.

[diplomancer]

For sure! Artificers and Sorcerers really benefit from that CON proficiency: after level 9, and especially with Warcaster, I found I became way more likely to drop to 0 before I dropped concentration.

Yeah, the better way to make an Artificer or Sorcerer to lose concentration is probably to target their Wis saves to incapacitate them. Which is definitely doable if they don't shore up their wis saves eventually, but far fewer monsters have that choice than just to hit them with a big stick.

[Calen]

Another factor that nobody's mentioned about swapping saves:

Their character is already decent at DEX saves, by virtue of having a high DEX. Sure, it's not a super-high save, but they're essentially spreading the benefit around to multiple saves now, by getting prof bonus to STR and their modifier to DEX.

Lots of classes have "common" save proficiencies that don't really benefit from their main stat. Wizards and Warlocks have WIS despite having no incentive to bump it. Bards have DEX, Artificers have CON. The temptation is always to bump your main stat, but it's natural and okay to diversify your saves & skills a little bit - having some variety makes the game fun and gives each character a unique feel.

"My halfling fighter isn't inherently strong, but knows how to take a punch and has a low center of gravity, so can shrug off Strength-based effects better than you'd think." There are lots of ways to find flavor and opportunity in that!

I echo this.
Grab athletics as well and you can emphasize that even if you aren't strong you know how to get into the thick of it.

[stoutstien]

I echo this.
Grab athletics as well and you can emphasize that even if you aren't strong you know how to get into the thick of it.


Another factor that nobody's mentioned about swapping saves:

Their character is already decent at DEX saves, by virtue of having a high DEX. Sure, it's not a super-high save, but they're essentially spreading the benefit around to multiple saves now, by getting prof bonus to STR and their modifier to DEX.

Lots of classes have "common" save proficiencies that don't really benefit from their main stat. Wizards and Warlocks have WIS despite having no incentive to bump it. Bards have DEX, Artificers have CON. The temptation is always to bump your main stat, but it's natural and okay to diversify your saves & skills a little bit - having some variety makes the game fun and gives each character a unique feel.

"My halfling fighter isn't inherently strong, but knows how to take a punch and has a low center of gravity, so can shrug off Strength-based effects better than you'd think." There are lots of ways to find flavor and opportunity in that!

But the question is does the player want that? They might to not be good a str based effects at a conceptual level.

[Chronos]

For saves, it might be better to spread them around, but for Athletics vs. Acrobatics, you probably don't want to do that, but to instead specialize. A small, low-strength character probably isn't going to be initiating very many grapples or shoves, and for resisting someone else's grapples or shoves, you can pick which of the two you use, so if the one is very good, it doesn't matter if the other is poor.

[Ionathus]

But the question is does the player want that? They might to not be good a str based effects at a conceptual level.

If the player wants to go all-in on DEX saves and actively avoid STR saves, they can pick a different class.

I try not to be snarky about character creation, but this is an unreasonable degree of “have your cake and eat it too”. The game is designed to at least *try* to nudge you towards diversifying your skill set; it’s why you can’t use point buy to get all 20s and 5s.

If you’re really set on DEX saves as a fighter, then pick up Resilient. Or just play a swashbuckler rogue.

[stoutstien]

If the player wants to go all-in on DEX saves and actively avoid STR saves, they can pick a different class.

I try not to be snarky about character creation, but this is an unreasonable degree of “have your cake and eat it too”. The game is designed to at least *try* to nudge you towards diversifying your skill set; it’s why you can’t use point buy to get all 20s and 5s.

If you’re really set on DEX saves as a fighter, then pick up Resilient. Or just play a swashbuckler rogue.

It's not about avoiding the saves, because saves are indicatory of effects that you can't avoid to begin with, but hero identity. The game design of common/uncommon saves is a bad idea from the get go especially because saves are locked and has zero "in Character weight" as it's only occurring at the meta level. All fighters having good strength and constitution saves is a unnecessary balancing consideration that is caused by its own existence.

[Keltest]

It's not about avoiding the saves, because saves are indicatory of effects that you can't avoid to begin with, but hero identity. The game design of common/uncommon saves is a bad idea from the get go especially because saves are locked and has zero "in Character weight" as it's only occurring at the meta level. All fighters having good strength and constitution saves is a unnecessary balancing consideration that is caused by its own existence.

If you want your hero to be good at being fast and not stronk, pick rogue as your level 1 class. Youre still playing a game, not writing a book, and working around the limitations are part of the game.

[stoutstien]

If you want your hero to be good at being fast and not stronk, pick rogue as your level 1 class. Youre still playing a game, not writing a book, and working around the limitations are part of the game.

That's my point. It is reinforcing building from the top down rather than heros making choices in game that need to be weighed against each other. There's no real applicable reason why saves are locked in classes other than the saves themselves. Fighters having strength and Constitution saves is a balance concern not a thematic one. If you remove the balance concern there's no reason to not let it be a free pick.

Saves are relatively uninteresting and passive . Two things that you really don't want to be major decision points.

[Keltest]

That's my point. It is reinforcing building from the top down rather than heros making choices in game that need to be weighed against each other. There's no real applicable reason why saves are locked in classes other than the saves themselves. Fighters having strength and Constitution saves is a balance concern not a thematic one. If you remove the balance concern there's no reason to not let it be a free pick.

But the balance concern is still there. The game is still being played. The opportunity cost should not go away.

[stoutstien]

But the balance concern is still there. The game is still being played. The opportunity cost should not go away.

And as long as the saves are mostly equally distributed in frequency and intensity you can pick any two and you're fine. It's more interesting, adds agency, and tends to reinforce making better challenges.

If you have a problem where every player wants to take safe X and Y because they are obviously better then that's going to be a problem regardless if they are locked or floating.

Personally I went back down to three saves and allow them to pick the better of two stats to apply. It's not like the game is consistent with saves.

[Keltest]

And as long as the saves are mostly equally distributed in frequency and intensity you can pick any two and you're fine. It's more interesting, adds agency, and tends to reinforce making better challenges.

If you have a problem where every player wants to take safe X and Y because they are obviously better then that's going to be a problem regardless if they are locked or floating.

But saves arent equally distributed in frequency and intensity. Int saves for example tend to be very rare and extremely dangerous to fail, while dex saves are very common and tend to be save for half damage and maybe not be knocked down or something.

[MrStabby]

There is a lot of stuff mentioned and a lot of this will depend on game style.

Dex saves can be no better than Str saves - although a lot of potential Str targetting effects may ask for a check not a save. In most games, this is unlikely to be the case and its a straight upgrade.

This needn't be prohibative though - just let the player chose the save proficiencies for any class of their choice. So for example they could pick rogue and get int + dex or or ranger for Str +dex. Some combinatons are a bit stronger than others, but mostly for casters where concentration means they can be taking a LOT more Con saves than other characters.


As for the weapon. Swap it. No big deal and it makes perfect sense.

[stoutstien]

But saves arent equally distributed in frequency and intensity. Int saves for example tend to be very rare and extremely dangerous to fail, while dex saves are very common and tend to be save for half damage and maybe not be knocked down or something.

... And that's bad design that should not be reinforced.
It's actually worse because it's circular design where it becomes a feedback loop for content. It makes it so if you want to do add new content that was based on one of the "uncommon" options it has to be weighed in at this level even if it's a hidden feature.

If I wanted to make it a say that an effect based on intelligence saving throws it runs the risk of being unintentionally more powerful because the save is rare. the reasoning why the save is rare is because the effects are rare. Of course because the saves are rare then they should have a higher frequency in the levels that see less play. Because it's more common at high levels than low levels it's in the uncommon selection pool. Because it's an uncommon saves then the effects should be rare...around and around it goes.

Bad design.

[Keltest]

... And that's bad design that should not be reinforced.
It's actually worse because it's circular design where it becomes a feedback loop for content. It makes it so if you want to do add new content that was based on one of the "uncommon" options it has to be weighed in at this level even if it's a hidden feature.

If I wanted to make it a say that an effect based on intelligence saving throws it runs the risk of being unintentionally more powerful because the save is rare. the reasoning why the save is rare is because the effects are rare. Of course because the saves are rare then they should have a higher frequency in the levels that see less play. Because it's more common at high levels than low levels it's in the uncommon selection pool. Because it's an uncommon saves then the effects should be rare...around and around it goes.

Bad design.

No? Having variable value to the saves is good design because it means the choice is an actual choice with consequences, and not just a different name for the same thing. Sacrificing dex save proficiency to get fighter levels is a real, meaningful choice. If all saves are equally occurring and equally potent, then it doesn't matter what you pick and its a fake choice.

[Psyren]

Every class having "common save+uncommon save" is good design. Sure you can break that baseline without massive repercussions, but saying it's bad design for the baseline to exist at all is silly. If fighters could start out with Dex+Con, then Fighter dips on every other build in the game would be even more popular tan they already are. Even if you barred multiclassing, that would still put Fighters way ahead of Monks in the saving throw department, nearly on par with Paladins.

[stoutstien]

No? Having variable value to the saves is good design because it means the choice is an actual choice with consequences, and not just a different name for the same thing. Sacrificing dex save proficiency to get fighter levels is a real, meaningful choice. If all saves are equally occurring and equally potent, then it doesn't matter what you pick and its a fake choice.


And I don't see any choice at all in this. Worse it's gates with nothing behind them past adding in tax for those who don't get a good save Prof array depending on tier of play.

At least if the consideration of which saves occur is based on in game situational factors the heros can interact with it compared to "we are high levels so cha saves are more important now for reasons."

[stoutstien]

Every class having "common save+uncommon save" is good design. Sure you can break that baseline without massive repercussions, but saying it's bad design for the baseline to exist at all is silly. If fighters could start out with Dex+Con, then Fighter dips on every other build in the game would be even more popular tan they already are. Even if you barred multiclassing, that would still put Fighters way ahead of Monks in the saving throw department, nearly on par with Paladins.

"If players can pick their own save then multi-classing is even more screwed up than it already is"

Monks get Prof in all saves. They should have it spread out a little bit more so it's not all at once and so late but that's a different issue.

[Psyren]

"If players can pick their own save then multi-classing is even more screwed up than it already is"

...Yes? You know that they have to design for the whole game right?


Monks get Prof in all saves.

Sure, at 14th level. Your fighter would get all the major ones at level 4!

[Keltest]

And I don't see any choice at all in this. Worse it's gates with nothing behind them past adding in tax for those who don't get a good save Prof array depending on tier of play.

At least if the consideration of which saves occur is based on in game situational factors the heros can interact with it compared to "we are high levels so cha saves are more important now for reasons."

Name one class that doest have at least one good save at every tier of play.

[stoutstien]

Name one class that doest have at least one good save at every tier of play.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about classes. We are talking about individual heroes/players. If something doesn't work for a particular theme it can/should be modified. There is a whole section in he DMG that endorses this approach because that's what important here.


...Yes? You know that they have to design for the whole game right?



Sure, at 14th level. Your fighter would get all the major ones at level 4!
The multiclassing rules aren't balanced nor did they attempt to do so. They stabled it on almost immediately before launch with zero considerations to the system as a whole and have been doing damage control ever since because the wisdom of the crowd deemed it as an assumed portion of play.

[Psyren]

The multiclassing rules aren't balanced nor did they attempt to do so. They stabled it on almost immediately before launch with zero considerations to the system as a whole and have been doing damage control ever since because the wisdom of the crowd deemed it as an assumed portion of play.

Yeah, the wisdom of the crowd did do that, because for the majority of tables. it's fun. And that's the ultimate goal of game design that trumps all others, including "balance," as it should. They explicitly polled everyone on how many tables enjoy multiclassing and feats, and the players spoke; the changes to Warlock in particular I can see being driven by improving its multiclassing ability.

[MrStabby]

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about classes. We are talking about individual heroes/players. If something doesn't work for a particular theme it can/should be modified. There is a whole section in he DMG that endorses this approach because that's what important here.



I feel this really doesn't get said enough. No one plays a class; they play a character.

Balancing classes (within the context of a DM decision, rather than publishing content) is crazy - providing buffs or nerfs on the basis of things that won't happen in a campaign or on the relative strength of an ability a player didn't take is just insane.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, the wisdom of the crowd did do that, because for the majority of tables. it's fun. And that's the ultimate goal of game design that trumps all others, including "balance," as it should. They explicitly polled everyone on how many tables enjoy multiclassing and feats, and the players spoke; the changes to Warlock in particular I can see being driven by improving its multiclassing ability.

Sure if they want to write/rewrite a completely new system that has feats and multiclassing built in that's fine. It doesn't retroactively fix what it is for 5e though.

[Keltest]

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about classes. We are talking about individual heroes/players. If something doesn't work for a particular theme it can/should be modified. There is a whole section in he DMG that endorses this approach because that's what important here.

Ok. My human fighter can fly under his own power, because thats just my character and you have no right to tell me no.

See where thats a problem?

[stoutstien]

Ok. My human fighter can fly under his own power, because thats just my character and you have no right to tell me no.

See where thats a problem?

I wonder when the flying dwarf argument would make its way in.

Oddly you are right in the context your fighter isn't at my table nor in my world. They can fly and shoot candyfloss snot out their ears for all the difference it makes.

Now In the context of a player who wants a flying fighter in real play? As long as the setting/theme permits it's that's not even a hard thing to slap together. Flight is low enough to be budgeted at a race/ancestral level.

Players and gms have some general responsibilities that are common but the exact ins and outs is purely a table level exchange. Though the:

"players need to Trust the GM"

"the GM should respond and account for the player *and* the heroes goals"

"Everyone should be motivated to avoid unnecessary dispute and interruptions"

Are all practically mandatory.

Id probably add in
"X is the set time for discussion regarding ruling and mechanics"

"No one should worry about the little things"

"No rule of book supercedes logic and fairness. Use as needed only"

"Players invest in stuff and want to be good at it. Let them"

[Psyren]

Sure if they want to write/rewrite a completely new system that has feats and multiclassing built in that's fine. It doesn't retroactively fix what it is for 5e though.

There is no need for a completely new system, the current one works fine. The only truly incongruous feature was Pact Magic, which is getting corrected.

[stoutstien]

There is no need for a completely new system, the current one works fine. The only truly incongruous feature was Pact Magic, which is getting corrected.

Ehhhhh. Pact magic doesn't even make the top 30 for me. It's only an issue for tables that have baggage from other editions or systems where there is a understood rate of resource expenditure. 5e doesn't so it's a simple as sometimes pact magic is better and sometimes it's not. The reason they can claim One will be backwards compatible is due to this fact. Them switching recovery methods is largely irrelevant.

warlocks as a <class> has some odd points but it pulled off being extremely flexible, flavorful, and approachable.
The only weird part is when it comes to multiclassing but I don't like anything like spell slots getting pooled to begin with.

[Captain Cap]

So, giving a look at Strength saves, in general they entail maintaining footing and position, resisting being moved against your will, knocked prone or disarmed, all things that should be expected of an archetypical warrior to some extent.

If your character theme takes a different direction, then your character shouldn't probably be a pure Fighter.

[Psyren]

Ehhhhh. Pact magic doesn't even make the top 30 for me. It's only an issue for tables that have baggage from other editions or systems where there is a understood rate of resource expenditure. 5e doesn't so it's a simple as sometimes pact magic is better and sometimes it's not. The reason they can claim One will be backwards compatible is due to this fact. Them switching recovery methods is largely irrelevant.

The fact that resource expenditure/recovery is not standardized, especially across short rests, is exactly the problem. One of the problems, anyway.


warlocks as a <class> has some odd points but it pulled off being extremely flexible, flavorful, and approachable.
The only weird part is when it comes to multiclassing but I don't like anything like spell slots getting pooled to begin with.

It is still all those things with the proposed version. In fact, they've all gone up:

Flavor = it can pact with one entity as before, or multiple entities who may be ignorant of one another or even at odds.
Flexibility = it can be Cha-based as before, or be the party know-it-all or the wise durkon.
Approachable = with its slots no longer inhabiting unique snowflake island, both players and DMs have no special rules to keep track of.

It's win-win-win.

[stoutstien]

The fact that resource expenditure/recovery is not standardized, especially across short rests, is exactly the problem. One of the problems, anyway.



It is still all those things with the proposed version. In fact, they've all gone up:

Flavor = it can pact with one entity as before, or multiple entities who may be ignorant of one another or even at odds.
Flexibility = it can be Cha-based as before, or be the party know-it-all or the wise durkon.
Approachable = with its slots no longer inhabiting unique snowflake island, both players and DMs have no special rules to keep track of.

It's win-win-win.

1) no change. You can do that now
2) no change changing casting stat is homebrew 101. I don't need WoTC to give me an official version form something that is already official for anyone who has read the DMG.
3)hard disagree. Spell selection+ spell level usage is easily twice as complicated as max cast a few times per SR. It's so much better I've made about a dozen versions for different themes because new players can pick it up so much easier. Your have X slots and are at Y level. Done and done. That's easier to track than cover for ranged attacks.
Probably one of the reasons I like WWN casting is because he uses this approach as well.

[Psyren]

If you can homebrew that freely at your table then why do you care what the official rules say at all? Just homebrew whatever saves you want on your fighter, homebrew the pact slots back into warlock etc :smallconfused:

[stoutstien]

If you can homebrew that freely at your table then why do you care what the official rules say at all? Just homebrew whatever saves you want on your fighter, homebrew the pact slots back into warlock etc :smallconfused:

Or I won't use the next edition. That seems easier

[Psyren]

Or I won't use the next edition. That seems easier

For all concerned :smallbiggrin:
Kidding aside, fair enough.

[stoutstien]

For all concerned :smallbiggrin:
Kidding aside, fair enough.

No worries. I know some are really excited about it but I don't see it. Who who knows though I really like the Next play test more than I like 5e so maybe they'll do another last minute reversal and I'll end up loving it and you'll hate it.

I only have one table left that's using 5e. They aren't looking to learn anything new either way. One of them happens to be a ranger with strength/ dex save Prof using a slightly modified version of warlock casting.

[Psyren]

No worries. I know some are really excited about it but I don't see it. Who who knows though I really like the Next play test more than I like 5e so maybe they'll do another last minute reversal and I'll end up loving it and you'll hate it.

Anything's possible, sure - but I'm not concerned about that because their reasons behind the changes they've made (as articulated in the devblogs accompanying each packet) make perfect sense to me. It's part of the reason why I prioritize watching those even before I read the UA packets themselves. And even when they did things I wasn't a fan of, like Lore Bard losing AMS or rogue losing off-turn SA - they've usually come back in to promise a reversion or a replacement.

[Witty Username]

But saves arent equally distributed in frequency and intensity. Int saves for example tend to be very rare and extremely dangerous to fail, while dex saves are very common and tend to be save for half damage and maybe not be knocked down or something.
Well, that is under the control of the DM, and going to vary from table to table. For example, I tend to be heavy on Int saves (I have a party with 2 wizards and an artificer, and like mind flayer related enemies so I get monsters I like to play and feel good because it targets a hard point of the party). And all saves should be "important", strength saves tend to involve forced movement. Including hazzards and traps in combat can make a 15 ft. Shove a terrifying prospect.

Be the strength saves you want to see in the world.

[Keravath]

To the OP:

1) The initial saving throws are assigned to the character on the basis of their initial class. This represents (to some extent) the kind of training the character would receive in that class and the effect on what it might be good at when resisting effects. Fighters receive martial training and have above average stamina so they get Strength and Constitution saves.

The Strength save isn't related to the stats of the character it is related to the training in the class. So the character might be very dextrous but their martial training leads to better resistance to strength based effects (though they may not be as good at them due to the lower strength stat). On the other hand, their dexterity save will be higher just because the stat is higher.

So, since you seem to be the DM, I wouldn't change the saving throws since they are class related and not character related.

2) As for swapping a long bow for short bow for starting gear. Of course change it if you like. As mentioned, there are several ways the character could receive a long bow, sell it and buy a short bow and have money left over (depending on whether they can buy and sell at the same price or not). Personally, I'd never intentionally start a character with a weapon they can't use. The starting gear has to be a bit adaptable to the player choice of race/class/proficiencies.