Rogue assistance

[Mandrake]

Hi, Forum!

Starting off with Adventurer's League next week. In the meantime stuff happened which made me switch my character from Warlock to Rogue.

So this is the Rogue. Do you have any suggestions are comments or can you help me in any way? Simply put, will I be ok with this?

Race: Variant Human
Background: Noble
Class: Rogue
Level: 1
Alignment: Lawful Good

Str:8; Dex:16; Con:8; Int:16; Wis:13; Cha:12

Saving throws: Dexterity, Intelligence
HP: 7; HD:1d8

Trained skills: Arcana, Deception, History, Insight, Investigation, Perception, Persuasion

Sneak Attack, Thieves' Cant, Thieves' Tools
Expertise: Investigation, Perception

Feat: Observant

Relevant items: Rapier, Shortbow, Daggers, Leather Armor

If you got questions, please do ask. Thanks!

[Scirocco]

Depends what you want. If you're going Assassin you want Alert instead of Observant and maybe swap Int and Cha. Otherwise? You probably would still rather have Alert than Observant.

Edit: Ouch, did not see that 8 Con. You do not want to do this... dump Int and get more Con.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Seems fine to me. The lack of Stealth training is the only thing that stands out. Seems super good at finding things.

[Demonic Spoon]

The low CON will make you very squishy, so you'll probably need to be careful, especially in the first couple levels. I personally don't think this is necessarily something you need to change, but other people will probably disagree.

[edge2054]

I'd reconsider that con score. At level one it's not a big deal but it's going to add up if you keep playing that character. I figure you probably have RP reasons for making it that low and while I commend your spirit, spending half the night on the ground isn't fun.

[Easy_Lee]

That con is way too low for a melee character. I would pump con to 14 and reduce investment in int since you don't need it as much. You shouldn't need CHA because rogues are not meant to play party face.

Rather than observant, I personally would take crossbow expert. It lets you get a free bonus attack with your hand crossbow when you want it, and gives you much better range than melee. Mechanically, there is no reason why a rogue wants to be up close, but there are plenty to of reasons to fight from range. With a crossbow build, you might get by with CON 12 if you're dead set on having the other stats high. But CON 8 is a terrible idea no matter who you are.

Alert might also be a better feat.

[edge2054]

That con is way too low for a melee character. I would pump con to 14 and reduce investment in int since you don't need it as much. You shouldn't need CHA because rogues are not meant to play party face.



Rogues do just fine as ranged combatants.

Though I do agree with you that it's too low. One breath weapon, one spell, one whatever, can chew through those hit points pretty quick. Even if your DM is trying to keep you alive he or she might accidentally kill your character anyway.

I made a low con wizard once a long time ago. The DM did 3 damage to me and I died. He was like.. you died? I was like yup. That was the end of the campaign.

[Grayson01]

That con is way too low for a melee character. I would pump con to 14 and reduce investment in int since you don't need it as much. You shouldn't need CHA because rogues are not meant to play party face.

Rather than observant, I personally would take crossbow expert. It lets you get a free bonus attack with your hand crossbow when you want it, and gives you much better range than melee. Mechanically, there is no reason why a rogue wants to be up close, but there are plenty to of reasons to fight from range. With a crossbow build, you might get by with CON 12 if you're dead set on having the other stats high. But CON 8 is a terrible idea no matter who you are.

Alert might also be a better feat.

Since when is the rouge not meant to Play party face?
ANd if s/he wants to play party face there is no reason s/he shouldn't.

[Easy_Lee]

Since when is the rouge not meant to Play party face?
ANd if s/he wants to play party face there is no reason s/he shouldn't.

That's like saying there's no reason why a sorcerer shouldn't try to play a GWF. Of course you can do it, nobody is stopping you. It's just a bad idea.

Rogues have no good reason to skill CHA. Further, having to focus CHA increases their MAD and thus decreases the number of feats they'll be able to take. Thus a rogue focusing CHA will be outperformed by a rogue focusing on what rogues are already good at: stealth and stealing.

Even worse, a rogue who focuses CHA still doesn't have the tools that a good party face has at their disposal. Even if a rogue wastes expertise on persuasion, they're still nowhere near as persuasive as, for instance, an enchanter.

Meanwhile, plenty of characters, such as warlocks and bards, can easily take the job of party face with absolutely no hit to their effectiveness at their role. These classes are better at being party face than the rogue. No amount of "but I want to" or "my character concept" or "no reason they shouldn't" is going to change the math.

If you want to play an inferior character, go right ahead. Nobody is going to stop you. But saying their's "no reason s/he shouldn't" is an outright lie.

[Mandrake]

Thanks for your help and replies!

Still, I think I'll stick to the suggestions of people that tend to agree with the build a bit more.
Yes, I plan to stay in range (Sneak Attack allows me to add damage if the party melee is next to the target).
I won't dump my Intelligence score, because I cannot be an Arcane Trickster if I do.
I can see why low Con is risky, but I like it, and I need my stats for other things. I'll consider your suggestions of increasing it.
Pretty much the same goes to Observant feat, although I can see forum is combat oriented with Crossbow feat or Alert.
Also, I'm not the party face, unless others in the group are all worse than me. I don't think anyone with Charisma 12 is aiming for it. That said, I disagree that a Rogue can't be a party face. Charisma is a suggested secondary ability even in the PHB. They get many skills and can use them for social interaction. Also, they can choose to take their expertise in it. Finally, they get some low-level spells to help them out with it if they go Arcane Trickster archetype. Other classes (except for Bard, of course) get fewer skills and taking the social ones hampers their abilities. Also, Enchanters can't cast spells all day long, and the effects of those spells can be problematic (like with Friends and so on). Rogue maybe isn't the best option, but it's certainly near the top, it's just the way you play it.

In short, I imagined a sort of a Lawful Good investigator that is on his way to specialize in magical crimes and miss-usage (hence Arcana). He is a noble, so no need to be blunt with Intimidation. No physical skills either like Acrobatics, Stealth or Sleight of Hand, those are criminals' tools. He will learn some magic on the fly to be able to counter them (Arcane Trickster). I do realize this might be bad for Adventurer's League, I don't have too much of an idea how useful it will be in there.

[edge2054]

As long as you and your group have a good time you're doing it right :)

The investigator thing came out heavily in the stats, at least to me. Good Dex and a ranged weapon have worked just fine in combat on my rogue. Just shoot something engaged with another party member for sneak attack. Once you hit level 2 you get Cunning Action which will help a lot with positioning.

I think the gap between super optimized builds and character driven builds isn't that great, especially for rogues. In other words, I think you'll do fine. Just try to not get AoEd to much until level five+.

[Grayson01]

That's like saying there's no reason why a sorcerer shouldn't try to play a GWF. Of course you can do it, nobody is stopping you. It's just a bad idea.

Rogues have no good reason to skill CHA. Further, having to focus CHA increases their MAD and thus decreases the number of feats they'll be able to take. Thus a rogue focusing CHA will be outperformed by a rogue focusing on what rogues are already good at: stealth and stealing.

Even worse, a rogue who focuses CHA still doesn't have the tools that a good party face has at their disposal. Even if a rogue wastes expertise on persuasion, they're still nowhere near as persuasive as, for instance, an enchanter.

Meanwhile, plenty of characters, such as warlocks and bards, can easily take the job of party face with absolutely no hit to their effectiveness at their role. These classes are better at being party face than the rogue. No amount of "but I want to" or "my character concept" or "no reason they shouldn't" is going to change the math.

If you want to play an inferior character, go right ahead. Nobody is going to stop you. But saying their's "no reason s/he shouldn't" is an outright lie.

That's Completely wrong, the Rouge has and even pretty much every addition has been the class how's soul purpose is to over come challenges through wit and guile. Overcoming them through skill and wit. I have played in plenty of games where the Rouge has made a great party face. That was the characters goal, not to be a stealth killer but to be a fast talking con man.

It's not an inferior character, it's a fun different way of approaching it then I throw spells at it.

[Easy_Lee]

it's a fun different inferior and roll-dependent way of approaching it thenthan I throw spells at it.

Fixed that for you. The rogue's job has always been to disable traps, unlock doors, and do the scouting. In 3.5, you didn't hear rogue players complain that wizards made better faces; they complained that wizards could do their job better with spells.

@OP, if you enter melee with a con score of 8, you're going to die. Imagine you're a sickly high school nerd trying to do battle with Thor and you'll have some idea what that will look like. Repeat after me: I shall not roll a con score lower than 12. Even 12 is low for any character, casters included.

Also you don't need to be in melee to get sneak attack! I can't stress that to you enough. You get sneak attack when another ally is within 5 feet of the target, period. You don't have to be next to them. Furthermore, this edition doesn't have flanking bonus without house rules. There is no reason for you to stand next to the bad guys.

You should also consider what a character with that con score (and str) would look like. I'm imagining a cancer patient.

If you don't believe me then by all means, go ahead and roll the littlest cancer patient. I await the post about how you died to a house cat.

[Mandrake]

First of all, Easy_Lee, I think your are coming at us too hard. Tone it down a bit, you risk sounding rude. I apologize if I misunderstood or misread your intentions, I don't want to turn this into an argument.


The rogue's job has always been to disable traps, unlock doors, and do the scouting. In 3.5, you didn't hear rogue players complain that wizards made better faces; they complained that wizards could do their job better with spells.

No, it hasn't. And even if it has been, it doesn't mean it must stay like that. Rogues have access to social skills more than anyone except for bard. They have the right to take them, and can even specialize in them. Charisma is a suggested ability for rogues. A rogue isn't always a backstabber, he can be a thug or a conman too.
In 5e spells like Charm Person are actually pretty weakened, since they last shorter (Charm Person lasts for but an hour) and the target knows it's been charmed later! So, for example, you charm the Duke to give you more gold for the job, you go to the job and come back only to be trampled by his guards since you used enchantments on him! So spells have a limited effect, while mundane ways of making friends lasts much longer. Not to mention that the Wizard can cast but a small number of spells (like 3 or 4) per day, while the Rogue can be nice and likeable as much as he likes.


@OP, if you enter melee with a con score of 8, you're going to die. Imagine you're a sickly high school nerd trying to do battle with Thor and you'll have some idea what that will look like. Repeat after me: I shall not roll a con score lower than 12. Even 12 is low for any character, casters included.

No, I won't increase my Constitution. I don't think that one hit point makes that much of a grizzly difference. What you are saying is that 5e has bad game design in which you must take an ability or risk losing the game. Which cannot be correct, especially for role-playing games. Having 7 instead of 8 hit points doesn't mean too much, and it is still higher than 6 you would start off with as a Wizard, for example. Plus, I don't plan on entering melee.


Also you don't need to be in melee to get sneak attack! I can't stress that to you enough. You get sneak attack when another ally is within 5 feet of the target, period. You don't have to be next to them. Furthermore, this edition doesn't have flanking bonus without house rules. There is no reason for you to stand next to the bad guys.

That's what we've all been saying. Since I don't have to enter melee, then I won't get into situations from the previous part of your comment (@OP, if you enter melee with a con score of 8, you're going to die). I plan on avoiding combat, melee combat especially.


You should also consider what a character with that con score (and str) would look like. I'm imagining a cancer patient.

If you don't believe me then by all means, go ahead and roll the littlest cancer patient. I await the post about how you died to a house cat.

And this is what baffles me most. It's as if "below average" and "dump stat" mean that I literally have cancer? Does it mean that playing a character with penalized physical stats is unreasonable? Even by WotC suggestions you can go 8 8 8 15 15 15 ability build. Why doesn't it make sense to you?
I personally believe I am weaker than most people, but I don't have cancer. If you roll a Barbarian with Intelligence 8, would you call him "mentally retarded" (or some other politically appropriate term, apologies if I insulted anyone)? We all know some stats are lost in the process of character creation, it's the way they imagined it.
What I imagine is a Noble scholar who had some practice and is pretty dextrous, but never had to lift anything heavier than a fork or a book. I imagine someone who isn't all that resistant to strenuous activities, but is clever and likeable. I don't see a cancer patient, not necessarily in any case.
Also, even if I die to a house cat, it is fun role-playing. It is not about being able to min-max and kill the Tarrasque one on one (at least not to me), but about making a viable interesting character and use it as a part of a team. I won't mind my character dying, also, if I had fun trying to keep him alive.

[Felvion]

After seeing your character i'd like to mention few things you could possibly consider.
I see you got a Sherlock type of guy there. If i'd make this character by myself i think i would give him a bit higher wisdom and slightly better constitution. It's not only about the hp and the effectiveness you'll have in battle.
Higher con means your body will not fail you too often. Think abour all those con saves that can make you useless very easily. Personally i would make con a 9 and then 10 with the resilient feat. Then you would have slightly better hp but much better con saves as you add your proficiency there. Your resistance to physical harm (con saves) will grow as you become better on what you do, being the detective guy.
Of course, from my point of view same could be told for wisdom too. Investigating is not only about being intelligent but also observant. Your will is something really important too.

Finally i would make one suggestion to you: Would you consider taking the half-elf race?
You can achieve attributes like 8/16/10/16/14/10.
You keep high Int and Dex, better Con and Wis.
You have lower charisma but that's only -1 to some skills and very few saves. You are proficient with the ones you are interested (persuation and deception) and this wil grow as you level up. I don't think you have to be naturally charismatic or socially skilled.
On the other hand you get darkvision for free, advantage vs charms, immunity to sleep all of these being fantastic for what i get you have in mind.
Oh, did i mention proficiency with 2 more skills?
You could get stealth and acrobatics or sleight of hand! Don't tell me you are not tempted! Of course this would mean you give up one feat but i don't think Alert is so representative of what you described.
Anyway, that was all i had to give. Hope it was helpfull and close to your thoughts!

[Mandrake]

After seeing your character i'd like to mention few things you could possibly consider.
I see you got a Sherlock type of guy there. If i'd make this character by myself i think i would give him a bit higher wisdom and slightly better constitution. It's not only about the hp and the effectiveness you'll have in battle.
Higher con means your body will not fail you too often. Think abour all those con saves that can make you useless very easily. Personally i would make con a 9 and then 10 with the resilient feat. Then you would have slightly better hp but much better con saves as you add your proficiency there. Your resistance to physical harm (con saves) will grow as you become better on what you do, being the detective guy.
Of course, from my point of view same could be told for wisdom too. Investigating is not only about being intelligent but also observant. Your will is something really important too.

Finally i would make one suggestion to you: Would you consider taking the half-elf race?
You can achieve attributes like 8/16/10/16/14/10.
You keep high Int and Dex, better Con and Wis.
You have lower charisma but that's only -1 to some skills and very few saves. You are proficient with the ones you are interested (persuation and deception) and this wil grow as you level up. I don't think you have to be naturally charismatic or socially skilled.
On the other hand you get darkvision for free, advantage vs charms, immunity to sleep all of these being fantastic for what i get you have in mind.
Oh, did i mention proficiency with 2 more skills?
You could get stealth and acrobatics or sleight of hand! Don't tell me you are not tempted! Of course this would mean you give up one feat but i don't think Alert is so representative of what you described.
Anyway, that was all i had to give. Hope it was helpfull and close to your thoughts!

This is indeed helpful. I don't think I'd get two but just one additional skill (am I wrong?). I'm not sure I will actually change my race, but I am even more tempted to reduce my Charisma and increase my Wisdom. Thanks!

[Easy_Lee]

A wall of text, containing somewhere within:

No, I won't increase my Constitution.

You start a thread asking for advice, and then argue with the one point on which your responders unanimously agree.

If you want to argue with us, don't start an advice thread.

You don't plan on entering combat? D&d is all about conbat. The social encounters exist to direct you to the next battle encounter. Many a table has players (mostly bad ones) who ignore everything but the encounters. What are you going to do, run away when battle starts? Your group will hate you.

If you want to play detective and never fight anyone, d&d is not the right game for it. Think about fact that crafting anything in 5e takes the item's value / 5 days to craft, meaning every profession is exactly equally profitable like some weird socialist dream society. It should be abundantly clear to you from that alone that out of combat activities are not the focus of 5e.

[Mandrake]

You start a thread asking for advice, and then argue with the one point on which your responders unanimously agree.

If you want to argue with us, don't start an advice thread.

You don't plan on entering combat? D&d is all about conbat. The social encounters exist to direct you to the next battle encounter. Many a table has players (mostly bad ones) who ignore everything but the encounters. What are you going to do, run away when battle starts? Your group will hate you.

If you want to play detective and never fight anyone, d&d is not the right game for it. Think about fact that crafting anything in 5e takes the item's value / 5 days to craft, meaning every profession is exactly equally profitable like some weird socialist dream society. It should be abundantly clear to you from that alone that out of combat activities are not the focus of 5e.

I started an advice thread, yes, which means you give me advice and we discuss it. It doesn't mean I must accept it, nor does it mean that we cannot keep talking about it.

Also, many combat encounters can be avoided by careful use of skill or magic, and if they cannot be they can be tactically made easier by using the same. I don't plan on running away, I plan on planning ahead. I can still attack the same as any rogue with Dexterity 16 can on level 1. I appreciate your help and the energy you defend it, honestly. I do realize that that Constitution is my weak point, but I'm okay with that; there must be other things that can be altered too.

[edge2054]

My AL play sessions have had a nice balance of combat, social interaction, and exploration so far. I think OP will have a good time and be able to meaningfully contribute as long as he doesn't get caught by AoE and end up spending most of the night on the floor.

[Easy_Lee]

My AL play sessions have had a nice balance of combat, social interaction, and exploration so far. I think OP will have a good time and be able to meaningfully contribute as long as he doesn't get caught by AoE and end up spending most of the night on the floor.

More like as long as the DM never lets any creatures attack him. His replies make it abundantly clear that he isn't looking for a combat-oriented game.

[Person_Man]

You might want to consider a multi-class build. You can pick up Proficiency in 4 Skills and Expertise in 2 Skills from just 1 one level of Rogue, and from there you can go into Bard or Knowledge Cleric or Monk or whatever to pick up another Skill, plus buffs to Skills. Bard is particularly noteworthy for this, since he would grant you Expertise again, plus Jack of All Trades (half proficiency in everything else). Druid is also a really awesome sneaky class, since you can Wildshape into innocuous animals (who suspects that a mouse is secretly spying on them) that can grant you various bonuses and also fly/swim/burrow/etc.

And if you're going to insist on 8 Con, then getting access to Pass Without Trace (+10 Stealth) via any of these classes is very important, so that you're basically impossible to find unless you attack.

[Easy_Lee]

there must be other things that can be altered too.

Yeah, you can play a different game that doesn't revolve around combat. +2 con adds one hit point per level and also controls all of your con saves, meaning poison, disease, staying awake, staying alive...

You can't plan ahead fully when you aren't the DM. Even when you can, low con is bad. In d&d online (which used a 3.5ish system), everyone knew exactly what to expect in every fight, and you were still a total noob to have con under 12 (14+ was preferable). There's a reason that even the 5e PHB says con is important for everyone.

A d&d character without CON is like a Spartan without a shield. Don't do it. If everyone tells you it's a bad idea, you're some kind of arrogant fool to ignore them.

[MustacheFart]

I don't have as strong of an opinion as Easy_Lee. I am just going to make it really simple. A very low con score will most likely bite you in the arse given the circumstances. Your justification for it is sound but others at your table will probably not share your believes. Avoiding combat with a simply skill or spell goes out the window if there is one muscle-head at the table who wants to simply charge right in (a VERY common thing mind you). Increasing your con would make you a bit more prepared for such situations as well as the numerous ones in the game requiring CON saves. I would think a good detective would ALWAYS want to be prepared.

My suggestion is to at least boost your con out of the negatives.


The rest of my suggestion comes with a question: Will your group be playing a combat-oriented or RP-oriented game? You appear to have created an RP-heavy character which is awesome. Some of my favorite characters I've created have been this way. However, if you're going into this completely blind as to what the game is like then you are taking a great risk. If it ends up being a game focused on combats you're not going to have much fun, I can assure you.

I would suggest creating TWO characters. They can both be Rogues for that matter. Make one more combat oriented and the other as you've done. If you get there and it's going to be about hack n' slash then bust out the combat character. Otherwise, stick to your original character. It takes not much more time to prepare a second character sheet just in case.

[Felvion]

This is indeed helpful. I don't think I'd get two but just one additional skill (am I wrong?). I'm not sure I will actually change my race, but I am even more tempted to reduce my Charisma and increase my Wisdom. Thanks!

You're welcome. Indeed you'd only get one skill more with half-elf, that was wrong of mine, but i feel stealth (for staying unobserved when needed) and sleight of hand (for further abuse as you mentioned arcane trickster) should not be easily overlooked!
Though I have to ask, in case you stick to human how did you get your attributes? If it's point buy then you probably left the observant bonus or you misplaced your bonuses.
You can buy this base
STR 8
DEX 15
CON 8
INT 14
WIS 14
CHA 12

Then just add +1 to Int and Dex from human and +1 more to Int from observant. This way you have all the same stats in everything but a Wis of 14. Don't know if you rolled these or what, but in point-buy view maybe you had misplaced one bonus or two.
In case my assumptions were right you can't dump your Cha to raise your Wis further than 15 which i find pointless. I feel 8/16/8/16/14/12 is fine, concerning your original thoughts.
If you still feel that you don't need that 12 in Cha and could lower it to a 10 i'd strongly recommend you use these points in favor of Con. Obviously, i'm not the only one thinking that way! :smallcool:

[Mandrake]

More like as long as the DM never lets any creatures attack him. His replies make it abundantly clear that he isn't looking for a combat-oriented game.

That is not true, so it seems my replies aren't abundantly clear at all.

I plan on fighting, and I know D&D consists largely of combat encounters. I just disagree that having a penalty to Constitution makes a character an utterly handicapped combatant. If I were a Wizard or a Sorcerer, I would have 6 hit points. How is that not risky? Both my character and the said Wizard will stay out of range, so I don't see a problem there. We could both be hypothetically murdered by AoE or a well placed melee or even ranged attack. I don't plan on leaning on help from DM not to get killed.


Yeah, you can play a different game that doesn't revolve around combat. +2 con adds one hit point per level and also controls all of your con saves, meaning poison, disease, staying awake, staying alive.

You can't plan ahead fully when you aren't the DM. Even when you can, low con is bad. In d&d online (which used a 3.5ish system), everyone knew exactly what to expect in every fight, and you were still a total noob to have con under 12 (14+ was preferable). There's a reason that even the 5e PHB says con is important for everyone.

A d&d character without CON is like a Spartan without a shield. Don't do it. If everyone tells you it's a bad idea, you're some kind of arrogant fool to ignore them.

Again, it doesn't mean that a character with Constitution 8 is unplayable and that I have to switch to another game. Also, one stays alive by dealing enough damage before dying or by having the right set of tools to avoid, for example, a deadly ambush or a trap.
D&D is not D&D online, they are not the same games.
I do agree that Constitution is important and I did say it's a weak point, but I'm fine with it. I'd rather take that one and use the rest of my points to gain other benefits.
In addition, not everyone is telling me that it is a bad idea, or at least that it is necessarily game-ruining. And even if they are, it doesn't make me an arrogant fool if I disagree, it just means I have my own opinion.


You might want to consider a multi-class build
That's a nice advice. I was actually looking at that this afternoon. I think I might go for Fighter levels to get better armor (Breastplate), more hit points and better archery abilities. Maybe even hit 4 levels of it right from level 2, going for Combat Maneuvers which look quite helpful to me in this build. I already got the skills and everything, and I will be more of a "detective" with proper "bringing down the bad guys" options.

[edge2054]

More like as long as the DM never lets any creatures attack him. His replies make it abundantly clear that he isn't looking for a combat-oriented game.

Have you played a rogue in 5th edition? Because your responses in this thread suggest that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

First it was, you'll never survive in melee combat! As if that was the only option for a rogue.

Now it's better hope the DM never attacks you! My lord what will he do with all those bonus actions that let him stay in cover and out of melee range?

And the low Con thing really goes right out that window at level 5 FYI. Especially for a ranged rogue. On the chance he does get caught in an AoE he can negate half the damage. Every turn. At level 7 he can dodge most AoE damage completely.

[Mandrake]

Will your group be playing a combat-oriented or RP-oriented game?

Your whole post is helpful, but didn't want to use up too much space.
The party is consisted of us four, and we all know each other. We will be playing Adventurer's League, so I suppose combat will be quite usual. Still, I count on my teammates to be clever about our strengths and weaknesses role-play or no, as we are all experienced players. In any case, if we do die, it's gonna be in a RP dice-rolling blaze of glory. Or just, you know, plain AoE. :smallcool:


but in point-buy view maybe you had misplaced one bonus or two

Wow, I have to redo the math. I did use point-buy. Well, maybe there's room for that Constitution score still... Or I'll just increase the Wisdom as you suggested, I do like that better. Thanks, this would have gone past me!

All you guys, I appreciate your help (yours too edge2054) and, once again, I do realize low Constitution is bad and risky. But it gives me the thrill of a dangerous game and I do plan on Multiclassing some Fighter levels as Person_Man suggested earlier, which will give me durability and second wind.

[Shadow]

That is not true, so it seems my replies aren't abundantly clear at all.

I plan on fighting, and I know D&D consists largely of combat encounters. I just disagree that having a penalty to Constitution makes a character an utterly handicapped combatant. If I were a Wizard or a Sorcerer, I would have 6 hit points. How is that not risky? Both my character and the said Wizard will stay out of range, so I don't see a problem there. We could both be hypothetically murdered by AoE or a well placed melee or even ranged attack. I don't plan on leaning on help from DM not to get killed.

Somer people just can't get over their views (or rather, the internet's views) that anything less than 12 or 14 Con means you're doing it wrong. Those people have read too many forums and "class guides" threads and cannot possibly precieve that a 7hp wizard shooting from range is exactly as durable as a 7hp rogue shooting from range.

You're fine.
You're a little squishy for a rogue, but as long as you're aware of that then you'll be fine.

With that said, I personally never go below 10 Con, and prefer 12, or even 14 if I have the points for it. But never below 10 for me.

[Person_Man]

If you're relying on weapons as your primary "at-will" mode of attack (as opposed to Cantrips), then you will generally want the Extra Attack class feature or maxed out Sneak Attack. Otherwise, at level 5 you will suddenly find yourself dealing 10ish fewer points of damage per round when you succeed in hitting compared to your allies and monsters. And then by level 11ish you'll need to find another damage boost from somewhere else (Extra Attack 2, more Sneak Attack, or spell buffs) or you'll fall behind again.

That means Fighter 5, Ranger 5, Valor Bard 5, Pact of Blade Warlock 5, or just strait Rogue. (Monk, Paladin, and Barbarian are all melee oriented).

You could also just rely on Cantrips instead of archery for at-will ranged damage. You could go Rogue/Wizard and make your 16 Int a lot more useful, or swap your Int with Cha and go strait Bard or Warlock 2/Lore Bard 18. The latter might be a particularly good option for a character with low Con (which like other people, I do not recommend) because you'd get access to Edritch Blast, Mage Armor, Armor of Agathys, Cure Wounds, Invisibility, and whatever other spells you might want at bard levels 6 and 10.

[Human Paragon 3]

You could also just rely on Cantrips instead of archery for at-will ranged damage.

I wouldn't recommend this, as cantrips don't trigger sneak attack. Unless you are not taking many rogue levels at all (for instance, a 1 level dip for expertise), you'll want modes of attack that will trigger sneak attack.

[Shadow]

Just as a point of reference from another rogue player:
Once I get to pay (instead of DMing, as we rotate games every few months) I plan on a playing a Wood Elf Way of Shadow Arcane Trickster monk 6 / rogue 14.
I'll dump Cha & Str (but prof in Str); decent Con, Int, Wis; good Dex.
He'll basically be the quintessential ninja assassin mage. And the combination of extra attack, martail arts (dex with spear, making it a versatile sneak attack weapon***) bonus unarmed attack and possible flurry, all amounts to more DPR than a straight rogue with more consistency of sneak attack because of multiple attacks.
Plus shadow walk, 3rd level illusions, a few ki spells, and a veritable boatload of ways to use a bonus action on any round.

He's going to be a lot of fun.

*** Ruling was that a monk treats it as a finesse weapon, so it is sneak attack-able. This ruling was later agreed upon by Mearls in a tweet.

[Shining Wrath]

It appears to me you know that you want a guy who is a rogue but not a criminal, who gets through life with charm and brains. The Grey Mouser, refluffed to Lawful Good and given noble birth.

That's an interesting idea and that idea should be encouraged.

The question as to whether the mechanics of D&D 5e really support that idea has been raised. I am troubled by the 8 Constitution in that regard; it seems unwise to trade away L or 2L hit points, where L=your level, unless you're quite certain you're getting something really great in return.

I second the idea of multi-classing and will throw Warlock into the mix, with a Great Old One Patron and a Blade Pact. The Blade Pact lets your noble be armed even when he isn't (and your special weapon can be a bow or crossbow); the Great Old One seems to fit the noble birth well. Your family has always ... dabbled ... in these matters. A Warlock dip gives you some invocations that can boost your out-of-combat stuff while Eldritch Blast gives you a Force damage attack available at will.

[Easy_Lee]

Just as a point of reference from another rogue player:
Once I get to pay (instead of DMing, as we rotate games every few months) I plan on a playing a Wood Elf Way of Shadow Arcane Trickster monk 6 / rogue 14.
I'll dump Cha & Str (but prof in Str); decent Con, Int, Wis; good Dex.
He'll basically be the quintessential ninja assassin mage. And the combination of extra attack, martail arts (dex with spear, making it a versatile sneak attack weapon***) bonus unarmed attack and possible flurry, all amounts to more DPR than a straight rogue with more consistency of sneak attack because of multiple attacks.
Plus shadow walk, 3rd level illusions, a few ki spells, and a veritable boatload of ways to use a bonus action on any round.

He's going to be a lot of fun.

*** Ruling was that a monk treats it as a finesse weapon, so it is sneak attack-able. This ruling was later agreed upon by Mearls in a tweet.

I've been considering the same kind of build, but with thief instead of arcane trickster. I'm not sure of the build order though, since you don't start at 20. Maybe rogue 4 > monk 6 > rogue 14 would be best.

[MustacheFart]

I've been considering the same kind of build, but with thief instead of arcane trickster. I'm not sure of the build order though, since you don't start at 20. Maybe rogue 4 > monk 6 > rogue 14 would be best.

I'm in the same boat with Shadow and yourself. I've been wanting to play a build I made as a secondary character to my current. He's a Wood Elf Shadow Monk/Assassin Rogue/Warlock. Basically, darkness rolls in, he goes wherever he wants, and strikes incredibly hard. The problem with the build though is it is not very team oriented.

I really wish they had added to the Darkness spell that allies can be granted the ability to see through it when cast. Keeps 95% of the same potency but keeps it a team spell.

[Shadow]

I've been considering the same kind of build, but with thief instead of arcane trickster. I'm not sure of the build order though, since you don't start at 20. Maybe rogue 4 > monk 6 > rogue 14 would be best.

I was thinking 2 monk (because Str/Dex saves is better than Dex/Int saves).
Then 5 rogue (3d6SA, uncanny for defense), then finish monk, then finish rogue.


I really wish they had added to the Darkness spell that allies can be granted the ability to see through it when cast. Keeps 95% of the same potency but keeps it a team spell.

Darkness isn't supposed to get you an advantage, it's supposed to even the field.
No one can see anyone, so you're attacking blindly against someone that can't see you. Adv and Disadv cancel, and it becomes a fair fight. It's for use in really bad situations to even the odds. It doesn't hurt anyone in it, so your party should be fine. Fights are loud, so targeting shouldn't be an issue.
You'd have a huge advantage with Devil's sight, but you wouldn't really be hurting the team at all unless casters needed a visual target for certain spells (and they could probably just get rid of your darkness if they wanted anyway).

[MustacheFart]

Darkness isn't supposed to get you an advantage, it's supposed to even the field.
No one can see anyone, so you're attacking blindly against someone that can't see you. Adv and Disadv cancel, and it becomes a fair fight. It's for use in really bad situations to even the odds. It doesn't hurt anyone in it, so your party should be fine. Fights are loud, so targeting shouldn't be an issue.
You'd have a huge advantage with Devil's sight, but you wouldn't really be hurting the team at all unless casters needed a visual target for certain spells (and they could probably just get rid of your darkness if they wanted anyway).

What you're saying makes sense but try casting darkness a lot and see if the party doesn't get upset. It hampers them more than you know. Yes, the enemy now attacks at a disadvantage but so do they so they'll be focusing on the fact that they're missing a lot more because of you. Mathematically, you're correct but player perception is a whole other matter.

[Shadow]

What you're saying makes sense but try casting darkness a lot and see if the party doesn't get upset. It hampers them more than you know. Yes, the enemy now attacks at a disadvantage but so do they so they'll be focusing on the fact that they're missing a lot more because of you. Mathematically, you're correct but player perception is a whole other matter.

No one inside darkness attacks at disadvantage.
You cannot see your target, therefore you have disadvantage.
But you are also attacking unseen, when your target cannot see you, gaining advantage.
They cancel each other out. They should not be missing any more than usual.
No one inside darkness ever attacks with disadvantage unless they are attacking someone that can see through said darkness.
No one inside darkness ever attacks with advantage unless they can see through said darkness while their target cannot.

Basically, the darkness spell is the Great Equalizer. There are very few, and I mean EXTEMELY few situations where anyone can attack with disadvantage or advantage under the effects of the darkness spell, because by default they already have one count of each so no one gets any.
The ability to see through magical darkness isn't easy to come by or common, nor is blindsense.

[MustacheFart]

No one inside darkness attacks at disadvantage.
You cannot see your target, therefore you have disadvantage.
But you are also attacking unseen, when your target cannot see you, gaining advantage.
They cancel each other out. They should not be missing any more than usual.
No one inside darkness ever attacks with disadvantage unless they are attacking someone that can see through said darkness.
No one inside darkness ever attacks with advantage unless they can see through said darkness while their target cannot.

Basically, the darkness spell is the Great Equalizer. There are very few, and I mean EXTEMELY few situations where anyone can attack with disadvantage or advantage under the effects of the darkness spell, because by default they already have one count of each so no one gets any.
The ability to see through magical darkness isn't easy to come by or common, nor is blindsense.

You've effectively made my head hurt lol.

Well, nevertheless typically people tend to not like their characters being unable to see. Hopefully, I will get to try that out sometime in the future.

[Bakakiba]

No one inside darkness attacks at disadvantage.
You cannot see your target, therefore you have disadvantage.
But you are also attacking unseen, when your target cannot see you, gaining advantage.
They cancel each other out. They should not be missing any more than usual.
No one inside darkness ever attacks with disadvantage unless they are attacking someone that can see through said darkness.
No one inside darkness ever attacks with advantage unless they can see through said darkness while their target cannot.

Basically, the darkness spell is the Great Equalizer. There are very few, and I mean EXTEMELY few situations where anyone can attack with disadvantage or advantage under the effects of the darkness spell, because by default they already have one count of each so no one gets any.
The ability to see through magical darkness isn't easy to come by or common, nor is blindsense.

I'd say the party has more ways to gain advantage than the bad guys do. Your Oath of Vengeance paladin, the halfling rogue who hides behind party members, and the reckless attacking barbarian won't be pleased.

[Strill]

No, I won't increase my Constitution. I don't think that one hit point makes that much of a grizzly difference. What you are saying is that 5e has bad game design in which you must take an ability or risk losing the game. Which cannot be correct, especially for role-playing games. Having 7 instead of 8 hit points doesn't mean too much, and it is still higher than 6 you would start off with as a Wizard, for example. Plus, I don't plan on entering melee.

CON bonuses apply PER LEVEL. Having 12 CON rather than 8 CON would mean +2 HP per level, maxing out at +40 HP at level 20.

But that's not even the biggest reason you want CON. CON saves apply to some of the worst things in the game. Poison damage, Stun, Paralyzation, Petrification, Instant-Death, long-term diseases. Having low CON means that there's a very good chance that you will literally die instantly to certain attacks. What's more, most of those effects are things you'll be likely to find when you set off traps.

So basically no. You're wrong. You DO absolutely have to take a decent CON score or risk losing the game.


That is not true, so it seems my replies aren't abundantly clear at all.

I plan on fighting, and I know D&D consists largely of combat encounters. I just disagree that having a penalty to Constitution makes a character an utterly handicapped combatant. If I were a Wizard or a Sorcerer, I would have 6 hit points. How is that not risky? Both my character and the said Wizard will stay out of range, so I don't see a problem there. We could both be hypothetically murdered by AoE or a well placed melee or even ranged attack. I don't plan on leaning on help from DM not to get killed.Wizards and Sorcerers have the Shield spell. You do not. Moreover, wizards and sorcerers who have a decent CON score will have signifcantly more HP than you.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm surprised no one has cast magic missile at the darkness yet.

[Shadow]

I'd say the party has more ways to gain advantage than the bad guys do. Your Oath of Vengeance paladin, the halfling rogue who hides behind party members, and the reckless attacking barbarian won't be pleased.

Not necessarily. Those are specific characters using specific abilities which are usually going to be subject to conditions, daily use limits, DM fiat, etc.
Compare a low level group, which may or may not have any of those characters to begin with, against one of the many mobs in the DMG with pack tactics (as just one example).
Many mobs have just as many ways to get advantage as a player, and they're usually easier to get when available.

[edge2054]

Are you guys that are talking about arcane based wood elves playing in FR? I wanted to go arcane trickster on my wood elf rogue but the character never felt believable to me.

I'm curious what kind of backgrounds are being imagined for such builds.

[edge2054]

Wizards and Sorcerers have the Shield spell. You do not. Moreover, wizards and sorcerers who have a decent CON score will have signifcantly more HP than you.

And rogues have cunning action and are SAD on the most important stat in the game. The hit point difference between a Wizard with 12 Con and a Rogue with 8 Con is 0 at level 1 and 1 per level after that in favor of the Wizard. Assuming the above example suits your definition of decent Con I find the hit point difference hardly significant.

Now a Wizard with 14 con, has one more hit point at level 1 and gains two more hit points per level then the rogue. I would call that a significant difference. But I'd call this better than decent Con, especially in a point buy game, which AL is.

Also, to put everything into context, in an AL game you literally can't die for your first 4 levels. Your faction will rescue you, recover your corpse, and raise you, all for free. By the time the character has outgrown this feature, assuming he sticks with rogue, he'll have Uncanny Dodge.

The Con saving throw thing is an issue but most DMs use save or die effects quite sparingly. If the player feels it's a problem, he can pick up dungeon delver, resilient, or lucky at level four. At level 6 he can grab expertise in theives tools too. He can also use inspiration on either the disarm attempt or the saving throw if he suspects the trap is deadly.

Yes, a low Con is going to make things harder. But it's really not the end of the world.



So basically no. You're wrong. You DO absolutely have to take a decent CON score or risk losing the game.

People play the game differently. From a certain perspective sacrificing character concept for in game advantages is 'losing the game'. I've played memorable characters that literally only lived a session. And I've played optimized characters that I spent days working on whom I've completely forgotten.

[Mandrake]

CON bonuses apply PER LEVEL. Having 12 CON rather than 8 CON would mean +2 HP per level, maxing out at +40 HP at level 20.

But that's not even the biggest reason you want CON. CON saves apply to some of the worst things in the game. Poison damage, Stun, Paralyzation, Petrification, Instant-Death, long-term diseases. Having low CON means that there's a very good chance that you will literally die instantly to certain attacks. What's more, most of those effects are things you'll be likely to find when you set off traps.

That is level 20. This is level 1. Here, the difference is 2 to 10 hit points (from level 1 to 5), and thatćs counting someone actually invested into Constitution 12. In the meantime, I can fix my Constitution at level 4, as well.


Wizards and Sorcerers have the Shield spell. You do not. Moreover, wizards and sorcerers who have a decent CON score will have signifcantly more HP than you.

Not all Wizards and Sorcerers take the Shield spell. And it's not significantly more HP and certainly not in the beginning, unless they invest many points into Constitution.
It's as if there is only one right way to make a character build.

[MustacheFart]

I'm with ya that it's doable to make it out with the 8 con. What I think people are getting at is that you're taking a huge risk though as you won't even be able to take a single hit most likely without being knocked down. That equates to your character out of the fight and you not having much fun. I'm not saying it isn't doable but I'm saying that you've basically got to somehow avoid ever being attacked. If you are....well...yeah.

I'm not really familiar with AL so are you guys going to be playing a module such as HOTDQ or something homebrewed? If HOTDQ then i will say an 8 con = lose game lol as the first chapter or so is a ridiculous meat grinder. You will get hit in it.

[Theodoxus]

OP - ignore the detractors. I had a gnome rogue -> arcane trickster in my first game. He shot things while I tanked them. He never got hit once. Not. once. Even if you don't know the makeup of your AL teammates, I'm confident someone will be going melee. Provided you live to 2nd (which isn't even guaranteed with a 17 Con Barbarian Hill Dwarf (most HPs at 1st level you can get in AL) - your survivability in combat only increases exponentially.

If you're using the optional Noble rules for a retinue, use that squire to be a shieldmaiden - even better. :)

And if you die? Meh. It's just a game. Roll a new rogue and keep on keepin' on.

[edge2054]

Personally I've had very little issue in Episode 2 of HotDQ. I've taken 11 points of damage and both of those hits were my fault to some extent. The first our tank rolled low on initiative and the casters ended up crowding behind me in a hallway so, rather than moving, I took the hit so our Druid wouldn't lose his spike growth.

The second hit I moved, shot, and dashed. I was 5' short on movement to get to the cover I intended to hide behind, which is why I had to dash instead. If I would have spent the rest of my 30' movement going further down the hallway instead of hoping to hide on my next turn I would have been well out of range of the spell I got tagged by.

I imagine though that theater of mind style play doesn't allow for as much of this. Having the grid out before me and being twice as fast as everyone else on the board is a huge tactical advantage.

Granted that doesn't kick in till level 2.

[MustacheFart]

Personally I've had very little issue in Episode 2 of HotDQ. I've taken 11 points of damage and both of those hits were my fault to some extent. The first our tank rolled low on initiative and the casters ended up crowding behind me in a hallway so, rather than moving, I took the hit so our Druid wouldn't lose his spike growth.

The second hit I moved, shot, and dashed. I was 5' short on movement to get to the cover I intended to hide behind, which is why I had to dash instead. If I would have spent the rest of my 30' movement going further down the hallway instead of hoping to hide on my next turn I would have been well out of range of the spell I got tagged by.

I imagine though that theater of mind style play doesn't allow for as much of this. Having the grid out before me and being twice as fast as everyone else on the board is a huge tactical advantage.

Granted that doesn't kick in till level 2.

That's episode 2 though. I was more so speaking of episode 1 as being the meat grinder.

I hope I am not being considered a detractor. I agreed that it CAN be done with 8 con but everyone has to except that it is certainly more risky. People fawk up. I sure do so sometimes a little wiggle room is nice. If he messes up with that low of a con he's got no wiggle room. Early on even 1-2 hp makes a difference.

On an unrelated note, hallway in episode 2? I thought episode 2 was the enemy camp? We just did it and I don't remember a hallway.

[Mandrake]

I appreciate the discussion.

My point related to previous comments is just this:

Is seven hit points so much less than eight hit points?

EDIT:
Uops, I just saw the previous comment. Could you name one example when you had 1 hit point left, Mustache? Where it made a difference, I mean.

[edge2054]

That's episode 2 though. I was more so speaking of episode 1 as being the meat grinder.


I saw. I missed Episode 1 so didn't have any experience with it. But so far Episode 2 hasn't felt very dangerous. Our group works really well together though so maybe I just lucked into some good party cohesion.



On an unrelated note, hallway in episode 2? I thought episode 2 was the enemy camp? We just did it and I don't remember a hallway.


It is. In the cave we had a narrow passageway our group got pretty clogged up in right before some kind of barracks area. The DM said the passage was in the shadows, not sure if he did perception rolls for us to see it or not.

[Grayson01]

I appreciate the discussion.

My point related to previous comments is just this:

Is seven hit points so much less than eight hit points?

EDIT:
Uops, I just saw the previous comment. Could you name one example when you had 1 hit point left, Mustache? Where it made a difference, I mean.

I first wanna say I am not arguing that you can't play with the 8 con.

How ever for your question directed at Mustache, does the example of 1 hit point mattering have to be 5e? Or RP in general?

[MustacheFart]

I appreciate the discussion.

My point related to previous comments is just this:

Is seven hit points so much less than eight hit points?

EDIT:
Uops, I just saw the previous comment. Could you name one example when you had 1 hit point left, Mustache? Where it made a difference, I mean.

Actually, yes. In episode 1 of the meatgrinder...i mean HOTDQ two kobolds jumped out from behind the corner of warehouse while we were engaged with other enemy kabolds and cultists. Then attacked with advantage against the bard. This was after several players already went down. The bard survived with a single HP which allowed him a spell to get the cleric back up. That saved the party from a near TPK. I say near TPK because I was playing a Half-Orc barbarian with ungodly rolled stats who was raging so I was good. Not to the point that I could've solo'ed them all due to their pact tactics but enough that I could've run away possibly though that would end my rage and make me more vulnerable.

So yes 1 hp made a huge difference.

[MustacheFart]

It is. In the cave we had a narrow passageway our group got pretty clogged up in right before some kind of barracks area. The DM said the passage was in the shadows, not sure if he did perception rolls for us to see it or not.

Ahh..

We never went into the cave. My character and the other half orc fighter with me figured out what they had inside and left due to it being too heavily guarded. We are planning to go back and strike it with the full group. We ended the session escaping from the camp though to regroup.

[Strill]

Not all Wizards and Sorcerers take the Shield spell. Then they're fools.


It's as if there is only one right way to make a character build.No, but there is a wrong way to make a character build.


And it's not significantly more HP and certainly not in the beginning, unless they invest many points into Constitution.If all you care about is levels 1 through 4, then go ahead, but be prepared to instantly die later on to overkill damage.

[Easy_Lee]

I appreciate the discussion.

My point related to previous comments is just this:

Is seven hit points so much less than eight hit points?


New players frequently fail to understand the power of numbers, because a point here or there doesn't seem to make much of a difference. +1 on something can make a world of difference, even when it's just one hp.

Consider that the character with 8hp has 1/7th or 14% more hp than the character with 7hp. 14% sounds a lot bigger than 1, doesn't it? Consider that the +2 to con results in one extra hp per level over the other guy. 10con vs 12 with d8 hit die means 8hp vs 9 at 1, then 13hp vs 15 at level 2. And the 8con guy is sitting at 11, 73% the hp of the 12con guy.

Why does that matter? Consider someone hits you for 1d6+2 damage, from a bow for instance. the 8hp guy has a 1/8 chance of being reduced to 0 hit points (6+2). The 7hp guy has a 2/8 chance of being reduced to 0 or below. He's twice as likely to die as the guy with just one more hp. Do you think 1d6+2 is an unlikely damage roll for a level 1 challenge? How about just some random goblin with a polearm, dealing 1d10 damage from reach? 8hp guy has a 30% chance to go to 0-, 7hp guy a 40% chance. That's a big deal. And the more you level up, the more powerful damage you're potentially dealing with. Those +1s scale right along with you, especially if your DM is good enough to keep the math tight.

You can't just plan not to get hit, because you never know what's going to be lurking around the corner. Something may hit from the front, side, back, or even above and below. You might roll a 1 on your check to avoid a trap. An archer might get a lucky shot at you through cover. Plan to get hit, because any good DM is going to hit you eventually. And when you do get hit, you'd be surprised just how often 1hp makes the difference.

[rollingForInit]

To those who say that having at least 12 or preferably 14 CON is absolutely essential: are you then also saying that the ability score system is broken? Because it seems to me that, if there's an ability score that simply cannot be dumped without significantly reducing the chances of surviving, then there's a trap designed right into one of the most basic parts of the game. If that's the case, CON shouldn't even be an option when determining ability scores; everyone should have a moderate score, period. Especially since it seems people are saying the game thing about DEX, the "god stat". No dumping that either. Which means that there's only Str to dump out of the physical scores.

If 8 could would make the game nearly impossible to survive, then the system is broken because it's designed to trick people, especially newcomers, into creating characters that are just waiting to die. It also prevents many builds from an RP perspective, since there are too many stats that you must keep high.

[Strill]

To those who say that having at least 12 or preferably 14 CON is absolutely essential: are you then also saying that the ability score system is broken? Because it seems to me that, if there's an ability score that simply cannot be dumped without significantly reducing the chances of surviving, then there's a trap designed right into one of the most basic parts of the game. If that's the case, CON shouldn't even be an option when determining ability scores; everyone should have a moderate score, period. Especially since it seems people are saying the game thing about DEX, the "god stat". No dumping that either. Which means that there's only Str to dump out of the physical scores.

If 8 could would make the game nearly impossible to survive, then the system is broken because it's designed to trick people, especially newcomers, into creating characters that are just waiting to die. It also prevents many builds from an RP perspective, since there are too many stats that you must keep high.

In general, characters need three stats. For Heavy Armor users, it's:

Weapon Attack Stat (STR or DEX)
Spellcasting Stat (INT, WIS, or CHA)
CON

For most everyone else, it's:

Spellcasting Stat (INT, WIS, or CHA) OR Weapon Attack Stat (DEX or STR)
Defensive stat (DEX)
CON

Fighters and Rogues are unique in that they only need two stats.

Weapon Attack Stat (STR or DEX)
CON

In other words, everyone should have the means to at least get a decent score in their three main attributes, and can balance the other three as they see fit. The only way to get a bad CON score is if you prioritize some other irrelevant stat over CON.

[rollingForInit]

In general, characters need three stats. For Heavy Armor users, it's:

Weapon Attack Stat (STR or DEX)
Spellcasting Stat (INT, WIS, or CHA)
CON

For most everyone else, it's:

Spellcasting Stat (INT, WIS, or CHA)
Defensive stat (DEX)
CON

Fighters and Rogues are unique in that they only need two stats.

Weapon Attack Stat (STR or DEX)
CON

In other words, everyone should have the means to at least get a decent score in their three main attributes, and can balance the other three as they see fit. The only way to get a bad CON score is if you prioritize some other irrelevant stat over CON.

But this means that it would then be nearly impossible to create a character that's very smart. As in, both intelligent and wise, and can apply the brains by having a decent Charisma. Basically, it means that all characters must be very physically fit.

That's broken, to me. If that is indeed the case. If Dex and CON are required for play, they should be at an appropriate leve by default, no matter what you invest elsewhere. Making them viable for dumping indicates that it's perfectly fine to do so (as long as your class does not depend heavily on the stat, of course). A squishy character should be squishy, not unplayable.

[Person_Man]

But this means that it would then be nearly impossible to create a character that's very smart. As in, both intelligent and wise, and can apply the brains by having a decent Charisma. Basically, it means that all characters must be very physically fit.

That's broken, to me. If that is indeed the case. If Dex and CON are required for play, they should be at an appropriate leve by default, no matter what you invest elsewhere. Making them viable for dumping indicates that it's perfectly fine to do so (as long as your class does not depend heavily on the stat, of course). A squishy character should be squishy, not unplayable.

I agree entirely.

In theory if a majority of the players are squishy, the DM can just dial down the difficulty of the combat encounters, and the optimized characters will just be special in their tanky-ness. But in reality, most players make the Dex and/or Con high regardless of their character concept because those ability scores determine your survivability in combat. So a player who chooses to have low Dex and/or Con is the outlier, and is likely to be killed in combat unless the DM purposefully avoids targeting him.

[edge2054]

In other words, everyone should have the means to at least get a decent score in their three main attributes, and can balance the other three as they see fit. The only way to get a bad CON score is if you prioritize some other irrelevant stat over CON.

Irrelevant is a matter of opinion. I've played sessions that had zero combat. Every dice roll was a skill check of some kind and most of the interaction was about role-playing, investigating, and exploring.

If you like to play combat heavy more power to you. But don't assume it's the only way to play the game.

[Easy_Lee]

In theory if a majority of the players are squishy, the DM can just dial down the difficulty of the combat encounters, and the optimized characters will just be special in their tanky-ness. But in reality, most players make the Dex and/or Con high regardless of their character concept because those ability scores determine your survivability in combat. So a player who chooses to have low Dex and/or Con is the outlier, and is likely to be killed in combat unless the DM purposefully avoids targeting him.

This.

D&D is a combat-heavy game. Most of the development effort went towards making combat interesting, as is readily apparent from reading the PHB. And the one stat that is universally important for combat, regardless of character, is your ability to not die when you take damage (con).

If you want to play a character who will fall over when someone hits him with a pillow, D&D is not the game you should be playing. There are many popular tabletops where physical constitution doesn't matter, or is not a stat, or isn't needed as much. Play one of those instead of D&D.

[Argo]

I've been playing Rogues for 15 years, and I often dump Constitution.

I don't know what crawled up Easy Lee's bum, but when you're a Rogue your abilities all come together around you NOT getting hit.

You can talk to your enemies to discourage a fight breaking out. You can Hide. Your Dexterity lets you avoid hits. You can Bluff. You can climb a tree. You can be 30 feet away shooting arrows at your target from a hiding place while the party Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins/Clerics engage in melee and the Sorcerer/Wizards are nearby blasting.

Dumping Con is fine. Just don't get hit. And if you do get hit, take half damage.

[Easy_Lee]

I've been playing Rogues for 15 years, and I often dump Constitution.

I don't know what crawled up Easy Lee's bum, but when you're a Rogue your abilities all come together around you NOT getting hit.

You can talk to your enemies to discourage a fight breaking out. You can Hide. Your Dexterity lets you avoid hits. You can Bluff. You can climb a tree. You can be 30 feet away shooting arrows at your target from a hiding place while the party Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins/Clerics engage in melee and the Sorcerer/Wizards are nearby blasting.

Dumping Con is fine. Just don't get hit. And if you do get hit, take half damage.

Guess it depends a lot on your DM, then. When I played a rogue in 3.5, my DM's response was to send a lot of undead at me. When I got the bracers that let me sneak attack constructs, plants, and undead, he would send flyers that stayed out of range. If I tried to sneak into places to dispatch enemies when their guard was down, I would encounter magical locks and traps that were impossible to non-magically disable.

I didn't much like that DM, but I tend to think most fall somewhere between that extreme, and the extreme of never challenging your players. Any reasonable level of challenge will, at least occasionally, result in taking damage. I'd rather not have a dead character when that happens.

What's more, rogues can't effectively specialize in more than a few things. Mechanically, it doesn't make much sense to try to be charismatic and dextrous and intelligent. You can't be good at all of those things in 5e without rolling multiple 18's at character generation (or acquiring epic-level stat items, which means your stats didn't matter anyway). And a rogue can't take full advantage of those stats anyway, unlike a wizard for int or a bard for CHA. Can you try and do it? Sure, but you'd be better off playing a bard with this kind of character, who can specialize in everything, rather than a rogue who can only do a few things well (jack of all trades vs. expertise).

And no matter what kind of character you play, fights are going to happen, surprises are going to happen. And if your DM even considers challenging your party, damage is going to happen. It has nothing to do with 3.5, and everything to do with the fact that D&D is a combat-heavy game.

Also, regarding your take half damage thing, rogue only take half damage on reflex saves. Damage is damage, and until you get the class abilities you're taking all of it.

[Theodoxus]

People keep saying you'll be dead... you won't die. Ok, at 1st level, it's possible, but not probable, that you'll take 14 points of damage. But you'll probably get knocked out, if you get hit (hint, don't get hit - double hint, you're building your character correctly to cover this - good job!)

Now, your DM might be a poopstain and go after you while you're knocked out (especially if you just critted a sneak and the damn thing didn't die). But most DMs will reasonably turn the mobs onto current threats - why paste the rogue when the paladin is all up my grill?

Getting knocked out ain't no thing. Just hope someone survives to get y'all back up again :)

[MustacheFart]

If you're playing HOTDQ then your chances of death are a lot higher in the first chapter with only an 8 con if you don't do the following. The one thing you can do that will greatly increase your chances is: move from rooftop to rooftop. Stay up on the roofs. Enemies have thrown weapons with limited range and you'll have at least partial cover.

[Argo]

Guess it depends a lot on your DM, then. When I played a rogue in 3.5, my DM's response was to send a lot of undead at me. When I got the bracers that let me sneak attack constructs, plants, and undead, he would send flyers that stayed out of range. If I tried to sneak into places to dispatch enemies when their guard was down, I would encounter magical locks and traps that were impossible to non-magically disable.

My DM always sent undead at me as well. My tactic for undead in 3.5 amounted to either throw rocks / Holy Water, or blast with a wand (if I was playing a high Charisma / max ranks in UMD Rogue) and stay behind the Cleric, or FIND ANOTHER WAY TO BE USEFUL BESIDES STRAIGHT UP ATTACKING.

Rogues are the class to play if you want to do something other than "I full attack" and don't want to deal with a spell list. There's plenty to be done in a fight besides dealing damage to the enemies, and Rogues are great at doing it. Throw flasks of oil around to make enemies flatfooted. Ready an action against those flyers to throw a tanglefoot bag or a net when they get close. Throw thunderstones at enemy casters to deafen them. Light smokesticks to provide cover from ranged enemies. Raise/lower drawbridges.


I didn't much like that DM, but I tend to think most fall somewhere between that extreme, and the extreme of never challenging your players. Any reasonable level of challenge will, at least occasionally, result in taking damage. I'd rather not have a dead character when that happens.

I wouldn't like that DM either. But I've played with him. And after six levels, my Gnome Rogue was still alive and every other player was on their third or fourth character.


What's more, rogues can't effectively specialize in more than a few things. Mechanically, it doesn't make much sense to try to be charismatic and dextrous and intelligent. You can't be good at all of those things in 5e without rolling multiple 18's at character generation (or acquiring epic-level stat items, which means your stats didn't matter anyway). And a rogue can't take full advantage of those stats anyway, unlike a wizard for int or a bard for CHA. Can you try and do it? Sure, but you'd be better off playing a bard with this kind of character, who can specialize in everything, rather than a rogue who can only do a few things well (jack of all trades vs. expertise).

I haven't played 5e yet. My first campaign is starting in a few weeks, but Rogues can have two good stats. Dex and Cha means you can talk your way out of a fight and dodge a sword if Plan A fails.


And no matter what kind of character you play, fights are going to happen, surprises are going to happen. And if your DM even considers challenging your party, damage is going to happen. It has nothing to do with 3.5, and everything to do with the fact that D&D is a combat-heavy game.

And when a surprise happens, there's nothing better than acting first and getting out of harm's way.
But of course damage is going to happen. Of course it is. But one hp here or there isn't as important to the OP (or me, for that matter), because if you're taking enough damage to really hurt you, you've already messed up far more than you should have.


Also, regarding your take half damage thing, rogue only take half damage on reflex saves. Damage is damage, and until you get the class abilities you're taking all of it.

I know that. I was being glib.

You're missing the point. The OP and I play our characters different from the way you do.

We don't need our Rogues to be able to soak a ton of damage, because we're not looking to take it.

When my party gets into a fight, I MUCH prefer to let the Barbarian and the Fighter take the hits in melee. I'll climb a tree and sneak attack with my longbow, thanks.

[Sartharina]

Then they're fools.Shield is not excessively useful unless you can Spell Mastery it.


No, but there is a wrong way to make a character build.This is not one of them. He's clearly not a combat-heavy character, but he's a strong with social and exploration aspects. He has strong enough DEX that he can spike in combat effectively, though, making him a strong Lurker.


If all you care about is levels 1 through 4, then go ahead, but be prepared to instantly die later on to overkill damage.Unlikely. Enemy attacks scale slowly. At most, his -1 CON mod will make him survive one less attack than someone else. He can survive 1-2 shots at level 1, and it stays consistent/improves from there, no matter what.

[MustacheFart]

To be completely honest, my opinion of 5th ed thus far is that it's similar to older editions in one way: it's deadly for everyone at level 1. It's deadly for that guy with the 14 con just as much as it is for the guy with 8 con. 1 shot is all that's needed to drop someone often. Ranged is the key to survival here more than anything. Most of the monsters we've faced at level 1 had very little in the range category so staying back shooting them down before they get to you is a very sound strategy.

[Shadow]

Also, regarding your take half damage thing, rogue only take half damage on reflex saves. Damage is damage, and until you get the class abilities you're taking all of it.

Ummm....
Uncanny Dodge
Starting at 5th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack’s damage against you.

No specific source from the damage required to activate it.
You use your reaction, you take half damage. Period.
That effectively doubles his HP once he reaches level 5.
Considering teh first few levels he will be auto-raised by faction (if playing by AL rules) and that means he has to survive a level or two to get it.

[Person_Man]

Irrelevant is a matter of opinion. I've played sessions that had zero combat. Every dice roll was a skill check of some kind and most of the interaction was about role-playing, investigating, and exploring.

If you like to play combat heavy more power to you. But don't assume it's the only way to play the game.

Fair enough. Though I would say that the around 2/3-ish or more of the functions of ability scores, class abilities, and other rules in D&D are related to combat. If your group spends a lot more time on the roleplaying/exploration front, then you may also enjoy more narrative focused games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, FATE, and their spinoffs like Mouse Guard or Dresdon Files (which is probably one of my favorite games that I almost never have an opportunity to play).

Having said that, I think the general point is that D&D character creation is sometimes a zero sum process where putting resources into roleplaying and exploration (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, Lore, Survival, Performance, Ranger 1, Dungeon Delver, Keen Mind, etc) often means that you are directly taking away from resources from combat, unless its given to you by default (Thieves' Cant) or you need it for some other reason (Intelligence for Wizards, Charisma for Bards, etc).

So its not that maxing out Int/Wis/Cha is a bad idea. It's that maxing out those ability scores at the expense of Dex/Con is a bad idea if you are likely to participate in dangerous combat on a regular basis, which is the baseline assumption for most other D&D players. (Unless you need one of them to fuel your spells or class abilities, and then you should just max out that one ability score).



Ummm....
Uncanny Dodge
Starting at 5th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack’s damage against you.

No specific source from the damage required to activate it.
You use your reaction, you take half damage. Period.
That effectively doubles his HP once he reaches level 5.
Considering teh first few levels he will be auto-raised by faction (if playing by AL rules) and that means he has to survive a level or two to get it.

Having played an Assassin Rogue, I can attest to the awesomenes of Uncanny Dodge, which when combined with my character's high Dex and Con and Evasion and Stealth and Cunning Action, makes my Rogue ridiculously hard to kill.

Though I would say that Uncanny Dodge requires a Reaction to use, which means that you're not using your Reaction for other things, and at most you're defending against 1 attack per round. I can't speak for anyone else's group, but at my table, the players tend to be outnumbered in most combats, and thus it's not really a 50%-ish increase in hit points.

[Sartharina]

So its not that maxing out Int/Wis/Cha is a bad idea. It's that maxing out those ability scores at the expense of Dex/Con is a bad idea if you are likely to participate in dangerous combat on a regular basis, which is the baseline assumption for most other D&D players. (Unless you need one of them to fuel your spells or class abilities, and then you should just max out that one ability score).Unfortunately, looking for traps has reverted to Perception instead of Investigate (Though possibly both can be used - I'd honestly rather use Investigate than perception to find traps I'm actively searching for).





Having played an Assassin Rogue, I can attest to the awesomenes of Uncanny Dodge, which when combined with my character's high Dex and Con and Evasion and Stealth and Cunning Action, makes my Rogue ridiculously hard to kill.

Though I would say that Uncanny Dodge requires a Reaction to use, which means that you're not using your Reaction for other things, and at most you're defending against 1 attack per round. I can't speak for anyone else's group, but at my table, the players tend to be outnumbered in most combats, and thus it's not really a 50%-ish increase in hit points.It doubles HP if you only get hit once per round, which is possible with good AC and Cunning Action.

[Shadow]

Unfortunately, looking for traps has reverted to Perception instead of Investigate (Though possibly both can be used - I'd honestly rather use Investigate than perception to find traps I'm actively searching for).

The check at our table depends on the type of trap.
A spike pit covered with foliage and debris, perception.
A pressure plate for a poisoned dart, investigation.
Basically if it's something that you might notice at a glance if you were very aware of your surroundings, or if it's made with or hidden by natural stuff (branches, etc), then it's perception. If it's mechanical or it's hidden well enough that you would need to actively look for it, then it's investigation.
If both are true, then either will find it (like, say, a pressure plate where spikes emerge from a stone floor, mechanical but not hidden well because of the holes in the floor).
We also added a passive investigation, but only if you have proficiency with thieves' tools.

The other option we considered was this: If you make an investigation check equal to or higher than the DC of the perception check, you get advantage on the perception check to find it.
Basically, if you catch the clues to it's existance, you are more likely to find it.
Ultimately we decided to separate the trap types to make both valuable in thier own ways.

[edge2054]

Though I would say that Uncanny Dodge requires a Reaction to use, which means that you're not using your Reaction for other things, and at most you're defending against 1 attack per round. I can't speak for anyone else's group, but at my table, the players tend to be outnumbered in most combats, and thus it's not really a 50%-ish increase in hit points.

I'd say that's pretty common. But the thing I really like about the rogue this edition is that it works really well out of the box as a switch hitter. In fights like that, the rogue can stay back or even behind cover with his bow or crossbow. When it's down to just a couple of guys he can switch to TWF.

Again though, I think some of this comes down to theater of mind vs. grids. I'd be a lot less comfortable keeping my rogue alive in a theater of the mind game.

[Person_Man]

I'd say that's pretty common. But the thing I really like about the rogue this edition is that it works really well out of the box as a switch hitter. In fights like that, the rogue can stay back or even behind cover with his bow or crossbow. When it's down to just a couple of guys he can switch to TWF.

Again though, I think some of this comes down to theater of mind vs. grids. I'd be a lot less comfortable keeping my rogue alive in a theater of the mind game.

I agree. Though based on my games, I'd say that the Rogue does have two drawbacks.

One is that starting at 5th level, every other class that is not the Rogue either gets the Extra Attack class feature and/or can use area of effect spells. The Rogue is always limited to just one attack from his Action, one attack from a Bonus Action if you're using a melee finesse weapon (though you typically want to use your Bonus Action for Cunning Action if your Sneak Attack was successful with your first attack), and on rare occasions an Opportunity Attack with your Reaction (though you typically want to preserve your Reaction for Uncanny Dodge). So while he still deals above average damage with easy to trigger Sneak Attack and Assassinate, its typically against just 1 or 2 enemies each round. This can make your life difficult against lots of mooks, though it makes you very valuable against boss enemies.

The second is that starting at mid-ish-levels spellcasters just get a much wider variety of stuff that they can do effectively. Not game breakingly so (at my table at least). But they most certainly can do a wider variety of things, and those things tend to be more flashy and interesting and encounter winning.

So while the Rogue is a highly effective class, I've found that effectiveness is mostly limited to killing 1 enemy per round, being mobile, sneaky, not getting killed, and occasionally using one or two other Skills.

[Grayson01]

Random Some what on topic question. Sneak Attack, I am AFB at the moment, but I don't remeber there being any kind of limiting factor on what types of creatures you can Sneak Attack. I.E. Undead, constructs, elementals ETC. Is that in there, or do specific creatures in the MM specifically states if it is a SA immune Monster?

[Shadow]

So while the Rogue is a highly effective class, I've found that effectiveness is mostly limited to killing 1 enemy per round, being mobile, sneaky, not getting killed, and occasionally using one or two other Skills.

This is exactly why the monk/rogue multiclass we discussed on page 2 is so appealing. He keeps the DPR (actually raising it unless he misses a lot) and all of his other goodies, wihle getting multiple attacks and a veritable crapload of bonus action options.


Random Some what on topic question. Sneak Attack, I am AFB at the moment, but I don't remeber there being any kind of limiting factor on what types of creatures you can Sneak Attack. I.E. Undead, constructs, elementals ETC. Is that in there, or do specific creatures in the MM specifically states if it is a SA immune Monster?

Nothing is immune to sneak attack unless the specific monster entry says so.

[Grayson01]

Nothing is immune to sneak attack unless the specific monster entry says so.

Are there, if you have seen the MM I have not, many/any monsters that are?

[Shadow]

Are there, if you have seen the MM I have not, many/any monsters that are?

None that I can think of off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

[Grayson01]

None that I can think of off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Okay cool, thank you.

[Easy_Lee]

You're missing the point. The OP and I play our characters different from the way you do.

We don't need our Rogues to be able to soak a ton of damage, because we're not looking to take it.

Nobody ever expects to take damage. You forget I played 3.5, where casting heal spells was suboptimal, so people usually waited until after the fights to heal at all. I didn't want to take damage; nobody did. But damage happens. Ask anyone here, and they'll tell you the same thing.

In 5e, with bounded accuracy, you can be even more sure that the damage is going to happen eventually. And because of the d20 system, anyone can get a lucky shot off on you with a 20 roll. A DM might send 16 CR 1/4 skeletons with longbows at you at level 4, just to see if your party can deal with the damage.

So which of these sounds like a better strat:

Try to focus in four stats, meaning that you'll never be particularly good at anything. Dump con to ensure that, if you mess up and take damage, you're much more likely to die.
Focus on two stats, such as Dex and Int, easily getting 16-17 in both from 1 with pointbuy. Be very good in both areas, and invest a trivial number of points in Con to get a positive modifier. Like car insurance, this ensures that the first accident doesn't wreck you.

Besides, Con is important for avoiding disease, too. If your DM really wants to be a jerk, he can just ask for Con saves to avoid catching a cold from being out in the rain. After Dex, Con is easily the most common save. And unlike Dex, failing Con saves will usually result in your character's immediate incapacitation.

A variant human can easily start the game with 15 (+1) in two stats, 14 in Con, and still have some points left to make two of the remaining stats 10 or one of them 12. That's just one possible build I would consider over the OP's.

[Sartharina]

So which of these sounds like a better strat:

Try to focus in four stats, meaning that you'll never be particularly good at anything. Dump con to ensure that, if you mess up and take damage, you're much more likely to die.
Focus on two stats, such as Dex and Int, easily getting 16-17 in both from 1 with pointbuy. Be very good in both areas, and invest a trivial number of points in Con to get a positive modifier. Like car insurance, this ensures that the first accident doesn't wreck you.


Which sounds like a better strat:
Try to focus on only stats, so you'll always suck at over half the things you want and have to do. Put enough points into CON to reduce overkill by a few points without actually increasing the number of hits you can take.
Invest in four stats so you can do everything you want to with reasonable chances of success. Dump CON because you have enough HP and damage-mitigating effects to survive anyway, and anything that will kill you will do so without those 2 points/level.

[Bakakiba]

You can't plan ahead fully when you aren't the DM. Even when you can, low con is bad. In d&d online (which used a 3.5ish system), everyone knew exactly what to expect in every fight, and you were still a total noob to have con under 12 (14+ was preferable).



Only total noobs thought that. Those who knew what they were doing could easily lower con without an issue.

[Mandrake]

It seems to me that you're somehow assuming an "evil" DM, Evil_Lee.

I believe that you can go around with a penalty to Constitution, because those resources can be well spent.

Even if it means that you can get dropped more often than the other guy with Constitution (I like your maths comment, though not entirely), it also means that you will avoid getting targeted in the first place more easily than that same guy (for example, by using Social Skills, or Perception to detect the trap with your Wisdom).
Basically, though the player is not the DM, he can make use of his strengths with proper playing strategy. A good player knows what he can and what he cannot do, and tries to turn the tide to his favor.

There is much else I would say, but I feel I would mostly be repeating what myself and others have said. I'm playing the game in some 4 days, and I'll be more than happy to write what happened. I'm nervous myself, because I know this is a bit risky and in that sense unorthodox build. Also, I've just learned I'll probably be teaming up with a Wizard, a Ranger and a Bard, which is by itself a squishy bunch (except for the Ranger, he goes Polearms and I think he went like 14 Con, but not too much Dex...) - it's gonna be laughable, at least. In any case, I think that we can do it if we play our cards right.

[Grayson01]

It seems to me that you're somehow assuming an "evil" DM, Evil_Lee.

I believe that you can go around with a penalty to Constitution, because those resources can be well spent.

Even if it means that you can get dropped more often than the other guy with Constitution (I like your maths comment, though not entirely), it also means that you will avoid getting targeted in the first place more easily than that same guy (for example, by using Social Skills, or Perception to detect the trap with your Wisdom).
Basically, though the player is not the DM, he can make use of his strengths with proper playing strategy. A good player knows what he can and what he cannot do, and tries to turn the tide to his favor.

There is much else I would say, but I feel I would mostly be repeating what myself and others have said. I'm playing the game in some 4 days, and I'll be more than happy to write what happened. I'm nervous myself, because I know this is a bit risky and in that sense unorthodox build. Also, I've just learned I'll probably be teaming up with a Wizard, a Ranger and a Bard, which is by itself a squishy bunch (except for the Ranger, he goes Polearms and I think he went like 14 Con, but not too much Dex...) - it's gonna be laughable, at least. In any case, I think that we can do it if we play our cards right.

Let us know how it goes. Do you know what paths the other three players are taking with their classes (Ranger, Bard, & Wizard)?

[Mandrake]

Let us know how it goes. Do you know what paths the other three players are taking with their classes (Ranger, Bard, & Wizard)?

Ranger, as I said, goes Polearm STR CON WIS build, Variant Human with Polearm feat. Tiefling Bard left low STR so I suppose he is going for Lore, CHA DEX INT build. He didn't really think it through yet, I think. High Elf Wizard is going for Evocation, INT DEX CON build. He took the classics and mandatory spells (e.g. Mage Hand, Shocking Grasp, Find Familiar, Magic Missile, Shield, Sleep and so on).

Personally, I'll try stay in the back as much, but I'm starting to think there might be no "back" with these guys. Anyway, Ranger is in biggest trouble IMO, and Wizard and me will probably try flash up as much damage as we can before he gets hit. At least Bard took Healing Word and Vicious Mockery among others, so that should help him. Hope it'll work.

[Mandrake]

Let us know how it goes.

So I am.

It was awesome. We played Lost Mines, and didn't get too far, since we had little time, it was the first day (many people around and business) and we had that new guy who had to make a character, and we spent a lot of time getting to know each others' characters.

Luckily, the new guy drew a Barbarian, so we had a meat-shield (but he won't be playing with us anymore cause he's leaving country :smallfrown:). I managed to stay in the back and not get hurt at all, although I am worried since I saw a measly Goblin dealing 6 damage without issues (I got 7 HP to remind you). Also, our Bard got critically hit but the Goblin rolled awfully, dealing 2 damage only. When we get into more combat, I guess I'll know more, but now I am even more convinced that I should multiclass into Fighter ASAP, for some armor, Second Wind, and that one extra HP. Don't know if it's a good idea...?

That said, my skill build proved quite useful and awesome. I rolled great and Perception and Investigation worked like a charm. Also, my social skills got us a helpful hand from a Goblin we didn't kill, which removed some serious threats (and hopefully will remove even more as we advance).

Well, that's about it, if someone wants to ask some stuff more, please do.

[MustacheFart]

So I am.

It was awesome. We played Lost Mines, and didn't get too far, since we had little time, it was the first day (many people around and business) and we had that new guy who had to make a character, and we spent a lot of time getting to know each others' characters.

Luckily, the new guy drew a Barbarian, so we had a meat-shield (but he won't be playing with us anymore cause he's leaving country :smallfrown:). I managed to stay in the back and not get hurt at all, although I am worried since I saw a measly Goblin dealing 6 damage without issues (I got 7 HP to remind you). Also, our Bard got critically hit but the Goblin rolled awfully, dealing 2 damage only. When we get into more combat, I guess I'll know more, but now I am even more convinced that I should multiclass into Fighter ASAP, for some armor, Second Wind, and that one extra HP. Don't know if it's a good idea...?

That said, my skill build proved quite useful and awesome. I rolled great and Perception and Investigation worked like a charm. Also, my social skills got us a helpful hand from a Goblin we didn't kill, which removed some serious threats (and hopefully will remove even more as we advance).

Well, that's about it, if someone wants to ask some stuff more, please do.

Yeah the fact that even the piddly, weak guys can drop 6 damage reliably is what I and others were trying to warn you about. That's the sole reason for our suggestion of a higher con. There's no room for error. 1 hit and you're about done. Hopefully you can push through it.

[Mandrake]

Yeah the fact that even the piddly, weak guys can drop 6 damage reliably is what I and others were trying to warn you about. That's the sole reason for our suggestion of a higher con. There's no room for error. 1 hit and you're about done. Hopefully you can push through it.

Sure, I was aware of that, just wanted to point out that (1) it is true and that (2) it is a bit different when you see it in-game. Anyway, we keep agreeing on that. :smallwink:

So, my idea is to go multiclass Fighter, and I am thinking about my Fighting Style. I am currently between Dueling, Archery and Defense.

It seems to me that Dueling isn't as good as usually presented, since those 2 bonus damage tend to wear off and become less useful as you level up (especially without extra attacks which I won't have as many, since I don't plan on going too far in Fighter, but focus on Rogue instead).

Archery is good, but I think I might be forced to go Breastplate+Shield+Rapier, since we only have on melee character. Also, just generally carrying a shield will make me a bit more sturdy.

So, Defense. I consider that with bounded accuracy that +1 to AC can be really helpful, especially with Constitution as low as mine. That said, I know the general consensus of it's low usefulness and I can see that 5% improvement to not getting hit may be not too much.

What are your ideas? Thanks!

[MustacheFart]

Sure, I was aware of that, just wanted to point out that (1) it is true and that (2) it is a bit different when you see it in-game. Anyway, we keep agreeing on that. :smallwink:

So, my idea is to go multiclass Fighter, and I am thinking about my Fighting Style. I am currently between Dueling, Archery and Defense.

It seems to me that Dueling isn't as good as usually presented, since those 2 bonus damage tend to wear off and become less useful as you level up (especially without extra attacks which I won't have as many, since I don't plan on going too far in Fighter, but focus on Rogue instead).

Archery is good, but I think I might be forced to go Breastplate+Shield+Rapier, since we only have on melee character. Also, just generally carrying a shield will make me a bit more sturdy.

So, Defense. I consider that with bounded accuracy that +1 to AC can be really helpful, especially with Constitution as low as mine. That said, I know the general consensus of it's low usefulness and I can see that 5% improvement to not getting hit may be not too much.

What are your ideas? Thanks!

My suggestion is: Archery.

+1 AC is nice but being far back out of melee reach trumps it. Why focus on getting +1 ac against that sword swing when you can potentially remove the sword swing altogether. With your low con this is simply ideal.

Plus I believe the archery one is +2 to hit which is huge. There are very few sources of straight +to hit in this edition. That also responds very well when taking bounded accuracy into account.

As far as having only one meatshield. That is fin. Often this is the case in a standard 4 man party. It's that barbarian's job now to make himself as big and scary as he possibly can on the battlefield. Keep those enemies on him or within his reach.

[Mandrake]

Thanks for the comment.


As far as having only one meatshield. That is fin. Often this is the case in a standard 4 man party. It's that barbarian's job now to make himself as big and scary as he possibly can on the battlefield. Keep those enemies on him or within his reach.

The problem is there won't be no Barbarian from now on. Only a Ranger with a Glaive and Polearm Master. Although it isn't bat, it's not as tough, not as dodgy.

[Sartharina]

Yeah the fact that even the piddly, weak guys can drop 6 damage reliably is what I and others were trying to warn you about. That's the sole reason for our suggestion of a higher con. There's no room for error. 1 hit and you're about done. Hopefully you can push through it.About done. Not completely done. 1 HP left still requires a second hit to go down. It wouldn't have mattered if he had 7 HP or 10 HP - 2 hits and he's down.

[Mandrake]

About done. Not completely done. 1 HP left still requires a second hit to go down. It wouldn't have mattered if he had 7 HP or 10 HP - 2 hits and he's down.

Yeah, no, about that - I'm completely happy with my Con 8, and Wis 14 (or Int 16 or Cha 12, whatever); it served me much more than that hit point did, both on the fun scale and on the actually being useful scale.