Why I love this edition

[Waazraath]

With the SCAG cantrips out, I wanted to try and build an Arcane trickster - melee type, enough defenses (AC/HP/spells/abilities) to stay in the frontline as secondary warrior, max dex, decent con and int score. I checkt what is possible... and that's so much!

Races: high elf is nice, perception, cantrip is good and fits the flavour, darkvision is good, longbow is nice extra damage at low level (with max dex and int not maxed out)... hill dwarf is nice, darkvision, extra hp, stat boost for con (more hp!); tiefling variant (scag) is great, good ability enhancements and flight; stout halfling is possible, with good ability enhancements, and lucky... and human, oh, variant human... 2 good ability score enhancements, and a feat! With resilient con 3 good ability enhancements; extra hp.

Which brings me to feats: again, so many options to strengthen this concept, and rogue has a few more ASI's then most classes. Stuff like lucky, alert and resilience (con) is always good. Tough is a great addition for this build. Shield master can be good, if you get proficiency with shields somewhere, to have a frequent use of the bonus action (no problem since plenty spells only use verbal components, like misty step, blur, and the melee cantrips, or have a long duration like invisibility). Sentinel or mage slayer give an occasional reaction attack, to double the sneak attack output (and the combination is downright lethal for casters; misty step next to one, attack, and whatever the caster will do next, cast or move away, another attack will follow as a reaction);

As for multiclassing: again, there are so many good options; even a class that doesn't seem relevant at first place like sorcerer, adds 1AC, stronger casting and some metamagic options (which is nice to cast a spell quickened, or subtle out of combat); bladesinging wizard gives strong combat options, and more spell casting, cleric gives more spell casting and can give heavy armor and shields; a short dip in hunter ranger and BM fighter can give reaction attacks (great for increasing sneak attack output), as other nice things like fighting style, more casting, action surge, weapon and armor proficiencies...

And after all this, there's the backgrounds and spells known. I feel I could make 3 or 4 different builds like this, all very different, just with this concept (melee arcane trickster rogue).

TL/DR: there are so many good options!!!

I mostly played 3.x, and by comparision, I feel there is so much more possible when building a character. Yes, 3.x had a lot of variaty in prestige classes, and much more feats and spells available... but with that, also many that were absolute 'musts' if you wanted to have a competative build against stock monster manual creatures. Feats like craven and staggering strike, spells that allowed you to bypass immunity to sneak attack, only a few prestige classes that were really good for this kind of build, despite many more existed, a lot of races being simply nono's (and strong races almost mandatory to play a concept that was not that powerful in itself)....

I'm not posting this to start any edition discussion, I still play 3.x, with a lot of pleasure, but noticed just now the possiblities and freedom 5e offers, and I like it, a lot!

[MrStabby]

Yeah, 5th is awesome.

I also appreciate the modest rate at which content is growing. A good basis but the additions are looking pretty solid as well.

There are few options that are automatic picks and lots of different ways to develop characters, most importantly a huge proportion of them are very fun.

[Sir cryosin]

You for got the race of my AT he's a forest gnome

[Hrugner]

I'm trying to see it, but I really don't.

The choices have little enough effect that they are mostly interchangeable, and so long as you give yourself a good way to fill out your action types, you pretty much have a solved character. The amount of choices that are incompatible due to using the same action type, and those that don't interact due to specific limitations on those abilities to prevent interaction, have made looking through the material really sort of dull for me.

[Renvir]

5e has been great for my group of players, especially when bringing in new players. The simplicity it offers has made it easier for me to build games for my players and it doesn't take long for people to get comfortable with their characters. I think WotC, with help from their testers, put a lot of thought into their game and it shows. It all fits together nicely and I'll take that over a game that does one or two aspects well while completely failing in other ways.

With that being said, I did have to change the rarity on some of their magic items to make sense with other items and spells. I'm looking at you, flying broom.

[Tanarii]

I like it because it's fast and simple. It really feels like a 'back to the roots' edition of D&D. (Side note: I've loved every edition of D&D since BECMI, which is where I started.)

[Waazraath]

@MrStabby - indeed!

@Sir cryosin - agreed, good option as well, I didn't try to be inclusive because there are so many good options :)

@Hrugner - ok, let my try to explain with an example. Let me take two example builds, based on (mostly) the arcane trickster rogue.

Build 1)
human, arcane trickster 20;
Stats: 10, 16, 16, 14, 10, 8 (str, dex, con, int, wis, cha)
ASI/feats: resilient (bonus), +2 dex, sentinel, +2 dex, mage slayer, +2 con, lucky (ending up with 20 dex and 18 con total)
background: sage
skills: history arcana stealth perception acrobatics sleight of hand investigation

Spells: get a cantrip for a light effect, and in any case misty step to teleport next to a caster, when available. Mirror image for defense.

Action economy:
standard: greenflame blade cantrip, spell
bonus action: cunning action, misty step
reaction: sentinel, mage slayer, uncanny dodge

Build 2)
Hill dwarf, arcane trickster 14 / battlemaster 6
stats: 15, 13, 17, 12, 9, 8 (str dex con int wis cha)
ASI/feats: shield bash, +1str/+1con, +2str, +2str, tough, +2con (ends up with 20 str and 20 con)
background: inheritor
skills: survival arcana perception stealth athletics investigation

Spells: spells of build 2 will have as much as possible long either long duration, or only verbal components. So blur for defense, instead of mirror image.

Action economy:
Standard: greenflame blade, attack (2), spell
Bonus: shove (shield basher), cunning action
Reaction: riposte, uncanny dodge


So we have 2 builds, 1 dex based, the other strength based, with skills that fit that difference. One of them more the traditional sneaking, stealing rouge, the other one a very, very tough fighting machine with max con and +3hp/lvl due to race/feat, but with some unexpected tricks compared to the average fighter. One of them specialized in reaction attacks, wielding only a rapier, especially against casters, the other more martial, bashing people to the ground with a shield before attacking, and when needed get a reaction attack with riposte. They have quite different options for bonus actions, for reactions, and even for actions (the hill dwarf will sometimes choose to make 2 attacks instead of 1 stronger cantrip, and they can have different spells). Different background, and really different feel, imo.

I think we could make easily a quite different third build with a variant tiefling (flying, +1 int +2 dex), focussed on maxing Int as wel as dex, having more spells requiring a saving throw, focussing on all Int skills, and getting reactions with lvl 3 ranger hunter ability (colosus slayer I think, afb), going for a 4 lvl ranger dip).

And that first build, without too much trouble it could also be made with a halfling, gnome, elf or high elf.

And all of it would work, be pretty optimized in the sense that skills fit the max ability scores, DPR is quite high with sneak attack AND greenflame blade AND reaction attacks, and as much as the spell list of arcane trickster allows it, you can vary with spells as needed.

Hope I made clear what I meant!

@Renvir - yes, works great for a new group I started playing with as well. And I'm not missing much from earlier editions.

@Tanarii - indeed!

EDIT: changed build 2 a bit to make it legal, based on comments of various people, fixed ability scores to make multiclass possible.

[Hrugner]

I see your examples, but they follow the same basic pattern. Fill in your bonus action method of getting advantage for your full action, then grab as many reactions as you can manage without sacking your three or four important stats. Use the damaging stat that suits your desired armor level. The alternative method is finding a bonus action attack somewhere and just blasting away without guaranteed advantage.

The output wiggles around a bit, but the actual play is pretty uniform. So much so that I find myself building characters around what would be least boring rather than focusing on a character's rp features or effectiveness.

There are some options of interlocking abilities that could change how combat play worked, but for the most part they're explicitly written out of the rules through things like inflexible attack type requirements, weapon types, per turn requirements, range requirements, and a binary advantage disadvantage system.

The game is really easy to homebrew stuff for and keep it balanced though. That's sort of nice.

[Spacehamster]

@MrStabby - indeed!

@Sir cryosin - agreed, good option as well, I didn't try to be inclusive because there are so many good options :)

@Hrugner - ok, let my try to explain with an example. Let me take two example builds, based on (mostly) the arcane trickster rogue.

Build 1)
human, arcane trickster 20;
Stats: 10, 16, 16, 14, 10, 8 (str, dex, con, int, wis, cha)
ASI/feats: resilient (bonus), +2 dex, sentinel, +2 dex, mage slayer, +2 con, lucky (ending up with 20 dex and 18 con total)
background: sage
skills: history arcana stealth perception acrobatics sleight of hand investigation

Spells: get a cantrip for a light effect, and in any case misty step to teleport next to a caster, when available. Mirror image for defense.

Action economy:
standard: greenflame blade cantrip, spell
bonus action: cunning action, misty step
reaction: sentinel, mage slayer, uncanny dodge

Build 2)
Hill dwarf, arcane trickster 14 / battlemaster 6
stats: 15, 10, 17, 13, 11, 8 (str dex con int wis cha)
ASI/feats: shield bash, +1str/+1con, +2str, +2str, tough, +2con (ends up with 20 str and 20 con)
background: inheritor
skills: survival arcana perception stealth athletics investigation

Spells: spells of build 2 will have as much as possible long either long duration, or only verbal components. So blur for defense, instead of mirror image.

Action economy:
Standard: greenflame blade, attack (2), spell
Bonus: shove (shield basher), cunning action
Reaction: riposte, uncanny dodge


So we have 2 builds, 1 dex based, the other strength based, with skills that fit that difference. One of them more the traditional sneaking, stealing rouge, the other one a very, very tough fighting machine with max con and +3hp/lvl due to race/feat, but with some unexpected tricks compared to the average fighter. One of them specialized in reaction attacks, wielding only a rapier, especially against casters, the other more martial, bashing people to the ground with a shield before attacking, and when needed get a reaction attack with riposte. They have quite different options for bonus actions, for reactions, and even for actions (the hill dwarf will sometimes choose to make 2 attacks instead of 1 stronger cantrip, and they can have different spells). Different background, and really different feel, imo.

I think we could make easily a quite different third build with a variant tiefling (flying, +1 int +2 dex), focussed on maxing Int as wel as dex, having more spells requiring a saving throw, focussing on all Int skills, and getting reactions with lvl 3 ranger hunter ability (colosus slayer I think, afb), going for a 4 lvl ranger dip).

And that first build, without too much trouble it could also be made with a halfling, gnome, elf or high elf.

And all of it would work, be pretty optimized in the sense that skills fit the max ability scores, DPR is quite high with sneak attack AND greenflame blade AND reaction attacks, and as much as the spell list of arcane trickster allows it, you can vary with spells as needed.

Hope I made clear what I meant!

@Renvir - yes, works great for a new group I started playing with as well. And I'm not missing much from earlier editions.

@Tanarii - indeed!

2nd build is not possible with 10 DEX since you need 13 to mc into or out of rogue. :)

[Regitnui]

2nd build is not possible with 10 DEX since you need 13 to mc into or out of rogue. :)

You need minimum attribute to multiclass into classes, but not out of.

[Submortimer]

You need minimum attribute to multiclass into classes, but not out of.

Incorrect. You have to hit the minimums for each class.

[NewDM]

The main draws for me are that its the currently supported system and combat is fast. Everything else is tolerated like that annoying family member that always shows up and talks so much you can't get a word in edgewise.

I came in at 2E though and can role-play checkers. So not a problem.

[Regitnui]

Incorrect. You have to hit the minimums for each class.

That misunderstands what I said. You need minimum attributes to mutliclass into a class. There is no limitation on multiclassing out. You don't have to have Dex 13 to leave the rogue class, but you do if you're in another class and want to become a rogue.

[HoarsHalberd]

That misunderstands what I said. You need minimum attributes to mutliclass into a class. There is no limitation on multiclassing out. You don't have to have Dex 13 to leave the rogue class, but you do if you're in another class and want to become a rogue.

PHB 163: "To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score
prerequisites for both your current class and your new
one, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table."

What he was saying was that you were mistaken. You need it both to enter and leave a class.

[Regitnui]

PHB 163: "To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score
prerequisites for both your current class and your new
one, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table."

What he was saying was that you were mistaken. You need it both to enter and leave a class.

Well, that's odd. Seems strange to me to need minimum abilities to stop being a rogue. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I misunderstood.

[Tanarii]

Well, that's odd. Seems strange to me to need minimum abilities to stop being a rogue.

thats because you think of multiclassing as "stop being" or "leaving" the class. It's multiclassing, not dual classing. You don't stop being the class or leave it, you add a new class to the old one so that you're both at once.

[Grod_The_Giant]

thats because you think of multiclassing as "stop being" or "leaving" the class. It's multiclassing, not dual classing. You don't stop being the class or leave it, you add a new class to the old one so that you're both at once.

But still. If I'm a purely Str-based Rogue I'm fine, but if I want to mix in Barbarian to emphasize that more direct combat style I suddenly can't. It's not a big deal, but it's a bit odd.

[Tanarii]

But still. If I'm a purely Str-based Rogue I'm fine, but if I want to mix in Barbarian to emphasize that more direct combat style I suddenly can't. It's not a big deal, but it's a bit odd.

yeah that's definitely kind of a pain.

Dex Barbs, Str Rangers, Dex Paladins, and caster classes doing a melee build with a dumped casting start (especially Valor Bard, Bladelock and Cleric) run into the same issue.

[Grod_The_Giant]

yeah that's definitely kind of a pain.

Dex Barbs, Str Rangers, Dex Paladins, and caster classes doing a melee build with a dumped casting start (especially Valor Bard, Bladelock and Cleric) run into the same issue.

Yay enforced stereotypes!

I can't help but wonder if, a few years down the road, multiclass ability requirements will be as ignored as multiclass experience penalties were in 3.5.

[Tanarii]

Yay enforced stereotypes!

The PC term is archetypes.

But D&D has always been about its strong archetypes. At least at release. I'm cool with that.

[Regitnui]

Yay enforced stereotypes!

I can't help but wonder if, a few years down the road, multiclass ability requirements will be as ignored as multiclass experience penalties were in 3.5.

I'm already ignoring it. I don't see the point of having minimum stats to multiclass. For entering the class from another, sure. Not to keep advancing in the original.

[Tanarii]

I don't see the point of having minimum stats to multiclass.

Probably to reduce cherry-picking of low level class features. I wouldnt call it very successful given the popularity of 'Dips' in optimizing threads.

[JoeJ]

I'm already ignoring it. I don't see the point of having minimum stats to multiclass. For entering the class from another, sure. Not to keep advancing in the original.

Flavor wise, I think the idea is that it's harder to keep doing one thing while simultaneously adding something else than it would be to just keep doing that one thing by itself.

[Waazraath]

Thnx all for the reminder on multiclass rules this edition. Will update build two by making the dex score 13, at the cost of wisdom and int. Won't change much, though for saving throws and perception it's bad. Oh well.

As for multi classrestrictions: I guess when presenting builds here, it's best to just observe the rules as the are. As for in play: I guess it depends on experience, but I never played with a group that ignored multiclass restriction, not in 5e, but also not the XP rules in 3.x, in over a decade of play. The general tendency was "if you want something special, fine, go ahead and make it work within the rules."

@Hrugner I think I understand your position: your remarks seem mostly aimed at the general structure of 5e? (low variaty of different type of tactics / action uses in general)? For me, it works fine. As specific for the Arcane trickster, since I used it as an example: given the different spells, feats, race, skills and backgrounds, and even more that they enable widely different characters in the role play department, they feel more then different enough. Don't think I'd play 'em two campaigns in a row, but with something totally different in between (like a berserker barbarian or a transmuter wizard), I'd be happy to play 'em both.

[Zalabim]

Thematically, a class that aligns with your attributes comes more easily to learn. If you don't have the attributes for it, it takes more effort to master the class abilities. So there wasn't time to dabble in other classes.

Mechanically, it has an effect on attribute distribution and balance for multiclass characters, but I don't think it's intended as a balancing factor for multiclassed characters. At least, I don't see it breaking the game to ignore it. You're more likely to come up with builds that don't work as well as otherwise, I'd wager.

[Sception]

I like the core of this edition, but expansion material and options have been too thin on the ground for me. I'm already pretty bored of PHB content (not that it's bad, just that it's mostly the same core races, classes, and general archetypes that have been in this game for decades, and I was tired of wizards and rogues and rangers before even 3rd edition was a thing).

I understand not wanting to glut the system with too much splat material, but there's such a thing as too little, too, and while the exact location of that line will vary from player to player, for me 5th edition fall's well below my minimum threshold of new content to maintain interest.

[Zman]

Yep, I love 5e. It fixed most of the problems I had with 3.5. It is simple, yet robust. It is easy to learn and pretty streamlined. Classes have built in variations with subclasses, backgrounds are enriching, and the power levels due to optimization are relatively small competed to previous editions. And monsters stay relevant, at levels 1-2 Orc's are scary, by 5 you are killing them but numbers scare you. It "feels" right to me.

5e allowed me to easily pick it up and run a game with four people who had no 5e experience, one of which never played an RPG before. And the party works, we have a blast.

[Tanarii]

I like the core of this edition, but expansion material and options have been too thin on the ground for me. I'm already pretty bored of PHB content (not that it's bad, just that it's mostly the same core races, classes, and general archetypes that have been in this game for decades, and I was tired of wizards and rogues and rangers before even 3rd edition was a thing).

I've yet to play every single class and race, let alone up to 20, every subclass, all possible weird variant builds, or multiclass combinations. Are you play a bunch of one-shots and really short or quickly abandoned campaigns?

I mean, there's a world of difference between playing a Small race S&B Battlemaster and a Tiefling Greatsword Eldritch Knight. Before you even get into different Backgrounds and personalities. Then there's things like a high Str lower casting-stat Valor Bard or Ranger that focuses on divination & other non-combat spells (ie off-archetype variant builds).

I find I get bored of PHB content for theoretical design in my head or online. But not even close for actual play.

[Hrugner]

@Hrugner I think I understand your position: your remarks seem mostly aimed at the general structure of 5e? (low variaty of different type of tactics / action uses in general)? For me, it works fine. As specific for the Arcane trickster, since I used it as an example: given the different spells, feats, race, skills and backgrounds, and even more that they enable widely different characters in the role play department, they feel more then different enough. Don't think I'd play 'em two campaigns in a row, but with something totally different in between (like a berserker barbarian or a transmuter wizard), I'd be happy to play 'em both.

Certainly it's just a problem with the base game, and one that stems from the feats and rules working on only a few ways of boosting your chances of success. An expansive maneuvers, feats and conditions handbook could give the game enough variability for my tastes.

[JoeJ]

I like the core of this edition, but expansion material and options have been too thin on the ground for me. I'm already pretty bored of PHB content (not that it's bad, just that it's mostly the same core races, classes, and general archetypes that have been in this game for decades, and I was tired of wizards and rogues and rangers before even 3rd edition was a thing).

I understand not wanting to glut the system with too much splat material, but there's such a thing as too little, too, and while the exact location of that line will vary from player to player, for me 5th edition fall's well below my minimum threshold of new content to maintain interest.

Too little? In my day you had your choice of fighter, cleric, magic user, or thief, unless you got really lucky with the dice. You made your characters distinct by roleplaying them, not through some cheap mechanical trick. Damn kids today.

Now get the hell off my lawn!