I'm still very early in the investigation stage of 5e, which of course is still rather incomplete. My initial impressions have been pretty favourable, but I am admitedly not a fan of 4th Edition so I view this as a step in the right direction.
That being said, I've noticed something a little odd. Some classes have a great deal of flexibility to them. You can try different builds and character concepts, and those classes allow for great variety. Examples like the Bard and Fighter, show that you can build a rather nice array of character concepts using them. Whilst some will be mechanically superior, I find that they are more or less all viable. SHould you want to play a melee Bard, an Archer Bard, or a Caster Bard, you can. If you want to play a tank Fighter, a damage Fighter, a magic Fighter, a trick Fighter, you can. This is true in varying degrees to other classes as well,
However, there are a handful of classes that just seem to be very rigid in the way their mechanics work:
Barbarian: I had the idea of building a Dex based Halfling Barbarian. A little whirling dervish of death as it were. But the way Rage works, it offers no benefit. By only increasing damage on Strength based melee attacks, the build concept falls apart. Same goes if you want to make any sort of ranged Barbarian. You technically can, but you lose out on a pretty big class perk.
Monk: The built in limitation on Monk weapons really hinders what could make for some fun builds. Instead of being able to build a Kensai type character, or a polearm Monk, or some other weapon combo that sounds cool, you have this big weapon limitation. The primary mechanic of the class just doesn't allow for much flexibility.
Rogue: Requiring a finesse or ranged weapon for Sneak Attack is another large limiter. It effectively kills off the concept of a Strength based Rogue, unless you go the thrown weapon route. Foe example, a weapon that just screams Rogue, the club, cannot be used on a Sneak Attack. By not allowing a wider variety of weapons, we hit some ugly concept limitations.
Admitedly, none of these are game breaking, and I'm sure that some of the restrictions are based more on mechanical balance than anything else. But it still strikes me as somewhat weak that we have limitations on what are pretty basic character archetypes. Of course, some of these can be fixed with further sourcebooks.
Am I being overly critical here? I mean, I still can technically build any of the concepts I have in mind, but they become more complicated and involve concessions in one form or another.
Jell_Moo wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
You have a point, but it's not as bad as it seems for Monk (Barb and Rogue I totally agree with though.)
Monks, for example, can use a Quarterstaff or Spear just fine in two hands (a technicality, I know, but one I'll definitely be abusing). I agree their list could be longer though.
Rogues should really allow for Light weapons to be added to their list of SA-possible weapons. Finessable and/or Thrown is just such a tiny list when you really break it down.
Buy the Weapon Master Feat for Monks for just more weapons, but honestly once they level up the weapons become kind of irrelevant.
Barabrian is fine, I don't find the idea of Rage and being 300 feet away very compatible. Not every race is going to favor every class otherwise why have races with different stats at all.
I see your point on Rogues. I would think a conversation with your DM could hand wave that rule away fairly painlessly for all simple 1h weapons maybe.
Templar309 wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Totally off topic, but who the heck knew that Bob Ross was responsible for the original AD&D PHB cover?! I always thought it was D.A. Trampier until I saw your avatar, @Jell_Moo. That Bob Ross was one prolific sumonavitch!
Captain_Kobold wrote:
You want to know whats really weird. Rogues are specifically proficient with longswords, but they cant sneakattack with it. Im going to house rule that rogues can sneakattack with longswords as I had a really cool longsword using character made in the playtest. Im also thinking about letting dwarves use sneak attack with their axes and hammers because they are so far behind other races as rogues anyways. Ill just keep it away from great weapons and pole arms.
Jell_Moo wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
I expect we will eventually see a book with new archetypes in it and Ruthless Ruffian will come into existence for rogues in this edition.
Jell_Moo wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
JC999 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
I think there might be a small sidetrack from my original point as we've veered more into the specific case of the Monk. Let me try and re-jig:
I think my issue rests more with how different classes approach this. Let's take 6 of what I'd say are the "primary combat" classes and look at how they function.
Fighter: Multiple options for weapon types, with no strong mechnical abilities holding you down. Probabaly the most versatile combat class in the game (as it should be).
Paladin: Several combat options mostly pertaining to sword and shield or two handed combat. Ability to go off of either Dex or Str.
Ranger: Multiple combat options, ranging from sworc and shield, to two weapon to ranged. Ability to go off of either Dex or Str.
Barbarian: Must use Str based melee weapon for primary class ability.
Rogue: Must use Finesse weapon or ranged for primary class ability.
Monk: Must use small set of Monk weapons to use primary class ability.
Veering away from the Monk for the moment (since it seems to be too heavily focussed int he thread already) the issues I have are:
- Inability to make a Dex based Barbarian even though it seems like a viable archetype.
- Inability use primary Barbarian class mechanic with a thrown weapon Barbarian.
- Inability use staple Rogue weapons like the Club or the Mace with their primary mechanic.
- Inability to make a real Strength based Brute style rogue.
- The odd fact that it's way easier to make a Dex based Paladin than it is to make a Dex based Barbarian.
I see no finesse in Raging. A Barbarian using finesse to rage is just absurd to me. Same goes for a raging Barbie using a bow at 300 feet away.
arnwolf666 wrote:
I'll give you that it really seems like your rages should still allow you to throw things extra hard on a Barbarian. Other than being a little on the MAD side I'm not sure I'm seeing why you can't just make a strength based dual wielding barbarian. Admittedly my axe throwing Halfling totem warrior that I've got going right now would love to be able to go all dex but it's perfectly workable as is.
The heavy rogue weapon restrictions really are the dogs breakfast I agree. Mayhaps down the line a new subclass designed around being more a of a brute will come out. It's not like 4e had every option covered with just the first PHB either.
CetteHamsterLa wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
Templar309 wrote:
Templar309 wrote:
You could read the Barbarian raging handaxe thing a couple of ways. Raging gives its extra damage when you make a "melee weapon attack using strength" . According to the weapons table, handaxes are designated as melee weapons. Even when you are throwing them, you are making an attack with a melee weapon using strength.
Check with your DM. Nicely.
If you want a pure finesse, strength-dumped barbarian build, then you are at a definite disadvantage. However you could still have a decent Dex, make Strength a lower priority, and use finesse weapons with dex, switching to use Str as raging and level abilities make str attacks start to break even.
There is no requirement for barbarians to have to use big weapons. For example I can imagine a barbarian using a couple of hunting knives to do a pretty good impression of an angry buzzsaw as a concept.
I say the word "melee" should just be removed from the Rage attack requirement, but keep the "str-based" in.
That way thrown axes get a bonus but archery can't.
Jell_Moo wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
We will get the 5e equivilent of martial power, arcane power, etc. splat books. I hope. We might not. hard to say how far into extra stuff they're going to go with this edition. Maybe publishing settings, and adventures is all they want to do. I'm sure we'll get psionics in time for Dark Sun. I hope we get adventures set in Eberron and Dark Sun too. Forgettable Realms really better not be the only supported world.
I like a dual wield barbarian and a throwing barbarian too. (Diablo 2, anyone?) Not too hard to make that happen right now if you want to play or DM it, though. Same with a rogue using a club. I'd do what was suggested upthread and change 'melee' to STR-based in any and all barbarian abilites and be done with it. Also, just make a club a finesse weapon and be done with it.
Monks need more monk weapons. Like a monks spade, long spear, 3-piece staff, chain weapon(s), etc. Again, though...Not hard to just make up yourself.
It seems most of the design work went into the wizard and the fighter. Rogue, warlock, and cleric got some love too. Classes like ranger, sorcerer, monk, and barbarian seem added just becase of a perception that people would have thrown a sh**fit if they weren't in the PHB.
I'm not sure how long it took 3e to come out with more stuff, but I know 4e and 2e took years before tons of options were available for classes.
seti wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
seti wrote:
N4M8- wrote:
You have to remember that some classes are very general (Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Somewhat sorcerer, Bard, etc.). But some classes have very disticnt identities to the general public (Barbarians, paladins, monks, etc.). I'm not saying there shouldnt be a dex barbarian rogue eventually, but I can definately see why it wasn't the priority options wise.
Okay, here is a go at a swordsman who is so good he doesn't need armor.
Fighter 12/ Barbarian 3/Rogue 5
Point buy or standard array gives you 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Assign Str 15, Dex 14, Con 13, Wis 12, Cha 10, Int 8
Choose Human variant and add 1 to Str and Con for Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 12, Cha 10, Int 8.
Fighter 12 gives you 4 ability increases/feats
Rogue 5 gives you 1 ability increase/feat
Human variant gives you a feat
Bear Totem gives you resistance to all damage except psychic
Uncanny Dodge gives you a reaction to half the damage you take
If somethings hits you for 20 damage you use your reaction to reduce it to 10, resistance lowers that to 5. Mind you can only use the reaction once per round.
Since hit points represent durability, luck, and avoiding damage, I think we've got a guy who qualifies for not needing armor.
Barbarian Unarmored Combat gives you an AC of 14. If you use two ability increases to up your Con to 18 your AC goes up to 16 on top of you gaining 4 hp per level.
Rogue 2 gives you Cunning Action for a bonus Dash, Disengage, or Hide action during combat
Barbarian gives you Rage damage +2
Fighter 11 gives you 2 extra attacks
Fighter 2 gives you a Fighting Style Dueling--+2 to damage rolls if you are wielding a weapon in one hand and no other weapons
Rogue 5 gives you 3d6 Sneak Attack
Finese weapons can be used with either Str or Dex
With advantage or an ally within 5' of what you're fighting, equipped with a rapier, you end up with 3x (1d8 + 7) + 3d6 for damage. Increasing Str with ability increases twice would push that to 3x (1d8 + 9) + 3d6.
Note: Barbarian Reckless Attack grants you advantage in exchange foes having advantage on you. Of course if you're taking only a quarter damage from incoming attacks, who cares?
Hey gang,
I appreciate the input, I really do, but I think that we're not quite on the same page with the point. It isn't so much "How can I make character concept X with the current rules?". With the right multiclassing and picking of feats, a rough approximation of many archetypes is more than possible. That isn't the issue I'm trying to bring up.
The issue I'm having is that some classes have incredibly flexible class mechanics that allow for multiple builds. The Fighter, Paladin and Ranger allow for a wide variety of builds, from Str based melee, to Dex based melee, to ranaged, to offensive to defensive, etc... They don't have class mechanics that overly restrict you to a single combat style. They may not offer every combat style under the sun (well, the Fighter kinda does) but they offer multiple viable options.
The Barbarian, Mon and Rogue on the other hand... Do not. I cannot make a Dex based Barbarian or a thrown weapon based Barbarian without taking a direct impact to viability as Rage won't work with those fighting styles. I cannot make a strong Monk using anything outside of a small set of weapons, despite the class seemingly being able to support other character archetypes otherwise. I cannot make a Rogue that uses anything other than a finesse or ranged weapon without losing Sneak Attack, despite the fact that things like the club are historical archetypal Rogue weapons, or allowing to to creat a Brute style Rogue.
It's not about me wanting to build actual character conceots, it's about some combat classes offering a wide array of flexibility whilst others do not.
In the case of the Barbarian, I assume it's a balance issue. Dex may just be too good as a primary stat. The Monk may be the same thing, but I find it a little hard to believe that it creates that big of an issue. The Rogue one though is really baffling to me though. I honestly can't see how this is a balance issue at all...
I really don't get all the people suddenly bemoaning a rogue not being able to use a club. They were hardly used by rogues in any edition that I remember. I do feel that they should be able to use longswords one handed. I would rule that a rogue can use any rogue weapon one handed for sneak attacks. That way if you want a MAD stats rogue that values strength you could use a longsword for sneak attacks.
DLfan wrote:
Jenks wrote:
I do rather wish the Finesse part had been left out of the rogue's weapon restriction. In fine with requiring Light weapons, but Light and Finesse is a bit too restrictive in my opinion. What about a dual handaxe-wielding Dwarf Rogue? Or a Gnome Rogue with light hammers?
Devils-Advocate wrote:
I think Sneak Attack's weapons should be changed to "Light OR Finesse." Simple fix that'll allow for the club, light hammer, handaxe and sickle, in addition to what you can already Sneak Attack with, which is pretty much what everyone seems to want.
Simplist class I can think of, would be a mid-4e Companion Character, with a +2 to hit in melee to balance it with PCs.
Most complicated class, has to be the late-3e Psionic Artificer ; especially since nobody really knows how it works.
Hopefully 5e classes can vary between those extremes.
Leugren wrote: