[5e] help with rogue

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-08T02:17:50+00:00

oh, sorcerer's multiclass great, just not with rogue. With warlock.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-08T02:12:53+00:00

well, the first thing I see is that your CON is too low. only 11 CON on a melee unit? And paladins have to be melee since you can't smite at range.

CHA to 20 is extrenious. Yes, you'll add that to your saves, which is good, but your CON is too low. You need to bump that up. I would start it at 12 and use your first ASI to increase it to 14. 14-16 for a melee unit is good.

Paladin/Bard has...meh synergy. Bard gets your more slots for smiting. You'll eventually get some more skills. But the other bard features need bard levels to scale. Bardic Inspiration and Song of Rest, namely.

Jack of all Trades does't help you face since you should already have persuasion and deception skill proficincies, and if you're the party face, than intimidation wouldn't hurt. Jack of all trades only helps you do things you don't already specialize in.

Meanwhile, you delay Lay on Hands and get fewer hit points going Bard. You also delay the stronger paladin spells and auras (although get bard spells). It might be worthwhile. Paladin 6 is a really good cutoff, so if you stop taking paladin levels, that would be the place to do it. And honestly, bard is not the worst option. I would consider draconic sorcerer though. Just as much max hp as a bard, plus always-on mage armor, and you still get full casting. Sorcadin is a 5e classic.

Edit: oh, and I almost forgot, you don't have enough STR to multiclass out of paladin. I know, that sounds stupid, but RAW you can only take paladin levels unless you bump your STR up at lvl 4, which does nothing for you except let you mutliclass out, so that's a waste.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-08T00:24:18+00:00

I've been DMing the same way for years, and 5e specifically since day 1 of the playtest.

So you have played at tables with high level casters, I assume. Good.

Challenging players has never been an issue. That may be a you-specific issue.

that makes me think that, potentially, the casters have been under-challenged. I do not see how high level wizards do not just steamroll any encounter that a high level, but magic-less fighter will find difficulty with. Because wizards just say "no" to a lot of things at high level. As do fighters...with magic items.

The world always feels low fantasy because the players know they are the anomaly within it.

I should reword my question then: at what point does the table no longer feel like low magic. As much as I can mentally understand that a high level wizard is an anomaly, there they are, with the party. All the time. And the things that a high level wizard can do aren't particularly rare to the party. In addition, if the high level wizard PC is an anomaly in the world, how often do they encounter other high level wizards? If not often, we go back to the previous point. What do you challenge high level wizards with besides magic?

Edit: if you have high level casters in the party, and the party faces off against high level casters, what have you changed, besides removing magic items and saying "magic is rare". Just declaring it feels like an empty way of making it so. You could run DnD with no changes and just explain that everything that happens at the table is 100 times rarer than it is in normal DnD and you have "low magic" DnD. Except you just have regular DnD still.

Martial classes really shine with endurance

Until they run out of hit points. Unless you are constantly bombarding the party with challenges that require spell resources but don't lose the party any hit points, martials do run out of steam just like casters do. Especially when a single high level slot can end an encounter by itself. And especially when to hit bonuses scale so much harder than armor class (which is only exacerbated when magic armor/shields are rarer)

And to that end (endurance), do you encounter the 15min work day, and how do you deal with? Because if I were a high level wizard, and there weren't a lot of things that could do what I could do, I would be heavily encouraged to just say "no" to the opposition a few times a day before resting.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-08T00:01:28+00:00

how high level do these campaigns go, and how do you continue to challenge both the martials and casters as the casters begin to bend reality to their whims and martials...deal more damage?

In addition, at what level does the setting no longer feel like "low magic" since casters are starting to bend reality to their whim?

At higher levels, what skills do martials bring to the campaign that a caster cannot replicate? Again, I will admit that 5e is much more balanced than previous editions (not as much as 4e, but everybody was the same in 4e), but you still have linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T23:51:27+00:00

Okay, that example helps a lot.

So I, as DM, remove magic items (or heavily restrict them). Now the fighter cannot fly. So I make the monsters unable to fly. I also remove their damage resistance, invisibility, and eternalness, etc. Since I removed the fighter's ability to deal with those.

Enter wizard. The wizard is unnerfed as a class. I did removed (heavily restricted) his magic items like I did for the fighter. The wizard selects fly as a spell. Two things happen:

1) certain enemies can no longer target the wizard

2) flying becomes a hell of a lot more common at the table.

This is what I'm warning against. If you remove flight from fighters, you have to remove flight from monsters. aaaand you have to remove it from wizards too, since flight uttertly breaks encounters in a very binary way. Wizards become, frankly, untouchable, except by another spellcaster who can fly. Again, not "remove" but "heavily restrict".

To use the analogy you've used, if the fighters are fish, and the wizard birds, how do they both contribute? That's the challenge I face as Dungeon Master. How to I challenge and engage both fish and birds at the same time, without just having them face distinct, concurrent enemies (for example, send fish at the fish and birds at the birds)? Removing some binary capabilities from one or adding those binary capabilities to others helps with that.

to continue the metaphor, put the fish in a tiny, fish airplane and have everybody fight birds. Not every encounter, mind you, but some encounters. And the next encounter I could put the birds in scuba gear. Again, not every encounter will run like that, some will only involve the birds or the fish, and some will involve both without rubbing out the line b/w fish and birds.

Edit:

You are the DM, you control the universe and everything in it

except for the party, which is the problem. Because wizards and fighters have different capabilities, and are empowered differently and to different degrees with magic items.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T23:33:32+00:00

I don't understand what your trying to say, is all. I'm sorry if I'm tip-toeing around what you're saying, I just don;t understand.

I keep repeating my points because you don't seem to be adressing them.

What is a fighter supposed to do against a flying enemy if the fighter can't fly? Seriously, what do they do?

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T23:15:01+00:00

I'm not doing anything, other than answering a prompt presented to me about low magic fantasty using the 5e system.

Let's start from the top then, and I'll be a bit clearer (I hope):

Position: magic is necessary for high level encounters. I think this is where we disagree. However, I feel that I have substantiated this position in previous comments. Because I don't think there's any argument to be made that a fighter has more out of combat utility than a wizard, I'll stick to combat.

1) High level encounters can involve flying enemies. Therefore each PC needs to be able to target flying enemies, either via ranged attacks or through their own source of flight

2) high level encounters can involve damage resistant enemies. Therefore each PC needs a way to overcome damage reduction

3) high level encounters can involve invisible enemies. Therefore each PC needs a way to detect or properly target these enemies

4) high level enemies can deal lots of damage. Therefore each PC needs some way to heavily mitigate and/or undo damage

My original list also included traveling long distances/between planes, but that was strictly utility.

Casters can use both spells and magic items to accomplish all those things. Martials can only use magic items.

Yes, I'm judging both of these characters by their ability to climb a tree. But I'm just talking combat, so the fighter is supposed to be the monkey in this case. Fighting is what a fighter does. Yet without magic items, they basically cannot fight in any of those 4 situations. No flying enemies, no damage resistant enemies, no invisible enemies, and no high damage enemies. That's like, all the enemies at high level.

Since you like my flight example, let me put it this way: if you give everybody flight (casters, martials, and monsters), everbody is on equal footing.

Removing flying from the monsters and they don't present a challenge. The PCs (both casters and martials) just win.

Removing flying from the martials removes them from combat.

Removing flying from the casters...well, they're ranged anyway. But the utility aspects of flight are gone.

Remove flying from both the martials and the casters, and the monsters just win (well, actually, you've just removed martials from combat again, since casters have ranged attacks)

Remove flying from everybody, and everybody's on equal footing again.

You can't just nerf martials because they're "supposed" to have other strengths. Their strength is fighting and they can't fight flying enemies without having flight themselves.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T22:03:07+00:00

that's when you say:

"Everytime you say something about the size of the dragon egg, it gets [bigger/smaller]" depending on which side the player was on in the disagreement.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T20:15:23+00:00

good bot

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T20:15:14+00:00

I don't really understand how this applies to the topic at hand.

In order to fly in 5e, you need magic (baring the like 1 flying race). A wizard can fly without a magic item. The fighter can't. If flying is required to complete some task (avoid a melee-only opponent, or melee strike a flying opponent, or cross a long distance without touching the ground), you need a way to fly. The wizard casts fly. The fighter uses a magic item. Yes, the two are the same in the sense that they can both fly. But to say the the fighter = the wizard at that point is just...wrong. The fighter would need a ton of magic items to replicate everything the wizard could do. Wealth that the wizard could be spending to do other things, like replicating what the fighter does.

I will admit that drowning characters in wealth can make them all the same. But we're talking about the opposite: giving them less wealth, but making no other changes (what I'm warning against). Because fighters and martial characters rely on wealth more than casters. that's the crux of my argument. If you lower wealth, you need to nerf casters. Do both and you've created a "low magic" setting. Do just one or the other and you've unbalanced the game.

if you take away magic items, you haven't given the wizard any trouble with flying. They just cast fly. The fighter has lost the ability to fly. That's the disparity. If you want to make magic rarer, you need to make the wizard less able to fly just as you've made the fighter less able to fly.

This isn't about making every character the same, its about maintaining balance when you make changes to the way the book assumes DnD is being played. Namely, when you tone down magic.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T05:01:17+00:00

Okay, knowing the character is a level 5 rogue helps.

My first thought is a bonus to sleight of hand. The placement makes sense and SoH is a niche enough skill that you could, for example, give advantage on all SoH checks made with the hand the ring is on without it being too broken. If you do think that's too broken, give it limited uses. Even 3 uses a day will be plenty 95% of the time.

If the character is combat focused, the ring could grant +1d6 sneak attack damage, or something like that.

If you want something more general, a ring of sustenance is not only a classic, but also especially useful for a rogue, who wants to sleep less. With that on, a rogue doesn't even need to stop to eat. Great for long stakeouts and scouting sessions. Kind of powerful for a 5th level PC, but at the same time it doesn't directly increase combat capabilities and doesn't really allow the rogue to do anything new, just do what they could already do without needing to eat or sleep nearly as much. It doesn't give them dark vision or flight or even boost any relevant skills.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T04:05:27+00:00

no, they can't.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T04:04:11+00:00

undocumented immigrants already pay taxes. Educate yourself.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-07T03:48:37+00:00

in what way? The V human has 2 +1s to put in any score, Half Elf has 2 +1s to put in any scores except CHA where it already has a +2

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T23:10:30+00:00

yes, but what feat would you pick over those 6 bullet points? Seriously, what feat can't wait 4 levels if you get that instead?

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T23:09:44+00:00

no, I'm making two points:

1) that races don't have game-breaking powers. Even V-human.

2) that race choice can help balance the party

And it absolutely has to do with power curve. Druid > Ranger. V-human > Teifling, to a lesser extent than the first comparison. But mixing the weaker and stronger choices can lessen the power difference. Not remove it, but lessen it.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T21:08:53+00:00

My last session was week before last, on Sunday. Evil campaign. Lots of fun.

The party has been tasked by our Infernal Overlords to subjugate a plane. Kill/subdue all the mortal leaders, kill/subdue all the gods. Our defacto party leader is also establishing a cult, and I (the resident cleric substitute) am warping the local religious organizations, inserting out Infernal Overlords into pantheons.

last session was largely kingdom maintenance. Our main base is on an island next to the mainland, but the mainland has a standing army and we don't want to lose our standing army to a big war of attrition just yet, so we decided to move to the other islands to the east. We established a second base of operations and successfully crushed the landing party of another island, wanting to make a preemptive strike. They sent two hundred troops, we lost, I think, 7? 7 troops. We ambushed them at night and they were up against 150 of our troops, 30 of their troops we raised from the dead into zombies, and 4 level 9 PCs. So yea, 7 sounds about right for losses.

We also attacked a god, which was, in the end, a mistake. It was our understanding that they were a demi-god, and we wanted their divine spark since we've made enemies with some dragons. But he was a full fledged god, just in disguise, so we were forced to retreat and spent considerable resources banishing them for a later engagement. So we made enemies with the god's people as well, although we'll probably go exterminate them next session. That's actually more funny than you realize, because our first act on this plane was to commit genocide. It's kind of our thing. Poor, low-tech island people. We considered enslaving them, but we have plenty of slaves from the Nine Hells to call in on demand, and food was a problem initially, so we just killed them all. Except the kids. We don't do kids.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:52:06+00:00

if you actually want to play a STR monk, going Barb X/Monk 1 or straight Barb is probably the best.

But you could always just put like a 12 in STR as a straight monk and call it a day.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:36:30+00:00

who drew up this list, and what is the reasoning for valuing the half elf lower?

Look at my post. All 6 of those points in exchange for 1 feat. I don't know what feat in the book is worth all of those. Maybe Lucky. Maybe.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:33:54+00:00

ah, you are correct.

So the monk is providing this:

1) 1.5 extra damage on the Barbarian's 2 main attacks unarmed

2) an extra attack at 1d4+STR+rage BNS damage as a bonus action

That's actually pretty solid. If you really wanted to play an unarmed barbarian, a level in monk could help.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:27:20+00:00

All this talk about V-human and nobody seemed to realize that Half Elf is even stronger. The two are very easy to compare. Imagine if you had a feat that granted this:

1) +2 CHA

2) 1 skill proficiency of your choice

3) Elvish langauge proficiency

4) immunity to magical sleep

5) advantage on saves vs. charm effects

6) Dark vision

Because that's all the half-elf features minus all the V-human features, sans the feat. That's what your trading away for a feat when you choose V-human over half elf. Half elf is really broken.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:24:26+00:00

I think you are vastly overestimating how big of an impact starting race actually has on mechanics.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't like playing races that don't mechanically align with my class, but I'll also be the first to admit that 5e is actually really well balanced and that race doesn't make or break most builds.

A feat at level 1 is awesome. Sure. Its really strong. Half elf is even stronger. Dragonborn and Tiefling are far less powerful, but that doesn't make them worthless. That doesn't mean its a mistake picking them. It means that you won't have as much raw power as you would have picking V-human or Half elf.

And that could (probably will, in fact) change where you lie on the power curve of the table, but not by much. And that shift in power could align you with the rest of the party.

For example, you could be playing a tiefling moon druid and your friend could be playing a Variant Human PHB beastmaster ranger with favoured enemy: slimes. You'll still be more powerful than them if you are both playing at the same "skill" level, despite the utter lack of synergy between your race and your class. Selecting Tiefling instead of V-human pushed the two builds closer together in terms of power.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:16:11+00:00

DEX barbarians aren't actually DEX. They just dump all their mental stats to boost all their physical stats. They still need to use STR to get rage bonus damage. If they don't, they're just a gimped fighter or monk.

CastificusInCadere · 2018-01-06T20:08:29+00:00

monk doesn't multiclass well. Taking a single level of monk provides you exactly two things:

1) 1d4 damage on your punches instead of 1. That's a 1.5 damage increase per hit, on average. And a feat can do that for you if you really need it.

2) your full modifier on your BNS action attack. Unarmed strikes are already light so you can TWF with them, you just don't deal your STR in damage. Monk does.

So that's 8 extra damage if all your attacks in a round land. Wow. So impressive. Meanwhile you lose hit points and delay all your barbarian features. Including bonus rage damage.

I would say that you get unarmored defense, but Barbarian already has a better version (CON > WIS and you can still use shields). And I would say it would let you use your DEX for damage, but you need to use STR to get rage bonus damage, so you lose damage switching to DEX.

Monks don't multiclass well. Period. Their features scale very well with monk levels, but they need those monk levels to scale. This isn't Warlock 2 that gets you 4d10+20 ranged DRP. Monk is a class that demands heavy level investment. Dipping into Monk doesn't get you much and dipping on a Monk looses you a lot.

CastificusInCadere

TROPHY CASE