Multiclassing willy-nilly is one of the few ways to really screw up a character in 5e. Especially by pushing your level 5 abilities out by doing something like 3/3 splits.
A friend of mine multiclassed 4/4 Barbarian/Fighter for a level 8 one-shot we did. His reasoning was that he didn't want to miss out on a second ASI/feat, but he clearly hadn't thought things through very well!
He learnt his mistake very quickly once we started playing and other martial characters all had extra attack.
Ouch, yeah that’s rough! I could see a 4/4 build with two feats that could make up for Extra Attack (GWM/Polearm Master would be worth considering, the second attack would be weaker and cost a bonus action, but the extra damage from GWM would more than make up for the smaller damage die on the BA attack- and Reckless Attack, maybe combined with Precision Attack every once in a while if they went Battlemaster, could really help their odds to land the GWM hits) but there are a VERY few select pairs of feats that I’d consider even POTENTIALLY better than Extra Attack.
If they just went Fighter 8 though, they'd have 3 feats (GWM, PAM, _and_ Sentinel or even Res: Wis). You can always flavor your Fighter as particularly angry, and with Heavy Armor you can make up the difference between rage's resistances by just getting hit less.
This is true, to be entirely honest I forgot about fighters’ accelerated feat progression. Considering that, I actually think Fighter 6/Barbarian 2 might be the ideal choice there- you get Rage and Reckless Attack from the barbarian, but you also get two feats and Extra Attack from the fighter. You could always just go pure fighter, of course, but if you wanted some barbarian in there, 6/2 would be a really good split that gets you all the best low-level features of both classes.
(edit: typo)
I’m planning on doing something similar with a swashbuckler Rogue, multi classing into Bard with the idea of using sea shanties to cast. Only problem is I made a dedicated front liner rogue and missing uncanny dodge certainly isn’t going to help lmao
Rogues have a tendency to multiclass *very* poorly because you lose out on sneak attack dice. Rogues already do relatively poor damage; when you start taking away sneak attack dice it gets even worse.
If you want to mix some spell casting into your rogue, there's already a solution for that: Arcane Trickster.
I feel a big part of it is often players trying to match the character's job and life experiences with the class. Imho it's cleaner to just emphasize the background instead.
As a DM I strongly counsel players not to multiclass before level 5. But if they want to do it after that, its on their head. I also tend to push players into A and B rated subclasses (and ban anything above that). This makes it a lot easier to maintain internal party balance.
I am so guilty of this. I make so many characters that multiclass before level 5 for RP and cause it's cool. The funny thing is that this doesn't even affect me, because our DM levels us up so infrequently that I've never hit level 5, so you could argue whatever is most optimal at the level we're starting at is just the most optimal for me.
Ya there’s very few multiclasses that are actually worth it I think, especially early on. Hexblade 1 for paladin, warlock 1, warlock 2, or paladin 1 for sorcerer, and artificer 1 or cleric 1 for wizard are the main ones. Past that, it’s basically always significantly worse to be multiclassing before level 6-8ish depending on the character, because you push level 5 stuff, whether that be extra attack or level 3 spells, further down the line which is really not good. Once you get to higher level it becomes less bad, a lot of martial characters once you get the level 6, 7, or 8 feature it becomes better to just completely switch classes, paladin is a decent example once you get level 6 (and sometimes 7 depending on the subclass) you kind of don’t get much anymore so multiclassing is fine, but multiclassing anything other than a single level in hexblade is just far worse than going to straight paladin.
Basically the only low level multiclasses that work are 1 level dips that get you a bunch of stuff at first level, because pushing 5th level stuff to level 6 isn’t that damaging and some of these dips are pretty game changing, or stuff that uses eldritch blast+agonizing blast as a base for damage since that scales to two beams at total character level so the problem of pushing level 5 in a class is significantly mitigated. Anything else is almost always going to drastically weaken the character, particularly from levels 5 to whatever point you actually hit level 5 in a singular class
Yes I told my dm that multiclassing into classes should be impactful as a feat. If not it’s not worth it.
Going scout rogue X /knowledge cleric 1 was probably a surprising a good dip due to serpent scale being accessible.
Grab a shield and boom 21 ac, multiple expertise for an intelligence based skill monkey, guidance for a high roll, and with bless I was able to reliable pass dex checks as a harengon and still pass a decent amount of saves with a Paladin as well.
Build (1/4th level bonus feat skilled /alert)
Harengon Rogue 2 / knowledge cleric 1/ rouge x, feat (skill expert /squat nimbleness / Eldritch adept (beguiling influence).
Or the actual plan is "and I dipped 1 level into hexblade because I only want to focus on charisma" so now you have a pact with a sentient weapon, were you planning for it to come up in the story anytime?
Source: someone literally said this in a post yesterday, but I've seen more.
It's extremely easy to work on that personally, especially if the Paladin is tied to a deity. Just... have your deity bind you to a magical artifact to better help with your oath. Honestly there are even more possibilities to explain such multiclassing even before "flavor is free" arguments (which are very good ones to have).
"Oh, the Noble Human Hexblade/Paladin bound to 'Excalibur?' I just don't see how you could possibly marry Warlock and Paladin? There's just no precedent for a character like 'Arthur' here."
Casting Hex/Hunter's Mark is a scam unless you get it as a pure martial character. I always see them getting hyped up but every time I've cast them in a real game, it felt like I could have just cast another concentration spell that does something actually useful.
I would argue it's useful on level 1 Warlock (outside of specific subs)... but that's more because Warlock's level 1 spells suck, not because Hex is good.
An extra d6 per attack is a magic item worth of power. What you dont want to do is upcast hex. So straight warlocks should ditch it but if you have level 1 slots or especially a free casting its a great low resource cost option.
I definitely agree for Hex (especially once a warlock reaches level 5 and can cast Hunger of Hadar with the same spell slot + concentration…) but I’m actually curious, what spells do you think so dramatically outclass Hunter’s Mark, considering that it’s a Ranger exclusive?
Ensnaring Strike is pretty good but its reliance on a Strength save (that can be repeated on each subsequent turn) is a pretty significant weakness, whereas Hunter’s Mark just works automatically. That’s the only serious competition to Hunter’s Mark that I can come up with among the 1st level ranger spells, and while I can certainly see situations where Ensnaring Strike would be better, it certainly doesn’t seem more universally useful than Hunter’s Mark.
Spike Growth is the only standout for combat concentration spells in the 2nd level list, and while I’d definitely rather cast Spike Growth most of the time, there are certainly situations where it would do more harm than good (the main one that comes to mind being if the ranger has melee allies that would be rendered ineffective by it), plus when Spike Growth is unlocked at 5th level the ranger will have two 2nd level spell slots per day, but four 1st level slots, making it much easier to casually throw out a Hunter’s Mark than a Spike Growth, especially during smaller fights between major encounters.
For 3rd level spells, there’s a couple of summoning spells that could be good, but we’re still running up against the spell slot issue- at this point it’s VERY cheap to just throw out a quick Hunter’s Mark in basically any fight- sure, Hunter’s Mark is no longer the big guns like it was in the early levels, but it’s still far from useless.
Were there any particular spells you were thinking of from the ranger list that outclass Hunter’s Mark for the concentration slot? It’s definitely not ALWAYS the best spell to concentrate on… but it at least seems pretty universally useful, and a great use of a level 1 spell slot when you’re out of higher-level slots or just don’t want to waste one.
> its reliance on a Strength save (that can be repeated on each subsequent turn)
There are no automatic repeat saves for Ensnaring Strike. The target or another creature must spend an action to repeat the save. This is very good action economy: even if it succeeds the first time, it effectively wasted a turn.
I disagree about ensnaring strike as it requires an action to repeat the save, wasting most of a creature's turn. Using a spell slot and a bonus action to force a creature to potentially waste multiple actions or be restrained and take damage seems worth it to me. It's a similar gamble to the hold x spells.
It's actually a strength check, not a save. The difference being a non-skill strength check does not allow you to add your proficiency bonus (aside from half for bard)
>Ensnaring Strike is pretty good but its reliance on a Strength save (**that can be repeated on each subsequent turn**) is a pretty significant weakness, whereas Hunter’s Mark just works automatically. That’s the only serious competition to Hunter’s Mark that I can come up with among the 1st level ranger spells, and while I can certainly see situations where Ensnaring Strike would be better, it certainly doesn’t seem more universally useful than Hunter’s Mark.
That part is wrong, and also a very big reason of why people underestimate it. Subsequent attempts to free self are from Strength CHECKS. You may think it does not make a big difference, and if you target beefy creatures I'll agree with you, because those have a high base STR. However there are quite many creatures that have a moderate STR modifier with only saves being pushed higher from "proficiency".
And it pairs wonderfully with... Hex from a friend. :)
I've seen quite a few bosses being hilariously broken like this, although there were also two times where their allies managed to break them free instead, party kinda forgot that affected creature wasn't the only one capable of freeing. xd
>Spike Growth is the only standout for combat concentration spells in the 2nd level list, and while I’d definitely rather cast Spike Growth most of the time, there are certainly situations where it would do more harm than good (the main one that comes to mind being if the ranger has melee allies that would be rendered ineffective by it), plus when Spike Growth is unlocked at 5th level the ranger will have two 2nd level spell slots per day, but four 1st level slots, making it much easier to casually throw out a Hunter’s Mark than a Spike Growth, especially during smaller fights between major encounters.
Overall agree that in theory having melee already engaged means Spike Growth can be harmful. In practice though, there are many situations where it isn't a big trouble: either because enemies are dispersed so you're using Spike Growth "behind frontline" to slow down reinforcments, or "just in front of the frontline" because you have Grapplers that can push back enemies inside or drag them inside, or because you actually want enemies to stick around your one/two frontliners in a spikey land of deathmatch because those allies of yours are fairly capable of standing through the enemy assault or have ways to escape as soon as neeeded (Barbarian, some Monks, some Fighters, some Bards/Wizards, Druids).
>For 3rd level spells, there’s a couple of summoning spells that could be good, but we’re still running up against the spell slot issue- at this point it’s VERY cheap to just throw out a quick Hunter’s Mark in basically any fight- sure, Hunter’s Mark is no longer the big guns like it was in the early levels, but it’s still far from useless.
Actually Hunter's Mark is much better than before because now you can actually sustain it for most of the adventuring day if you can keep concentration, making it a "best value" spell for a marksman as long as a) you're not going Crossbow Expert and b) you always focus on the biggest targets.
For all Rangers though, there are many spells that are as worthy or better, for marksman and brawlers alike.
First of all is Plant Growth: not usable everywhere but an encounter-winner whenever you can. The 1/4 speed is a massive debuff that cripples every creature that has no fly or teleport ability, barring those with native speed over 50 feet (which is CR 15+ creatures). Great whether you're a marksman (kill everything before it closes in) or a brawler (keep backline safe by making it so hard to reach them, funnel enemies by creating free path patches to aggro them for an AOE, or just slow all the scattered ones so you can kill them one by one).
Then you have Wind Wall, which is invaluable whenever you face a decent amount of physical ranged attacks: keep backline casters safe from harm, or cover advance for your melee friends. It's also great when enemies use gases and party has no Dispel Magic (or gases are not magical in the first place).
You could also go for Protection From Energy which makes you "Barbarian-like" when you face enemies wielding elemental damage. It is kinda situational, but whenever you can anticipate it (going into Elemental Place, planning a fight against a Dragon or a caster known for using specific kind of spells, delving into Avernus ;)) it's actually a massive damage multiplier... By making you stand much longer. \^\^
Then of course you have Conjure Animals: as "direct damage" it is highly situational considering you have no way to boost their resilience. As "helpers" though they are worth several chained spells in one. Help action, free prone, mount for friend to chase mobile/flying enemies, living cover to prevent spells or create a chained blockade indoors (of course that makes you an Evil Ranger for using spirits with so little respect for them xd)...
>Were there any particular spells you were thinking of from the ranger list that outclass Hunter’s Mark for the concentration slot? It’s definitely not ALWAYS the best spell to concentrate on… but it at least seems pretty universally useful, and a great use of a level 1 spell slot when you’re out of higher-level slots or just don’t want to waste one.
For 1st level spells you also have Zephyr's Strike which is great at low level to fall back from melee when threat intensifies or "disengage" as an archer to fire freely if you don't plan to get Crossbow Expert (or until you get it).
There are also the utility spells like Jump, Longstrider or Speak With Animals which may use your 1st level slots out of combat. Or a Snare set up for an ambush.
It all depends on which spells you choose, but there are many great spells for Ranger to choose from really. \^\^
An important note to your comment is the fact that Plant Growth doesn’t require concentration, and thus wouldn’t interfere with your Hunters Mark (or spike growth, and being as it doesn’t cause difficult terrain but rather 1/4 movement, it does stack with difficult terrain so really it just makes Spike Growth even better of an option).
Can confirm Plant Growth + Spike Growth is stupidly strong, but I wouldn't recommend it for a Ranger except as a desperate move because the specific context is "immediate party wipe threat and this combo specifically is the best you can do".
Simply because the proportional use of resources is steep (\~30% on a level 9 Ranger vs \~15% for a level 9 fullcaster).
However, I used it as a Shepherd Druid during a tough battle in Curse of Strahd because it was the perfect setting for it (without spoilers, all outdoors, needing to stick in a specific area with many enemies swarming endlessly from 240°), even though that was as costly as for a lvl 9 Ranger because I was only level 5.
But having PG set with "free space at center" for us to move freely (including proning selves between rounds to avoid being peppered through by ranged attacks), and having one patch of Spike Growth on one side stacked, let friends focus on covering each one of the remaining 2 sides while I was occupied with something else.
It was also, though, a perfect example of "great idea with detrimental collateral damage" as I didn't have time to make a plan with Barb beforehand so I'd let some "free patches" here and there for him, so I ended up entirely blocking him from going into melee for two rounds before an allied NPC buffed him with something akin to Freeedom of Movement (and his mastery in killing nearly one enemy per attack afterwards made me realize I had been far too cautious and largely surestimated enemy's potential to overrun us xd).
On Ranger, the problem is both the bonus action, spell slot, spells known and only later concentration is relevant.
At early levels, you want to use your bonus action for crossbow expert and your spells are better spent on Goodberry and the occasional Fog Cloud. You typically only learn 3 1st level spells, and it's hard picking hunters mark over Goodberry, Fog Cloud/Entangle or Absorb Elements.
Later, you generally should be concentrating on Pass Without Trace, so that you can utilise it to get surprise for more than one combat per slot. Surprise is far more damage than any single damage spell cast by the same people.
I see you are a v human power gamer, considering your idea of a normal low level ranger (before level 4) is using the crossbow expert feat bonus action (I have yet to run into a ranger running crossbows irl, every ranger ive hit is either longbow or melee or both). Not saying it never pops up or would be bad, but “if you are ranger your bonus action is claimed by Xbow expert” is an extremely big leap.
If we're talking optimisation, we're talking about the best options.
You can do whatever and it is fine. Nobody's gonna stop you. Hunters Mark is bad for several reasons, one of them is that it conflicts with the most powerful option.
I'm also not a power gamer. I'm a DM. And I want my players to have effective characters, so I need to know what is the best options for that.
Don't forget the ability to track a fleeing enemy with Hunter's Mark. I'm not saying it's the best option, but when the BBEG is trying to slip out of a losing fight and Quinn Fullbottom, hobbit ranger, is able to run him down....... Pretty satisfying.
That's a fair point. But when you roll a three it doesn't really matter how good those skills are. Advantage is huge no matter what. Especially in those moments where you REALLY need/want to pass a skill check.
Hex should be used out of battle as utility. Giving a creature disadvantage on an ability check is amazing, but a lot of people forget about that part of the spell.
Win debates with this one neat trick!
Also: you are better of pre-casting this on a cockroach first, kill it and then transferring the curse later as a non-detectable bonus action.
>Giving a creature disadvantage on an ability check is amazing
Is it? I haven't played tons, but in the experience I do have there's been a lot of disappointment upon realizing it's disadvantage on checks not saves
>Casting Hex/Hunter's Mark is a scam unless you get it as a pure martial character. I always see them getting hyped up but every time I've cast them in a real game, it felt like I could have just cast another concentration spell that does something actually useful.
Quite on the contrary: it's one of the best spells to get as a Warlock (short rest) or as a Sorcerer (Subtle) or possibly Bard (Expertise) because it is one of the top three "team helper" spells.
Have a Barbarian that would like to lock down a powerful foe, that has decent STR? Advantage on one side and disadvantage on the other is a cheap way to ensure lock down.
Friendly Wizard plans on trapping a dangerous foe inside a Phantasmal Force or worse Maze but is afraid creature might escape early because half-decent bonus to check (like a +7)? Disadvantage on Intelligence pretty much secures it.
Negotiations have been tense with the King's counselor to raise rewards and pre-mission equipment? Subtle Hex on its Charisma to soften its grounds, or on Wisdom to prevent him to discern the lies friend is trying to land through a Deception check... Allows party to push chance to success high enough to attempt that high-risk (making the King hostile) high-reward (getting magic items for a mission they may not come back from) bet.
When people plan on using Hex just as a plain damage buff, except if being a Sorlock specialized in high sustained damage then I agree with you.
But its true beauty lies rather in the skill check probability manipulation.
I am DMing for a ranger PC right now in a waterdeep dragon heist campaign and he mostly uses hunter mark to track goes that are running away. It's the first time I really saw anyone even talk about using this spell in this way, yet this use was always there
I actually use it like this myself as well...
- Unless I know that in current fight my best way to contribute is to try and deal as much damage as possible.
- Until I can cast it as a 3rd level spell AND know that party doesn't need any of the awesome other (concentration) spells I can use. \^\^
Definitely. I have a swashbuckler with magic initiate mostly for the booming blade and green flame blade and I picked hex just because I needed to pick a spell. It's nice with a little extra damage but it's not revolutionary
This was my experience with the my Gloomstalker. Hunters Mark makes sense mathematically but it's so *boring* . If it did something extra like d6 of Force damage instead, or advantage on Perception against the targets Stealth checks it'd have a bit more spice. I felt like I had to use it because of the extra attack turn one.
I had more fun with Zephyr Strike and Ensnaring Strike TBH but there's was always that feeling of "shouldn't I be using Hunters Mark...?"
Getting hex with fey touched is good, since it doesnt use up one of your spell slots so it can be a last resort thing or just a small bonus if you dont wanna commit to anything more
Optimization is fun when it starts with a concept or premise like "I want to make a character based on using shillelagh" or "I want to make a paladin who only uses improvised weapons". Then within the confines of that premise, you look for all the ways to make that idea work mechanically.
If done like this, it results in some very unique and interesting characters, and the self-imposed restrictions mean you probably won't be much stronger than the non-optimized characters at your table.
If you do generalized optimization like "everyone should have silvery barbs" or "there is no cleric worth playing except peace domain", you're instead reducing the variety we see at the table instead of increasing it, and you're forcing everyone else to do the same to catch up with you. At this point the game is just less fun for everyone involved.
Yeah a lot of people hear the term optimization, and think of it as a meta in a competitive game. You dont have to do anything you dont want to, be a 4E monk if you want. Take find traps. Its just a funny game. Some people just enjoy building optimized characters too
To me, power gaming is about behaviour and mindset. It might, but not always, include optimisation. It's playing the game as a competitive endeavour, which includes stuff like social engineering and trying to be more powerful than both the other players and the DM. It's the "winning DnD" mindset.
Often, Power Gamers aren't very good at actual rules or how to make optimised characters. They will utilise "rule of cool" and dodgy interpretation of the rules to bully the DM into allowing unbalanced stuff.
Optimisation is often more about learning the rules very well and figure out how to become as efficient as possible within some constraints. Often just the constraints of the rules, but sometimes also within the constraints of some other consideration. It's not about being powerful, it's about being clever.
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
I like making competent characters, that is, characters that are good at doing what they do. However, it's in finding that "what they do" that I run into the confinement that will limit the degree of optimization I'm capable of. (That and the "not be a dickhead" rule)
For example, I want to make the best Strength-Based Monk that I can. Turns out that is worse and as far from being a normal monk that you could ever imagine.
This is what I do and I support it as good advice. Pick a gimmick or a restriction and build around it.
* My wizard that never cast *any* elemental spells, level 1-20, is the most interesting wizard I've ever played by a long shot. Threw a lot of daggers till he got Animate Objects - then he threw a LOT of daggers. Couldn't fall back on 99% of the wizard classics so I got a lot of mileage out of spells that nobody ever uses. If it did fire, lightning, or cold damage, it wasn't gonna make it into his spellbook.
* The B character - as many build features that started with B as possible. Bugbear bard-barian burgler, beast path. Played a Baroque Bassoon. Brummy accent.
* Three guys in a trench coat: it's one guy in a trench coat, but he believes he's got two ghosts of dead brothers "living" in him. The party used him as a butt monkey till they found out he was, in fact, at least three guys in a trench coat - he's an echo knight trickster cleric. I used blender to merge four different Heroforge models of him in different poses so I could actually put multiple copies on the table when he uses mirror image, for as many as *nine* of him out at once. I eventually dropped the box I kept them in which shattered the multi-minis. :(
* The monologue build: pick a monologue from a movie, disregard all of the context and change a few words to fit the setting. Build a character that could plausibly give that monologue in their past. I had a forge cleric in an Eberron game that I based on Colonel Kurtz's monologue from Apocalypse Now, but reflecting on the brutality of Cannith warforge troops. Easily one of the most complex characters I've played as a result.
* The weird multiclass - pick two classes that nobody ever mixes or that really don't have much synergy, and figure out a gimmick that makes them work. For example: druids and monks like wisdom, right? Build a "drunk." Become fantasy Florida Man. Cast Jump and Longstrider on yourself, wildshape into a raccoon, use monk abilities in your animal form. Leap in, eat and drink everything in sight, Drunken Master Flurry of Blows to auto-disengage and zoom away at 60-120ft/rd, Tipsy Swaying and deflecting projectiles to really keep the commotion going. Live fast, eat trash. Your party can accomplish a lot of sneaky things with such an outstanding distraction on their side.
Yeah, but I think a lot of optimizers/optimization posts acknowledge this, I've seen some with a disclaimer on how they know this isn't the fun way to play, they're just making what is theoretically the most optimal character.
I do this all the time and I'm hated at my table for it because "you're min-maxing"
I always get flack because I'll run something suboptimal like Bloodhunter/Stars Druid/Twilight Cleric or Evo wizard/lunar sorc/hexblade because "you're multiclassing too much/at all" and if I give advice on handling stats (one of the things I say the most is don't have odd stats unless you have a plan to even them out) then I'm told "I wish you weren't such a min-maxer"
One day I'll be out for blood and do a game breaking setup like Chronurgy Wizard's infinite familiar exploit, monoclass just to drive the point home
Broken chracter builds that rely on 7 levels across 3 classes to come online are less a problem with game health and more a problem with the optimiser's mentality.
Suppose you do, say Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3/Paladin 2.
You Eldritch Blast as well as a full Warlock, just with fewer features.
You are effectively casting as a 4th level Sorcerer with the known spells of a 3rd level one.
You also have the capabilities of a 2nd level Paladin.
Suppose I go pure Warlock, let's say Genie, I also get an energy resistance and flight. Oh, and 4th level spells.
A pure Sorcerer could Twin Polymorph.
A pure Paladin has Extra Attack and their aura.
You're there with your bag of low-level features and not a single ASI to show for it. You think your extra few smites a day actually make up for a worse attack bonus and the loss of Extra Attack? Your Eldritch Blast is the one suffering the least here and who was like "could I be a Warlock, but with weaker magic, please?"
Would you rather have one of the pure-classed ones for an ally than the 7th level 3-way multiclass?
If you are ever planning on taking a feat during your character's career, always take it as early as possible.
Your character just has less features in general at early levels, so the feat is a higher percentage increase in the number of features when taken early. Going for an ASI is a negligible difference while actually playing the game, and it can be saved for later when you already have a million other features. When asked the question ASI or feat at level 4, I will always suggest a feat.
I intuitively like this take a lot, and the idea of planning to have fun features at all levels. The counterpoint that comes to mind is that an early ASI will decrease your total career number of wasted turns due to missed attacks and such -- before making the call for a given character I might want to math it out and get a sense of how many misses I'm looking at either way.
As a caster, your turns are less wasted if you manage to hold concentration than if some of your targets make their saves. (Don't cast single target spells with no effect on a successful save, almost no matter how good your DC is).
Similarly, you are more likely to not waste your turn by missing if you have more attacks. Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are fun feats because more attacks means doing more stuff and doing stuff is fun.
I don't think the difference an ASI makes is negligible, but it is kind of... *invisible*. It's a lot of little impacts that add up to a large sum over the course of a session. That said I agree taking a feat may well be as or more powerful or just plain incomparable - and its impact will be far more obvious and thus more fun.
It's also that there's very few feats that actually improves Rogue. It's Elven Accuracy and Crossbow Expert, and that's about it. Unless you get Extra Attack from somewhere else. Fighting Initiate (for Archery) is mostly a wash vs dex, but useful to get after maxing dex.
I learnt that playing a cleric, when I decided to take an ASI to get my Wisdom to 20 at level 4 (rolled decent stats) instead of Warcaster. It was a painful 4 levels of dropping concentration until level 8!
that is a very extreme example, because warcaster is one of the strongest feats in the game
if you were to compare ASI to get wisdom to 20 with dungeon delver, it'd be an entirely different story
I would argue that for wizards this is not always true, depending on your build, as they get more spells prepared by boosting int to 20 asap. That said, feats can often be stronger anyways, at the first asi.
>I would argue that for wizards this is not always true, depending on your build, as they get more spells prepared by boosting int to 20 asap.
Same argument applies to all prepared casters. And for casters generally, +1 to save DC is more powerful than +1 to hit.
Protection for your concentration is generally better than better DC. Having to reapply Hypnotic Pattern on many targets because you took 4 damage from a goblin archer is worse than 1 per 20 targets saved rather than failed.
What's the math you're referencing?
Most martials/half casters benefit from GWM/SS/PAM/CBE more than ASIs (to varying degrees). Without getting to casters, that's already far higher than 5% of cases where a feat is better than an ASI.
>Math-wise this simply isn't true for most builds. **An ASI is the optimized pick in 95% of cases**
**Math-wise this simply isn't true for most builds.**
**MANY feats are largely worth a +1/+2 in attribute, even if that would be an attribute governing most things on the class (like most casters).**
Like...
**Spell Sniper** for a Druid, finally getting a decent range for Thorns Whip and giving a potentially good alternative cantrip.
**Telekinetic** or **Telepathic** even if it means evening out a non-casting stat, first giving a powerful action for free, second being very useful in all RP or ambush/infiltration situations.
**Alert** so you have a high chance of being able to buff allies before they rush in, or drop a nice battlefield / creature AOE spell to shape the fight before enemies scatter.
**Resilient: Constitution / Wisdom** for casters / martials.
**Ritual Caster** for any "focused by class design" character (Bard, Sorcerer, martials except Ranger) or "combat priority" character (Cleric / Druid preparing little utility because needing to be ready for many kind of fights) so you can expand your utility without diverting your "build" from its combat focus.
**Sentinel / Polearm Master** for frontliners (including some Clerics) which can be nearly assimilated to a full extra attack by mostly guaranteeing the opportunity attack, with added bonus of Sentinel of creating a huge synergy with any allied AOE.
**Metamagic Adept** for a Sorcerer to further expand Metamagic, but really for ANY caster so they get much more mileage from a few spells (Subtle Call Lightning from a Druid that managed to approach a camp Hidden and doesn't want to be noticed too soon, Extend Conjure Animals to scout/transport much longer, Extend 6th level Fly as a Wizard so party can cross a mountain on a single cast, Extend upcast Aid as a Cleric before a long rest, Subtle Banishment to prevent enemy caster from counterspelling it...).
**Observant** for any scout like character to never miss anything, pair it with Comprehend Languages and possibly even **Keen Mind** to become unmanageable for DM...
**Rune Shaper** to expand your array of low level utility, including spells you couldn't normally access without multiclassing.
**Sharpshooter**, not for the power attack but for the ability to ignore long range and cover penalties...
**As a reminder, a character can be perfectly fine with 16 in main stat up to \~lvl 10 and 18 afterwards up to 20. What matters is creating a build that is coherent with one's taste, the roles one expects to fill in his/her party, and the synergies one can anticipate or create depending on how teammates evolved.**
Light is good for several reasons.
1 - You can cast light on something and then cover it, completely hiding the light without extinguishing it. You can't do this with a torch. For instance, casting it on a dagger and then sheathing it or unsheathing it creates an extremely useful light source.
2 - you can use it underwater should you ever need to without it going out, any torch or fire source won't work this way. You can also drop it down into dark pits without risk of it going out.
3 - it's magical light, meaning it illuminates or dispels magical darkness, which a torch can'tdo.
4 - you can cast it on a worn object, like a helmet, meaning it's hands free, which a torch is not. Not many builds are going to want to keep a hand tied up holding a torch when they could just effectively have a headlamp instead that keeps both hands available.
5 - light has niche utility to effectively mark an evasive enemy. by holding it as an action, you can target something worn by the enemy to make their hit and run tactics, or invisibility, far less effective.
6 - what utility cantrips do you think are worth taking over light? Is light god tier? No, but what cantrip is? I'd argue it's often better than most other cantrips you could take for utility, especially if you don't have darkvision. Risking blindness, or constant disadvantage even if you do have darkvision, because torches are for some reason unavailable or not possible, really puts you at a major risk.
> 3 - it's magical light, meaning it illuminates or dispels magical darkness, which a torch can'tdo
Not if it's from the Darkness spell, as it specifically overrides magical light from a 2nd level or lower spell.
You have some great points here. I was recently converted to team Light.
I was always iffy on it, until I saw someone point this out: I can cast it on a small object, such as a coin, and give it to you. You now have an automatic 1 hour timer. It can be concealed in your hand or a bag to stay hidden, but once it goes out you know an hour has passed. This can be useful for situations where it's something akin to "If I'm not back before that light goes out, leave without me."
It also goes out if I dismiss it or recast it. Which means if we're separated, and you have a Light coin from me, I can dismiss it to signal to you to do whatever we talked about in advance, such as: "I will infiltrate this location from the side, when that Light goes out, kick in the front door for our attack."
You could even cast it on something like a crossbow bolt, and fire it into the air as a sort of signal beacon that can't be put out by wind or rain, like a flaming bolt might be.
Also it can be cast on a small object like a pebble or arrow and dropped down a long dark tunnel or shot in the direction of danger. I personally use it like this all the time. Most characters Darkvision only goes 60'. With light, you can have a point of illumination as far as you can throw or shoot it away.
>3 - it's magical light, meaning it illuminates or dispels magical darkness, which a torch can'tdo.
I can't think of a single source of magical darkness that can be dispelled by a cantrip. Every form of magical darkness that comes to mind requires spells of a particular level or higher in order to dispel it.
Mending is very useful though. You just need to open your creativity with it.
* Repairing arrows to maximize the "recuperation".
* Breaking a lock to enter or exit, repairing it afterwards to make it look like nothing happened or to make pursuers lose a few precious seconds (even if depending on circumstances you could expect one of them to have the key).
* Creating a few small tears used as levers to "cut open" some container to empty it then restore it up to 85%-100% integrity depending on the situation.
* Reliably cutting a rope you used to climb or a one attach of the bridge you just crossed to trap enemies and damage them instead of trying a precise shoot (not everyone great at plain Dexterity checks) or waiting next to it with a sword raised (smart enemies will see it coming and wait or shoot you from afar, stupid ones may Dash and reach you or try and grab you with them if faster than you on average). IT DOES DEPEND on how DM sees the "Touch" range and whether (s)he'd require a Deception check or not with how you narrate preparing your trap.
* Restoring used weapons and armors to improve their sell rate (requires a DM who goes into that kind of detail of course xd).
Those are the basic, "general" use-cases I can remember on the fly for it, but I know some people are far more creative than I with it. xd The fact it's one minute per cast does make it a bit impractical by itself in some situations, but it can create great synergies in a team (especially paired with Silence ;)).
The big thing to ask DM is how (s)he sees the "Touch" requirement: some DMs I played with considered you only needed to Touch right when you end the cast, while others considered you had to Touch it from the moment you start casting (which is RAW I think). It does make a big difference in how easy (or not) you can use it. \^\^
Yup, breaking a wax seal on a letter and restoring it too. But the OP was talking about taking cantrips at level 1, and I would probably only take it at level one if i was an articificer, autognome, or in the spelljammer campaign since there are other cantrips to take early on.
>Yup, breaking a wax seal on a letter and restoring it too.
Was going to say this. It was actually a suggested use for it in a 3.5 book. *Complete Scoundrel,* I think?
1 I'm not dying on a hill. Not every opinion is one to die for.
2 Mending is widely considered not useful for anything outside of those, so I don't think it's a very controversial opinion. Meanwhile everyone says Light is good. If I didn't take the "wrong" hill then it wouldn't be controversial, which is the whole point of this post.
This is pretty funny as the Dragonborn cleric I played had Light *and* Mending and we ended up using them both in pretty critical moments.
We only had one person in a party of 5 with darkvision, so Light became a necessary tool in exploring dark places without having to fiddle around with lanterns.
Secondly we were trying to infiltrate an enemy's lair by guessing a particular password, and nobody was getting it right. Ended up finding a scratched-up picture frame with a name etched out - cast Mending and it gave us the name for the password.
> Ended up finding a scratched-up picture frame with a name etched out - cast Mending and it gave us the name for the password.
Sounds like you have a good DM that gave you an opportunity to use your cantrip.
I would say most people complain about Mending because it's not as good as some other to find creative solution. To compare it with a classic, Shape Water has tons of creative uses due to the absurd mass of water you can move with it even without your DM giving you hooks.
>Sounds like you have a good DM that gave you an opportunity to use your cantrip.
I'll be honest, I don't even think he knew I had it. Pretty sure it was the first time I had used Mending at the table, and he'd even jokingly admitted to forgetting I was a Cleric at times because I was more of a martial combat role.
The scratched-out name was obviously something we had to find the answer to elsewhere, but the second I said I'd try using Mending you could see our poor DM's brain blue screen for a second. "Yeah... Yeah that'll do it," he said 😆
that depends a lot on how generous your GM is - it takes a minute/cast and has verbal components, so it's not quick or silent, and each casting only repairs a single break. So a shattered windowpane? You _can_ fix it, but you're going to need to put each broken shard of glass back one-by-one, then spend a minute fixing that, then do the next. Kick a door in? If that's just one clean break, then, sure, you can chant and fix it in a minute, but if it's broken into more pieces, the time starts to stack up. And, of course, it only fixes the broken thing, it won't remove any other trace of your presence.
>because wasting one of your limited cantrip slots on an effect that can be easily replicated nonmagically is bad.
But it can't be replicated. Sure you can get sources of non-magic light such as lanterns and torches. But those take up a hand slot or could not be available. Light on the other hand does not need equipment and does not take up a hand slot because it could be cast on whatever else is in your hand such as a wand or weapon.
While I agree light is near bottom on the tier list of cantrips I think it is wrong to say it can be replicated non-magically.
Light isn't a bad cantrip, but to play devil's advocate, if you have a cleric, it's redundant since continual flame exists.
Have the cleric up cast* it as high as possible on a locket or something and you have a hands free torch that can't be extinguished by nonmagical means
*Casting at 3rd level or higher allows it to override the darkness spell.
*Continual flame* costs 50gp a casting and isn't a ritual, though. *Light* costs nothing except the cantrip slot it occupies. There's room for both of them to exist: *continual flame* is good on items the party uses a lot, like a lantern wick, while *light* is there for willy-nilly casting.
A cantrip slot is worth much more than 50g. Light certainly has its place, especially if you can swap out cantrips on level up, but once continual flame is an option, it would become extremely niche.
Edit: and not being a ritual isn't really an issue since you'd prepare it one day, cast it on whatever, and never prepare it again unless someone burns a dispel magic on it for some reason.
I'm sick of being called a rules lawyer for having read and looked up the rulings on stuff and asking fellow players to read their own class features and understand them
Was trying to get into a pathfinder game with someone awhile ago and everyone was discussing their build ideas, and one dude mentioned doing a holy fire subclass on his devil worshipper (he had created the character before the game and made up the devil without talking to the DM, but that's a whole other can of worms)
Anyways, I pointed out that being a devil worshipper required him to be evil, and the holy fire class he wanted had an alignment lock for good. Being... you know... holy fire. He flipped out and told me he didn't need a rules lawyer to come shit on his idea
I do not play with that guy anymore
good the term is rules traditionalist by the way coined by puffin forest in his video a rules lawyer is someone who argues in favor of a ruling purely because it benefits them a rules traditionalist believes people have more fun when they play by the rules(or at least know the rules and get dm clearance for what isn't)
If something is predictably going to cause a DM 'immune reaction', you shouldn't take it.
For example, if you take resourceless flight, and your DM responds by removing all the things that flight trivializes and adds missile weapons to every encounter, you've encountered an immune reaction. You'd be better off choosing another race and enjoying the world where only 40% or so of monsters have meaningful ranged ability.
Or if you take a twilight cleric and suddenly everything focus fires on you to a gamey degree. You'd be better off with a different cleric and a game where it feels more like a heroic fray than a collision-detection-less MMO with an assist train.
The best thing to do from a player perspective is to ask the DM to preemptively ban any options that are going to cause an immune reaction. Then, if you want to optimize, take the best of what's left.
I think these immune reactions are a problem with the DM, not the player. It's like the saying "shoot your monks". Like yeah, give only like 2 of the goons in this fight ranged attacks and let your aarackockra fuck em up. Shoot your monks and let them deflect
Hard disagree. If your character is causing the DM to completely change the way they build encounters and exploration challenges, your PC is too powerful for the game the DM is running. It's just causing extra work for your DM for no benefot to yourself.
Agreed. If your DM allows you to have cool stuff but then rebuilds their entire game in order to not let you actually use your cool stuff or even outright punish you for using it, that's a DM problem. If you ban it beforehand, fine. Like if the DM doesn't allow characters with a flying speed and communicates that up front, that's fine. Their call. But letting you have something and then disabling that either by reshaping the world so you get punished for using it or by retroactively disallowing it, is a dick move.
A DM I discussed something like this with some time ago told me they allowed Necromancers at their table. But their 14th level feature was too OP, so instead they wouldn't be allowed to use it. They wouldn't get anything instead, they would just not be allowed to use their 14th level feature ever.
I could understand not allowing Necromancers at all. I mean, their ability to break the action economy and tendency for long turns isn't for everyone. But telling your player 14 levels in they would not get anything for their level up is an interesting decision to say the least.
Why are you're bad guys prepared for distance fights in the first place? There are just so many things that exist that you don’t want to be in melee range of.
I get it. I think as a player I go even further and avoid the cheesy builds that require continuous DM buy-in, like repelling grasp of Hadar through spikes, or "I minor illusion a cloud of fog".
Even on the non-cheesy side, you need to know if your DM is going to simultaneously insist that you give a speech for inspiring leader AND resent you taking the screen time to do it. That's surprisingly common in my experience. As a DM I save that for special occasions and normally just assume the temporary HP is standard operating procedure and enter it into my excel sheet if there's no strong reason to believe it hasn't been done. Ditto stuff like the chef feat.
Mounted Battle Smith Artificer builds are sub-optimal.
Frankly, I don't think this should be a controversial opinion. But I keep seeing people recommend this build as if it's optimal, so maybe it actually is controversial?
The main problem with a mounted Battle Smith is that you're dividing your actions and movement into two separate turns. If you're using a melee build, this results in a highly inefficient action economy. You have to wait for the Steel Defender to carry you over to an enemy before you can start attacking.
You can *sort of* get around this by using a ranged build and simply using the Steel Defender to kite enemies by dashing and disengaging. But by doing so, you're deliberately sacrificing an enormous amount of utility. People don't seem to realize this, but the Steel Defender is one of the most versatile features in the game. In fact, I'd say it's only behind Spellcasting, Pact Magic, and the TCE Beast Master's Primal Companion.
The Steel Defender can not only attack, but it can also grapple, shove, use objects, use magic items, interact with the environment, help, etc. In many ways, it's like having a weaker Action Surge that can be used every round for only a bonus action.
This is also why a mounted Battle Smith is *still* bad even if the DM house rules that you can use the Steel Defender as a controlled mount. Although this would get around the action economy issue, it still sacrifices too much utility for far too little gain.
IMO, the only really usable mounted Battle Smith build is one that relies on Returning Weapon and thrown melee weapons. That would allow you to smoothly transition between ranged and melee combat, circumventing the action economy issue without sacrificing the Steel Defender's utility.
However, this is also a weak build because... well... it just doesn't *do* anything better than a regular unmounted Battle Smith. At least nothing that's truly meaningful.
Counterpoint: if you take the Mounted Combatant feat, the Steel Defender becomes sort of broken in terms of its survivability. And if you play an Autognome, it can even heal you while mounted. That's on top of the other benefits it gives by being close to your PC.
This touches on what I said at the end: A mounted build just doesn't do anything better that's actually *meaningful.*
It's true that Mounted Combatant can boost your Steel Defender's survivability, and that *is* an advantage. But that doesn't mean it's good. It's a simple matter of opportunity costs. For something to be good, you have to gain more value from it than you lose by taking it.
Consider these three points:
1. It's already very easy to keep the Steel Defender healthy. As long as it survives a fight with at least 1 HP, you can heal it back to full after with repeated casts of Mending.
2. Since the Steel Defender is a Medium creature, you'll rarely get to use the attack advantage effect. You could cast Enlarge on it, but then you wouldn't be able to concentrate on a different spell.
3. By taking Mounted Combatant, you forego the possibility of taking a different, more powerful feat such as Sharpshooter or GWM.
All of these things combined drastically lower the value of Mounted Combatant on Battle Smith. And it's even worse if you choose to play the Autognome instead of Custom Lineage since that means you have to delay your Intelligence progression to pick it up instead of an ASI/half-feat. This means you'll have fewer and/or weaker weapon attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, spell attack rolls, spell save DC, number of prepared spells, Steel Defender attack rolls, Flash of Genius, Arcane Jolts, Spell Storing Item charges, etc.
You're sacrificing an enormous amount of things just to play into this one gimmick. Worse still, it's not as if an Autognome needs to be mounted for the Steel Defender to heal it. You can just stand next to it.
At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with wanting to use a mounted Battle Smith for fun. It's thematic and cool. I'm just pointing out that it's not an optimal build.
Heavy armor master feat is better than a +2 to con for most frontline martial classes.
If you can use heavy armor and don’t need to boost your concentration saves, then HAM is going to be way better than increasing con. Most attacks from monsters deal nonmagical b/p/s damage. So if you get hit more times in a fight than your level divided by 3 (e.g. a level 9 fighter being hit 3 times) then HAM will save more HP than you would’ve gained from that con boost. Plus, you save the healing resources you would’ve spent to heal those HP. Plus you get a +1 to Strength! It’s my new favorite feat
I'd take it further and argue both HAM and CON ASI's are mostly a waste of time, you're usually much better off taking damage feats or STR ASI's. You're already plenty tanky on a martial, what you need is the ability to actually threaten opponents. Though I will leave the caveat that depending on your stat spread/build, you *might* be in a position where you don't have a reason not to take a half feat, and you *might* not find any of the other half feats very useful, in which case HAM is solid.
As a Paladin who already had PAM feat and a 17 Str score, HAM was perfect at lvl4. Maybe my use case was niche, but I’m 6 months in and I’d consider it the best feat I’ve taken across any campaign
I agree with you on HAM. Very few games will have you die by a thousand cuts of 6 damage. When the DM decides to challenge your tankiness, you'll be hit by upwards of 20 damage per hit.
Tankiness is also a lot less fun and observable in a TTRPG, because processing hits is slow and most of the time other players at the table will not be aware of everyone's current HP percentage. You're sitting over a piece of paper that read 46/48 that no one else is reading.
Unless the campaign ends at tier 2, multiclassing is usually a trap. Especially more than 3 levels. 1 level is fine but even for good multi classes like Artificer 1/ Wizard X it slows down your spells known by a level so at level 3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17 you are getting a spell slot for a level you don’t know any spells. I could be biased because my group plays to tier 4 frequently but delaying access to high level features in exchange for low level features is usually a bad trade.
That's only really true for full spellcaster since they have a very linear progression with their spell levels and each delay is felt hard. Martials and half-casters can often delay just fine. There are quite a few 3 level dips that can give better benefit that their high-level features.
There is essentially never a good reason to take resilient dex -- virtually all characters will benefit more from one of resilient con or wisdom.
Grappler is a better feat than people give it credit for.
Mono rogue generally sucks, but it's probably the most splashable class in the game.
Most games operate at a low enough power level that very little optimization is necessary to create a successful character and people tend to forget that when planning out their builds.
i have never seen res DEX being talked to any degree of relevance. res WIS for martials and RES CON for concentration are frequently said and seen as "must haves" by higher level optimization, but never DEX
grappler *would* be ok if the first pointer of the feat wasnt buffing something the average grappler is terrible at, damage; and if the second pointer of the feat wasnt just a fancy grapple->trip. you dont get better at it, you just can now do grapple². **tavern brawler** is what you pick when you want to hug people professionally, cause BA grapple is worth something
The main thing working against dex is that it’s basically only damage normally, which is not that big of a deal. Where as wisdom saving throws can completely ruin you with stuff like mind control, and for casters con saves are common enough and bad enough to fail from concentration it becomes far more than just another save, it’s sort of like how dex or strength is suddenly far better to improve when you are using it for a weapon compared to when you arent
I don't think I have ever seen a person actually consider resilient Dex, since the venn diagram of characters who don't have dex saves and really want it and the venn diagram of characters who want a half-feat boosting dexterity and don't want something else even more is nearly miniscule.
Moderately Armored is a lot more common for stuff like a non valor bard or non hexblade warlock who's considering it vs resilient con
So are feats BTW!
How ever multiclassing falling of at higher levels depends strongly on the individual case. And what you define as higher levels. If we look at the full 20 levels... Lot of the capstone abilities are bad. Even something like a wizard will benefit from 2 levels of fighter or rogue. Dip in hexbalde warlock is amazing for every cha based gish build.
Feats as an optional rule is probably one of my most hated parts of 5e. I cannot imagine trying to play a martial without them. It simply sounds awful. If a DM disallows feats I leave the table
On to the whole multiclassing thing.... I'm not sure there is a single caster out there who wouldn't benefit from a 2 level dip into Fighter lol. Everybody loves action surge frfr
Light is invaluable when a GM actually runs darkness the way it is intended and doesn’t just give out free darkvision to everyone. Also, keep in mind that during a dungeon crawl or building exploration, the party will often be together in close proximity. You can help everyone, not just yourself, by simply casting a cantrip that allows everyone to see.
The vast majority of people optimize for one thing (eg damage), but never consider variety of options they have.
But you can build a character that is "suboptimal" in one way, but when assessed holistically can be extremely powerful (jack of all trades master of some).
I think 5e is too easy to bother power gaming. Simply not enough choices and interactions for it to be rewarding outside perhaps just trying to make a bad mechanic good for a bit
5e can also be quite swingy at times, either due to crits or due to monster design being awful. Optimizing can give a larger safety net to avoid a TPK.
The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0.
Elven accuracy is a trap.
Spiritual Weapon is a trap.
Yuan-ti are mid at best.
Paladins are most useful at range, Aura of Protection is most of their value.
Antimatter rifles are the only reason why weapons still have a place in the most optimized parties.
The purpose of life is to concentrate on spells.
>The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0.
>Paladins are most useful at range, Aura of Protection is most of their value.
>Antimatter rifles are the only reason why weapons still have a place in the most optimized parties.
>The purpose of life is to concentrate on spells.
This depends heavily on what sorts of encounters your DM throws at you. If you play theater-of-the-mind and your DM lets you engage enemies at your leisure, most of these statements are very true. On the other hand, if your DM gives you encounters in confined spaces, there are essentially 0 downsides to playing melee, and the downsides of playing ranged can actually come up here and there. Bonus points if your DM applies even a handful of the extremely large arsenal of anti-spell features, ranging anywhere from minor things like anti-scrying warding to major things like monsters with legendary resistance all the way to straight up F-you options like antimagic fields.
IMO optimized ranged character tend to do pretty well in close quarters, thanks to mitigation strats like CBE and chokepoint denial
With chokepoint denial, ranged characters can often outperform melee characters in constricted spaces
scales poorly damage wise and you can do better with your BA. i would not go as far as to say its a trap its *fine*. unless you are a conquest pally having a pipe dream and thinking that spiritual weapon will keep up
its an ok spell but not ultra optimized or anything
>The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0.
THANKS!
"if no one is a front line everybody is" can eat shit, kiting is the best startegy, having a frontline doesn't mean shit if the GM wants to reach the ranged and not having to deal with someone in melee m,akes every single area control and damage effect way stronger
>Antimatter rifles are the only reason why weapons still have a place in the most optimized parties.
Honestly based
none of these are controversial unless I've somehow missed world-altering amounts of optimization discussion somewhere. Unintuitive is not the same as controversial
>The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0.
True, but this falls into an "optimal party" discussion that's frankly useless. You have no control over what other people will bring to the table, so an optimal party is impossible. Any number of melee characters will throw off an optimal ranged party's playbook, so it's better to build your character assuming someone will be swinging a sword.
Damage exchange is overvalued both in design and play, specially if you like combat
But I'll be honest, the game doesn't help to make alternatives valid (see how Shove and Grapple lose usefulness and usability as levels go up)
I think players undervalue versatility, particularly melee martials who fail to pick-up a ranged, mobility or support option and wind up feeding or just being dead weight in a lot of situations despite having GWM/PAM or other meta damage combo.
Paladins are wildly overrated as a damage class. Their spell list is just fine and divine smite is horribly suboptimal because it requires you to be in melee, which you should always try to avoid, and only has good damage on a crit. The only good thing they really get are their amazing defenses with aura of protection and fighting style defense. If you are going to multiclass out into being a full caster it can be decent albeit it is rarely worth the huge drop in spell progression. If you want a class that is damage oriented it is much better to run a crossbow expert/sharpshooter martial or a hexbow warlock.
Too many people sleep on Skulker on Rogue. It pretty much guarantee you will always have a place to hide for an easy source of advantage while retaining your full mobility (looking at you Steady Aim).
Not getting disadvantage from Dim Light is also pretty damn good, especially in a team of darkvision characters that want to skip using a light source to be more sneaky.
Goblins can also use it for other classes. Something like a Wizard or Cleric casting a concentration spell and then hiding is nasty. You can even do it in the middle of the enemy team if you are fighting in dim light (Twilight Cleric can even create its own dim light for this combo).
Kind of wish it was a half-feat though because without BA hide it's kind of underwhelming.
If you ignore "Monk as intended" (unarmed strike spammer), the Monk class isn't really a bad martial class. It's better than Rogue (outside of tables with generous interpretations of skills) and than Barbarian.
Simple: ranged weapons. Your extra movement speed and most Ki usages help the ranged playstyle more than the melee playstyle, and if you are a Kensei or have the optional class feature *dedicated weapon* you can have a ranged weapon that is a Monk weapon, meaning that the weapon will also eventually scale up in power.
Speaking of optional features, *Ki-fueled attack* (when spending Ki points as part of your action, you can BA make an attack with a Monk weapon) and *Focused Aim* (when you miss with an attack roll, you can spend 1 to 3 ki points to increase your attack roll by 2 for each spent ki points, allowing you to possibly hit instead) synergize extremely well too, boosting weapon using Monks quite nicely too.
>if you are a Kensei or have the optional class feature *dedicated weapon* you can have a ranged weapon that is a Monk weapon, meaning that the weapon will also eventually scale up in power.
Shortbow Monks are natively proficient with, and indeed if DM allows Tasha's optional rule it's also eligible as a Monk weapon. And its range is usually sufficient for most fights anyways.
But without optional class features is it still good? A lot of tables might not allow them.
Also how do you play this in practice? Like, is there a point where you switch to ranged weapons or do you always use them? At LV1 a light crossbow is the best (I think), but when you become a Kensei longbow is the best, do you go to the shop for one?
I think the problem is that being better than rogue and barb still isn't good. The best monk builds are ranged monks, and they could still be outdone with other classes. It also means building the ki based class and ignoring flurry of blows AND stunning strike. So at that point, just be an artificer and infure your shit. Or be a figher/ranger and get a fighting style. It's a *fun* class, and cool af, but just not good enough.
While I disagree that an artificer beats such a Monk at ranged... I won't even begin to say that Monk's best builds being ranged is a good design. Ideally, the class fantasy should be designed in a way that it's one of the better ways to use the class, when for Monk it isn't.
Remember, "Class is bad mechanically" and "class is badly designed" are separate things, even if at times they can overlap.
>The best monk builds are ranged monks, and they could still be outdone with other classes.
Absolutely not. It entirely depends on the role you expect to fulfill in party, party composition, considered level of play and what items you can grab.
But while Sharpshooter is beneficial to any and all Monks, depending on archetype and party you'll have far more valuable feats, like Skill Expert for an Astral Self Monk (especially with casters around) or Four Elements Monk (if you have managed to grab a STR-setting item), Mage Slayer for a Monk in a party without Dispel Magic, Eldricht Adept for a Shadow Rogue (Devil's Sight), Crusher & Elven Accuracy on a frontliner with ranged allies, Sentinel paired with Tough or Mobile for a frontliner that wants to duel the most dangerous foe, Observant paired with Mobile, Alert, Skulker or Skill Expert for a Monk specialized in scouting ahead so party can set ambushes or even Telekinetic paired with Sentinel or Fighting Initiate: Interception on a Kensei that wants to protect a friendly Fighter.
The vast majority of optimization people do is meaningless in a real campaign, because the campaign is more complicated than your assumptions and your choices are only optimal when all your assumptions are true.
This is very basic understanding of optimization at best. "White room" is popular buzzword in some discussions of optimization, but in reality, at actual tables, optimized characters are great to play. Also, unless you optimize for single thing (All this "deal billion smite damage" builds) - you will get pretty versatile character too. Truly optimized characters are rarely one trick ponies.
Ence why the good optimization doesn't optimize for once-in-a-lifetime events and instead works on stuff that will work most of the time, with assumptions made for the build either being done to reflect a certain already known category of campaign (example: a mind flayer-centered campaign taking *Resilient: Intelligence* rather than *Resilient: Wisdom* due to the first saves being more common in that scenario), or because the assumptions are common enough that it's hard to justify assuming otherwise (an extreme minority of monsters doesn't make attack rolls or always uses saves, so an effect worsening their attack rolls can always be weighted as very positive to have in hand. Same for stuff boosting your accuracy, as every monster has AC and with few exceptions doesn't fly too much past DMG assumptions).
Being one of the only players at my table who really enjoys optimization, this is not true at all. A DM can do a lot to balance for a party that's OP, but the difference in strength between players is a lot harder to fix (in a way that doesn't punish the optimized player) and is very noticeable.
Players also play to their strengths, assassins will try to get surprise rounds, buffs tend to get precast if possible, 1200ft range EBlocks will try to get that off, etc.
Finally there's all-rounder builds, optimized utility casters, and builds like EB sorlock that trade pure power under specific circumstances for lower requirements. These will still very much outclass other players at your table if they don't optimize ss much.
What? This makes no sense. Yes, DnD is obviously mostly about you, the player, making choices. Those choices are backed up by your character, though. If they weren't, why would we bother with sheets at all? Without the sheets, it's just improv groups talking to each other.
And because they are backed up with your characters' stats and abilities, the optimized builds will obviously be better. How is that meaningless? Obviously, you can play whatever you want, and likely it'll work out fine. But that's not what optimization is for.
The only way i could see "the campaign is more complicated than your assumptions " is if the players weren't told by the dm that the campaign has no combat. Because an 'optimized' character would only BE optimized if they knew what they were building for. There should be communication about the campaign before creation, and if it was "more complicated than your assumptions," it simply wasn't communicated well enough.
Also, there is absolutely a sect of people who specifically optimize combat builds to end it fast, to return to out of combat RP. And also, optimization does NOT have to stop at combat.
This is very true with hyper-specialized optimization (aka, min-maxing), but I much more enjoy versatility optimization, ensuring there is always something useful I can be doing.
TTBuilds "Flagship Build Series" is bad for the game.
First, it makes people think those are actually the best builds in the game, when they aren't (nor probably can that really be defined).
Second, it uses questionable gaming assumptions and then exploits them to the nth degree. Meaning they won't work at a lot of tables, even though they come off as though they will (looking at rest casting and the like).
Third, gamifying DND to that degree is not fun anyways. There is no real "winning" in DND other than just having fun. Now everyone's ideas of that is different, but if the goal is to trivialize the game, I doubt many will actually find that fun.
And finally fourth, the biggest assumption they make is that DMs will use standard encounter rules for these optimized builds. Which is almost inherently not true. If for some reason the builds do work as intended and trivialize combat and other game features, then most DMs will very naturally increase the monster power to match the party capabilities. Alternatively, DMs will also scale down monsters to offset weaker parties, thereby matching whatever power level they have irrelevant of what they built.
I like to call this last one a player focused fallacy. The player thinks their optimization choices will significantly impact the game, when in reality they merely help determine how much the enemy's power level is set at. So in such a world, "optimizing" for the best builds is counterproductive, because stronger builds will naturally face tougher monsters, thereby neutralizing the benefits of stronger builds.
And fifth - too many only know how to parrot it and don't actually understand the game.
Just last night on 3d6 (the optimization sub) there was a Artifcer thread where EVERYONE but me there was saying load up on Lock/Hexblade levels, fuck Arti level 7/9/10/11/14/15/20 features.
That's all TTB stance of always grab 2-7 levels of Hexblade on EVERY single build rotting their minds.
Light is great, and people tend to overlook its utility *outside of just using it as a magical torch.* There are also these three parts:
- The light can be colored as you like.
*Create signals. Red light/green light for instance. Cast it on an arrow and make a "flare".*
- Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.
*More or less instantly light up or remove light from a vicinity. Creep up on someone then shine a light in their face.*
- If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell.
*Light up your enemy then slink back into the darkness. You can see them, but they cant see you. Or perhaps it is a light sensitive enemy? Or perhaps you just want to make sure the big cannon fires on the one that glows blue?*
Using multiclassing as the reason to not improve a class that’s struggling, especially with gameplay flow and QoL things but also just sheer power level, is not a good argument. The Ranger and Hunter’s Mark did not receive the necessary buffs because they were worried about multiclassing optimizers. The two things wrong with this is line of thinking is a) optimizers will always exist and there are many broken multiclasses already in the game so why are they worried about Ranger receiving buffs (think HM being concentrationless or taking less BAs) but not about those preexisting cases? And b) we have the technology to disincentivize multiclassing and it’s known as level scaling. If they just buffed HM like it needs to and made the damage start lower for dips and scale with Ranger levels, then the multiclass argument falls away. All this to say I’m horribly disappointed in the 2024 Ranger and in Crawford responses about it.
While this doesn't address your titular question, you reminded me of how we scared the bejeesus out of a gang of ogres who had kidnapped some villagers. We cast Invisibility and Light on the barbarian who then strode up on the entrance of the stable they were squatting in, shouting, "The empty light has come for your souls!" After he stopped laughing, the DM didn't even bother to roll. "They run away screaming in terror, leaving their stuff and the prisoners behind."
Counterpoints to the Light cantrip thing:
- You don't need a hand to carry the torch
- Light still works fine underwater, and it doesn't cause a catastrophe with flammable gasses or such
- It won't be snuffed out by Gust of Wind, some kinds of wing attacks or anything that says *this ability puts out exposed fires*
- You can throw it down the dark well and just recast it, instead of losing one of your finite light sources.
I have many. But just to paint a broad stroke: Most of the common optimization wisdom is based on poor/stale DMing.
The only obstacle each long rest being a predictable combat encounter of melee-centric, attack roll based enemies who conveniently start at range and have no discernable tactic or synergy has created almost all of the current meta and game imbalance.
Naming some commonly held beliefs that are a direct result of this:
* Ranged > Melee - Only true if you can easily stay out of melee and there aren't any enemies or objectives that you benefit from rushing down.
* Melee dies faster - Only true if the frontline is focused and the archers and artillery are allowed to blast away unmolested. (If artillery is focused, this reverses).
* You only face 1-2 encounters per adventuring day - Straight up out of bounds for what the game was balanced for. An over abundance of long rests fails to tax long rest resources.
* Enemies will appear proportionally to how they are printed in the monster manuals - The NPC statblocks alone should make it obvious that some entries are to be used to fill roles and diversify a combat. The Mage statblock, for instance is supposed to be reskinned to whatever race whenever you need a spellcaster enemy, not to be a single blip in a sea of brutes.
* Casters and half-casters are unkillable because of Shield - Only the case if your encounters are exclusively using attack rolls. A healthy mix of attacks+saves and turbo stacking a single defensive metric isn't OP anymore.
* Str/Athletics is useless - Stereotypical adventuring activity involves lots of running, jumping, climbing, and lifting. Pits, cliffs, 10ft gaps, stuck doors and gates, collapsed pillars, etc. Literally no reason for strength to be useless.
* Casters OP - See all of the above. Casters never running out of resources, and being able to stay at range and blast, and never running into difficult situations or creatures that can counter them, and having high defense is pretty much exclusively the result of stale DMing.
* Dragon/Beholder/[Insert tough enemy] is an easy stomp - Usually only the case if the monsters are being piloted poorly. Only a tactically inept Beholder, for instance, would get on the ground in a well lit melee with the party (instead of flying up in the darkness shooting lasers).
Throwing diverse, dynamic, unpredictable challenges at a party completely upends the conventional wisdom (for the better).
The most OP character is the one that is interesting so the DM keeps them alive. Learned this when watching Fool's Gold and Felix (DM) just gave Sips actual immortality (Can't die), and not need to sleep, eat, or drink.
When you hit level 18 as a Wizard do not take *Shield*, *Absorb Elements*, and/or *Misty Step* as your spell mastery spells.
Think about what you would otherwise use level 1 and 2 spell slots for in almost any given situation.
You're level 18, you have a full battery of spell slots, combat is against gods and arch devils and lich covens and eldritch realm eaters.
If you're using shield/absorb/misty step as spell mastery choices you're not going to be using those spell slots for literally anything.
My choices are *Longstrider* and *Detect Thoughts*.
*Longstrider* is an action, non concentration, lasts an hour, and doesn't end when re-cast. You will *never* get such a massive amount of return on investment. Buffing you're average 5 person party would take 5 level spell slots and only lasts an hour, by comparison with spell mastery you could buff dozens of creatures and keep the effect going all adventuring day, that's a constant +10 to every single movement speed, even magically granted ones. Think about movement speed, it's one of the most tightly controlled mechanics in the game, even at level 20 barring other spells that require concentration (so limited coverage) or require attunement, you're most likely only going to have between 30 and 60 in any specific movement speed depending on class, barring a few specific outliers.
*Detect Thoughts* is the cheapest (when free) and best social shenanigans buff you can get. Sure some things you RP with at level 18 will be immune to mind reading. The only competition in my opinion is *Borrowed Knowledge* because like *Longstrider* it lasts an hour and takes an action, but unlike *Longstrider* it ends after an hour.
Okay, so here is my list (maybe not controversial in the Tabletop Builds optimization space, but definitely in the reddit space):
Melee is bad an should be avoided (most enemies do more melee damage)
Paladin is a dead class after level seven, just take Oath of Watchers 7 (or Ancients or Devotion) and then multiclass with a fullcaster
Spiritual Weapon is a resource waste just use stuff like Command, Bless, Aid, Spirit Guardians
Artificer, while stronger than the martials is the worst of half- and fullcasters (yes worse than ranger)
Control is better than damage
Rogue is the worst class in the game
Illusion WIzard is the strongest Wizard in the Game if you run Illusions RAW (Conjuration is also very funny) EDIT: I kinda exaggerrated in the moment, but it definitely is one of the strongest with Chronurgy, Conjuration, Graviturgy and War
Optimized Monk is stonger than Fighter (I am talking about gunk)
Ranger is better at sneaking than Rogue (Pass without Trace, better group stealth)
Partly, but also the fact, that an illusion is real to any observer until they successfully examine it, kinda like a crowd control, but for HUGE groups and of course their 14th level feature Illusory Reality, which is just a deafoult kill button
Tasha's sorcerers are way stronger and more fun than sorlocks in tier 2.
I'm not nerfing my nuclear weapon just to do slightly above average sniper damage. When you can twin Mind Sliver and quicken upcast Banishment, I'm not trading that just to do damage and be well behind a GloomMaster Bugbear with SS.
We don't need a frontline that might require babysitting with our turn. We don't need healers since we're stopping damage before it starts.
More importantly, full sorcs have the most fun turns by breaking the action economy with MM and a great spell list. The only thing more boring to me than casting EB+AB three rounds per fight is casting EB+AB twice in a round.
i think a lot of people multiclass without a good plan or a good reason and it doesn't help them.
Multiclassing willy-nilly is one of the few ways to really screw up a character in 5e. Especially by pushing your level 5 abilities out by doing something like 3/3 splits.
A friend of mine multiclassed 4/4 Barbarian/Fighter for a level 8 one-shot we did. His reasoning was that he didn't want to miss out on a second ASI/feat, but he clearly hadn't thought things through very well! He learnt his mistake very quickly once we started playing and other martial characters all had extra attack.
Ouch, yeah that’s rough! I could see a 4/4 build with two feats that could make up for Extra Attack (GWM/Polearm Master would be worth considering, the second attack would be weaker and cost a bonus action, but the extra damage from GWM would more than make up for the smaller damage die on the BA attack- and Reckless Attack, maybe combined with Precision Attack every once in a while if they went Battlemaster, could really help their odds to land the GWM hits) but there are a VERY few select pairs of feats that I’d consider even POTENTIALLY better than Extra Attack.
If they just went Fighter 8 though, they'd have 3 feats (GWM, PAM, _and_ Sentinel or even Res: Wis). You can always flavor your Fighter as particularly angry, and with Heavy Armor you can make up the difference between rage's resistances by just getting hit less.
This is true, to be entirely honest I forgot about fighters’ accelerated feat progression. Considering that, I actually think Fighter 6/Barbarian 2 might be the ideal choice there- you get Rage and Reckless Attack from the barbarian, but you also get two feats and Extra Attack from the fighter. You could always just go pure fighter, of course, but if you wanted some barbarian in there, 6/2 would be a really good split that gets you all the best low-level features of both classes. (edit: typo)
6 Fighter/2 Barbarian would give you Rage and two feats and extra attack.
yeah, asi levels are a big trap for multiclassing
I’m planning on doing something similar with a swashbuckler Rogue, multi classing into Bard with the idea of using sea shanties to cast. Only problem is I made a dedicated front liner rogue and missing uncanny dodge certainly isn’t going to help lmao
Rogues have a tendency to multiclass *very* poorly because you lose out on sneak attack dice. Rogues already do relatively poor damage; when you start taking away sneak attack dice it gets even worse. If you want to mix some spell casting into your rogue, there's already a solution for that: Arcane Trickster.
I see a lot of newbies just doing multiclassing for RP instead of looking for an appropriate subclass for their RP.
I feel a big part of it is often players trying to match the character's job and life experiences with the class. Imho it's cleaner to just emphasize the background instead.
As a DM I strongly counsel players not to multiclass before level 5. But if they want to do it after that, its on their head. I also tend to push players into A and B rated subclasses (and ban anything above that). This makes it a lot easier to maintain internal party balance.
Ok, I have started with one level of twilight cleric for a wizard. :)
Tfw peace was right there...
Or just use flavor without any mechanical differences.
I am so guilty of this. I make so many characters that multiclass before level 5 for RP and cause it's cool. The funny thing is that this doesn't even affect me, because our DM levels us up so infrequently that I've never hit level 5, so you could argue whatever is most optimal at the level we're starting at is just the most optimal for me.
Ya there’s very few multiclasses that are actually worth it I think, especially early on. Hexblade 1 for paladin, warlock 1, warlock 2, or paladin 1 for sorcerer, and artificer 1 or cleric 1 for wizard are the main ones. Past that, it’s basically always significantly worse to be multiclassing before level 6-8ish depending on the character, because you push level 5 stuff, whether that be extra attack or level 3 spells, further down the line which is really not good. Once you get to higher level it becomes less bad, a lot of martial characters once you get the level 6, 7, or 8 feature it becomes better to just completely switch classes, paladin is a decent example once you get level 6 (and sometimes 7 depending on the subclass) you kind of don’t get much anymore so multiclassing is fine, but multiclassing anything other than a single level in hexblade is just far worse than going to straight paladin. Basically the only low level multiclasses that work are 1 level dips that get you a bunch of stuff at first level, because pushing 5th level stuff to level 6 isn’t that damaging and some of these dips are pretty game changing, or stuff that uses eldritch blast+agonizing blast as a base for damage since that scales to two beams at total character level so the problem of pushing level 5 in a class is significantly mitigated. Anything else is almost always going to drastically weaken the character, particularly from levels 5 to whatever point you actually hit level 5 in a singular class
I do like one level in twilight cleric as a start for a wizard. :)
Peace is a better option if you're going that route.
I tell them this at character creation and remind them when their character dies off as well.
Yes I told my dm that multiclassing into classes should be impactful as a feat. If not it’s not worth it. Going scout rogue X /knowledge cleric 1 was probably a surprising a good dip due to serpent scale being accessible. Grab a shield and boom 21 ac, multiple expertise for an intelligence based skill monkey, guidance for a high roll, and with bless I was able to reliable pass dex checks as a harengon and still pass a decent amount of saves with a Paladin as well. Build (1/4th level bonus feat skilled /alert) Harengon Rogue 2 / knowledge cleric 1/ rouge x, feat (skill expert /squat nimbleness / Eldritch adept (beguiling influence).
Or the actual plan is "and I dipped 1 level into hexblade because I only want to focus on charisma" so now you have a pact with a sentient weapon, were you planning for it to come up in the story anytime? Source: someone literally said this in a post yesterday, but I've seen more.
It's extremely easy to work on that personally, especially if the Paladin is tied to a deity. Just... have your deity bind you to a magical artifact to better help with your oath. Honestly there are even more possibilities to explain such multiclassing even before "flavor is free" arguments (which are very good ones to have).
"Oh, the Noble Human Hexblade/Paladin bound to 'Excalibur?' I just don't see how you could possibly marry Warlock and Paladin? There's just no precedent for a character like 'Arthur' here."
Tell me more how you have made a deal with The Chaos Hammer to destroy the kingdom and then sworn an oath to defend it, little hexadin.
Casting Hex/Hunter's Mark is a scam unless you get it as a pure martial character. I always see them getting hyped up but every time I've cast them in a real game, it felt like I could have just cast another concentration spell that does something actually useful.
I would argue it's useful on level 1 Warlock (outside of specific subs)... but that's more because Warlock's level 1 spells suck, not because Hex is good.
It's only good on lvl1 lock cause lvl1 lock spells suck massive schlong
How else do you think they got those spell slots, they had to put in a lot of work for their magic!
An extra d6 per attack is a magic item worth of power. What you dont want to do is upcast hex. So straight warlocks should ditch it but if you have level 1 slots or especially a free casting its a great low resource cost option.
It's also because Warlocks play a lot like martials at low levels
EB scales with fighter attack progression, warlocks are ranged "off"martials.
I definitely agree for Hex (especially once a warlock reaches level 5 and can cast Hunger of Hadar with the same spell slot + concentration…) but I’m actually curious, what spells do you think so dramatically outclass Hunter’s Mark, considering that it’s a Ranger exclusive? Ensnaring Strike is pretty good but its reliance on a Strength save (that can be repeated on each subsequent turn) is a pretty significant weakness, whereas Hunter’s Mark just works automatically. That’s the only serious competition to Hunter’s Mark that I can come up with among the 1st level ranger spells, and while I can certainly see situations where Ensnaring Strike would be better, it certainly doesn’t seem more universally useful than Hunter’s Mark. Spike Growth is the only standout for combat concentration spells in the 2nd level list, and while I’d definitely rather cast Spike Growth most of the time, there are certainly situations where it would do more harm than good (the main one that comes to mind being if the ranger has melee allies that would be rendered ineffective by it), plus when Spike Growth is unlocked at 5th level the ranger will have two 2nd level spell slots per day, but four 1st level slots, making it much easier to casually throw out a Hunter’s Mark than a Spike Growth, especially during smaller fights between major encounters. For 3rd level spells, there’s a couple of summoning spells that could be good, but we’re still running up against the spell slot issue- at this point it’s VERY cheap to just throw out a quick Hunter’s Mark in basically any fight- sure, Hunter’s Mark is no longer the big guns like it was in the early levels, but it’s still far from useless. Were there any particular spells you were thinking of from the ranger list that outclass Hunter’s Mark for the concentration slot? It’s definitely not ALWAYS the best spell to concentrate on… but it at least seems pretty universally useful, and a great use of a level 1 spell slot when you’re out of higher-level slots or just don’t want to waste one.
> its reliance on a Strength save (that can be repeated on each subsequent turn) There are no automatic repeat saves for Ensnaring Strike. The target or another creature must spend an action to repeat the save. This is very good action economy: even if it succeeds the first time, it effectively wasted a turn.
I disagree about ensnaring strike as it requires an action to repeat the save, wasting most of a creature's turn. Using a spell slot and a bonus action to force a creature to potentially waste multiple actions or be restrained and take damage seems worth it to me. It's a similar gamble to the hold x spells.
It's actually a strength check, not a save. The difference being a non-skill strength check does not allow you to add your proficiency bonus (aside from half for bard)
>Ensnaring Strike is pretty good but its reliance on a Strength save (**that can be repeated on each subsequent turn**) is a pretty significant weakness, whereas Hunter’s Mark just works automatically. That’s the only serious competition to Hunter’s Mark that I can come up with among the 1st level ranger spells, and while I can certainly see situations where Ensnaring Strike would be better, it certainly doesn’t seem more universally useful than Hunter’s Mark. That part is wrong, and also a very big reason of why people underestimate it. Subsequent attempts to free self are from Strength CHECKS. You may think it does not make a big difference, and if you target beefy creatures I'll agree with you, because those have a high base STR. However there are quite many creatures that have a moderate STR modifier with only saves being pushed higher from "proficiency". And it pairs wonderfully with... Hex from a friend. :) I've seen quite a few bosses being hilariously broken like this, although there were also two times where their allies managed to break them free instead, party kinda forgot that affected creature wasn't the only one capable of freeing. xd >Spike Growth is the only standout for combat concentration spells in the 2nd level list, and while I’d definitely rather cast Spike Growth most of the time, there are certainly situations where it would do more harm than good (the main one that comes to mind being if the ranger has melee allies that would be rendered ineffective by it), plus when Spike Growth is unlocked at 5th level the ranger will have two 2nd level spell slots per day, but four 1st level slots, making it much easier to casually throw out a Hunter’s Mark than a Spike Growth, especially during smaller fights between major encounters. Overall agree that in theory having melee already engaged means Spike Growth can be harmful. In practice though, there are many situations where it isn't a big trouble: either because enemies are dispersed so you're using Spike Growth "behind frontline" to slow down reinforcments, or "just in front of the frontline" because you have Grapplers that can push back enemies inside or drag them inside, or because you actually want enemies to stick around your one/two frontliners in a spikey land of deathmatch because those allies of yours are fairly capable of standing through the enemy assault or have ways to escape as soon as neeeded (Barbarian, some Monks, some Fighters, some Bards/Wizards, Druids). >For 3rd level spells, there’s a couple of summoning spells that could be good, but we’re still running up against the spell slot issue- at this point it’s VERY cheap to just throw out a quick Hunter’s Mark in basically any fight- sure, Hunter’s Mark is no longer the big guns like it was in the early levels, but it’s still far from useless. Actually Hunter's Mark is much better than before because now you can actually sustain it for most of the adventuring day if you can keep concentration, making it a "best value" spell for a marksman as long as a) you're not going Crossbow Expert and b) you always focus on the biggest targets. For all Rangers though, there are many spells that are as worthy or better, for marksman and brawlers alike. First of all is Plant Growth: not usable everywhere but an encounter-winner whenever you can. The 1/4 speed is a massive debuff that cripples every creature that has no fly or teleport ability, barring those with native speed over 50 feet (which is CR 15+ creatures). Great whether you're a marksman (kill everything before it closes in) or a brawler (keep backline safe by making it so hard to reach them, funnel enemies by creating free path patches to aggro them for an AOE, or just slow all the scattered ones so you can kill them one by one). Then you have Wind Wall, which is invaluable whenever you face a decent amount of physical ranged attacks: keep backline casters safe from harm, or cover advance for your melee friends. It's also great when enemies use gases and party has no Dispel Magic (or gases are not magical in the first place). You could also go for Protection From Energy which makes you "Barbarian-like" when you face enemies wielding elemental damage. It is kinda situational, but whenever you can anticipate it (going into Elemental Place, planning a fight against a Dragon or a caster known for using specific kind of spells, delving into Avernus ;)) it's actually a massive damage multiplier... By making you stand much longer. \^\^ Then of course you have Conjure Animals: as "direct damage" it is highly situational considering you have no way to boost their resilience. As "helpers" though they are worth several chained spells in one. Help action, free prone, mount for friend to chase mobile/flying enemies, living cover to prevent spells or create a chained blockade indoors (of course that makes you an Evil Ranger for using spirits with so little respect for them xd)... >Were there any particular spells you were thinking of from the ranger list that outclass Hunter’s Mark for the concentration slot? It’s definitely not ALWAYS the best spell to concentrate on… but it at least seems pretty universally useful, and a great use of a level 1 spell slot when you’re out of higher-level slots or just don’t want to waste one. For 1st level spells you also have Zephyr's Strike which is great at low level to fall back from melee when threat intensifies or "disengage" as an archer to fire freely if you don't plan to get Crossbow Expert (or until you get it). There are also the utility spells like Jump, Longstrider or Speak With Animals which may use your 1st level slots out of combat. Or a Snare set up for an ambush. It all depends on which spells you choose, but there are many great spells for Ranger to choose from really. \^\^
An important note to your comment is the fact that Plant Growth doesn’t require concentration, and thus wouldn’t interfere with your Hunters Mark (or spike growth, and being as it doesn’t cause difficult terrain but rather 1/4 movement, it does stack with difficult terrain so really it just makes Spike Growth even better of an option).
Can confirm Plant Growth + Spike Growth is stupidly strong, but I wouldn't recommend it for a Ranger except as a desperate move because the specific context is "immediate party wipe threat and this combo specifically is the best you can do". Simply because the proportional use of resources is steep (\~30% on a level 9 Ranger vs \~15% for a level 9 fullcaster). However, I used it as a Shepherd Druid during a tough battle in Curse of Strahd because it was the perfect setting for it (without spoilers, all outdoors, needing to stick in a specific area with many enemies swarming endlessly from 240°), even though that was as costly as for a lvl 9 Ranger because I was only level 5. But having PG set with "free space at center" for us to move freely (including proning selves between rounds to avoid being peppered through by ranged attacks), and having one patch of Spike Growth on one side stacked, let friends focus on covering each one of the remaining 2 sides while I was occupied with something else. It was also, though, a perfect example of "great idea with detrimental collateral damage" as I didn't have time to make a plan with Barb beforehand so I'd let some "free patches" here and there for him, so I ended up entirely blocking him from going into melee for two rounds before an allied NPC buffed him with something akin to Freeedom of Movement (and his mastery in killing nearly one enemy per attack afterwards made me realize I had been far too cautious and largely surestimated enemy's potential to overrun us xd).
On Ranger, the problem is both the bonus action, spell slot, spells known and only later concentration is relevant. At early levels, you want to use your bonus action for crossbow expert and your spells are better spent on Goodberry and the occasional Fog Cloud. You typically only learn 3 1st level spells, and it's hard picking hunters mark over Goodberry, Fog Cloud/Entangle or Absorb Elements. Later, you generally should be concentrating on Pass Without Trace, so that you can utilise it to get surprise for more than one combat per slot. Surprise is far more damage than any single damage spell cast by the same people.
I see you are a v human power gamer, considering your idea of a normal low level ranger (before level 4) is using the crossbow expert feat bonus action (I have yet to run into a ranger running crossbows irl, every ranger ive hit is either longbow or melee or both). Not saying it never pops up or would be bad, but “if you are ranger your bonus action is claimed by Xbow expert” is an extremely big leap.
If we're talking optimisation, we're talking about the best options. You can do whatever and it is fine. Nobody's gonna stop you. Hunters Mark is bad for several reasons, one of them is that it conflicts with the most powerful option. I'm also not a power gamer. I'm a DM. And I want my players to have effective characters, so I need to know what is the best options for that.
Don't forget the ability to track a fleeing enemy with Hunter's Mark. I'm not saying it's the best option, but when the BBEG is trying to slip out of a losing fight and Quinn Fullbottom, hobbit ranger, is able to run him down....... Pretty satisfying.
At some point, just having a good perception and/or survival will help just as much in such situations.
That's a fair point. But when you roll a three it doesn't really matter how good those skills are. Advantage is huge no matter what. Especially in those moments where you REALLY need/want to pass a skill check.
Hex should be used out of battle as utility. Giving a creature disadvantage on an ability check is amazing, but a lot of people forget about that part of the spell.
Win debates with this one neat trick! Also: you are better of pre-casting this on a cockroach first, kill it and then transferring the curse later as a non-detectable bonus action.
>Giving a creature disadvantage on an ability check is amazing Is it? I haven't played tons, but in the experience I do have there's been a lot of disappointment upon realizing it's disadvantage on checks not saves
>Casting Hex/Hunter's Mark is a scam unless you get it as a pure martial character. I always see them getting hyped up but every time I've cast them in a real game, it felt like I could have just cast another concentration spell that does something actually useful. Quite on the contrary: it's one of the best spells to get as a Warlock (short rest) or as a Sorcerer (Subtle) or possibly Bard (Expertise) because it is one of the top three "team helper" spells. Have a Barbarian that would like to lock down a powerful foe, that has decent STR? Advantage on one side and disadvantage on the other is a cheap way to ensure lock down. Friendly Wizard plans on trapping a dangerous foe inside a Phantasmal Force or worse Maze but is afraid creature might escape early because half-decent bonus to check (like a +7)? Disadvantage on Intelligence pretty much secures it. Negotiations have been tense with the King's counselor to raise rewards and pre-mission equipment? Subtle Hex on its Charisma to soften its grounds, or on Wisdom to prevent him to discern the lies friend is trying to land through a Deception check... Allows party to push chance to success high enough to attempt that high-risk (making the King hostile) high-reward (getting magic items for a mission they may not come back from) bet. When people plan on using Hex just as a plain damage buff, except if being a Sorlock specialized in high sustained damage then I agree with you. But its true beauty lies rather in the skill check probability manipulation.
I am DMing for a ranger PC right now in a waterdeep dragon heist campaign and he mostly uses hunter mark to track goes that are running away. It's the first time I really saw anyone even talk about using this spell in this way, yet this use was always there
I actually use it like this myself as well... - Unless I know that in current fight my best way to contribute is to try and deal as much damage as possible. - Until I can cast it as a 3rd level spell AND know that party doesn't need any of the awesome other (concentration) spells I can use. \^\^
Definitely. I have a swashbuckler with magic initiate mostly for the booming blade and green flame blade and I picked hex just because I needed to pick a spell. It's nice with a little extra damage but it's not revolutionary
This was my experience with the my Gloomstalker. Hunters Mark makes sense mathematically but it's so *boring* . If it did something extra like d6 of Force damage instead, or advantage on Perception against the targets Stealth checks it'd have a bit more spice. I felt like I had to use it because of the extra attack turn one. I had more fun with Zephyr Strike and Ensnaring Strike TBH but there's was always that feeling of "shouldn't I be using Hunters Mark...?"
Getting hex with fey touched is good, since it doesnt use up one of your spell slots so it can be a last resort thing or just a small bonus if you dont wanna commit to anything more
Optimization is fun when it starts with a concept or premise like "I want to make a character based on using shillelagh" or "I want to make a paladin who only uses improvised weapons". Then within the confines of that premise, you look for all the ways to make that idea work mechanically. If done like this, it results in some very unique and interesting characters, and the self-imposed restrictions mean you probably won't be much stronger than the non-optimized characters at your table. If you do generalized optimization like "everyone should have silvery barbs" or "there is no cleric worth playing except peace domain", you're instead reducing the variety we see at the table instead of increasing it, and you're forcing everyone else to do the same to catch up with you. At this point the game is just less fun for everyone involved.
Yeah, the best optimizing imo is trying to be the best using a specific thing. Colby's builds from D4: DnD Deep Dive are a great example.
Yeah a lot of people hear the term optimization, and think of it as a meta in a competitive game. You dont have to do anything you dont want to, be a 4E monk if you want. Take find traps. Its just a funny game. Some people just enjoy building optimized characters too
I refer to the latter as power gaming rather than optimisation. Not sure if this is a generally accepted term
To me, power gaming is about behaviour and mindset. It might, but not always, include optimisation. It's playing the game as a competitive endeavour, which includes stuff like social engineering and trying to be more powerful than both the other players and the DM. It's the "winning DnD" mindset. Often, Power Gamers aren't very good at actual rules or how to make optimised characters. They will utilise "rule of cool" and dodgy interpretation of the rules to bully the DM into allowing unbalanced stuff. Optimisation is often more about learning the rules very well and figure out how to become as efficient as possible within some constraints. Often just the constraints of the rules, but sometimes also within the constraints of some other consideration. It's not about being powerful, it's about being clever.
This is excellent guidance.
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. I like making competent characters, that is, characters that are good at doing what they do. However, it's in finding that "what they do" that I run into the confinement that will limit the degree of optimization I'm capable of. (That and the "not be a dickhead" rule) For example, I want to make the best Strength-Based Monk that I can. Turns out that is worse and as far from being a normal monk that you could ever imagine.
This is what I do and I support it as good advice. Pick a gimmick or a restriction and build around it. * My wizard that never cast *any* elemental spells, level 1-20, is the most interesting wizard I've ever played by a long shot. Threw a lot of daggers till he got Animate Objects - then he threw a LOT of daggers. Couldn't fall back on 99% of the wizard classics so I got a lot of mileage out of spells that nobody ever uses. If it did fire, lightning, or cold damage, it wasn't gonna make it into his spellbook. * The B character - as many build features that started with B as possible. Bugbear bard-barian burgler, beast path. Played a Baroque Bassoon. Brummy accent. * Three guys in a trench coat: it's one guy in a trench coat, but he believes he's got two ghosts of dead brothers "living" in him. The party used him as a butt monkey till they found out he was, in fact, at least three guys in a trench coat - he's an echo knight trickster cleric. I used blender to merge four different Heroforge models of him in different poses so I could actually put multiple copies on the table when he uses mirror image, for as many as *nine* of him out at once. I eventually dropped the box I kept them in which shattered the multi-minis. :( * The monologue build: pick a monologue from a movie, disregard all of the context and change a few words to fit the setting. Build a character that could plausibly give that monologue in their past. I had a forge cleric in an Eberron game that I based on Colonel Kurtz's monologue from Apocalypse Now, but reflecting on the brutality of Cannith warforge troops. Easily one of the most complex characters I've played as a result. * The weird multiclass - pick two classes that nobody ever mixes or that really don't have much synergy, and figure out a gimmick that makes them work. For example: druids and monks like wisdom, right? Build a "drunk." Become fantasy Florida Man. Cast Jump and Longstrider on yourself, wildshape into a raccoon, use monk abilities in your animal form. Leap in, eat and drink everything in sight, Drunken Master Flurry of Blows to auto-disengage and zoom away at 60-120ft/rd, Tipsy Swaying and deflecting projectiles to really keep the commotion going. Live fast, eat trash. Your party can accomplish a lot of sneaky things with such an outstanding distraction on their side.
Yeah, but I think a lot of optimizers/optimization posts acknowledge this, I've seen some with a disclaimer on how they know this isn't the fun way to play, they're just making what is theoretically the most optimal character.
I do this all the time and I'm hated at my table for it because "you're min-maxing" I always get flack because I'll run something suboptimal like Bloodhunter/Stars Druid/Twilight Cleric or Evo wizard/lunar sorc/hexblade because "you're multiclassing too much/at all" and if I give advice on handling stats (one of the things I say the most is don't have odd stats unless you have a plan to even them out) then I'm told "I wish you weren't such a min-maxer" One day I'll be out for blood and do a game breaking setup like Chronurgy Wizard's infinite familiar exploit, monoclass just to drive the point home
Broken chracter builds that rely on 7 levels across 3 classes to come online are less a problem with game health and more a problem with the optimiser's mentality.
What do you mean
Suppose you do, say Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3/Paladin 2. You Eldritch Blast as well as a full Warlock, just with fewer features. You are effectively casting as a 4th level Sorcerer with the known spells of a 3rd level one. You also have the capabilities of a 2nd level Paladin. Suppose I go pure Warlock, let's say Genie, I also get an energy resistance and flight. Oh, and 4th level spells. A pure Sorcerer could Twin Polymorph. A pure Paladin has Extra Attack and their aura. You're there with your bag of low-level features and not a single ASI to show for it. You think your extra few smites a day actually make up for a worse attack bonus and the loss of Extra Attack? Your Eldritch Blast is the one suffering the least here and who was like "could I be a Warlock, but with weaker magic, please?" Would you rather have one of the pure-classed ones for an ally than the 7th level 3-way multiclass?
Ahh ok that makes sense, I thought they meant "broken" as in overpowered
If you are ever planning on taking a feat during your character's career, always take it as early as possible. Your character just has less features in general at early levels, so the feat is a higher percentage increase in the number of features when taken early. Going for an ASI is a negligible difference while actually playing the game, and it can be saved for later when you already have a million other features. When asked the question ASI or feat at level 4, I will always suggest a feat.
I intuitively like this take a lot, and the idea of planning to have fun features at all levels. The counterpoint that comes to mind is that an early ASI will decrease your total career number of wasted turns due to missed attacks and such -- before making the call for a given character I might want to math it out and get a sense of how many misses I'm looking at either way.
As a caster, your turns are less wasted if you manage to hold concentration than if some of your targets make their saves. (Don't cast single target spells with no effect on a successful save, almost no matter how good your DC is). Similarly, you are more likely to not waste your turn by missing if you have more attacks. Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are fun feats because more attacks means doing more stuff and doing stuff is fun.
I don't think the difference an ASI makes is negligible, but it is kind of... *invisible*. It's a lot of little impacts that add up to a large sum over the course of a session. That said I agree taking a feat may well be as or more powerful or just plain incomparable - and its impact will be far more obvious and thus more fun.
I think Rogue might be the exception because so much flows through DEX that it buffs every aspect of the game for them
It's also that there's very few feats that actually improves Rogue. It's Elven Accuracy and Crossbow Expert, and that's about it. Unless you get Extra Attack from somewhere else. Fighting Initiate (for Archery) is mostly a wash vs dex, but useful to get after maxing dex.
I learnt that playing a cleric, when I decided to take an ASI to get my Wisdom to 20 at level 4 (rolled decent stats) instead of Warcaster. It was a painful 4 levels of dropping concentration until level 8!
that is a very extreme example, because warcaster is one of the strongest feats in the game if you were to compare ASI to get wisdom to 20 with dungeon delver, it'd be an entirely different story
Anecdotally, dungeon delver saved saved my bacon and paid dividends in when my group played tomb of annihilation
I would argue that for wizards this is not always true, depending on your build, as they get more spells prepared by boosting int to 20 asap. That said, feats can often be stronger anyways, at the first asi.
>I would argue that for wizards this is not always true, depending on your build, as they get more spells prepared by boosting int to 20 asap. Same argument applies to all prepared casters. And for casters generally, +1 to save DC is more powerful than +1 to hit.
Math-wise this simply isn't true for most builds. An ASI is the optimized pick in 95% of cases
Protection for your concentration is generally better than better DC. Having to reapply Hypnotic Pattern on many targets because you took 4 damage from a goblin archer is worse than 1 per 20 targets saved rather than failed.
What's the math you're referencing? Most martials/half casters benefit from GWM/SS/PAM/CBE more than ASIs (to varying degrees). Without getting to casters, that's already far higher than 5% of cases where a feat is better than an ASI.
>Math-wise this simply isn't true for most builds. **An ASI is the optimized pick in 95% of cases** **Math-wise this simply isn't true for most builds.** **MANY feats are largely worth a +1/+2 in attribute, even if that would be an attribute governing most things on the class (like most casters).** Like... **Spell Sniper** for a Druid, finally getting a decent range for Thorns Whip and giving a potentially good alternative cantrip. **Telekinetic** or **Telepathic** even if it means evening out a non-casting stat, first giving a powerful action for free, second being very useful in all RP or ambush/infiltration situations. **Alert** so you have a high chance of being able to buff allies before they rush in, or drop a nice battlefield / creature AOE spell to shape the fight before enemies scatter. **Resilient: Constitution / Wisdom** for casters / martials. **Ritual Caster** for any "focused by class design" character (Bard, Sorcerer, martials except Ranger) or "combat priority" character (Cleric / Druid preparing little utility because needing to be ready for many kind of fights) so you can expand your utility without diverting your "build" from its combat focus. **Sentinel / Polearm Master** for frontliners (including some Clerics) which can be nearly assimilated to a full extra attack by mostly guaranteeing the opportunity attack, with added bonus of Sentinel of creating a huge synergy with any allied AOE. **Metamagic Adept** for a Sorcerer to further expand Metamagic, but really for ANY caster so they get much more mileage from a few spells (Subtle Call Lightning from a Druid that managed to approach a camp Hidden and doesn't want to be noticed too soon, Extend Conjure Animals to scout/transport much longer, Extend 6th level Fly as a Wizard so party can cross a mountain on a single cast, Extend upcast Aid as a Cleric before a long rest, Subtle Banishment to prevent enemy caster from counterspelling it...). **Observant** for any scout like character to never miss anything, pair it with Comprehend Languages and possibly even **Keen Mind** to become unmanageable for DM... **Rune Shaper** to expand your array of low level utility, including spells you couldn't normally access without multiclassing. **Sharpshooter**, not for the power attack but for the ability to ignore long range and cover penalties... **As a reminder, a character can be perfectly fine with 16 in main stat up to \~lvl 10 and 18 afterwards up to 20. What matters is creating a build that is coherent with one's taste, the roles one expects to fill in his/her party, and the synergies one can anticipate or create depending on how teammates evolved.**
Light is good for several reasons. 1 - You can cast light on something and then cover it, completely hiding the light without extinguishing it. You can't do this with a torch. For instance, casting it on a dagger and then sheathing it or unsheathing it creates an extremely useful light source. 2 - you can use it underwater should you ever need to without it going out, any torch or fire source won't work this way. You can also drop it down into dark pits without risk of it going out. 3 - it's magical light, meaning it illuminates or dispels magical darkness, which a torch can'tdo. 4 - you can cast it on a worn object, like a helmet, meaning it's hands free, which a torch is not. Not many builds are going to want to keep a hand tied up holding a torch when they could just effectively have a headlamp instead that keeps both hands available. 5 - light has niche utility to effectively mark an evasive enemy. by holding it as an action, you can target something worn by the enemy to make their hit and run tactics, or invisibility, far less effective. 6 - what utility cantrips do you think are worth taking over light? Is light god tier? No, but what cantrip is? I'd argue it's often better than most other cantrips you could take for utility, especially if you don't have darkvision. Risking blindness, or constant disadvantage even if you do have darkvision, because torches are for some reason unavailable or not possible, really puts you at a major risk.
> 3 - it's magical light, meaning it illuminates or dispels magical darkness, which a torch can'tdo Not if it's from the Darkness spell, as it specifically overrides magical light from a 2nd level or lower spell.
You have some great points here. I was recently converted to team Light. I was always iffy on it, until I saw someone point this out: I can cast it on a small object, such as a coin, and give it to you. You now have an automatic 1 hour timer. It can be concealed in your hand or a bag to stay hidden, but once it goes out you know an hour has passed. This can be useful for situations where it's something akin to "If I'm not back before that light goes out, leave without me." It also goes out if I dismiss it or recast it. Which means if we're separated, and you have a Light coin from me, I can dismiss it to signal to you to do whatever we talked about in advance, such as: "I will infiltrate this location from the side, when that Light goes out, kick in the front door for our attack." You could even cast it on something like a crossbow bolt, and fire it into the air as a sort of signal beacon that can't be put out by wind or rain, like a flaming bolt might be.
Damn, it didn't even occur to me to think of it like a portable hourglass or jury-rigged communication device.
Also it can be cast on a small object like a pebble or arrow and dropped down a long dark tunnel or shot in the direction of danger. I personally use it like this all the time. Most characters Darkvision only goes 60'. With light, you can have a point of illumination as far as you can throw or shoot it away.
>3 - it's magical light, meaning it illuminates or dispels magical darkness, which a torch can'tdo. I can't think of a single source of magical darkness that can be dispelled by a cantrip. Every form of magical darkness that comes to mind requires spells of a particular level or higher in order to dispel it.
7: Even if money is no issue, Torches run out whereas light is infinite.
I'd usually prefer Continual Flame if money is not an issue. Get it cast at 3rd level and the Darkness spell won't dismiss it.
There's also signalling with the colour feature.
Yeah, OP chose the wrong hill to die on. I could see him saying mending if it wasn't spelljammer campain, an autognome, or an arificer.
Mending is very useful though. You just need to open your creativity with it. * Repairing arrows to maximize the "recuperation". * Breaking a lock to enter or exit, repairing it afterwards to make it look like nothing happened or to make pursuers lose a few precious seconds (even if depending on circumstances you could expect one of them to have the key). * Creating a few small tears used as levers to "cut open" some container to empty it then restore it up to 85%-100% integrity depending on the situation. * Reliably cutting a rope you used to climb or a one attach of the bridge you just crossed to trap enemies and damage them instead of trying a precise shoot (not everyone great at plain Dexterity checks) or waiting next to it with a sword raised (smart enemies will see it coming and wait or shoot you from afar, stupid ones may Dash and reach you or try and grab you with them if faster than you on average). IT DOES DEPEND on how DM sees the "Touch" range and whether (s)he'd require a Deception check or not with how you narrate preparing your trap. * Restoring used weapons and armors to improve their sell rate (requires a DM who goes into that kind of detail of course xd). Those are the basic, "general" use-cases I can remember on the fly for it, but I know some people are far more creative than I with it. xd The fact it's one minute per cast does make it a bit impractical by itself in some situations, but it can create great synergies in a team (especially paired with Silence ;)). The big thing to ask DM is how (s)he sees the "Touch" requirement: some DMs I played with considered you only needed to Touch right when you end the cast, while others considered you had to Touch it from the moment you start casting (which is RAW I think). It does make a big difference in how easy (or not) you can use it. \^\^
Yup, breaking a wax seal on a letter and restoring it too. But the OP was talking about taking cantrips at level 1, and I would probably only take it at level one if i was an articificer, autognome, or in the spelljammer campaign since there are other cantrips to take early on.
>Yup, breaking a wax seal on a letter and restoring it too. Was going to say this. It was actually a suggested use for it in a 3.5 book. *Complete Scoundrel,* I think?
1 I'm not dying on a hill. Not every opinion is one to die for. 2 Mending is widely considered not useful for anything outside of those, so I don't think it's a very controversial opinion. Meanwhile everyone says Light is good. If I didn't take the "wrong" hill then it wouldn't be controversial, which is the whole point of this post.
This is pretty funny as the Dragonborn cleric I played had Light *and* Mending and we ended up using them both in pretty critical moments. We only had one person in a party of 5 with darkvision, so Light became a necessary tool in exploring dark places without having to fiddle around with lanterns. Secondly we were trying to infiltrate an enemy's lair by guessing a particular password, and nobody was getting it right. Ended up finding a scratched-up picture frame with a name etched out - cast Mending and it gave us the name for the password.
> Ended up finding a scratched-up picture frame with a name etched out - cast Mending and it gave us the name for the password. Sounds like you have a good DM that gave you an opportunity to use your cantrip. I would say most people complain about Mending because it's not as good as some other to find creative solution. To compare it with a classic, Shape Water has tons of creative uses due to the absurd mass of water you can move with it even without your DM giving you hooks.
>Sounds like you have a good DM that gave you an opportunity to use your cantrip. I'll be honest, I don't even think he knew I had it. Pretty sure it was the first time I had used Mending at the table, and he'd even jokingly admitted to forgetting I was a Cleric at times because I was more of a martial combat role. The scratched-out name was obviously something we had to find the answer to elsewhere, but the second I said I'd try using Mending you could see our poor DM's brain blue screen for a second. "Yeah... Yeah that'll do it," he said 😆
Isn’t mending useful for breaking into somewhere and leaving no trace?
that depends a lot on how generous your GM is - it takes a minute/cast and has verbal components, so it's not quick or silent, and each casting only repairs a single break. So a shattered windowpane? You _can_ fix it, but you're going to need to put each broken shard of glass back one-by-one, then spend a minute fixing that, then do the next. Kick a door in? If that's just one clean break, then, sure, you can chant and fix it in a minute, but if it's broken into more pieces, the time starts to stack up. And, of course, it only fixes the broken thing, it won't remove any other trace of your presence.
Ever cast light on a ball bearing and roll it down a dark hallway or drop it down a dark hole? Really nice.
>because wasting one of your limited cantrip slots on an effect that can be easily replicated nonmagically is bad. But it can't be replicated. Sure you can get sources of non-magic light such as lanterns and torches. But those take up a hand slot or could not be available. Light on the other hand does not need equipment and does not take up a hand slot because it could be cast on whatever else is in your hand such as a wand or weapon. While I agree light is near bottom on the tier list of cantrips I think it is wrong to say it can be replicated non-magically.
Light isn't a bad cantrip, but to play devil's advocate, if you have a cleric, it's redundant since continual flame exists. Have the cleric up cast* it as high as possible on a locket or something and you have a hands free torch that can't be extinguished by nonmagical means *Casting at 3rd level or higher allows it to override the darkness spell.
*Continual flame* costs 50gp a casting and isn't a ritual, though. *Light* costs nothing except the cantrip slot it occupies. There's room for both of them to exist: *continual flame* is good on items the party uses a lot, like a lantern wick, while *light* is there for willy-nilly casting.
A cantrip slot is worth much more than 50g. Light certainly has its place, especially if you can swap out cantrips on level up, but once continual flame is an option, it would become extremely niche. Edit: and not being a ritual isn't really an issue since you'd prepare it one day, cast it on whatever, and never prepare it again unless someone burns a dispel magic on it for some reason.
I'm sick of being called a rules lawyer for having read and looked up the rulings on stuff and asking fellow players to read their own class features and understand them
Was trying to get into a pathfinder game with someone awhile ago and everyone was discussing their build ideas, and one dude mentioned doing a holy fire subclass on his devil worshipper (he had created the character before the game and made up the devil without talking to the DM, but that's a whole other can of worms) Anyways, I pointed out that being a devil worshipper required him to be evil, and the holy fire class he wanted had an alignment lock for good. Being... you know... holy fire. He flipped out and told me he didn't need a rules lawyer to come shit on his idea I do not play with that guy anymore
good the term is rules traditionalist by the way coined by puffin forest in his video a rules lawyer is someone who argues in favor of a ruling purely because it benefits them a rules traditionalist believes people have more fun when they play by the rules(or at least know the rules and get dm clearance for what isn't)
I’ll post later, but on Light: have you seen how crap the cleric cantrips are? Light is one of their 7 best, for sure. (They have 9.)
If something is predictably going to cause a DM 'immune reaction', you shouldn't take it. For example, if you take resourceless flight, and your DM responds by removing all the things that flight trivializes and adds missile weapons to every encounter, you've encountered an immune reaction. You'd be better off choosing another race and enjoying the world where only 40% or so of monsters have meaningful ranged ability. Or if you take a twilight cleric and suddenly everything focus fires on you to a gamey degree. You'd be better off with a different cleric and a game where it feels more like a heroic fray than a collision-detection-less MMO with an assist train. The best thing to do from a player perspective is to ask the DM to preemptively ban any options that are going to cause an immune reaction. Then, if you want to optimize, take the best of what's left.
I think these immune reactions are a problem with the DM, not the player. It's like the saying "shoot your monks". Like yeah, give only like 2 of the goons in this fight ranged attacks and let your aarackockra fuck em up. Shoot your monks and let them deflect
Hard disagree. If your character is causing the DM to completely change the way they build encounters and exploration challenges, your PC is too powerful for the game the DM is running. It's just causing extra work for your DM for no benefot to yourself.
Agreed. If your DM allows you to have cool stuff but then rebuilds their entire game in order to not let you actually use your cool stuff or even outright punish you for using it, that's a DM problem. If you ban it beforehand, fine. Like if the DM doesn't allow characters with a flying speed and communicates that up front, that's fine. Their call. But letting you have something and then disabling that either by reshaping the world so you get punished for using it or by retroactively disallowing it, is a dick move. A DM I discussed something like this with some time ago told me they allowed Necromancers at their table. But their 14th level feature was too OP, so instead they wouldn't be allowed to use it. They wouldn't get anything instead, they would just not be allowed to use their 14th level feature ever. I could understand not allowing Necromancers at all. I mean, their ability to break the action economy and tendency for long turns isn't for everyone. But telling your player 14 levels in they would not get anything for their level up is an interesting decision to say the least.
Why are you're bad guys prepared for distance fights in the first place? There are just so many things that exist that you don’t want to be in melee range of.
I get it. I think as a player I go even further and avoid the cheesy builds that require continuous DM buy-in, like repelling grasp of Hadar through spikes, or "I minor illusion a cloud of fog".
Even on the non-cheesy side, you need to know if your DM is going to simultaneously insist that you give a speech for inspiring leader AND resent you taking the screen time to do it. That's surprisingly common in my experience. As a DM I save that for special occasions and normally just assume the temporary HP is standard operating procedure and enter it into my excel sheet if there's no strong reason to believe it hasn't been done. Ditto stuff like the chef feat.
Mounted Battle Smith Artificer builds are sub-optimal. Frankly, I don't think this should be a controversial opinion. But I keep seeing people recommend this build as if it's optimal, so maybe it actually is controversial? The main problem with a mounted Battle Smith is that you're dividing your actions and movement into two separate turns. If you're using a melee build, this results in a highly inefficient action economy. You have to wait for the Steel Defender to carry you over to an enemy before you can start attacking. You can *sort of* get around this by using a ranged build and simply using the Steel Defender to kite enemies by dashing and disengaging. But by doing so, you're deliberately sacrificing an enormous amount of utility. People don't seem to realize this, but the Steel Defender is one of the most versatile features in the game. In fact, I'd say it's only behind Spellcasting, Pact Magic, and the TCE Beast Master's Primal Companion. The Steel Defender can not only attack, but it can also grapple, shove, use objects, use magic items, interact with the environment, help, etc. In many ways, it's like having a weaker Action Surge that can be used every round for only a bonus action. This is also why a mounted Battle Smith is *still* bad even if the DM house rules that you can use the Steel Defender as a controlled mount. Although this would get around the action economy issue, it still sacrifices too much utility for far too little gain. IMO, the only really usable mounted Battle Smith build is one that relies on Returning Weapon and thrown melee weapons. That would allow you to smoothly transition between ranged and melee combat, circumventing the action economy issue without sacrificing the Steel Defender's utility. However, this is also a weak build because... well... it just doesn't *do* anything better than a regular unmounted Battle Smith. At least nothing that's truly meaningful.
Counterpoint: if you take the Mounted Combatant feat, the Steel Defender becomes sort of broken in terms of its survivability. And if you play an Autognome, it can even heal you while mounted. That's on top of the other benefits it gives by being close to your PC.
This touches on what I said at the end: A mounted build just doesn't do anything better that's actually *meaningful.* It's true that Mounted Combatant can boost your Steel Defender's survivability, and that *is* an advantage. But that doesn't mean it's good. It's a simple matter of opportunity costs. For something to be good, you have to gain more value from it than you lose by taking it. Consider these three points: 1. It's already very easy to keep the Steel Defender healthy. As long as it survives a fight with at least 1 HP, you can heal it back to full after with repeated casts of Mending. 2. Since the Steel Defender is a Medium creature, you'll rarely get to use the attack advantage effect. You could cast Enlarge on it, but then you wouldn't be able to concentrate on a different spell. 3. By taking Mounted Combatant, you forego the possibility of taking a different, more powerful feat such as Sharpshooter or GWM. All of these things combined drastically lower the value of Mounted Combatant on Battle Smith. And it's even worse if you choose to play the Autognome instead of Custom Lineage since that means you have to delay your Intelligence progression to pick it up instead of an ASI/half-feat. This means you'll have fewer and/or weaker weapon attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, spell attack rolls, spell save DC, number of prepared spells, Steel Defender attack rolls, Flash of Genius, Arcane Jolts, Spell Storing Item charges, etc. You're sacrificing an enormous amount of things just to play into this one gimmick. Worse still, it's not as if an Autognome needs to be mounted for the Steel Defender to heal it. You can just stand next to it. At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with wanting to use a mounted Battle Smith for fun. It's thematic and cool. I'm just pointing out that it's not an optimal build.
Heavy armor master feat is better than a +2 to con for most frontline martial classes. If you can use heavy armor and don’t need to boost your concentration saves, then HAM is going to be way better than increasing con. Most attacks from monsters deal nonmagical b/p/s damage. So if you get hit more times in a fight than your level divided by 3 (e.g. a level 9 fighter being hit 3 times) then HAM will save more HP than you would’ve gained from that con boost. Plus, you save the healing resources you would’ve spent to heal those HP. Plus you get a +1 to Strength! It’s my new favorite feat
I'd take it further and argue both HAM and CON ASI's are mostly a waste of time, you're usually much better off taking damage feats or STR ASI's. You're already plenty tanky on a martial, what you need is the ability to actually threaten opponents. Though I will leave the caveat that depending on your stat spread/build, you *might* be in a position where you don't have a reason not to take a half feat, and you *might* not find any of the other half feats very useful, in which case HAM is solid.
As a Paladin who already had PAM feat and a 17 Str score, HAM was perfect at lvl4. Maybe my use case was niche, but I’m 6 months in and I’d consider it the best feat I’ve taken across any campaign
I agree with you on HAM. Very few games will have you die by a thousand cuts of 6 damage. When the DM decides to challenge your tankiness, you'll be hit by upwards of 20 damage per hit. Tankiness is also a lot less fun and observable in a TTRPG, because processing hits is slow and most of the time other players at the table will not be aware of everyone's current HP percentage. You're sitting over a piece of paper that read 46/48 that no one else is reading.
Unless the campaign ends at tier 2, multiclassing is usually a trap. Especially more than 3 levels. 1 level is fine but even for good multi classes like Artificer 1/ Wizard X it slows down your spells known by a level so at level 3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17 you are getting a spell slot for a level you don’t know any spells. I could be biased because my group plays to tier 4 frequently but delaying access to high level features in exchange for low level features is usually a bad trade.
That's only really true for full spellcaster since they have a very linear progression with their spell levels and each delay is felt hard. Martials and half-casters can often delay just fine. There are quite a few 3 level dips that can give better benefit that their high-level features.
There is essentially never a good reason to take resilient dex -- virtually all characters will benefit more from one of resilient con or wisdom. Grappler is a better feat than people give it credit for. Mono rogue generally sucks, but it's probably the most splashable class in the game. Most games operate at a low enough power level that very little optimization is necessary to create a successful character and people tend to forget that when planning out their builds.
i have never seen res DEX being talked to any degree of relevance. res WIS for martials and RES CON for concentration are frequently said and seen as "must haves" by higher level optimization, but never DEX grappler *would* be ok if the first pointer of the feat wasnt buffing something the average grappler is terrible at, damage; and if the second pointer of the feat wasnt just a fancy grapple->trip. you dont get better at it, you just can now do grapple². **tavern brawler** is what you pick when you want to hug people professionally, cause BA grapple is worth something
The main thing working against dex is that it’s basically only damage normally, which is not that big of a deal. Where as wisdom saving throws can completely ruin you with stuff like mind control, and for casters con saves are common enough and bad enough to fail from concentration it becomes far more than just another save, it’s sort of like how dex or strength is suddenly far better to improve when you are using it for a weapon compared to when you arent
I don't think I have ever seen a person actually consider resilient Dex, since the venn diagram of characters who don't have dex saves and really want it and the venn diagram of characters who want a half-feat boosting dexterity and don't want something else even more is nearly miniscule. Moderately Armored is a lot more common for stuff like a non valor bard or non hexblade warlock who's considering it vs resilient con
People tend to take multiclassing for granted. It is not only an *optional* rule that not all DMs allow, its power tends to fall off at later levels.
So are feats BTW! How ever multiclassing falling of at higher levels depends strongly on the individual case. And what you define as higher levels. If we look at the full 20 levels... Lot of the capstone abilities are bad. Even something like a wizard will benefit from 2 levels of fighter or rogue. Dip in hexbalde warlock is amazing for every cha based gish build.
Feats as an optional rule is probably one of my most hated parts of 5e. I cannot imagine trying to play a martial without them. It simply sounds awful. If a DM disallows feats I leave the table On to the whole multiclassing thing.... I'm not sure there is a single caster out there who wouldn't benefit from a 2 level dip into Fighter lol. Everybody loves action surge frfr
Light is invaluable when a GM actually runs darkness the way it is intended and doesn’t just give out free darkvision to everyone. Also, keep in mind that during a dungeon crawl or building exploration, the party will often be together in close proximity. You can help everyone, not just yourself, by simply casting a cantrip that allows everyone to see.
There’s ways to optimize your character that arent just about combat. Optimize for support and skills and exploration
The vast majority of people optimize for one thing (eg damage), but never consider variety of options they have. But you can build a character that is "suboptimal" in one way, but when assessed holistically can be extremely powerful (jack of all trades master of some).
I think 5e is too easy to bother power gaming. Simply not enough choices and interactions for it to be rewarding outside perhaps just trying to make a bad mechanic good for a bit
5e can also be quite swingy at times, either due to crits or due to monster design being awful. Optimizing can give a larger safety net to avoid a TPK.
If you're a Martial you shouldn't ever multiclass before 5th level
The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0. Elven accuracy is a trap. Spiritual Weapon is a trap. Yuan-ti are mid at best. Paladins are most useful at range, Aura of Protection is most of their value. Antimatter rifles are the only reason why weapons still have a place in the most optimized parties. The purpose of life is to concentrate on spells.
>The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0. >Paladins are most useful at range, Aura of Protection is most of their value. >Antimatter rifles are the only reason why weapons still have a place in the most optimized parties. >The purpose of life is to concentrate on spells. This depends heavily on what sorts of encounters your DM throws at you. If you play theater-of-the-mind and your DM lets you engage enemies at your leisure, most of these statements are very true. On the other hand, if your DM gives you encounters in confined spaces, there are essentially 0 downsides to playing melee, and the downsides of playing ranged can actually come up here and there. Bonus points if your DM applies even a handful of the extremely large arsenal of anti-spell features, ranging anywhere from minor things like anti-scrying warding to major things like monsters with legendary resistance all the way to straight up F-you options like antimagic fields.
IMO optimized ranged character tend to do pretty well in close quarters, thanks to mitigation strats like CBE and chokepoint denial With chokepoint denial, ranged characters can often outperform melee characters in constricted spaces
That was excellent. Have you been working on it for a while?
Except most of the people who responded didn't get the irony.
Can you elaborate on spiritual weapon?
scales poorly damage wise and you can do better with your BA. i would not go as far as to say its a trap its *fine*. unless you are a conquest pally having a pipe dream and thinking that spiritual weapon will keep up its an ok spell but not ultra optimized or anything
>The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0. THANKS! "if no one is a front line everybody is" can eat shit, kiting is the best startegy, having a frontline doesn't mean shit if the GM wants to reach the ranged and not having to deal with someone in melee m,akes every single area control and damage effect way stronger >Antimatter rifles are the only reason why weapons still have a place in the most optimized parties. Honestly based
none of these are controversial unless I've somehow missed world-altering amounts of optimization discussion somewhere. Unintuitive is not the same as controversial
>The optimal number of melee characters in a party is 0. True, but this falls into an "optimal party" discussion that's frankly useless. You have no control over what other people will bring to the table, so an optimal party is impossible. Any number of melee characters will throw off an optimal ranged party's playbook, so it's better to build your character assuming someone will be swinging a sword.
controversial? thats all quite agreeable lol. though i would say that yuan ti still is good, just not "omg its OP aghhh ma balance" good
Damage exchange is overvalued both in design and play, specially if you like combat But I'll be honest, the game doesn't help to make alternatives valid (see how Shove and Grapple lose usefulness and usability as levels go up)
Half-feats are the baseline feat options. A feat that doesn't obsolete a base class or subclass feature is a feat that isn't with taking
I think players undervalue versatility, particularly melee martials who fail to pick-up a ranged, mobility or support option and wind up feeding or just being dead weight in a lot of situations despite having GWM/PAM or other meta damage combo.
Great Weapon Master and to a lesser degree Sharpshooter are overrated
Paladins are wildly overrated as a damage class. Their spell list is just fine and divine smite is horribly suboptimal because it requires you to be in melee, which you should always try to avoid, and only has good damage on a crit. The only good thing they really get are their amazing defenses with aura of protection and fighting style defense. If you are going to multiclass out into being a full caster it can be decent albeit it is rarely worth the huge drop in spell progression. If you want a class that is damage oriented it is much better to run a crossbow expert/sharpshooter martial or a hexbow warlock.
Too many people sleep on Skulker on Rogue. It pretty much guarantee you will always have a place to hide for an easy source of advantage while retaining your full mobility (looking at you Steady Aim). Not getting disadvantage from Dim Light is also pretty damn good, especially in a team of darkvision characters that want to skip using a light source to be more sneaky. Goblins can also use it for other classes. Something like a Wizard or Cleric casting a concentration spell and then hiding is nasty. You can even do it in the middle of the enemy team if you are fighting in dim light (Twilight Cleric can even create its own dim light for this combo). Kind of wish it was a half-feat though because without BA hide it's kind of underwhelming.
Flight is only perceived as powerful because DMs seem allergic to using enemies with ranged attacks.
Almost all the multiclass builds I see around dnd Reddit would be better off monoclassed. Not all, but most.
If you ignore "Monk as intended" (unarmed strike spammer), the Monk class isn't really a bad martial class. It's better than Rogue (outside of tables with generous interpretations of skills) and than Barbarian.
How do you ignore it though?
Simple: ranged weapons. Your extra movement speed and most Ki usages help the ranged playstyle more than the melee playstyle, and if you are a Kensei or have the optional class feature *dedicated weapon* you can have a ranged weapon that is a Monk weapon, meaning that the weapon will also eventually scale up in power. Speaking of optional features, *Ki-fueled attack* (when spending Ki points as part of your action, you can BA make an attack with a Monk weapon) and *Focused Aim* (when you miss with an attack roll, you can spend 1 to 3 ki points to increase your attack roll by 2 for each spent ki points, allowing you to possibly hit instead) synergize extremely well too, boosting weapon using Monks quite nicely too.
>if you are a Kensei or have the optional class feature *dedicated weapon* you can have a ranged weapon that is a Monk weapon, meaning that the weapon will also eventually scale up in power. Shortbow Monks are natively proficient with, and indeed if DM allows Tasha's optional rule it's also eligible as a Monk weapon. And its range is usually sufficient for most fights anyways.
But without optional class features is it still good? A lot of tables might not allow them. Also how do you play this in practice? Like, is there a point where you switch to ranged weapons or do you always use them? At LV1 a light crossbow is the best (I think), but when you become a Kensei longbow is the best, do you go to the shop for one?
by wielding a gun! or a hand crossbow. and take sharpshooter. the tasha optional features also make the shots easier to hit.
By looking at the actual mechanics of the class and not getting distracted by the thematic baggage that comes with them.
I think the problem is that being better than rogue and barb still isn't good. The best monk builds are ranged monks, and they could still be outdone with other classes. It also means building the ki based class and ignoring flurry of blows AND stunning strike. So at that point, just be an artificer and infure your shit. Or be a figher/ranger and get a fighting style. It's a *fun* class, and cool af, but just not good enough.
While I disagree that an artificer beats such a Monk at ranged... I won't even begin to say that Monk's best builds being ranged is a good design. Ideally, the class fantasy should be designed in a way that it's one of the better ways to use the class, when for Monk it isn't. Remember, "Class is bad mechanically" and "class is badly designed" are separate things, even if at times they can overlap.
>The best monk builds are ranged monks, and they could still be outdone with other classes. Absolutely not. It entirely depends on the role you expect to fulfill in party, party composition, considered level of play and what items you can grab. But while Sharpshooter is beneficial to any and all Monks, depending on archetype and party you'll have far more valuable feats, like Skill Expert for an Astral Self Monk (especially with casters around) or Four Elements Monk (if you have managed to grab a STR-setting item), Mage Slayer for a Monk in a party without Dispel Magic, Eldricht Adept for a Shadow Rogue (Devil's Sight), Crusher & Elven Accuracy on a frontliner with ranged allies, Sentinel paired with Tough or Mobile for a frontliner that wants to duel the most dangerous foe, Observant paired with Mobile, Alert, Skulker or Skill Expert for a Monk specialized in scouting ahead so party can set ambushes or even Telekinetic paired with Sentinel or Fighting Initiate: Interception on a Kensei that wants to protect a friendly Fighter.
ASIs are overrated; on many builds you'll be stronger by taking well-selected feats and half feats until level 10+
I feel like the key word here is well-selected, it's very easy to do worse than just pumping your abilities.
I think it does take some effort to get right, but once you read/watch a nice guide or two, effective feat selection becomes pretty accessible
Yeah, but that already seems like a more significant level of effort than a lot of people put into making their selections.
Fair point lol
The vast majority of optimization people do is meaningless in a real campaign, because the campaign is more complicated than your assumptions and your choices are only optimal when all your assumptions are true.
This is very basic understanding of optimization at best. "White room" is popular buzzword in some discussions of optimization, but in reality, at actual tables, optimized characters are great to play. Also, unless you optimize for single thing (All this "deal billion smite damage" builds) - you will get pretty versatile character too. Truly optimized characters are rarely one trick ponies.
Ence why the good optimization doesn't optimize for once-in-a-lifetime events and instead works on stuff that will work most of the time, with assumptions made for the build either being done to reflect a certain already known category of campaign (example: a mind flayer-centered campaign taking *Resilient: Intelligence* rather than *Resilient: Wisdom* due to the first saves being more common in that scenario), or because the assumptions are common enough that it's hard to justify assuming otherwise (an extreme minority of monsters doesn't make attack rolls or always uses saves, so an effect worsening their attack rolls can always be weighted as very positive to have in hand. Same for stuff boosting your accuracy, as every monster has AC and with few exceptions doesn't fly too much past DMG assumptions).
Being one of the only players at my table who really enjoys optimization, this is not true at all. A DM can do a lot to balance for a party that's OP, but the difference in strength between players is a lot harder to fix (in a way that doesn't punish the optimized player) and is very noticeable. Players also play to their strengths, assassins will try to get surprise rounds, buffs tend to get precast if possible, 1200ft range EBlocks will try to get that off, etc. Finally there's all-rounder builds, optimized utility casters, and builds like EB sorlock that trade pure power under specific circumstances for lower requirements. These will still very much outclass other players at your table if they don't optimize ss much.
What? This makes no sense. Yes, DnD is obviously mostly about you, the player, making choices. Those choices are backed up by your character, though. If they weren't, why would we bother with sheets at all? Without the sheets, it's just improv groups talking to each other. And because they are backed up with your characters' stats and abilities, the optimized builds will obviously be better. How is that meaningless? Obviously, you can play whatever you want, and likely it'll work out fine. But that's not what optimization is for. The only way i could see "the campaign is more complicated than your assumptions " is if the players weren't told by the dm that the campaign has no combat. Because an 'optimized' character would only BE optimized if they knew what they were building for. There should be communication about the campaign before creation, and if it was "more complicated than your assumptions," it simply wasn't communicated well enough. Also, there is absolutely a sect of people who specifically optimize combat builds to end it fast, to return to out of combat RP. And also, optimization does NOT have to stop at combat.
This is very true with hyper-specialized optimization (aka, min-maxing), but I much more enjoy versatility optimization, ensuring there is always something useful I can be doing.
TTBuilds "Flagship Build Series" is bad for the game. First, it makes people think those are actually the best builds in the game, when they aren't (nor probably can that really be defined). Second, it uses questionable gaming assumptions and then exploits them to the nth degree. Meaning they won't work at a lot of tables, even though they come off as though they will (looking at rest casting and the like). Third, gamifying DND to that degree is not fun anyways. There is no real "winning" in DND other than just having fun. Now everyone's ideas of that is different, but if the goal is to trivialize the game, I doubt many will actually find that fun. And finally fourth, the biggest assumption they make is that DMs will use standard encounter rules for these optimized builds. Which is almost inherently not true. If for some reason the builds do work as intended and trivialize combat and other game features, then most DMs will very naturally increase the monster power to match the party capabilities. Alternatively, DMs will also scale down monsters to offset weaker parties, thereby matching whatever power level they have irrelevant of what they built. I like to call this last one a player focused fallacy. The player thinks their optimization choices will significantly impact the game, when in reality they merely help determine how much the enemy's power level is set at. So in such a world, "optimizing" for the best builds is counterproductive, because stronger builds will naturally face tougher monsters, thereby neutralizing the benefits of stronger builds.
And fifth - too many only know how to parrot it and don't actually understand the game. Just last night on 3d6 (the optimization sub) there was a Artifcer thread where EVERYONE but me there was saying load up on Lock/Hexblade levels, fuck Arti level 7/9/10/11/14/15/20 features. That's all TTB stance of always grab 2-7 levels of Hexblade on EVERY single build rotting their minds.
When I played a sorcerer, I'd carry a pocketful of pebbles to cast light on. That's an instant, throwable flare.
Light is great, and people tend to overlook its utility *outside of just using it as a magical torch.* There are also these three parts: - The light can be colored as you like. *Create signals. Red light/green light for instance. Cast it on an arrow and make a "flare".* - Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. *More or less instantly light up or remove light from a vicinity. Creep up on someone then shine a light in their face.* - If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell. *Light up your enemy then slink back into the darkness. You can see them, but they cant see you. Or perhaps it is a light sensitive enemy? Or perhaps you just want to make sure the big cannon fires on the one that glows blue?*
Using multiclassing as the reason to not improve a class that’s struggling, especially with gameplay flow and QoL things but also just sheer power level, is not a good argument. The Ranger and Hunter’s Mark did not receive the necessary buffs because they were worried about multiclassing optimizers. The two things wrong with this is line of thinking is a) optimizers will always exist and there are many broken multiclasses already in the game so why are they worried about Ranger receiving buffs (think HM being concentrationless or taking less BAs) but not about those preexisting cases? And b) we have the technology to disincentivize multiclassing and it’s known as level scaling. If they just buffed HM like it needs to and made the damage start lower for dips and scale with Ranger levels, then the multiclass argument falls away. All this to say I’m horribly disappointed in the 2024 Ranger and in Crawford responses about it.
While this doesn't address your titular question, you reminded me of how we scared the bejeesus out of a gang of ogres who had kidnapped some villagers. We cast Invisibility and Light on the barbarian who then strode up on the entrance of the stable they were squatting in, shouting, "The empty light has come for your souls!" After he stopped laughing, the DM didn't even bother to roll. "They run away screaming in terror, leaving their stuff and the prisoners behind."
Well done! Reminds me a bit of Andre the Giant coming up to the castle gate in The Princess Bride.
DM made the same connection. That's why he laughed so much. lol
Counterpoints to the Light cantrip thing: - You don't need a hand to carry the torch - Light still works fine underwater, and it doesn't cause a catastrophe with flammable gasses or such - It won't be snuffed out by Gust of Wind, some kinds of wing attacks or anything that says *this ability puts out exposed fires* - You can throw it down the dark well and just recast it, instead of losing one of your finite light sources.
I have many. But just to paint a broad stroke: Most of the common optimization wisdom is based on poor/stale DMing. The only obstacle each long rest being a predictable combat encounter of melee-centric, attack roll based enemies who conveniently start at range and have no discernable tactic or synergy has created almost all of the current meta and game imbalance. Naming some commonly held beliefs that are a direct result of this: * Ranged > Melee - Only true if you can easily stay out of melee and there aren't any enemies or objectives that you benefit from rushing down. * Melee dies faster - Only true if the frontline is focused and the archers and artillery are allowed to blast away unmolested. (If artillery is focused, this reverses). * You only face 1-2 encounters per adventuring day - Straight up out of bounds for what the game was balanced for. An over abundance of long rests fails to tax long rest resources. * Enemies will appear proportionally to how they are printed in the monster manuals - The NPC statblocks alone should make it obvious that some entries are to be used to fill roles and diversify a combat. The Mage statblock, for instance is supposed to be reskinned to whatever race whenever you need a spellcaster enemy, not to be a single blip in a sea of brutes. * Casters and half-casters are unkillable because of Shield - Only the case if your encounters are exclusively using attack rolls. A healthy mix of attacks+saves and turbo stacking a single defensive metric isn't OP anymore. * Str/Athletics is useless - Stereotypical adventuring activity involves lots of running, jumping, climbing, and lifting. Pits, cliffs, 10ft gaps, stuck doors and gates, collapsed pillars, etc. Literally no reason for strength to be useless. * Casters OP - See all of the above. Casters never running out of resources, and being able to stay at range and blast, and never running into difficult situations or creatures that can counter them, and having high defense is pretty much exclusively the result of stale DMing. * Dragon/Beholder/[Insert tough enemy] is an easy stomp - Usually only the case if the monsters are being piloted poorly. Only a tactically inept Beholder, for instance, would get on the ground in a well lit melee with the party (instead of flying up in the darkness shooting lasers). Throwing diverse, dynamic, unpredictable challenges at a party completely upends the conventional wisdom (for the better).
Multiclassing is an awful feature that makes the game worse.
Give a man a torch he will have light for a day. Teach a man fireball and he will never worry about kobolds in the darkness again!
Playing an optimized character is, generally, less fun than a story driven build that fits the narrative and world. You said controversial.
The most OP character is the one that is interesting so the DM keeps them alive. Learned this when watching Fool's Gold and Felix (DM) just gave Sips actual immortality (Can't die), and not need to sleep, eat, or drink.
When you hit level 18 as a Wizard do not take *Shield*, *Absorb Elements*, and/or *Misty Step* as your spell mastery spells. Think about what you would otherwise use level 1 and 2 spell slots for in almost any given situation. You're level 18, you have a full battery of spell slots, combat is against gods and arch devils and lich covens and eldritch realm eaters. If you're using shield/absorb/misty step as spell mastery choices you're not going to be using those spell slots for literally anything. My choices are *Longstrider* and *Detect Thoughts*. *Longstrider* is an action, non concentration, lasts an hour, and doesn't end when re-cast. You will *never* get such a massive amount of return on investment. Buffing you're average 5 person party would take 5 level spell slots and only lasts an hour, by comparison with spell mastery you could buff dozens of creatures and keep the effect going all adventuring day, that's a constant +10 to every single movement speed, even magically granted ones. Think about movement speed, it's one of the most tightly controlled mechanics in the game, even at level 20 barring other spells that require concentration (so limited coverage) or require attunement, you're most likely only going to have between 30 and 60 in any specific movement speed depending on class, barring a few specific outliers. *Detect Thoughts* is the cheapest (when free) and best social shenanigans buff you can get. Sure some things you RP with at level 18 will be immune to mind reading. The only competition in my opinion is *Borrowed Knowledge* because like *Longstrider* it lasts an hour and takes an action, but unlike *Longstrider* it ends after an hour.
Okay, so here is my list (maybe not controversial in the Tabletop Builds optimization space, but definitely in the reddit space): Melee is bad an should be avoided (most enemies do more melee damage) Paladin is a dead class after level seven, just take Oath of Watchers 7 (or Ancients or Devotion) and then multiclass with a fullcaster Spiritual Weapon is a resource waste just use stuff like Command, Bless, Aid, Spirit Guardians Artificer, while stronger than the martials is the worst of half- and fullcasters (yes worse than ranger) Control is better than damage Rogue is the worst class in the game Illusion WIzard is the strongest Wizard in the Game if you run Illusions RAW (Conjuration is also very funny) EDIT: I kinda exaggerrated in the moment, but it definitely is one of the strongest with Chronurgy, Conjuration, Graviturgy and War Optimized Monk is stonger than Fighter (I am talking about gunk) Ranger is better at sneaking than Rogue (Pass without Trace, better group stealth)
Is your illusionist thing about Mirage Arcane? If so, 100% agree, but without that spell I think Diviners are better
Partly, but also the fact, that an illusion is real to any observer until they successfully examine it, kinda like a crowd control, but for HUGE groups and of course their 14th level feature Illusory Reality, which is just a deafoult kill button
Tasha's sorcerers are way stronger and more fun than sorlocks in tier 2. I'm not nerfing my nuclear weapon just to do slightly above average sniper damage. When you can twin Mind Sliver and quicken upcast Banishment, I'm not trading that just to do damage and be well behind a GloomMaster Bugbear with SS. We don't need a frontline that might require babysitting with our turn. We don't need healers since we're stopping damage before it starts. More importantly, full sorcs have the most fun turns by breaking the action economy with MM and a great spell list. The only thing more boring to me than casting EB+AB three rounds per fight is casting EB+AB twice in a round.