Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Voss]

So, optimal class/race combinations for 5e. Basic versions. There is the possibility for some chicanery, but this is how the stats match up to classes.
Basically you want an attack stat, dex if you're stuck as a light/no armor dipshit, and always Con. Grabbing wisdom for perception is nice if you can get it, but it isn't a priority. The other 2 (or 3) stats left over mean fuck all.


Mountain Dwarf (+2 Str, +2 Con).......Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue (str)*
Hill Dwarf (+2 Con, +1 Wis)..............Cleric, Druid

High Elf (+2 Dex, +1 Int).................Wizard, Spell fighter (dex), Spell Rogue
Wood Elf (+2 Dex, +1 Wis)..............Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Monk
Drow Elf (+2 Dex, +1 Cha)...............Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Paladin (dex)


Lightfoot Halfling (+2 Dex, +1 Cha))....Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Paladin (dex)
Stout (+2 Dex, +1 Con)...................Rogue, Ranger (but no longbow), Monk

Human (+1 all)........................any, but not as good as optimized non-humans
variant (+1 to 2, prof, feat) ......any, feat fuckery

Dragonborn (+2 Str, +1 Cha).......Paladin, Bard. What, you’re going to waste strength bonuses on a warlock or sorcerer?

Forest Gnome (+2 Int, +1 Dex)....Wizard, Spell Rogue, Spell Fighter (dex)
Rock Gnome (+2 Int, +1 Con).....Wizard, Spell Rogue, Spell Fighter

Half-elf (+2 Cha, +1 other).........Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Paladin

Half-orc (+2 Str, +1 Con)...........Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian

Tiefling (+1 Int, +2 Cha)............Nope.


*Strength rogues can happen, but they aren’t very good. The mountain dwarf is somewhat viable, as medium armor proficiency lends some AC. In theory a variant human can do this too, but actually can be dex based in medium armor (and get another stat point out of the deal).

The variant human feat fuckery has an immediate advantage: either less points to get a 16 if you take a feat that gives a +1 stat bonus, or the ability to hit 17, and then also take another feat that gives a +1 stat bonus at level 4, thus staying on the bonus curve while having two feats. Sadly, this is much easier to do with strength or dex, at least if you want useful side benefits (like heavy armored (proficiency) and heavy armor mastery, both of which give +1 strength, and the latter gives -con mod to all bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage).

Observant on a cleric or druid is crazy good, as passive perception goes off the RNG. (As in 18 base, 20 base if you have proficiency in perception). Sneak some multi classing in from rogue or bard, hit perception with expertise, and this goes absolutely bugfuck nuts, from 22 to 32 if you max wis and hit level 17. No one sneaks up on you ever. Yes, you can build a character where stealth is mathematically a failure, 100% of the time. Well, unless they have expertise (stealth), which turns their +11 to +17

[CapnTthePirateG]

Honestly with the stats this really strikes me as the "I rolled my stats at home, and they came out to a huge pile of crap" edition.

You will always want an 18, hence you will roll. If you get an 18 in your max stat you can roll with any race, use your level four ability up to get 20, and then pump everything into Con/Dex. Granted, you get a whole nother +2 if you are the right race that can be dumped into Con, but I have a feeling people are gonna throw their poorly rolled guys under the bus to protect the guy with an 18 and a 16 so that when their next guy gets rolled they can get some non shitty stats.

[Voss]

Honestly with the stats this really strikes me as the "I rolled my stats at home, and they came out to a huge pile of crap" edition.

You will always want an 18, hence you will roll. If you get an 18 in your max stat you can roll with any race, use your level four ability up to get 20, and then pump everything into Con/Dex. Granted, you get a whole nother +2 if you are the right race that can be dumped into Con, but I have a feeling people are gonna throw their poorly rolled guys under the bus to protect the guy with an 18 and a 16 so that when their next guy gets rolled they can get some non shitty stats.

I would never roll, and would never want to see rolled characters at a table. The idea is horrid and fucked up and beyond irrational. High numbers are so highly valued that it is an actual punishment for honest players.

Point buy allows for reasonable customization without going shitballs nuts, and even the elite array is better than getting stuck between the Unlucky Useless Wonder* and the 'Rolled at Home' Superhero.

*If you're lucky. The alternate is the Suicide Squads, who are quite willing to risk TPKs to kill off their shitty characters. I have too many visceral memories of the kind of shit players would get up to during 1st and 2nd edition to consider rolling an acceptable method of character generation.

Hell, even the 'Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d8 (or 5)+ your Con Mod has me preemptively saying 5! very loudly. Especially on d8s. It may be a horrible confirmation bias, but I roll d8s for shit.

[Lago PARANOIA]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll? I mean, I make a lot of snide remarks about the whole 3d6 in order crap but I can't imagine that actually being a thing in most games.

[Almaz]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll? I mean, I make a lot of snide remarks about the whole 3d6 in order crap but I can't imagine that actually being a thing in most games.

No, because every DM used 4d6 assign or something even more generous. Literally every single one. I didn't even hear anyone suggest "3d6 in order" seriously until sometime in the 3e cycle by wannabe "oldschool" people. The real old school is not the rape train that self-proclaimed grognards pretend it was, and even those who were there exaggerate the difficulty a bit.

Note: spoken regarding mostly AD&D 2e play

[TiaC]

So, I wanted to see what rolled stats would look like. I've barely used 4d6b3 so I rolled a set. 13, 13, 10, 10, 7, 4. That character is going to go out in a blaze of glory in no time.

[CapnTthePirateG]

So, I wanted to see what rolled stats would look like. I've barely used 4d6b3 so I rolled a set. 13, 13, 10, 10, 7, 4. That character is going to go out in a blaze of glory in no time.

Under 3.5 PHB rules you get to reroll anything where the highest stat is 13.

Of course, this still leaves dumbasses with 14 as the highest stat, so suicide and reroll!

[Koumei]

If I rolled a shitty set, I'd name the character after the MC and see what happened. Admittedly, half the MCs I've had would find that hilarious. One WoD ST prided himself on having been killed off as an NPC in a bunch of his games.

[DSMatticus]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll? I mean, I make a lot of snide remarks about the whole 3d6 in order crap but I can't imagine that actually being a thing in most games.

Remember: the 2E fanbase of today looks nothing like the 2E fanbase of the 90's. The people still playing that edition have had ample opportunity to move on, and they've chosen not to for a reason. That reason is usually that they think D&D should be about the DM coming up with "creative" (read: arbitrary and bullshit) ways to inflict death and failure on the PC's. Those are exactly the sorts of people to whom 3d6 in order appeals, because it reinforces the idea that the players' role at the table is not to make meaningful decisions, but to bend over and take it.

[GnomeWorks]

Remember: the 2E fanbase of today looks nothing like the 2E fanbase of the 90's. The people still playing that edition have had ample opportunity to move on, and they've chosen not to for a reason. That reason is usually that they think D&D should be about the DM coming up with "creative" (read: arbitrary and bullshit) ways to inflict death and failure on the PC's. Those are exactly the sorts of people to whom 3d6 in order appeals, because it reinforces the idea that the players' role at the table is not to make meaningful decisions, but to bend over and take it.

I have seen and heard about an inordinate number of characters and entire groups die in moments of DM fiat at my parents' table.

Hell, there was even a group where he flushed the entire campaign setting by locking the party in stasis or something and just deciding that they were stuck there for like hundreds of years.

Oddly enough, though, I'm pretty sure I've had more characters die at his table due to his fumble rules than anything else. How or why that makes for an "interesting story" (the usual justification for most of what he does) is beyond me.

[MGuy]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll? I mean, I make a lot of snide remarks about the whole 3d6 in order crap but I can't imagine that actually being a thing in most games.

Remember: the 2E fanbase of today looks nothing like the 2E fanbase of the 90's. The people still playing that edition have had ample opportunity to move on, and they've chosen not to for a reason. That reason is usually that they think D&D should be about the DM coming up with "creative" (read: arbitrary and bullshit) ways to inflict death and failure on the PC's. Those are exactly the sorts of people to whom 3d6 in order appeals, because it reinforces the idea that the players' role at the table is not to make meaningful decisions, but to bend over and take it.

I'm not so sure. From what I see most of the hardest of the core 2e fans 'say' is that it is better to rp a character who is not optimal because they like to get over problems with there brains. I think for them they are playing things hardmode so that 'if' they get to live they can brag that they are better than those filthy minmaxxers.

[Voss]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll?

First hand? Not usually. Speaking for myself, when I ran 1e/2e games as a kid (and teenager), stats got fudged more often. The 6 or 8 that came up on the die rolls got mysteriously rerolled until there were at least 1 or 2 stats that came up in the 16-18 range, because I also played enough to know that the game really didn't function if the PCs didn't have good stats. Similarly with games I played in, but in high school those were largely with the same people, so what was 'understood' was pretty clear. In college, with different people, the understanding was everyone 'rolled up' their characters while alone. And if the stats were slightly above the average distribution for 4d6 drop the lowest, well, that sort of thing 'happened.'

I did have a player try to erase and change his stats to justify switching to a different speciality priest because he got upset at entirely in-character teasing for worshipping a goddess.

I can think of one or two character suicides, but more often the effect of rolled stats was a general acceptance of fudging the shit out of them. But that still left a problem with characters that were just flat out better than others because they legitimately got lucky and character which were fudged to be acceptable. Thinking about it, I can think of a sort of suicide situation with one of my own characters. It was a completely legitimate death (as I got cocky with player knowledge and met the gaze of a cockatrice, knowing they only stoned characters to touch. Too bad it was a pyrolisk, which caused immolation as a gaze attack). But I felt I should take my lumps, and the DM had in any case convinced me that my half-elf transmuter/bard kit multi class character (which was bizarrely a legit thing from Complete bard) was weak compared to his custom sorcerer-priest class. (And it was, because that shit was inherently broken- a single class with the spell casting of a wizard and cleric, and a bunch of special abilities on top).

Personally, with my gaming experience with BECMI/1e/2e from 1986-2000, I find the idea that the 1e/2e crowd was 'hardcore' and RPed shitty characters for the 'challenge' to be laughable. Fudging and DM softballing things when the system math produced hard failure states was much more common.

I've heard stories of other people's games where that wasn't the case, but most of the time that seems like urban legend more than anything else. The endless procession of character deaths that people describe would have frustrated the fuck out of most players. It was damn rare (to the point of almost never) to have a character without a primary stat at 16-18, especially for fighter types. I think I saw a 17 strength fighter once- if it didn't 18/percentile, fighters didn't happen, because they couldn't function.

Oddly enough, though, I'm pretty sure I've had more characters die at his table due to his fumble rules than anything else. How or why that makes for an "interesting story" (the usual justification for most of what he does) is beyond me.

Ah. Fucking fumbles. We almost never had deaths by fumbles (and honestly I've rarely seen fumble tables that harsh outside of Rolemaster), but we had a ridiculous number of weapons 'slip' (sometimes to the point of being thrown) and hit a friend or, in several cases the character using it. Occasionally that led to maiming, and in one case, a character cutting off his own hand, as it was an alien weapon that strapped on under the arm... the DM ruled that the character didn't move his hand out of the way and cut it off.

In retrospect, early D&D editions remind me of virgins fumbling around in the dark. It might lead to some satisfaction for somebody, but mostly it was awkward, clumsy, and occasionally downright painful.

[GnomeWorks]

I've heard stories of other people's games where that wasn't the case, but most of the time that seems like urban legend more than anything else. The endless procession of character deaths that people describe would have frustrated the fuck out of most players.

I'm trying to mentally count right now the number of people I know that have walked from my folks' table.

I'm at 12, counting myself... and I'm sure there are more that I'm not familiar with. And I know at least three people have discussed - at length - leaving their game, precisely because of the ridiculous levels of lethality present.

He has a strict rule of "you roll up characters at the table where the DM can see the rolls," and doesn't let people fudge them... though, of course, my mother has probably played more paladins than statistics would suggest.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a 2e fighter with percentile strength at his table. Except those who got them through magic items, since that's how gauntlets of ogre strength worked, IIRC.

[Voss]

I'm not sure I've ever seen a 2e fighter with percentile strength at his table. Except those who got them through magic items, since that's how gauntlets of ogre strength worked, IIRC.

Oh yes. That was what those gauntlets (and belts of giant strength) were for. It was an implicit acceptance of the fact that low strength fighters suck balls, and at mid/high levels they need bigger numbers to work. It made DMs feel better because at least they weren't artifact swords.

He has a strict rule of "you roll up characters at the table where the DM can see the rolls," and doesn't let people fudge them... though, of course, my mother has probably played more paladins than statistics would suggest.

Yeah, I did have a couple DMs like that. In both respects, actually. Strict adherence but exceptions for certain players. It was almost always a sign of campaigns that wouldn't last very long.

[GnomeWorks]

Oh yes. That was what those gauntlets (and belts of giant strength) were for. It was an implicit acceptance of the fact that low strength fighters suck balls, and at mid/high levels they need bigger numbers to work. It made DMs feel better because at least they weren't artifact swords.

And at this point I'm just questioning the need for them. If you acknowledge the fighter needs a higher strength... why not just let them have it at creation, rather than dealing with the bullshit of needing an item and what-not?

What's funny is that when he tried his hand at game design, your class defined your stats (so in d% system, your Str as a fighter would be 80 + d20, or something). So I think he acknowledges that it's a thing, but his staunch refusal to house-rule things or betray the old-school way of doing things like rolling stats just gets in the way.

Yeah, I did have a couple DMs like that. In both respects, actually. Strict adherence but exceptions for certain players. It was almost always a sign of campaigns that wouldn't last very long.

It's not really that big a deal; she certainly gets more than what would be considered a "fair" share of the spotlight, but given that they're married, most people get what's going on. She also has a pretty heavy role in helping with world stuff and wrote the code for a web-based combination character sheet/chat thing (I've not really looked at it that much, so my ability to explain it is somewhat lacking) that they use for their online games.

He's been running games for... at least 20 years, now. Mentions now and then that there is something of a line for the next open spot at his table. I find it interesting though that his table right now is largely occupied by some of the weaker players from my group.

[ishy]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll? I mean, I make a lot of snide remarks about the whole 3d6 in order crap but I can't imagine that actually being a thing in most games.

Partially. Seen people kill their characters off, characters just moving away, fading in the background, just getting replace or (most common) take huge gambles (you either win against all odds or get a chance of playing a better character).

Though I've also seen people do that just because they were bored off their current character and not just how shitty it was.

I remember playing a character where I got to re-roll my hitpoints once pretty much every level and still ended up with such subpar hp total, that a light breeze would kill me. Euthanizing characters can greatly increase the fun sometimes.

[DSMatticus]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll? I mean, I make a lot of snide remarks about the whole 3d6 in order crap but I can't imagine that actually being a thing in most games.

Remember: the 2E fanbase of today looks nothing like the 2E fanbase of the 90's. The people still playing that edition have had ample opportunity to move on, and they've chosen not to for a reason. That reason is usually that they think D&D should be about the DM coming up with "creative" (read: arbitrary and bullshit) ways to inflict death and failure on the PC's. Those are exactly the sorts of people to whom 3d6 in order appeals, because it reinforces the idea that the players' role at the table is not to make meaningful decisions, but to bend over and take it.

I'm not so sure. From what I see most of the hardest of the core 2e fans 'say' is that it is better to rp a character who is not optimal because they like to get over problems with there brains. I think for them they are playing things hardmode so that 'if' they get to live they can brag that they are better than those filthy minmaxxers.

Sure. And fundies don't hate women.

They can say whatever they want, but the reality is 'hardcore' oldschoolers only have two types of stories: the story where they gave a really good blowjob and their DM gave them what they wanted, and the story where some stupid rollplayer tried to solve a problem using abilities on his character sheet (creatively or otherwise) instead of by using his mouth on the DM, and the DM showed that minmaxxing asshole what was what with a dose of completely arbitrary fuckery. The only common thread you'll get out of all the crazy shit they say is that they don't want to put the solutions to problems in the hands of the player - the DM must have explicit permission to ruin anything anyone does at any time. That way the only solutions the DM should ever have to really consider are the ones he wants to hear, and everyone else can get fucked.

They're all stories about how much they hate player agency. They'll dress it up as something else, but that's all it really is.

[MGuy]

Oh yes. That was what those gauntlets (and belts of giant strength) were for. It was an implicit acceptance of the fact that low strength fighters suck balls, and at mid/high levels they need bigger numbers to work. It made DMs feel better because at least they weren't artifact swords.

And at this point I'm just questioning the need for them. If you acknowledge the fighter needs a higher strength... why not just let them have it at creation, rather than dealing with the bullshit of needing an item and what-not?

What's funny is that when he tried his hand at game design, your class defined your stats (so in d% system, your Str as a fighter would be 80 + d20, or something). So I think he acknowledges that it's a thing, but his staunch refusal to house-rule things or betray the old-school way of doing things like rolling stats just gets in the way.

The reasoning I've heard ('cause I've said that exact same thing) is that Magic Items do not count. They just don't. Your fighter gets magic pants and a magic sword and that's it, end of discussion. You can point out that sans these things they get pretty screwed, or without magic coming from somewhere they can't begin to participate in higher level hi-jinks but THAT DOES NOT MATTER AND HOW DARE YOU BRING IT UP! Also do not suggest that Fighters just 'auto' get these things as part of the class instead of at random because that is also a kind of fuckery that will not be tolerated.

[hogarth]

As someone who hasn't actually played in any real 2E D&D PnP games, did people in the beforetimes really and truly try to get their characters killed off because their stats were shitty and the DM wouldn't let them reroll?

I didn't see much suicide, but I saw plenty of moping by people who were playing Str 13 fighters. (Hence the stat-boosting belts and gauntlets, as noted.)

EDIT: In fact, I still see plenty of moping in 3.5E and Pathfinder games where the players are forced to roll. I'm not sure why it would be restricted to 2E games.

[tussock]

1st edition default rolling was 4d6, and if you didn't have two stats of 15+ you should re-roll per the DMG. Most 2nd edition groups had someone who knew that, and it works well enough (obviously you cheat Fighters to get 18/76+ strength, but otherwise), so it was heavily used.

Character suicide wasn't a real thing, IME, because going up levels was time consuming and the default was to restart at 1st level (which, again, you fix, but still). Though, that's with 1e style stats, where you did have some reason to live on anyway.


But it depends. I had a GM who got bored and bumped us all to ~8th level one day and handed out all the best standard items. Then a few weeks later got bored again and bumped us to ~15th level and gave us a stonking good artifact each. DMs would really just hand out more candy than you could possibly eat, so it didn't matter what you rolled.


Modern 2e games are essentially a rejection of the player empowerment found in 3e, littered with GMs who still won't let you have a +1 sword when you're 6th level, and also ban weapon specialisation, because it's not core and they hate fun.

[Ferret]

So the 5e Strength Rogue isn't necessarily horrible if you have the stats to also keep dex up to par. It was pointed out that while you require a Finesse weapon to perform sneak attacks, finesse weapons do not overrule the fact that you decide whether you're going to use STR or DEX for your +ATK +DMG stat. Basically you can't sneak attack with a longsword, but a rapier is identical and has the magic finesse tag so who cares.

With expertise, I don't think you'll miss two or three points of stat mod.

As far as suiciding characters, in the 'old school' games I've been a part of you didn't have to suicide, because low-stat characters never made it up out of the crucible levels. We joke about 3rd or 4th level being name-level in that GM's games because you seriously didn't put a name or backstory on a collection of stats until then; they had to make it up there to have any chance of being playable.

That GM habitually starts players off with 3 characters going at once, and typically they're all winnowed down to one that makes it up because it had good enough stats OR got lucky on the treasure tables.

[Voss]

They can say whatever they want, but the reality is 'hardcore' oldschoolers only have two types of stories: the story where they gave a really good blowjob and their DM gave them what they wanted, and the story where some stupid rollplayer tried to solve a problem using abilities on his character sheet (creatively or otherwise) instead of by using his mouth on the DM, and the DM showed that minmaxxing asshole what was what with a dose of completely arbitrary fuckery. The only common thread you'll get out of all the crazy shit they say is that they don't want to put the solutions to problems in the hands of the player - the DM must have explicit permission to ruin anything anyone does at any time. That way the only solutions the DM should ever have to really consider are the ones he wants to hear, and everyone else can get fucked.

They're all stories about how much they hate player agency. They'll dress it up as something else, but that's all it really is.

Eh. I tend to view such things as message board myths. They may exist somewhere, but playing the old editions for more than 2 decades, I never actually met or played with anyone like that, not at cons and not a home games, and I moved around a lot and regularly. I never even met anyone who even claimed to play in 'hardcore mode' 2nd edition until 4e came out, and I wasn't entirely convinced he was old enough for that to have actually happened.

It comes across far more as a 'in my day, we had to walk 5 miles uphill in snow storms to get to school and we liked it.'

That GM habitually starts players off with 3 characters going at once, and typically they're all winnowed down to one that makes it up because it had good enough stats OR got lucky on the treasure tables.

Sounds like someone was inspired by Dark Sun, where character creation was seriously had make 3 (4?) characters, roll 4d4+4 for stats and start at level 3. Because under the dark sun, everything sucks and you die. But realistically, it was usually a faceroll, because DMs still made the usual assumptions for encounters, and didn't adjust for the change to crazy town.

[Morzas]

Well, this is interesting. And Mearls is being a dipshit as usual.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Well, this is interesting. And Mearls is being a dipshit as usual.

Wow. Okay, looks like I'm not touching that game, free playtest or not.

[Maxus]

Well, this is interesting. And Mearls is being a dipshit as usual.

Wow. Okay, looks like I'm not touching that game, free playtest or not.

Which is a shame. I saw a blog post by one of the women in the group who plays in Shitmuffin's games and she really likes him and credits him with acts that, if true, are enormously kind.

But it appears that Zak S is a Zak S to everyone on the Internet that isn't a porn actress or a fan.

Edit: A little googling also turns up that hey, if you google Zak S and Shitmuffin, chaff deploy works!