So what are your experiences with 5e regarding class balance?


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

In 5e, it's a matter of a dex check to securely tie up a prisoner (p 177). Someone who is already tied up and blinded certainly fits that description. What we have here is a really bad GM ignoring the rules of the game and the system is being blamed for it.

I've had some really bad GMs in 2e, 3.0, and PF, but it doesn't mean any of those systems were inherently bad because of it.

The GM should have been called on this. 5e isn't a system where you declare, "you can't because there are no rules." It's designed to be a fluid system where you can easily make a call for the rule despite there not being one specifically written out. This is shown again and again the ought the PHB and DMG with things like, "this could also be used for X, Y, and Z with GM discretion." That's the entire point. This GM is stuck in a mindset where you are only allowed to do what has been published and no more (this also often coincides with GMs stuck in a GM Vs. Player mindset). This GM needs to either get a new lesson on how to GM 5e or s/he needs to stop GMig this edition.

You absolutely should have been able to get by this opponent with a blanket and simply jumping over him.

This goes back to what I've been saying for years: the advantage of complex rules is that it protects the players from a bad GM, and this fits the bill rather nicely. Of course, maybe this GM would have just ignored the rules in Pathfinder, as well.

If you can, send a complaint up the chain to see if the GM can be corrected for the next time they run a game.

Sovereign Court

You know... you can elect to knock someone out rather than kill them, as long as it is with a melee attack. It's in the book. Granted, that might have been hard for a spellcaster to do, but given the other actual rules that were ignored (such as 0 speed and such), it just sounds like the GM was "grieving" the players because he didn't want some bad ass fighter to be defeated. Even if this was Sword and Sorcery, the way that it was handled was poor, and barely tied to the rules. The GM was being a jerk, end of story.

Ultimately, I ask myself, what is the purpose behind a GM's actions? Are they advancing the story, setting up a good mood for the players, letting the players shine, or advancing some agenda of their own. That is the test by which I judge such actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:

You know... you can elect to knock someone out rather than kill them, as long as it is with a melee attack. It's in the book. Granted, that might have been hard for a spellcaster to do, but given the other actual rules that were ignored (such as 0 speed and such), it just sounds like the GM was "grieving" the players because he didn't want some bad ass fighter to be defeated. Even if this was Sword and Sorcery, the way that it was handled was poor, and barely tied to the rules. The GM was being a jerk, end of story.

Ultimately, I ask myself, what is the purpose behind a GM's actions? Are they advancing the story, setting up a good mood for the players, letting the players shine, or advancing some agenda of their own. That is the test by which I judge such actions.

I'd add on that a GM may believe they're creating a better story/experience/challenge for the player, but actually engaging in a GM vs Player style. I've seen this quite a lot, where the GM doesn't like it when players solve challenges too easily or beat opponents too easily, and arbitrarily make it harder believing that it also makes the game better for the players.

"If it's too easy, they won't have fun," is an excuse I've seen many GMs make - particularly when those GMs want every single encounter to be played on hard mode. They forget that the story is not sequential stand-alone encounters in vacuums.

Hell, I've done it myself. It's an easy trap to fall into. Just have to remember that it's a game for the players, and my part as a GM is to create, guide, and enjoy the story as my players progress trough it. That includes challenges easy and hard, combat and social (and others!). A "me vs you" environment where I control 99% of the game and the rules is not a positive experience for anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree this sounds more like the DM being a jerk and/or offended that his bad guy got trussed up and decided that someone was going to have to fight him, period. This is a GM issue, not a system issue.

Sovereign Court

Really, my summed up thoughts on this are that... if the GM is using the rules (properly or otherwise) to hose you, and even if another rule set would prevent this... you don't need a new system, you need a new GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Personally, I think people are being a bit harsh here.

It may not have been a great ruling - but I'm sure I've made equally bad judgements from time to time in the heat of the moment. I much prefer doing the wrong thing quickly than the right thing slowly, when it comes to running a game.

I think the important point is that the game mechanics don't actually result in a sorceror being foiled by a fighter blinded and bound, thrashing around on the floor. It doesn't mean the DM was a jerk - he might just have been unfamiliar with the rules (his comment that "there are not rules for it so you can not do it" definitely sounds to me like someone running a 5E game as if it were a different system).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Personally, I think people are being a bit harsh here.

It may not have been a great ruling - but I'm sure I've made equally bad judgements from time to time in the heat of the moment. I much prefer doing the wrong thing quickly than the right thing slowly, when it comes to running a game.

I think the important point is that the game mechanics don't actually result in a sorceror being foiled by a fighter blinded and bound, thrashing around on the floor. It doesn't mean the DM was a jerk - he might just have been unfamiliar with the rules (his comment that "there are not rules for it so you can not do it" definitely sounds to me like someone running a 5E game as if it were a different system).

We can definitely be too harsh, and heck - I've made plenty of bad calls myself over the years. But you know how it goes with hindsight and all.

Anyways, I agree with your assessment that the GM was running the game with a different system's mindset. The GM may just need some retraining for running a game with the 5e mindset vs a complex-rules system mindset.

5e is definitely not the game for "No rules, no way;" it's a game for "Want to try that? Ok, let's come up with something and determine the difficulty."

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil to each other.


So I've been wondering how does martial damage scale in general?

Obviously most classes that do weapons get an extra attack at 5th level and a few have a feature for another attack as a bonus action and fighters gain more extra attacks at later levels, but how about attack-for-attack damage? There is a bit of increase with the ability score increases you get, up until you hit +5 and certain class features like combat superiority, improved ciritcal range, martial arts or rage slowly increase every couple of levels and at some point you might find a +1 weapon too, but compared to how fast hit points increase, it seems rather slow.

I mean with the multiple attacks you make I assume that would be fine, but things like opportunity attacks would become less relevant if the per attack damage doesn't scale up. So are there things I'm missing or am I just underestimating how much damage the aforementioned factors add to attack damage?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

One thing to consider is that Extra Attacks do not get -5 to hit like PF/3.X iterative attacks do. So Extra Attacks hit just as often as regular attacks.

In general, the damage per attack doesn't increase significantly at higher levels without magical equipment. Some classes do have built-in damage boosts: barbarian rage, some cleric domains (Life, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, War), fighter superiority dice, monk unarmed strike damage, paladin Improved Divine Smite, ranger's (and Vengeance paladin's) hunter's mark, ranger's Colossus Slayer, rogue's sneak attack, warlock's hex.

Our two-weapon fighting eldritch knight recently got a Flame Tongue sword. At 11th level, when he uses haste, he gets 4 attacks that do 1d8+2d6+5 and a 5th that does 1d8+6, and when he uses Action Surge, he gets 3 or 4 more attacks that do 1d8+2d6+5.

His unbuffed damage per round is 58 on average, with a +9 to hit. Not too shabby.

Our ranger uses Sharp Shooter with a +1 longbow on most attacks for 1d8+1d6+16, for 24 per hit.


At 13th level, our martials all do good damage in combat. Plus, aside from the rogue who is straight damage, they all bring other things to table in combat. Between the battlemaster tripping foes (either via Shield Master or Tripping Attack) the wolf barbarian granting advantage to anyone who attacks her target in melee and the rogue's ungodly stealth score and ability to hide with Cunning Action, it's exceptionally rare when someone doesn't have Advantage on their attack rolls.

The barbarian also can use her ridiculous movement speed (barbarian plus Mobility feat), plus Advantage on Strength checks while raging to grapple foes and drag them into position for other party members to put the hurt on or away from squishier allies. (At one point they were fighting a bunch of simulacra wizards and she was dragging them into clusters together so the party could concentrate fire and the wizards had to either risk multiple AoOs or make their ranged spell attacks with disadvantage.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Threeshades wrote:

So I've been wondering how does martial damage scale in general?

...but compared to how fast hit points increase, it seems rather slow.

I don't have the Monster Manual so I can't really speak for the scaling of monster HP, but I would point out that classed humanoid HP actually scales much more slowly in 5E than in Pathfinder. The two systems sound like they would be comparable, since they're both HD+CON, but in Pathfinder you gradually build toward a +6 belt and +6 from tomes or whatever, so you're hitting lategame with a CON of like 30 or something. In 5E, you're relying on levels for all stat boosts, and CON isn't likely to be your first (or even second) priority. You might well get to pretty high levels before your CON changes from what it was at 1st level.

So yeah, the per-hit damage scales more slowly, but so does humanoid HP. As an aside, this actually has a couple of nice perks: it makes weapon damage dice and class hit dice matter more. The practical difference between 1d6+2 and 1d10+2 is waaaay bigger than the practical difference between 1d6+13 and 1d10+13.

Quote:
I mean with the multiple attacks you make I assume that would be fine, but things like opportunity attacks would become less relevant if the per attack damage doesn't scale up.

AoOs are a much smaller element of the game in 5E than in Pathfinder. I wouldn't worry about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I choose not to use AoO in my 5e games, and so far no players have seemed to notice or complain about it.


Thanks, I was just wondering because I was interested in how much impact a bonus attack or opportunity attack has. Also pertaining to some of the optional rules in the DMG, such as cleave through, massive damage and such. It would appear that the former is very unlikely to come into play even against enemies significantly below level.

For example a CR 1 ghoul has 22 HP so even the aforementioned sharpshooter ranger on average barely exceeds its HP total. Of course with so much of their damage coming from dice there is quite a bit of headroom.

But I'm not holding this against the system I really just wanted to see how much relevance these optional rules and AoOs have in this setting.

I understand that the extra attacks are more relevant compared to the first attack than Pathfinders iteratives. (well in pathfinder at a certain level your first -and eventually second- attack becomes basically an auto-hit and the iteratives are the ones where your die roll matters and the last one usually is the attack that is more likely to miss than not)


I was wondering whether it would be okay balance wise to allow players with the extra attack feature some sort of focus attack, that allows them to forgo their second attack to deal damage with one attack as though they hit twice.

So a STR 18 lv 5 fighter with a greatsword can announce using this before rolling to attack, and if she hits deals 4d6+8 damage. On a crit all 4 dice get doubled.

Statistically it wouldn't change their damage output as far as I know, but it would be a flavorful option.


Threeshades wrote:

I was wondering whether it would be okay balance wise to allow players with the extra attack feature some sort of focus attack, that allows them to forgo their second attack to deal damage with one attack as though they hit twice.

So a STR 18 lv 5 fighter with a greatsword can announce using this before rolling to attack, and if she hits deals 4d6+8 damage. On a crit all 4 dice get doubled.

Statistically it wouldn't change their damage output as far as I know, but it would be a flavorful option.

It worked that way at one point in the playtest and I include it as an option in my house rules. Basically, Vital Strike for free.

Although I don't allow the bonuses to stack as a trade-off for the 'Advantage on your next/or single attack' abilities.


Jody Johnson wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

I was wondering whether it would be okay balance wise to allow players with the extra attack feature some sort of focus attack, that allows them to forgo their second attack to deal damage with one attack as though they hit twice.

So a STR 18 lv 5 fighter with a greatsword can announce using this before rolling to attack, and if she hits deals 4d6+8 damage. On a crit all 4 dice get doubled.

Statistically it wouldn't change their damage output as far as I know, but it would be a flavorful option.

It worked that way at one point in the playtest and I include it as an option in my house rules. Basically, Vital Strike for free.

Although I don't allow the bonuses to stack as a trade-off for the 'Advantage on your next/or single attack' abilities.

That's a good point. You should do either that or not allow this attack to gain advantage from an ability that gives advantage on a single attack.

I have the playtest rules buried somewhere, from when we tried a single session with it once.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'm curious what the point of this houserule is. All it does is make the damage more swingy: higher chance of dealing the absolute max, but also a higher chance to accomplish nothing at all. As a player, I see no incentive to ever take that option instead of simply making all of my attacks.

EDIT: You know, this actually hits on an interesting element of balance and game design. If everyone has the option of doing A or B, what's the point? If either A or B is better than the other, then players will always choose that option, and there's then no point in offering the choice; or to put it more bluntly, there isn't a "choice". If instead neither is better, then it no longer matters whether the player chooses A or B. If you get the same value regardless of which you pick, then again there's not really a point in being asked to choose; might as well only have to learn one rule instead of two and get the same net result.

But what if A is better in certain circumstances, while B is better in other circumstances? Now it actually makes a difference to choose one or the other in a given situation. However, if it's always straightforward to see which one is best in the current circumstances, then in any given situation you're right back to the original "one option is clearly better, so there is no real choice" situation from above.

So what if (whether universally or just in certain circumstances) one option might be stronger, but you can't tell for sure and have to take a calculated risk? (For example, maybe one option is clearly superior in offensive power, but using it gives you -2 AC for a round, and you can't know during the decision point whether that change will actually result in additional hits or not.) Now the player has to weight the options and make a real decision: they don't know for sure whether the better offense will actually end the fight any sooner, and they don't know for sure whether the AC change will cost them any more HP.

Or what if one option is clearly superior, but requires a resource cost to gain access to (such as spending a feat)? Now they have to weigh "the ability to do this better thing" against "the ability to do existing things better" (by just taking the stat boost instead of a feat). That's a real decision.

...Wow, a four-paragraph edit? I guess I'm rambling. I'll stop now. :P

Sovereign Court

It is an interesting proposition. If you can leverage advantage onto one attack and not two, you not only increase the potential for a critical (and thus, maximizing the effort), but you also increase the potential to hit once versus twice.

It's the kind of thing I might see as a feat for archers. They definitely tend to need more love, especially when it comes to non-ranger archers and range focus builds. In fact... hmm...


Honestly, archers are already in a good place in 5E versus melee. One of only two styles to get a -5 Attack Roll +10 Damage Roll feat, the Archery Fighting Style class feature, which at worst requires a 1 level dip in Fighter, grants a 10% accuracy boost. Generally having fewer stats to care about, unless going an arcane archer type route in which case you'd just go straight Hunter Ranger and care somewhat more about your Wis.


Jiggy wrote:

I'm curious what the point of this houserule is. All it does is make the damage more swingy: higher chance of dealing the absolute max, but also a higher chance to accomplish nothing at all. As a player, I see no incentive to ever take that option instead of simply making all of my attacks.

EDIT: You know, this actually hits on an interesting element of balance and game design. If everyone has the option of doing A or B, what's the point? If either A or B is better than the other, then players will always choose that option, and there's then no point in offering the choice; or to put it more bluntly, there isn't a "choice". If instead neither is better, then it no longer matters whether the player chooses A or B. If you get the same value regardless of which you pick, then again there's not really a point in being asked to choose; might as well only have to learn one rule instead of two and get the same net result.

But what if A is better in certain circumstances, while B is better in other circumstances? Now it actually makes a difference to choose one or the other in a given situation. However, if it's always straightforward to see which one is best in the current circumstances, then in any given situation you're right back to the original "one option is clearly better, so there is no real choice" situation from above.

So what if (whether universally or just in certain circumstances) one option might be stronger, but you can't tell for sure and have to take a calculated risk? (For example, maybe one option is clearly superior in offensive power, but using it gives you -2 AC for a round, and you can't know during the decision point whether that change will actually result in additional hits or not.) Now the player has to weight the options and make a real decision: they don't know for sure whether the better offense will actually end the fight any sooner, and they don't know for sure whether the AC change will cost them any more HP.

Or what if one option is...

Let's say we make it the free vital strike that Jody Johnson proposed, and then combine it with the cleave through and/or massive damage optional rules. (the former of which being the reason why I was contemplating this in the first place)

Then you have an attack that deals less damage altogether but is more likely to fell a target and carry over the damage to the next target. The gain being a higher chance of all your damage counting. But you don't know for sure ahead of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main situations I see a 'Vital Strike' option as being advantageous are in ranged attacks with the Loading descriptor and with Thrown weapons where ammunition is a concern, or when you have Advantage on a single attack and want to maximize it's effectiveness.

It meshes with my house rules because I want to buff Thrown weapons slightly and remove the Crossbow Expert feat. I also remove the -5/+10 part of SS and GWM which brings this more into a viable option for all attacks.

Scarab Sages

Just wanted to mention that I typically find that Paladin 2/Bard X (College of Valor) replicates Magus pretty well. Smites4Dayz.


So earlier on the thread its been mentioned that The Beastmaster ranger archetype is rather viewed as a weaker selection.

I was looking at the archetype to see what its about. And I came across something unclear.

It says under Bestial Fury at 11th level your companion makes two attacks when you command it to use the attack action. But what happens if my companion is for example a Giant Badger, which already has multi attack?

Does that mean the Badger doesn't benefit from Bestial Fury, or that before that it can only make one attack despite its own multiattack ability?

I thought with a companion like a giant badger it would seem to be a fairly decent archetype, basically giving up one attack with your own weapon to get two attacks at +5 through +9 and damage of 1d6+3 through 1d6+7 and 2d4+3 through 2d4+7 respectively. Depending on how a multiattacking companion works with bestial fury that might be only one attack before 11th level.

Other companions have other benefits like knocking enemies prone or grappling on top of their attack damage.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, the companion's multiattack action can't be used until 11th level (unless it is acting uncontrolled).

Remember that monsters in 5E don't really have 'abilities', they have actions they can take. Although the giant badger can take the Multiattack action, the beastmaster ranger can't command that until 11th level.

All you can do is to command your ally to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help actions (not the Multiattack action).

At 5th level, when you command it to take the attack action, you can also attack.

At 7th level you can command it to Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help as a bonus action.

In the second printing of the PH (which includes FAQs/erratas) Bestial Fury is worded like this:

"Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action."

Sovereign Court

Ugh, restraining companions like that is so troublesome. You can literally just pay a guy to help you fight and that would be more effective than the ranger animal companion. Or you could BUY a trained animal to fight with you and again, more effective. It's bad design wrapped with good intentions.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, the companion's multiattack action can't be used until 11th level (unless it is acting uncontrolled).

Remember that monsters in 5E don't really have 'abilities', they have actions they can take. Although the giant badger can take the Multiattack action, the beastmaster ranger can't command that until 11th level.

All you can do is to command your ally to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help actions (not the Multiattack action).

At 5th level, when you command it to take the attack action, you can also attack.

At 7th level you can command it to Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help as a bonus action.

In the second printing of the PH (which includes FAQs/erratas) Bestial Fury is worded like this:

"Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action."

So technically an animal with multiattack is automatically worse as an animal companion than one with a single attack.

If I have a giant badger i can only make it attack once until 11th level and its attacks have no extra effects beyond damage and it attacks twice when at 11th.

Meanwhile a wolf also attacks once until 11th but gets a chance to knock someone prone every time and at 11th onward it also attacks twice and has two chances of knocking someone prone.

Or a panther which gets the knock a target prone and make a bonus attack if it uses its pounce (which is not an action but a special ability that triggers under the right circumstances) and an additional attack at 11th.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It may be worse. (It may have more hit points, better armor, useful traits, etcetera as well as not getting all of the attacks a wild one does).

The actions it can take as a free agent aren't necessarily things you can order it to perform as a ranger.


Going by the book for an animal companion is what you do when the Beastmaster can't get a companion any other way - it is a class feature under player control.

Normally as you say, you can just Awaken/Animal Friendship, buy or otherwise treat your pet as an NPC. But then your Ranger Beastmaster features don't kick in and ultimately it is under the DMs control even if it normally gets directed by the player.

My issue with many Beastmaster fixes is that the player wants the DPR of the Hunter subclass (which is nearly all the Hunter gets) and then ignores the added exploration and versatility that the companion adds.

The Designers usually describe the ranger options as Attack power (Hunter) or Versatility (Beastmaster).

It also helps if the DM doesn't get hung up on 0 HP = Dead, because nothing in the rules requires that. They get Death Saves, HD short rest healing, and overnight full recovery plus reactions and OAs.

Sovereign Court

I would also consider playing up the beastmastery type bonuses you would expect, like shared senses and animal speech and such. I mean, just based on the eponymous movie...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Do you think "The Beastmaster" is the all time favorite character of pirates everywhere?

"DAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We just hit 6th level in a party that includes a Beastmaster ranger and his wolf has been incredibly helpful between his Scent and ability to tie targets down with threat of AoOs (and the tripping bite). The ranger is a halfling (which means he can use the wolf as a mount, so that's an added bonus) focused on archery. Most fights he hangs back and shoots his bow while using his wolf in melee against spellcasters. The wolf has also alerted us to enemies a lot of times when the rest of us haven't noticed anything.


I recently heard that 5e classes are more of a tier 4 (can do their specialty well but cannot do much outside of that) rather than a tier 3 (can do their specialty well and can meaningfully contribute outside of their specialty).

Additionally, the opinion was opined that non-casting classes can only stab things, suggesting the martial-caster disparity is still an issue.

I gave my disagreement and reasons in that conversation, but I'm curious to see what others think. What's your opinion and analysis?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
I was recently heard that 5e classes are more of a tier 4 (can do their specialty well but cannot do much outside of that) rather than a tier 3 (can do their specialty well and can meaningfully contribute outside of their specialty).

This sounds like an analysis from someone who's in a Pathfinder mindset where your capabilities come exclusively from your class because basic world interaction is so heavily restricted to those with special abilities/feats.

The classes in 5E don't give you the ability to meaningfully contribute outside your specialty, because that ability is given to you just by virtue of being a character at all.

For instance, there's not much in the way of class features to let you knock a high-AC target on their ass to make them easier to hit or to let you swing on chandeliers or whatever else, and I think the pundits stop there, failing to realize that the reason the class isn't giving it to you is because ANY character can try to knock people over or swing from chandeliers.

So although pedantically you could perhaps technically claim that the classes themselves are "tier 4", the finished character of any given class is still going to end up being "tier 3" because the difference (the ability to contribute outside your specialty) is baked right into the underlying system.

Quote:
Additionally, the opinion was opined that non-casting classes can only stab things, suggesting the martial-caster disparity is still an issue.

I haven't played much at high levels, so it might still be there to some degree (after all, martials still can't raise the dead or travel the planes). However, the premise that "non-casting classes can only stab things" suffers from the same flaw that I described above: the speaker is clearly a Pathfinder player, still operating under the assumption that they need a class feature enabling X in order to be able to do X. But with skills being more meaningful and easier for martials to access in 5E than in Pathfinder, there's no such thing as a martial who can only stab things.

There are more patches to the C/MD than just that, but I'll stop for now. :)

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I also really like the features baked into the backgrounds, which makes it hard to have a character that doesn't have a social/exploration aspect that they can contribute from.


For the curious, my response was here


One thing in 5E that doesn't really exist is skill disparity. The difference between the fighter and rogue is only a couple of skills at level one. There is NO bonus to number of skills known for a high intelligence in this edition, you get skills from background, class, and in some cases, race (half-elf gets two of choice, some others get a specific skill or just a boost to one).

Granted, you CAN build a character for skills - take a half elf bard or rogue and the right background and you'll be far ahead of just about anyone else, but it isn't as if martial characters are leagues behind the entire party no matter what anymore.


Not to mention the feat can give you proficiency with 3 more skills which is pretty nice.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

A human rogue could begin level 1 with 10 skill proficiencies. (1 race + 3 feat + 2 background + 4 class)

A human bard with the College of Lore can have 12 skill proficiencies by 3rd level. (1 race + 3 feat + 2 background + 3 class + 3 College)

And you might be able to get more through multiclassing. For example, some cleric domains grant a bonus skill proficiency. Also, some classes (bard, rogue, and I think ranger) grant a skill proficiency when you multiclass into them.

And if you can get one more skill proficiency by starting out as a half-elf, and then taking Skilled at 4th level.

So the maximum would be half-elf bard 4/rogue 1/ranger 1/cleric 1 with the Skilled feat and the College of Lore. (2 race + 3 class + 3 College + 2 background + 3 feat + 1 rogue + 1 ranger + 1 cleric = 16 total)

1 + 3 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 4 total skills, right? 18.

So you might need Boons or training to get ALL the skills.


2 levels in warlock can get you an invocation that gives you proficiency in Deception and Persuasion, and knowledge domain actually gives you two knowledge proficiencies which gets you up to 21.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Probably easier to go half-elf fighter and take the skilled feat repeatedly. That way you get all the armor and weapon proficiencies too. I doubt you'd make it to all the tool proficiencies though..

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Can you take Skilled multiple times? That's cool. And makes sense. :-)

Threeshades said wrote:
2 levels in warlock can get you an invocation that gives you proficiency in Deception and Persuasion, and knowledge domain actually gives you two knowledge proficiencies which gets you up to 21.

21 out of 18 ain't bad. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
SmiloDan wrote:
Can you take Skilled multiple times? That's cool. And makes sense. :-)

I presume so. (You certainly can at my table).

101 to 150 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / So what are your experiences with 5e regarding class balance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.