I don't want to play neither Warlocks nore Sorcerers... those classes are either more related to be Chaotical and Evil. Those are mostly touched by the Evilness, and I dislike selling my own soul to get so many advantages, spells, etc, etc.
Those classes IMO should be the typical BBEG to be defeated at some point of the campaign, geez.
I don't want to play neither Warlocks nore Sorcerers... those classes are either more related to be Chaotical and Evil. Those are mostly touched by the Evilness, and I dislike selling my own soul to get so many advantages, spells, etc, etc.
Those classes IMO should be the typical BBEG to be defeated at some point of the campaign, geez.
I don't want to play neither Warlocks nore Sorcerers... those classes are either more related to be Chaotical and Evil. Those are mostly touched by the Evilness, and I dislike selling my own soul to get so many advantages, spells, etc, etc.
Those classes IMO should be the typical BBEG to be defeated at some point of the campaign, geez.
I guess all the good aligned Warlocks I've played over the years were designed completely wrong.
Ditto for my friend's good aligned Sorcerers, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Behind every successful Warlock, there's an angry mob.
I've probably played all of the classes besides bards. While I can have fun playing just about anything (has more to do with the group dynamics, adventure itself, etc.) I find I'm attracted to classes that have additional interesting abilities as the levels advance. So, wizards are usually my go-to, because there are always spells or combos I haven't tried and you're always getting more of them. The martial classes are just not as fun in that department, though I've had a ton of fun playing a gnome Rune Knight (just the right balance between smash-power and new abilities).
However, after playing a cleric as my first 5e character and running through the Tyranny of Dragons modules... I doubt I'll ever go back to it. It was great for the first 8 levels or so. Then it was not as exciting. And by 10th level (oh, cool, an ability that only works rarely! Fun!) I was done doing the same old stuff/casting the same old spells. And it had been a blast early on. I could cast silence! And fireball as a cleric of light! Anyway, it just didn't mix with how I wanted to play, so i switched characters to an elven bladesinger to finish out the campaign.
I probably won't go back to paladin, either. They're awesome; in my opinion, they get too much. I felt like I was playing on easy mode.
I continue to love monks, despite knowing full-well that they eventually just can't keep up and are perpetually secondary characters unless you've found ways to min/max in very particular ways.
I don't play bards because I'm not that exuberant. I've rolled up several that would not behave like a stereotypical bard (ie: re-skinning the mechanics to be not something as ridiculous as playing music in the middle of a battle), but I always end up deciding another class would be better suited to the concept anyway. More power to you if you love bards. They're very dynamic in this edition.
Wont play bards because they are all evil and I want to choose my character’s alignment.
What?
Enchantment spells are all evil
There's an argument to be made for some of them being implicitly evil, but I don't believe any spell is explicitly Evil (or any other alignment) in and of itself in 5e. That said, I doubt Blessing people could be considered evil, or helping people show some Heroism, or making it impossible to lie within your Zone of Truth.
And even if you think all enchantment spells are evil, Bards aren't forced to actually use or know any.
Wont play bards because they are all evil and I want to choose my character’s alignment.
What?
Enchantment spells are all evil
There's an argument to be made for some of them being implicitly evil, but I don't believe any spell is explicitly Evil (or any other alignment) in and of itself in 5e. That said, I doubt Blessing people could be considered evil, or helping people show some Heroism, or making it impossible to lie within your Zone of Truth.
And even if you think all enchantment spells are evil, Bards aren't forced to actually use or know any.
Not to mention inspiring people to do the right thing.
My bard never uses spells like charm person. Honestly, with a +11 to persuasion she doesn’t need to.
I usually DM, but I when I do play I have a bad habit of trying to fill in missing pieces of the party. Example no skill monkey I build a rogue or bard depending on what inspiration comes at the time. I don't think there really is a class I won't play if I can come up with a good base for the character as a character the class and other stuff comes afterwards for me.
Wont play bards because they are all evil and I want to choose my character’s alignment.
What?
Enchantment spells are all evil
There's an argument to be made for all of them being explicitely evil. That said, I know that Blessing people is evil, and forcing people show to some Heroism, and forcing the truth out of people within your Zone of Truth.
And even if you know all enchantment spells are evil, Bards aren't forced to actually use or know any.
Not to mention inspiring people to do the wrong thing.
My bard never uses spells like charm person. Honestly, with a +11 to persuasion she doesn’t need to.
Forcing the truth out of people is evil.
When I think of enchantment spells, I think of all the evil spells that the villains use:
Friends does kind of the same thing as being trained in marketing or psychology.
Except that you don’t try to convince someone of something, you just straight up force it into their head.
Friends doesn't really force anything, it just makes you SUPERNATURALLY charming.
Key word here.
But also just imagine what would happen if, say, a child could cast it.
Yeah I know, it's supernatural. It magically makes you as charming as you could be on your best day. That's what it would take to get Advantage on the roll. That's still not any sort of compulsion. Babies can be very charming. Not sure they need it, actually. Our brains kind of do that for us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Wont play bards because they are all evil and I want to choose my character’s alignment.
What?
Enchantment spells are all evil
Don't pick any enchantment spells then, there are plenty of great spells on the bard spell list you can choose that are not in that school of magic. Not every wizard, sorcerer and warlock in the world is gonna pick charm person and dominate person, and the same is true for bards too
At 1st level: spells such as animal friendship, bane, comprehend languages, dissonant whispers, feathrr fall, heroisim, silent image, speak with animals, unseen servant and thunderwave (a few of these are technically enchantment but who cares if it is all direct buffs or debuffs?)
At 2nd level: cloud of daggers, detect thoughts, enhance abillity, heat metal, silence, invisibiity, knock
Etc etc, there are tons of bard spells and you only need to choose a total of like 7 until 4th. are there other reasons to dislike the class? Maybe, but you don't have to pick unethical spells if you don't want to
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
When you see a mighty stone golem guarding a yuan-ti temple, does that require concentration? Does the animated armor guarding an npc wizard's tower years after the wizard passed away require concentration? What about the animated dead controlled by a cleric who cast animate dead? Does the +1 longsword your fighter found in a dusty tomb require concentration? Of course not! There is such a thing as permanent magic, the process for casting a spell with a 1-action cast time temporarily altering reality is extremely different from the permanent magical creations that take days or weeks to make.
Solution: Start a training academy for Artificers. Get them to be able to make two dozen steel defenders instead of one golem. An artificer can only ever have one steel defender at any time; if an artificer creates a newhem all heavily indebted to you. Each Artificer only gets one Steel Defender? Okay, but it's still probably cheaper to get a dozen desperate people to sign contracts of indentured servitude to you and train them up to become Artificers than to pay 50,000 gp for a Flesh Golem that has a chance of going completely ballistic and murdering you and/or destroying all lab stuff.
Also, isn't it pretty arbitrary that one Artificer gets one Steel Defender? What is this, a modern marriage contract? Where would Remington be today, if every gunsmith could only manufacture 1 gun?
Everything about Dungeons and Dragons is arbitrary and nonsensical; it is fundamentally a game of make believe. Why is a fireball 8d6 damage? Why do druid prepare spells instead of knowing them? Why do rangers get light and medium armour proficiency? Why is base speed 30’? Why is an artificer limited to one steel defender? Because, that’s why. That is literally the reason.
You don’t have to like or agree with them but the notion that there is any reason for the rules aside from some developer deciding that’s the way they are is utter folly. As 6thLyranGuard mentioned, all that is needed is internal consistency. Your protestations indicate a flawed understanding of the system rather than a flaw in the system itself.
And finally, we have someone willing to admit the truth: that the magic system in 5E is a cobbled together mess with little to no consistency. Thank you for your honesty.
The one thing I disagree with you about is that I lack a clear understanding of the game system. I'm well aware that most people play D&D as an escapist power fantasy involving killing monster, getting loot, and pulling a fast one on guard at the gate. I understand that a lot of people just want to roll dice and feel like superheroes/supervillains. That might be enough for them. To some degree, I share that sensibility. It's just that I don't enjoy mechanics without theme.
Let me ask you: Do you enjoy thinly sliced, fried potatoes without any seasoning whatsoever? Does your enjoyment of the those fried potatoes diminish due to a lack of any spice or condiment? "But salt just goes well with potatoes!" you might say. Yes, but the carbohydrates from the potato is the what you actually need from a purely nutritional perspective and you probably get too much sodium from other stuff you eat. So shouldn't you be grateful you get to have any kind of fried potatoes at all?
The argument that the mechanics matter, but the theme is superflous doesn't sit well with me for the same reason why you probably put salt and pepper and/or ketchup on your fried potato strips. Is having lore and world-building that makes sense strictly necessary to play the game? No. But it tastes better when the they mesh well together. Is that always going to happen? No. But what I can, and what I am doing here on a thread started pretty much for this purpose, is to indicate how and why the Artificer-style lack of consistent thematics seems to me like mixing fried potato strips with strawberry ice cream. Does it "work" on some level? Probably. That doesn't mean I would ever want to try it.
I don't want to play neither Warlocks nore Sorcerers... those classes are either more related to be Chaotical and Evil. Those are mostly touched by the Evilness, and I dislike selling my own soul to get so many advantages, spells, etc, etc.
Those classes IMO should be the typical BBEG to be defeated at some point of the campaign, geez.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
No Elsa for you then.
I guess all the good aligned Warlocks I've played over the years were designed completely wrong.
Ditto for my friend's good aligned Sorcerers, too.
Behind every successful Warlock, there's an angry mob.
I've probably played all of the classes besides bards. While I can have fun playing just about anything (has more to do with the group dynamics, adventure itself, etc.) I find I'm attracted to classes that have additional interesting abilities as the levels advance. So, wizards are usually my go-to, because there are always spells or combos I haven't tried and you're always getting more of them. The martial classes are just not as fun in that department, though I've had a ton of fun playing a gnome Rune Knight (just the right balance between smash-power and new abilities).
However, after playing a cleric as my first 5e character and running through the Tyranny of Dragons modules... I doubt I'll ever go back to it. It was great for the first 8 levels or so. Then it was not as exciting. And by 10th level (oh, cool, an ability that only works rarely! Fun!) I was done doing the same old stuff/casting the same old spells. And it had been a blast early on. I could cast silence! And fireball as a cleric of light! Anyway, it just didn't mix with how I wanted to play, so i switched characters to an elven bladesinger to finish out the campaign.
I probably won't go back to paladin, either. They're awesome; in my opinion, they get too much. I felt like I was playing on easy mode.
I continue to love monks, despite knowing full-well that they eventually just can't keep up and are perpetually secondary characters unless you've found ways to min/max in very particular ways.
I don't play bards because I'm not that exuberant. I've rolled up several that would not behave like a stereotypical bard (ie: re-skinning the mechanics to be not something as ridiculous as playing music in the middle of a battle), but I always end up deciding another class would be better suited to the concept anyway. More power to you if you love bards. They're very dynamic in this edition.
Wont play rogues because of already discussed reasons.
Wont play bards because they are all evil and I want to choose my character’s alignment.
Wont play chaotic good characters because too hard to identify with.
Wont play high elves because their existence irritates me.
Wont play unrevised ranger because it sucks.
What?
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Not sure if there are any classes I wouldn't play, but one role I don't play is "murderhobo".
Enchantment spells are all evil
There's an argument to be made for some of them being implicitly evil, but I don't believe any spell is explicitly Evil (or any other alignment) in and of itself in 5e. That said, I doubt Blessing people could be considered evil, or helping people show some Heroism, or making it impossible to lie within your Zone of Truth.
And even if you think all enchantment spells are evil, Bards aren't forced to actually use or know any.
Not to mention inspiring people to do the right thing.
My bard never uses spells like charm person. Honestly, with a +11 to persuasion she doesn’t need to.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I usually DM, but I when I do play I have a bad habit of trying to fill in missing pieces of the party. Example no skill monkey I build a rogue or bard depending on what inspiration comes at the time. I don't think there really is a class I won't play if I can come up with a good base for the character as a character the class and other stuff comes afterwards for me.
Forcing the truth out of people is evil.
When I think of enchantment spells, I think of all the evil spells that the villains use:
Zone of Truth doesn't force someone to speak the truth, it just forbids them from speaking deliberate lies. Slightly different.
Friends does kind of the same thing as being trained in marketing or psychology.
And still the example of Bless and Heroism go to prove that not all enchantment spells are mind controlling spells.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Except that you don’t try to convince someone of something, you just straight up force it into their head.
Friends doesn't really force anything, it just makes you supernaturally charming.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Key word here.
But also just imagine what would happen if, say, a child could cast it.
Yeah I know, it's supernatural. It magically makes you as charming as you could be on your best day. That's what it would take to get Advantage on the roll. That's still not any sort of compulsion. Babies can be very charming. Not sure they need it, actually. Our brains kind of do that for us.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Don't pick any enchantment spells then, there are plenty of great spells on the bard spell list you can choose that are not in that school of magic. Not every wizard, sorcerer and warlock in the world is gonna pick charm person and dominate person, and the same is true for bards too
At 1st level: spells such as animal friendship, bane, comprehend languages, dissonant whispers, feathrr fall, heroisim, silent image, speak with animals, unseen servant and thunderwave (a few of these are technically enchantment but who cares if it is all direct buffs or debuffs?)
At 2nd level: cloud of daggers, detect thoughts, enhance abillity, heat metal, silence, invisibiity, knock
Etc etc, there are tons of bard spells and you only need to choose a total of like 7 until 4th. are there other reasons to dislike the class? Maybe, but you don't have to pick unethical spells if you don't want to
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
And finally, we have someone willing to admit the truth: that the magic system in 5E is a cobbled together mess with little to no consistency. Thank you for your honesty.
The one thing I disagree with you about is that I lack a clear understanding of the game system. I'm well aware that most people play D&D as an escapist power fantasy involving killing monster, getting loot, and pulling a fast one on guard at the gate. I understand that a lot of people just want to roll dice and feel like superheroes/supervillains. That might be enough for them. To some degree, I share that sensibility. It's just that I don't enjoy mechanics without theme.
Let me ask you: Do you enjoy thinly sliced, fried potatoes without any seasoning whatsoever? Does your enjoyment of the those fried potatoes diminish due to a lack of any spice or condiment? "But salt just goes well with potatoes!" you might say. Yes, but the carbohydrates from the potato is the what you actually need from a purely nutritional perspective and you probably get too much sodium from other stuff you eat. So shouldn't you be grateful you get to have any kind of fried potatoes at all?
The argument that the mechanics matter, but the theme is superflous doesn't sit well with me for the same reason why you probably put salt and pepper and/or ketchup on your fried potato strips. Is having lore and world-building that makes sense strictly necessary to play the game? No. But it tastes better when the they mesh well together. Is that always going to happen? No. But what I can, and what I am doing here on a thread started pretty much for this purpose, is to indicate how and why the Artificer-style lack of consistent thematics seems to me like mixing fried potato strips with strawberry ice cream. Does it "work" on some level? Probably. That doesn't mean I would ever want to try it.
Cleric. I just can't get into a "Religion" mindset.