Pregame Q&A

[Rex]

I have the essentials kit and it comes with info on running sidekicks, I saw a animal sidekick supplement on DMS Guild but don't own it. If Dave allowed it that might be a lot less time consuming to tweak then starting from scratch.

https://www.dmsguild.com/product/293883 ... -Sidekicks

[dmw71]

Perhaps it's just my 1e background, but I have a difficult time even conceptualizing a "noble" monk. Yes, I can easily see a monk being born into a noble family, but what I don't see (or have a difficult time seeing) is a monk that would flaunt that nobility or take advantage of it for personal gain. Again, that is just me. If you want to play a noble monk, have at it. I'm probably only saying this because this will be a true dungeon crawl, and background will have less of an impact on the game. We can work through the following important Noble background detail here in public, or in your private forum:

• "Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries."

Regarding the whole animal thing, I have no problem with a noble family specializing in exotic animal handling. That is their thing. As far as those skills translating down from a family to a character, it's going to be somewhat limited. The character will lack the same expertise because they're spending their time and focus training on the requirements of their class and not on this family business.

The 'animal companion' (and even 'find familiar' spell) are significant features of the ranger and wizard classes, respectively. For purposes of this discussion, as it is the most relevant or closely related to what you're requesting, let's focus on the ranger class. The ranger, to me, is a much more likely candidate to have an animal companion. Singluar. And a ranger will only get this ability if they choose the beast master archetype at 3rd-level. If they choose the hunter archetype -- sorry, no animal companion for you.

Yes, we're starting at 5th-level, but you pick your background (e.g. noble) at 1st. If we allow a brand new 1st-level character to elect to come from a family that specializes in exotic animals, and allow that brand new 1st-level character to start with multiple of those animals, it really cripples a MAJOR feature of the ranger class... that they need to work for to pick up at 3rd-level.

So, no, I'm sorry. I can't just allow a character to start with two well-trained battle beasts.

What I can do is allow you to swap out the "One type of gaming set" from the noble tool proficiency into something more relevant towards animal handling (e.g. if dogs, the kit would include things like collars, leashes, treats, etc...).

If you took the animal handling skill, the animal handling tool mentioned above would allow you to add your proficiency to any check you made to tame an animal.

But it would be an animal that was encountered during the game itself; not something you start with. And it would require consistent effort in order to properly train an animal that isn't normally domesticated.


The class path you're considering (e.g. Way of the Kensei) basically dedicates their life to weapon training. Not animal training. If you come from a family that specializes in animal breeding, or training, or whatever, I'm fine to say that some of it rubbed off on you. It'll be minor stuff, though. You can start with the animal training tools (instead of gaming tools).

I would allow you to start with an animal (or maybe even two), but they would be strictly non-combatants. If/when combat breaks out, the animals would hide (and be a non-factor in every way). The only time the animals would emerge from hiding would be if you were to fall unconscious. At that time, they would jump out to defend your unconscious body from future attacks (e.g. double death saving throw).


I don't want to completely blow up the character concept you have in mind, and I am willing to work with you, but where I'm not willing to bend is when the proposed change would essentially "break" a major class feature (e.a. a ranger's animal companion).

[Marullus]

If we allow a brand new 1st-level character to elect to come from a family that specializes in exotic animals, and allow that brand new 1st-level character to start with multiple of those animals, it really cripples a MAJOR feature of the ranger class... that they need to work for to pick up at 3rd-level.

So, no, I'm sorry. I can't just allow a character to start with two well-trained battle beasts.

Nope, that's all totally fair. I appreciate the analysis and trusted you to find comparative balance.

Mastiffs are available to anyone at first level for 25gp each (it doesn't require a special family). I didn't see clear rules for how that would operate and expected it WOULD need to be a feature balanced with rangers, druids, and those with class features. As I said, it was not a significant feature (more 'chasing a whim') and I think it's fair to drop it entirely. No worries.

I may still have her proficient in Animal Handling (I currently have that as a Background pick) - the "small amount that rubbed off" justifies essentially having a normal proficiency in it should it ever matter. I don't expect I'll pursue actually personally domesticating something IC because that's not the dungeon crawl we're telling here.

I'll still keep her being from the Phylund noble family. The book says their family motto is "What you fear, we Master." It's good inspiration for the concept in general.

Perhaps it's just my 1e background, but I have a difficult time even conceptualizing a "noble" monk. Yes, I can easily see a monk being born into a noble family, but what I don't see (or have a difficult time seeing) is a monk that would flaunt that nobility or take advantage of it for personal gain. Again, that is just me. If you want to play a noble monk, have at it. I'm probably only saying this because this will be a true dungeon crawl, and background will have less of an impact on the game. We can work through the following important Noble background detail here in public, or in your private forum:

• "Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries."

I see where you're coming from. Yes, if the "monk class" means being a Buddhist Ascetic, then it fits only within a narrow cultural/religious niche (and outside the Sword Coast). I was coming from the perspective that 5e generalized classes to accomodate a wider variety of combinations with backgrounds and concepts. I see the monk as an individual dedicated to mediation and personal development (mastery of the mind and body) if separated from RL Buddhism and thought it fit well with the harsh personal discipline of the Phylund family motto, above. I also equated it more with fictional examples like Arya Stark being tutored by Syrio Terel, a noble girl learning self-discipline and martial arts when she was expected by society to have "dancing" lessons (I even liked that the class requires her to learn Painting proficiency). It was definitely non-traditional.

If that's not correct for this gameworld then let's discuss in private and I'll adapt.

[dmw71]

I appreciate the analysis and trusted you to find comparative balance.

Nice. I felt guilty after submitting my last post. I like the concept you're building, and do want to accommodate you... but do want to be mindful of decisions I agree to and how they might affect other characters (e.g. anyone considering a ranger as their class).

Mastiffs are available to anyone at first level for 25gp each (it doesn't require a special family).

They are. They're listed under Mounts, presumably for gnome and halfling characters. The "primary purpose" wording in the first sentence of the 'Mounts and Vehicles' section (copied below) doesn't specifically exclude or forbid it, but it does clearly hint that these animals available for purchase are not meant to be extra combatants:

• "A good mount can help you move more quickly through the wilderness, but its primary purpose is to carry the gear that would otherwise slow you down."

As I said, it was not a significant feature (more 'chasing a whim') and I think it's fair to drop it entirely. No worries.

I have never played a monk, and am admittedly not that familiar with them, but another player in a game I was involved in played a monk and their turns took FOREVER because of all the attacks they were able to generate with the expenditure of Ki points. If the dogs you were looking to bring with you were able to grant you advantage or flanking on all those many attacks -- I'm sure that's a second reason I find myself as reluctant to allow.

I may still have her proficient in Animal Handling (I currently have that as a Background pick) - the "small amount that rubbed off" justifies essentially having a normal proficiency in it should it ever matter. I don't expect I'll pursue actually personally domesticating something IC because that's not the dungeon crawl we're telling here.

Yes! I would definitely encourage this as, considering her backstory, it fits. I have not read the entire adventure (I've barely prepared the first level!), but there may in-game opportunities to actually put this to use. If there isn't an opportunity in the game as-written, I'll gladly add one... or two... or however many will be required for your group to meet the encounter. Trust me, if players invest in a detailed backstory, I want to play to them.

I'll still keep her being from the Phylund noble family. The book says their family motto is "What you fear, we Master." It's good inspiration for the concept in general.

I will need to take a look at that family a bit before the game starts. I have extremely limited knowledge when it comes to official Forgotten Realms lore and have never heard of that family. We'll iron out these details before the game starts (or shortly thereafter).

I was coming from the perspective that 5e generalized classes to accomodate a wider variety of combinations with backgrounds and concepts. I see the monk as an individual dedicated to mediation and personal development if separated from RL Buddhism and thought it fit well with the harsh personal discipline of the Phylund family motto, above... If that's not correct for this gameworld then let's discuss in private and I'll adapt.

Nope. This is how we'll play it.

Again, my experience with monks is criminally low. I've never played one in 5e, but, again, was a player in a game with one. It's a much more capable class in 5e than it was in 1e.

I was playing a rogue in another game and was fighting a monk in an encounter. I rolled a natural 20 to hit it with a shortbow, but did poor damage. The friggin' monk not only was able to catch my perfectly placed arrow, it actually threw it and hit me -- critically!

While a very cool series of events, I was not too thrilled to have my critical hit turned against me.

I've DM'd a monk or two (there's one in one of my other games), but they (the games) are still so new, and the characters are still 1st-level, that I haven't gotten a good take on their capabilities from the DM-side. You starting at 5th-level will be much different from the jump.

[thirdkingdom]

Does anyone have any suggestions as to a good class to play? I've played a warlock in 5e . . . and I think I fighter, early on. What's a fun, easy to play class?

[Scott308]

Dave,

Not to step on toes or undermine how you want to run things, but if you are using the AL PHB + 1 rule, backgrounds are specifically excluded from the PHB + 1 rule. Any legal background is available no matter the character's +1. If you want the background source to fit in the PHB +1, you're the DM so that's how we'll play it.

Otherwise, Marullus, custom backgrounds are a thing so you could take the Noble background and tweak it, which is really what you and Dave had been discussing.

[Scott308]

Does anyone have any suggestions as to a good class to play? I've played a warlock in 5e . . . and I think I fighter, early on. What's a fun, easy to play class?

Well...that's hard to say. It depends on what you like/ want to do with the character. Fighters and Rogues would be the easiest to play, IMO, while casters are going to be more difficult, just because of the numerous options you have. Druids are popular because of their Wild Shape feature, but can be difficult as you can only WS into an animal you've seen, and there are still restrictions on top of that. So there is a lot of bookkeeping in order to keep track of the different forms you can take, as well as making sure you (and/or the DM) has stats for them. Bards are popular, but if you don't enjoy being a "face" character, it might not be a good fit for you. Bard and Monk are the two classes I don't have as much experience with (or interest in) playing 5e.

[sulldawga]

Rogue is fun because you don't need to Hide in Shadows in order to get Sneak Attack. You just need to wait until someone else engages the enemy in melee. That's distraction enough.

[dmw71]

Not to step on toes or undermine how you want to run things, but if you are using the AL PHB + 1 rule, backgrounds are specifically excluded from the PHB + 1 rule. Any legal background is available no matter the character's +1.

I'm more just using it as a guideline and not following it officially (unless any AL players want the official rules enforced).

[dmw71]

...while casters are going to be more difficult, just because of the numerous options you have.

I really enjoy playing Wizards in 5e (and never really did in AD&D). They're a lot of fun, and mechanically not that different from previous editions.

[thirdkingdom]

Rogue is fun because you don't need to Hide in Shadows in order to get Sneak Attack. You just need to wait until someone else engages the enemy in melee. That's distraction enough.

Hmm. Rogue does sound pretty intriguing (Heya sully!).

[Scott308]

I like Wizards, as well. Much better than 1e! Cantrips really make them a playable class at low levels. Having one spell a day, bad AC, and low hp makes it really hard for 1st level 1e mages to survive and be enjoyable to play. In 5e, they always have something to do.

[Marullus]

Clerics are also more interesting in 5e, imho. They remain essential (magical healing is ever-important) but have more variety and options as you look through Domains. Life Domain are healbots, sure. But what about serving the god of Trickery? Knowledge? Death? Intriguing details and options there. The Domain spells they get really change options. The desires of the Gods (defined by domain) help make things more important than just healing. Plus they still wear armor and wield weapons to smite the wicked, so are no less than other warriors in many ways.

[Scott308]

I've played a few 5e clerics, but they aren't quite as essential as they used to be. More characters have healing capabilities, and everyone can spend hit dice during short rests. Clerics are still really nice to have, but not having one in the party is no longer a TPK waiting to happen. That also means they are no longer glorified heal-bots.

[Rex]

I think much of what is good to play depends on what you enjoy. I like the Monk and Cleric best so far but the Fighter and Druid are also good. I want to try something different so mine will be something else I haven't tried in 5e yet. Leaning towards Ranger.

[dmw71]

Leaning towards Ranger.

You want to flaunt that animal companion, don't you?

[Rex]

Nope, not taking beast master. Currently thinking Gloom walker.

[Marullus]

Have you decided on standard array or another method?

Not yet, no.


I don't suppose now is the time for me to implement any new hardcore roles. I'll think on this and make a decision relatively soon.

Checking back on this?

[Monsieur Rose]

*Enters the thread*

It looks like dave is allowing any riffraff in, so here I am.

I think that any class/race combo can be fun. All depends on what you're trying to do. Even in a dungeon crawl, a high charisma bard could have fun. If you're looking to shine in combat, maybe less so. I did have a lot of fun and was pretty effective as a bard in a dungeon crawl with dave earlier.

The barbarian I played was also great fun, in a different, more aggro kind of way.

I do have a question for the more veteran 5e players, however. Which tier do you have more experience playing? I guess I'm asking two things. How often do you play levels 11-20, and do the classes stay balanced (such as they kinda are early) at that point?

[Rex]

The highest level I have played is 5. I view 5e as a sort of Fantasy Super Hero game at that level, can't really imagine what it is like at 11+.