>Core rulebooks, adventure modules, Unearthed Arcana
>Pastebin with homebrew list, resources and so on:
What sort of sidequests or diversions would interest your character or party, /5eg/?
Interest my party? Anything that has to do with magic or money, the greedy bastards.
Anyone here have a guide to stat monsters? Should I use the directions in the DMG/MM for them or should I find something else?
That's more of a question for your DM. Sage advice has given conflicting statements on whether it applies to smite damage, and that ruling would probably be consistent with GFB (at least for the damage that stays on your blade).
The wording of the entry states that you make a melee attack with a weapon, but I don't you know if that qualifies as a 'melee weapon attack'.
I have not fought with this level of semantics since 3rd edition. It's vaguely agitating.
GWF with greatsword is 8.33 average, min 2 max 12.
Dueling with longsword is 6.5, min 3 max 10, but you could use a shield for +2 AC alongside that
and bring up yet another discussion of stupid sword-and-spell-component-juggling bullshit.
Keep in mind that GFB for an EK is really only worth at 3-4 and 7-10 due to extra attack and war magic.
ULTIMATELY, do what you feel best fits the character concept.
Is there anything I need to watch out for before I homebrew a race with more than two arms?
As in, obscure combinations of rules that will suddenly break or create the possibility of breaking the action economy or general balance.
My warlock would love a sidequest related to his patron and obtaining vast amounts of power through questionable means.
Luckily my warlock worships Baphomet in an OotA campaign so eventually something like this will spring up.
Do you (or your DM) enforce darkvision rules?
It seems like most DMs can't be bothered to track different racial vision and torch consumption and magical light all on top of everything they normally need to track.
Consult the Monster Manual for multi-armed baddies and see what's done there.
For the most part, creatures with multiple arms (Sahuagin Baron, Thri-kreen, etc) do not appear to be treated much differently than creatures without multiple arms, save for making additional attack actions as part of their multiattack. However, this would likely be completely fucked when applied to a player character.
My personal recommendation - in a vacuum, and without any playtesting done, would be to provide advantage to melee weapon attacks made when using a bonus action for two-weapon fighting. Anything more than that should be reserved for class features.
Coast along on the system's popularity, adding more "system variants" like Mythic and Unchained that get forgotten shortly after release. I could see them trying to make a new RPG from the ground up
and failing spectacularly.
So, Real talk, Discussing with a GM on how to deal with a fellow Ebil player not getting the hint that their character is being too randumb and causing the party to lose potential plot threads.
What's the most civil way to tell them to cool it or lose their character?
The GM brings it up outside of game time. "Other players are getting kind of annoyed at your character's behavior." "Your character's behavior really isn't fitting with the tone of the campaign or the desires of the rest of the party, in and out of character." Etc.
You can illusion stuff like that way earlier (like, level 1 with Silent Image and Minor Illusion) than you can make them real (Wall of Fire at 7th, Wall of Stone at 9th).
And on top of that: Fear, Invisibility, Blur, Disguise Self, and Phantasmal Force are all illusions as well.
Yes, "realistically" a creature with four human-like arms would not be able to effectively wield two sets of melee weapons at once given that the limbs wielding anything larger than a dagger would get in the way of one another. Trying to wield a greatsword and a sword&shield at once would be significantly cumbersome.
Assuming the race is basically humanoid in statue and has the second pair of muscles somewhere mid-way to at the bottom of the ribcage, the upper pair of limbs would be significantly more powerful than the pair below given their position.
Theoretically, if the race were a Monk and it delivered a one-two punch, the upper limbs could have the entire muscle structure behind the punch, putting out a 1d4 in damage. Even with a well grounded foot and twist of the body for a hook punch, the lower limbs would still only be able to deal 1 damage if even that as virtually none of the structure of the upper body muscles and none of the power in the hips and legs would be delivered into the punch.
That said, even though it has four limbs, only the upper two would really be good for wielding weapons and physical attacks. The lower half can have some benefits of minor actions like holding small items or an arcane focus, performing dexterous actions like lockpicking and more swift production regarding some crafting trades like Tinkering.
If the guy playing Goro goes in wielding four one handed weapons, let him do it, but he should expect both a disadvantage on Attack rolls and a big negative to Damage if he's using those lower limbs.
I don't see much point taking it as a school though except for the slightly better minor illusion (sound AND a thing) and then Illusory Self at 10 and Illusory Reality at 14.
Abjuration and Conjuration seem like better options. Useful options early that won't ever stop being useful.
This kind of logic falls apart pretty easy.
I mean, if a race had evolved 4 arms I'm thinking they would have evolved a musculature that allowed them to be more than useless baby arms.
Even with countless centuries of evolution, all quadrupeds and bipeds (like us!) have significantly more natural strength in their upper limbs than in their hind legs.
Even a spider's forward most legs, the ones used most for reaching, grabbing and setting webs or cocooning insects, are the strongest and most agile while the remainder behind them are strictly just to travel around.
A race with a second set of arms tucked under the armpits of their primary upper limbs set above the ribcage would have them in a very "ancillary" position. They'd still have their uses, they sure as hell wouldn't be vestigial, but they would not be for fighting or other strength-based activities.
Except that species like the Shokan or Thri-kreen evidently do use them for combat, in a big way.
This is the worst kind of "Achcsually! The dragon wouldn't be able to sustain winged flight with that kind of mass" bullshit logic that doesn't belong anywhere near a game like D&D.
Many creatures have stronger hindlimbs. Kangaroos obviously, cats, even humans have much stronger legs. Many quadrupeds have simply longer hindlimbs with the exception of a few like hyenas and similodons.
A melee weapon attack is any attack made with a melee weapon within five feet of the aggressor, and are equipped with a melee weapon (natural, improvised, or manufactured) with special rules not withstanding.
>Even with countless centuries of evolution, all quadrupeds and bipeds (like us!) have significantly more natural strength in their upper limbs than in their hind legs.
That's completely wrong.
It's just that the strength in the hind legs can't usually be propelled forward in a useful way, not that the strength isn't there.
>bipeds (like us!) have significantly more natural strength in their upper limbs than in their hind legs
Ran a ecl 5 rogue1/fighter2/ranger2 in a game for a while. Think they were a hill dwarf as well, so they were fully capable of taking whatever mundane role was needed at the time. Oh right, sailor background with a bad reputation was the other piece.
So keep in mind, it's not just the class combination, but the race and background too that can provide strength to a character.
I have a dex based fighter with a criminal background who picks locks like it's his job and wears the shadows like a business suit. Backgrounds make for some really nice touches.
I just changed my group over from pathfinder to 5e and we're all thrilled about it. The players dont have 3000 modifiers to track and everything is simple and binary. Do you have advantage? Are you proficient?
Also, it seems like they reduced the dependance on healing magic with short rests and stuff like the fighter heal. Are martial classes better now or are they still just outclassed by the spellcasters? Also, it seems like spells do more damage now. Do dedicated blaster casters do as well as just LOL SLEEP.
Also, free metamagic to overspend for spells is legit.
Why the fuck did it take me so long to change my group over....
The best thing about Hold Person is that it's best paired with heavy-hitting melee combatants for free crits galore. Instead of outright ending an encounter, it lets melee combatants shine even more and really bring the hurt. Anything that fails the save twice is basically fucked.
As a Lore Bard, is it worth dropping a level in Sorcerer for Magic Missile, Mage Armor (or scales), and Cha scaling melee cantrips?
Not for magic missile. Maybe for scales if you're that thirsty for +1 AC, and possibly for the cantrips if you don't feel like stealing one or picking them up with a feat. Honestly a two level dip in warlock is probably better. Yeah, you don't get a chance to get the AC, but you can pick up the invocation for at will mage armor along with a melee cantrip, eldritch blast, and the agonizing blast invocation.
So unless thematically you want to be a sorcerer, I'd recommend a warlock dip if you have 2 levels to spare.
You're a bard, why use magic in melee when you can use a longsword? That and a lore bard should have enough utility or crowd control to make enemies in melee simple problems with simple solutions. Thunderblast being the most common in my opinion.
Booming Blade is actually a useful cantrip if your Bard does find themselves stuck in melee often. Although Thunderblast is of course the better over all option, but hey, create disincentives. Plus a Paladin or Cleric could use Command on the target and trigger its damage anyway, or you could cast Dissonant Whispers if the fucker doesn't step up out of your grill.
Silver weapons and fire.
Lycanthropy tends to ruin games more than make them enjoyable. Alternatively, your party goes on a short quest to get the cure, and stumbles across a bigger plot.
I'm pretty new to D&D and I'm not sure I'm understanding invisibility. Our GM seems to treat it as just causing enemies to have disadvantage when attacking you, but they can still attack you, both when you stand still and when you walk around. The PHB seems to sort of support this, but it just doesn't seem right to me that invisibility works like this.
Well they'd have to know you're there first to even bother attacking at all, then they'd have to locate you through seeing footprints or hearing you or smelling you or whatever, then they'd have to attack you at disadvantage.
If you're standing there whaling on them then they could probably just swing back at disadvantage, but if you're making an attempt to conceal yourself it should be more complex.
You still make the same amount of noise when invisible: footsteps, breathing, the shuffling of your clothing and equipment, and so on. Heavy breathing from rigorous combat easily gives you away. In battle, you have to use the Hide action to be completely hidden from an enemy, and invisibility lets you do that at any time since they can't see you clearly (or at all). Otherwise they can more or less find where you are and attack you, at disadvantage, and will likely try if you're potentially stabbing or slinging spells at them.
>I know this option sucks
>But I can't make it not suck because I have to improve the rest in the same proportion because reasons
Shitty GM logic on why not to throw a bone on beastmasters, bladelocks and wot4e monks
Never 360º moonwalked away out of a game faster in my life
Make up my own lore explaining how lycanthropy can only be afflicted on someone using certain magic rituals and that it isn't contagious, and change the curse mechanic to something else or get rid of it entirely.
D&D newfag here. I've been playing my first continuous campaign, and It's been going really well, 3 sessions in. I don't have a handbook or my own dice set though. Since I'm already placing an amazon order for the 5e hand book and a 7piece dice set, is there anything else I should get right now? I suppose I can throw in a pencil set and a notebook too. DM is an artfag and likes painting miniatures of our characters for us so i don't need to worry about that.
Quick question. How effective would a bm fighter X / war cleric 4 goliath be? My group lacks a cleric because the old one went mad and ran off into the underdark alone after a crisis of faith.
When it comes to what you need it would a like you got everything covered, but it is handy to have a second dice set as well for things like rolling advantage and at later levels when you need to roll a lot of dice for damage.
For apost-apocalyptic fantasy aquatic/underwater campaign, should I have bubble cities where air is breatheable or should I try for something more Dark-Sun with scarcity. The bubble cities would be magically maintained of course, leaving them to be ruled by powerful mages.
How does using a the hand, light, and heavy crossbow stat blocks with the addition of the Thunderblast 'on activation emits a crack of thunder audible out to 300 feet' sound for implementing firearms into 5th edition? Hand crossbows would pretty much be pistols, light crossbows would be muskets, and heavy crossbows would be long rifles, in essence.
While you're mounted, you have two options. Vou
can either control the mount or allow it to act
independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons,
Vou can controI a mount only ifit has been trained
to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and
similar creatures are assumed to have such training.
The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match
yours when you mount it. 1t moves as you direct it, and
it has only three action options; Dash, Disengage, and
Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on
the tu rn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the
initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on
the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts
as it wishes. 1tmight flee from combat, rush to attack
and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against
In either case, ifthe mount provokes an opportunity
attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you
or the mount.
Instead of telling you to RTFM, imma just copypasta that shit in here, shitty formatting and all.
>ecl 5 rogue1/fighter2/ranger2
>Not completely useless
You're running an npc hireling. Good for some skill checks, but doesn't participate in combat. A fighter with the skilled feat would be more helpful.
The real question is what counts as "an intelligent creature". You'd think that a paladin's mount with an intelligence of 6 and ability to understand a language would count as intelligent, but it acting on a separate initiative does seem to conflict slightly with the "fights with you as a seamless unit" part of Find Steed.
Seems like a lot of DMs handle the specifics differently. Pretty sure the RAW is just that it acts independently, even though that's pretty odd and makes the mount harder to actually use.
I think its just giving you an example of what acts independently (IE, everything controlled by the DM). It also gives you the option to control a mount or let it act on its own if you have the kind of pull to make that decision.
In other words, you can put a saddle on an allied dragon, and use mounted rules to attack other evil dragons flying around with it, when you otherwise wouldn't be able to fly. Youll be mounted, but the mount isn't suddenly brainwashed, it can attack who it wants (including you, if you tell it you killed its mom or something).
You control your paladin steed absolutely, and with a psychic bond. You could have it act independently or control it, and if you have it act independently (which would make it a shitty mount, but would give you an extra combatant) you should be able to have it attack.
Hey guys, new player here. I've been invited to a 5e campaign in a couple of days and have been looking over the PDFs I have to prepare. I haven't found the class I want yet, though. Ideally I'm thinking something built around telekinesis and psychic powers. I know that casters get a bunch of that stuff at higher levels, but ideally I want something that does psychic powers from level one, without that wizard feel. Any ideas or a supplement I could use or so? I'm experienced with 3.5PF and 4, so difficulty shouldn't be super-limiting.
It's an open playtest, but it's only 5 levels so far.
You might consider just doing a wizard with say, mage hand and illusions and such.
Tatsumaki a shit. Fubuki best girl.
Human shadow monk or AT rogue. Magic initiate and pick up shocking grasp and booming blade/GFB. The first lvl spell can be a number of things from the warlock or sorcerer list. Probably go urchin background and be an orphan.
Nah, even when she was standing on the ground she glowed a bit. Guess she might be lifting something off screen.
She does walk without glowing, so I don't think so. Means she's more disciplined than me, if I had nearly limitless telekinesis, I'd just hover around in an armchair all day.
You heard wrong, as far as the rules as written go. Not even any monsters so far use a d20 damage die (since it's easier/more consistent to use a pool of dice than a single large die).
Same guy here, my party has been taking advantage attacks on monsters purely for the fact that someone is in melee with them besides the person attacking, not just flanking purposes. Is this correct or is my party retarded?
Either they're retarded or you're retarded.
They're either somehow confusing the standard requirements to gain advantage with the specific rule which roughly states that Rogues do not need to have advantage in order to Sneak Attack if an ally is adjacent to the same target; or you're poorly describing the Flanking variant rule, which is typically used with miniatures on an actual map, and requires allies surrounding an enemy in opposite positions in melee to gain advantage:
>Flanking on Squares
(there is a more elaborated version for hex-based maps that I'll leave out for brevity)
>When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy's space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy. When in doubt about whether two creatures flank an enemy on a grid, trace an imaginary line between the centers of the creatures' spaces. If the line passes through opposite sides or corners of the enemy's space, the enemy is flanked.
You and your group seem to have caught a case of never-read-the-book-itis. As your doctor, I'm going to have to prescribe you 50mg of
read the fucking book,taken as needed for stupid questions.
I'm quite new and just sort of trusted in my gm. i didn't want to open the GM handbook because our GM doesn't want us too. and I couldn't find anything about what I posted when I went through the players handbook.
I think that we may have gotten it confused due to the fact one of our characters use to be a rogue but died off. So if anyone was in combat with anything they would get an advantage on a range attack for some reason. I will be sure to tell my party of thi so we can play correctly.
>advantage on a range attack
Well now that can't be Flanking, because Flanking's for melee only. I suppose it could possibly be the Facing variant rule, but that one has less to do with adjacent allies, and more with how you place miniatures at the end of their moves. Be sure to check with your DM, because it could easily be some homebrew or variant rule that isn't occurring to us right now.
>Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction.
Okay, fluff is pretty clear.
>Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
No, that sounds solid, too.
>You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.
This one is a bit more wordy, but still pretty clear.
>The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
No, this is clear, too.
What's also clear: you're full of shit.
The wording is very clear. That's why I'm confused how someone would confuse it with something like gaining advantage.
>Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
>You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
Me and my group was thinking of trying out 5th edition after playing Pathfinder alot.
What are some good and bad things about 5th?
What are something that would be useful if I wanted to do an exploration campaign?
A lot simpler to run, everyone uses the same "Proficiency" bonus as their primary bonus on d20 rolls, it's sorta like base attack bonus except it progresses at the same rate for all classes and applies to all attacks, skills and saves you're proficient in, as well as increasing the saves of spells for spellcasters, a lot of rules have been made optional "variant" rules, this includes things like feats and flanking (though this is arguably a con in some cases, as some monsters and abilities don't appear to be balanced with these rules in mind)
Fuck all content, the team designing 5e is tiny and they're putting out content at a snail's pace. I hope you're satisfied with basically just the Players handbook. At least, unlike 3.5 and PF, Core isn't awfully balanced.
Pro/con depending on where you stand:
Character creation is basically automated.
You pick a race, a class and an archetype for that class and that's pretty much the extent of the input you have on your character with the exception of a handful of useful multiclassing combos.
>Less so for casters, who still have to pick spells
>and you're forgetting feats.
Which are an optional rule, though to be fair you'd have to be some kind of spectacular retard to choose to play without them.
I really wish they'd just separated ability increases and feats, it really sucks to have to make a value judgement and possibly come out erring on the side of an additional ability point, particularly because the feats are generally well designed and impactful.
Would you recommend using some of the homebrew from the threads?
The Dark Souls one seems interesting since I was thinking of having my PCs explore a post apoc world after an experiment with planar magic more or less fused 2 worlds together.
>Would you recommend using some of the homebrew from the threads?
I don't really read any homebrew stuff, which should probably be enough to give you an idea what my opinion on using it is.
But, you know, your game and whatnot.
While it all superficially LOOKS similar to 3.PF it doesn't actually work the same at fucking all.
I'd say that it takes basically the same amount of work to convert something from 3.5 to 5e as it does to convert something from 3.5 to 4e.
Just had a 40 year old man who plays at our table and weighs 300 pounds submit this image as his character portrait for our upcoming campaign. Nope. Sorry bro. That's just creepy. I should remove him from the game for this, christ.
The rogue was doing it right as far as their attacks are concerned. They get the sneak attack bonus damage by virtue of an ally being near the target. The rogue does not get advantage on such an attack without something like flanking going on.
You're right. Clearly he should only be allowed to play 40 year old overweight men characters. Seriously the guy just has a picture of some elf woman that's not sexualised beyond her top showing a smidgen of cleavage, get over it.
I can see that most of you wouldn't be allowed at my table either. Do you most grown men play diminutive little girl characters in most games? I play in lots of games and DM one, and I listen to lots of actual play podcasts, and I can't remember ever seeing a male play a female character in any of those.
I've played in several hundred sit down games, mostly with people I know, but sometimes with strangers or people from craigslist looking for an extra player. I've never seen a guy play a female character that I can remember. Maybe a burly orc woman or something, but don't even remember that. It simply never been attempted. I have never been excluded from a game as far as I know, no reason to. I am a little surprised this goes in your game. Do you play mostly on roll20 or something, where you face/voice is hidden? I can image anything else but cringe if some guy showed up to a live game with a new group with a female character in tow.
>diminutive little girl
Looks like a full grown woman to me. Outfit seems fine if shes a caster. No I pretty much only play male characters, any guys who have played women in my group have been fine, no different than if they were playing guys. Occasionally play with a woman in her 40/50s who tends to play handsome young men, is a lot of fun to play with.
Just picture him in the dress and get over yourself.
So does he actually do creepy stuff while playing? All you have said is that he fats, looks creepy etc, it mostly just makes you sound like a really shallow and unpleasant person to know.
I don't cross play very often, but when I do I always describe my actions third person rather than deliver lines. Of course I'm prone to that anyway, but if it's a guy it doesn't seem as weird doing it first person sometimes.
In some of the playtest versions, sneak attack required you to have, and expend, advantage.
Then they moved to all sneak attacks having disadvantage, which would naturally be countered by getting advantage on your attack. (Flanking, ambushes.)
The system they ended up using is the best.
I'm not gonna say being fat is a good thing but at the same time you sound like an immature child for assuming someone is a bad person for being fat.
People play opposite gendered characters often enough and it usually isn't anything to get this overly worried about. Of course if he starts to magical realm lick him out, but playing a female drow isn't automatically magical realm. Hell I have seen more players who magical realm as male characters than female.
>Of course if he starts to magical realm lick him out
So I was reading the previous thread and I saw someone talking about bladelocks and someone suggested multiclassing rogue and warlock.
Is roguelock really a bad idea?
I could see the Archfey Pact being really great on an assassin or thief (arcane trickster would be a bit redundant though)
So what should I play when my war cleric dies? Casting isn't essential, but we've got way too many rogues already, so that's off-limits.
Roguelock works fine, especially with Darkness + Devil's Sight. Arcane Trickster actually also works fine, you have some recharging spell slots to use. There's also invocations like mask of many faces and misty vision that go well with sneakan. Might be an idea to pick up booming blade or green flame blade too.
well that's only if you decide to shift into maximum over-rage, so you won't always be exhausted after raging. not being affected by charms or being frightened might be nice if you go up against those kind of enemies a lot, and you could probably scare an enemy who is harassing another party member if they are close enough.
You don't have to frenzy when you rage and none of the other abilities require you using it, so you can just save it for when things are going south or your allies have a lesser restoration spell ready to cast on you afterwards.
Good point. I'm not really worried about not being tough enough, but I want to be able to just lay into fuckers when push comes to shove, since that's going to be my job.
>tfw brown half-elf sorceress
>only brown elf art you can find is oversexualised girls with boobs as big as their heads
I really don't mind the animu art style, I just wish you could find something less magical realm-y
Can an animal under the effect of Haste make another attack? I thought it would, but the wording of (on weapon attack only) might make it not work, given that animals don't attack with weapons.
Thanks! I have already tried that but my Gimp skills are really low
Aren't animals generally considered to use their claws and fangs as weapons? That said, I don't think haste would allow you to use multiattack for that extra action. So a bear, for instance, could multiattack as usual and then bite.
Pic definitely related
If they did it would be have to be the Monk's unarmed attack die rather than a bite or claw attack because those aren't monk weapons. Up to your DM if a bear can punch someone or not I guess.
Does anyone have that 5e cheat sheet, where some Anon basically compiled most of the 5e rules into one handy page?
My group is starting this edition next week, I'm excited.
The rules for this seem so fucked, if its acting independently is the GM supposed to control it? The whole rider and mount acting as one like it says in the text for Find Steed falls apart somewhat if you can't even tell the damn horse to stomp on someone.
Why is it shitty? Given Find Steed says:
>Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit.
It seems like the player would have control of both steed and rider.
It becomes a shitty mount because you don't share initiative if it acts independently. This wouldn't be an issue if lets say, it goes right before you in the initiative order, but it could be an issue if your mount runs up to attack some guys, but then they run away before your turn starts, so you lose out on your chance to attack them.
And before you ask, no, there are no rules for delaying your initiative in this edition, only for readying an action.
I hope this is the case, otherwise what is even the point in me having a magical fucking warhorse?
If I wanted a regular horse I'd go leer at some peasants until they gave me one.
Not sure if this is the one you're talking about but I've found it pretty handy.
>You could also delay your action like "I delay my attack until mount rides up to X".
Yes, but then you miss out on bonus actions.
>Didn't readying an action put you back into the init order to the point where it triggered?
I've played and ran a few games, mostly at low levels (1-5), now I'm wondering:
Do human enemies stay relevant at higher levels?
A group of level 5 adventurers can take on ten or more thugs without much of a problem.
So say I want to create an encounter for level 10 adventurers with a handful of highly trained thugs, what then? Throw in 20+ common thugs? Or stat them up like higher-level PCs?
One of the things I'm trying to avoid is the feeling of enemies conveniently scaling with the adventuring party. A big red dragon is inherently scary, but human thugs going from weak thugs to strong thugs to stronger thugs might feel like the numbers are just inflating.
Throwing in an assload of low level enemies is pretty flawed.
I'd either modify/make new NPC humans using the monster creation guidelines or just stat them as PCs.
Make an effort to describe their gear and what-not, make it clear that these guys aren't high-way bandits.
Unique skills or equipment usually does the job for me. Easiest is to pull from PC classes, yeah, but I'll just give enemies new abilities to flavor them much more uniquely.
It's also important to keep party size in mind. I've made the mistake of having only one, extra strong big bad get surrounded by the party and lose due to flanking and other such disadvantages.
Well 5E seems to like the idea of hordes of enemies, which is neat, but I also like the idea of some uber-fighter (plus one or two bodyguards) who can go toe-to-toe with a group of adventurers.
But in practice it seems like it's just another guy, except this time he gets +5 instead of +3, and he has 100 hp instead of 30, y'know?
And I do appreciate that even the human monsters have some neat features that make sense but keep them interesting, like the Berserker's Reckless, and the Knight's Leadership and Parry. I just wish there were more higher CR ones, without having to stat up PCs and use their class features.
There's a severe lack of high CR enemies of all kinds.
You'd do well to master the art of making all new abilities and junk, it's not that hard to balance and you can usually find something from a level-equivalent monster to steal and refluff
Well if they're in a situation where the thugs ought to be better trained then use less but better trained thugs.
Compare the thug statblock against theirs(to hit, AC etc.)
Their ac is shit, they'll always be hit(+4 prof then add main stat), and they won't really be able to hit you reliably if you've actually invested in proper defenses(which you should by level 10)
Go for using less enemies but using ones who're more individually challenging.
Create a boss thug or handful of serious contenders, introduce them off-panel with a description or two of their exploits, and then they'll be believable tough nuts to crack, like a tough shit warlord or some kind of legendary bandit, you dig?
did you guys all make an account and install the web app to use mega?
>tfw draconic sorcerer that was raised by a red dragon and uses fire
Looking for some input. I'm playing a Barbarian in one of my groups and we ended up rolling stats. I started with 17 Str, 14 Dex and 20 Con after racial bonuses. Hill Dwarf, went with the new Battlerager. I'm level 3 now and my DM gave me a belt last session that did a bunch of silly things, like making my beard look magnificent, but most importantly, the belt gave me the Tavern Brawler feat (which I was gonna take at level 4), which bumped my Str up to 18. So, I think we're gonna hit level 4 tonight and I'm not real sure what I should do with it. I'm leaning towards taking a +2 to Str for that delicious +5 to hit and +5 damage, but I've also thought that, maybe, taking Tough might not be so bad. Martial Adept I gave some thought to, but it's low priority I think. What would you guys do?
Sorry for the delay, my roommate came home.
Doing the fake tan on a anime drawing with white hair was a bit different from doing it on a photo, but I guess it should be decent enough for a character sheet reference.
Anyone try the Blood Hunter homebrew class yet?
I wanna get my witching on
Maybe. Despite that, the enemies are boosted up to compensate for our rolled stats, so it's not like I've been untouchable. Heck, we even had a character die last session, I almost died alongside him, but I prioritized survival over Exp.
Though I suppose I can just wait to see how tanky the level 6 Battlerager ability makes me and, if I still think I want it, take Tough at level 8. But that still leaves me clueless for level 4.
Glad it turned out to be such a success for you.
Make sure not to notice how I missed all but one of the dress straps, right?
If you want to try doing it yourself some time, it's as simple as making a duplicate layer with just the skin, then upping the exposure and putting the new layer in about 30% darken mode. Photomanipulation is fun.
>least powerful character
>also the most heroic
Sure, Saitama and the C-class guys accomplish more, but it takes a special man to don the riot armour and ride your bicycle into danger you know is beyond you,because even if you can't win you have to try.
What are some interesting escape/zone control options as a GOO Tome Warlock? My GM is new, and he likes to suddenly create new enemies adjacent to casters during boss fights. When I started using Darkness for some safety, he began to give the enemies True Sight, and when I started to use Misty Step to reposition, he just spawns more enemies at the new location. I asked him about it, and he said since the rest of the party is melee it's "cheap" for me to fight at range.
hi question again for my ravenloft game
randomly rolled a Trick on the Trick table in the DMG, made a puddle that casts Geas on the party. How would that happen? Should I make like a 15x15 foot cube that if they step in they see their reflection and have geas cast on the whole party, or just the one who stepped within range, and what would the Geas be? The area is a bunch of witches and a Nighthag (who is currently not there atm), so what would the geas be that maybe accidentally got spilled on the floor?
It's really the spell Geas that eludes me. I get that I get to pick what it is but I want to keep with this witch theme, but I don't know what's too OP or not OP in terms of these intangible options I'm given here. Help me out because I'm really stumped on this.
I think everyone is aware of the different hero and danger levels. Like when the centipede is Wolf class and the civilians don't care at all, but then when it gets upgraded to Demon it's an instant panic.
They know Licenceless Rider is the go-to guy for things like getting cats out of trees or stopping muggings, but realise he's not much help against monsters like the Sea King. Remember, he's C-class, and extremely diligent about meeting his quota. People would recognise him, even though he's a nobody next to the big guns like Tornado and King.
oh I thought you were trying to tell me that puddles would have traps in them or something...so essentially...whatever the "thing" is, it has to do with that geas? I never thought of it that way. I thought it was just "pick a lolrandom quest for them to do, like save some random princess in a castle gaurded by a dragon in GodKnowsWhereVille."
Is there a quick way to stat out enemies that are also spell casters? Feels like a huge pain in the ass to write out an entire character sheet just so an encounter might have a Wizard to fight.
would you tell the players about the 5d10 psychic damage as soon as they encounter the Geas, or just have them find out the hard way? I'm a roleplaying kind of DM, but I've always wondered if it's unfair to them if I don't lay out the mechanics of certain things they encounter or not. Thoughts?
Tell them that they know if they go against the geas, there will be serious repercussions. Don't be explicit, but let them know that how tough that penalty will be in general terms relative to their level.
I don't know about canon, but I'd just say human, orc or half-orc. The kid will look like a quadroon, but then you just pick which race's stats to use (half orc or the mother's) to keep it simple; don't go crazy with statting up a new race.
>How much would this be commonly known?
In the Realms? Probably not much. I don't know the Realms intimately, but it tends to hew closer to the "half-orcs are rare and usually bastard children" thing.
>rather than a bite or claw attack because those aren't monk weapons
You can't use your Flurry attacks for monk weapon attacks anyway, only unarmed strikes. A typical level 1 monk using Flurry of Blows would attack once with his quarter staff and then twice unarmed. Picture him smashing with the staff and then kicking.
A Druid/monk could claw and bite normally, the Flurry - imagine this as back-handing the enemy with your paw, or shoulder-slamming them with your body weight or such.
Anybody had any issues with inconsistencies with Inspiration in their game?
Our Encounters DM was running the group through some module (don't know the name.) that involved some kinda freak circus travelling around spreading death.
>Party gets invited to carnival, everybody goes armed because everybody is armed and armoured all the time (because reasons?) except for me.
>In-character, I figured that he wouldn't know that it was a death carnival (which the party didn't either. They were just metagaming like hell)
>Go there to have fun and eat and gamble like the spendy sellsword he is
>More or less just eating ye olde popcorn or whatever and chilling out at the game booths
>Bwahaha just as planned etc. ambush
>Everybody suddenly draws greatswords and shields out of their ass.
>I'm just a massive burly fighter there eating a bag of popcorn going "Oh boy"
>Send squire to fetch me my weapons
>"It will take your squire about 20 minutes to get your weapons for you"
>The carnival was apparently a short walk away from the inn where we have our possessions stored
>mfw he's using rounds to actually measure it
>mfw I have to punch my way through carnies the entire encounter
Was thinking of the 'use a bonus action to do an extra unarmed attack' which does require a monk weapon when I posted that. Anyway pretty sure the question was more about if you could use the damage die from natural attacks for the flurry hits. Also seeing as the increased damage for unarmed strikes is meant to represent martial arts I still say its questionable if you can use it in animal form. Question has been asked on Sage Advice a few times and pretty sure the answer has just been GMs choice.
>one extra strong but bad get surrounded
This is when you use Legendary Creatires. They don't get multiple turns per round per se, but they get to take Legendary Actions throughout the turn. This can create exactly the sort of chaos you need to make the fight more fun and interesting than "overwhelm him with action economy".
For example, Adult dragons can make a tail attack, but if it's in danger of being surrounded, it can use Wing Attack to knock everyone prone and move half its fly speed. That way the dragon keeps moving around the field, can't really be pinned down, and makes problems for people, as standing up costs them movement.
Vampires can use their LA to move - without provoking AOOs.
If you want to ad hoc a boss fight for an important NPC, give them 3 Legendary Actions per round (they can take one after anyone else's turn), and have them be simple ones like "move 30 feet" and "attack once". Maybe stipulate that they can't repeat them in any given round (so no moving 90 feet).
Eh, I always take it one of the wonky assumptions of DnD.
Adventurers always carry their weapons and armour with them unless explicitly told to disarm. Better to just go along with it.
Then it's even stranger that they'd ambush a party of well armed and armoured adventurers.
But yeah, I guess i'll just suspend my disbelief at this point.
>use a bonus action for an unarmed strike requires a monk weapon
That's true, it does. Flurry doesn't, though. The Ki feature doesn't specify arms or armor, and there's no blanket "monk abilities shut off in armor" clause. Granted it's limited by your ki pool but there you have it.
Have only seen 2 inspiration points given out so far and both to myself. Honestly first one was a bit iffy as I basically got it for saying something I just did was really out of character. Wasn't really sure what was up with that and didn't argue against it because I wasn't sure how charitable GM was going to be with them and this might be the norm. Second one made a lot more sense because I got it after killing a group of unarmed Goblins that I gave several chances to surrender. This time it was the rest of the group saying I seemed sort of out of character as I had so far been very merciful to our enemies. I explained that recent events had made me aware that I had been too lenient and after a final warning of surrender I sure as hell meant it when I said that there would be no mercy if they ignored this last one. It also worked into us just reaching level 3 and I was now going to take the Oath of Vengeance.
>paladin of the silver flame
>casts Light cantrip to make his blade emite silver light
>DM gives him inspiration
>Party gets captured by slavers
>Slavers start talking about cutting one of us loose to fight against their "best fighter" to see if we'd make decent arena fighter slaves
>Proud warrior race trope, defends his weak squishy non barbarian pals and offers to fight
>They don't give me any weapons
>Guy is using a massive axe
>manage through insanely good rolls to deck the guy out with my rage fists of crittyfucking
>No inspiration the entire time
Nah, it was more that I was actually roleplaying and saying that I'd be taking the challenge because it was on my honour etc etc noble barbarian type dealeo. Whereas the paladin's roleplay consists of "I roll to negotiate" *rolls dice*
And yeah, as mentioned he gets inspiration for casting a cantrip.
I remember this adventure I think. I forget what it is called but is it the one
where you go through the mirror maze and fight the doppelganger?If so I remember being told by the people who hired my character to investigate that some weird shitwas happening to all the towns the carnival went to, so thats why most of the party I was with wore armor in. Also, I was a goliath fighter, and a goliath should always be ready for battle. its just in our nature.
Martial adept can be handy if used right but generally speaking only BM fighters take full advantage of it. Tavern brawler is grand for grapplers because you can punch a guy and then bonus action grapple him. I'm not fond of battlerager but they are better than shit. beastmaster rangers and Wot4e monks are the true shit of 5e.
Does a monk roll the attacks when he uses flurry of blows or do you use the ki save DC and if you do use the ki save DC do you do it once or twice? If not what do you use your ki save DC for?
Seems pretty obvious that the Light domain cleric should get the Firebolt cantrip as part of their Bonus Cantrip feature. It would fit with their domain spells, which are almost all fire based damage spells.
Why do you think the devs didn't grant it? Is it because they want the clerics to be slightly worse casters damage wise when compared to wizards/sorcs/warlocks? They have basically one damaging cantrip. The Arcane domain can poach wizard cantrip so it seems like it would be reasonable to add it in, as a houserule. I am also trying to convince my players to try something new, since all they play are fighters and wizards. Do you think this is reasonable?
Basically, yeah. They're meant to be less pew-pew than the other casters.
Then they decided to make a pew-pew wizard caster. I still think Arcana was a terrible choice for a new domain but I have always thought it to be a dumb domain.
>mfw I have to punch my way through carnies the entire encounter
Dude, you were at a carnival, was there no "test your strength" booth you could have scored a mallet from? or knife throwing attraction? Knock over the milk bottles? Bean Bag toss? A GOD DAMN CHAIR?
From a pure mechanics point of view, they're improvised weapons and suck.
Props for thinking outside of the box (I thought of that too. But yknow, ambushed in a hall of mirrors and all that.)
So, if I'm playing a Fighter with Action Surge and some extra attacks, can I use Action Surge to double my number of attacks in a turn? Or would my extra attacks not get triggered by the second attack I took on my turn?
you double the amount of attacks you can normall make. if you are a level 5 fighter, you can make 2 attacks, surge, then make 2 more. you only get one bonus action per turn however, so action surge does not grant a second bonus action
Thanks. I thought that was the case, but I didn't know if there was some bullshit "Nah you can't, that'd be overpowered" reason somewhere else in the book or something.
So I've got a player who's feeling pretty discouraged about her character. Her character concept was a necromancer with the noble background who would have one undead bodyguard and use her other spells to buff it. Likely multiclassing into Life Cleric for more buffs and heavy armor. But after reading through the Animate Dead spell, she hated that she had to spend a slot a day to maintain them, saying that it was a waste of her best slot.
I argued that the battlefield presence and action economy of another unit on the field was worth the slot, and that she should at least wait and try it out before passing judgement (party's level 3 right now), but I also gave her permission to reroll as something else if desired. I pointed out the Undying Patron warlock MC option (short rest spell slots) or just going straight Death domain Cleric but neither seemed to interest.
Does anyone have experience playing with necromancers in 5e? Do they end up doing alright? Is there any way to improve the character concept she has in mind?
Lore bard that steals animate dead at 6th level? There's no way to get around the spell slot requirement, and for good reason. Tell her to put up with the paltry sacrifice or get over the fact that playing two characters at the same time is unfair to the other party members.
assuming she is a wizard atm, undead at lvl 6 are quite strong due to the buff necromancers give to their undead, but that buff scales poorly. Necromancers can do solidly as battlefield control by using their undead to limit their enemies movements around the battle field and doing decent poke damage, but ultimately your undead will lack in power once you get to CR 12 and up creatures.
On the other hand the spell slot problem is negligible because of the short rest to restore spell slots. she can cast animate dead and then short rest to get the slot back at lvl 6.
So out of curiosity since she is lvl 3 atm what has she been doing up to this point? normal wizard stuff?
Carnies were hitting us with a sack of rats, and the enemies were big rats and swarms of rats.
Guy liked rats.
I normally don't like being disarmed, but for RP I did it. I guess i'll just have my weapons glued to me at all times from now on.
>Goes to bed with 8 foot halberd.
>So out of curiosity since she is lvl 3 atm what has she been doing up to this point? normal wizard stuff?
Mostly casting Chill Touch and missing/doing bad damage with the occasional Ray of Sickness or Sleep, yeah.
It would be nice if there was a 1st level spell to necromance up a skeletal doggie or something. Until you get 3rd level spells you're a necromancer in name only, so I can get why she's not into it so far.
Ah, sounds about right.
Yeah I wish there was a low lvl animate dead spell too. Tbh I'd be fine with just having an undead familiar (like a skeleton cat or a crawling hand), but it is what it is. I tried my hand at a homebrew full necromancer class but I was having a hard time fleshing it out properly so its just sitting in the archive collecting dust. It was based on the 3.5 dread necromancer (my favorite class of 3.5, despite the fact that I never got to play it).
>started playing tabletop games recently with friends
>we have been taking turns DMing, one mate is scheduled to start next time we meet
>he is a mild rulesfag, but always misinterprets rules in his favor, or at least for the disadvantage of others
>always argues with the current DM over stupid shit that doesn't really matter
>borderline retarded when it comes to subtle plot points
>zero rp skills and doesn't even bother character interaction, just rolls CHA checks
>hates wizards and magic both in and out of character
>hates evil characters
>favors a DMPC, a low INT orc fighter, we had for a while to help us out in combat
>I wrote the orc out of the party when we got more players
>he claims he will bring him back when he's DM
I'm probably paranoid but I feel like I will end up fighting this DMPC pretty soon. What's the most dickish thing I can do as a low level wizard that will get past his rules radar?
I am going to be playing a red dragon sorcerer, and I noticed that Find Familiar is not on the sorcerer's spell list. He is a variant human, so I was strongly considering taking Magic Initiate to get access to it, along with two other cantrips.
Is a familiar useful enough to warrant burning my bonus feat? My DM said he would allow me to have a red pseudodragon to fit in my character concept (though he won't allow to share its Magic Resistance trait).
>multiple DMs for one game
Why would you do this?
Need help with a one on one session im running for a friend.
He's a level 3 rogue and at the last bit of last session, he found himself being choked to unconsciousness after failing a bunch of saves in a fight with a guy he was trying to track down and bring to the towns Master of Commerce, for skipping the rent on his market stall.
Where should I realistically come back in?
The man was planning to skip town and bail, the PC caught him as he was packing his bags. Would the NPC have just up and left? Stuck around for any reason?
I feel like this should be a 'quest failed' moment, because the NPC should be long gone by now, but that feels a bit cheap to me.
Don't do that. Hordes of enemies fucks up what little game balance there is with how badly it breaks the action economy.
If you want to represent a mob of dudes treat them like a swarm and inflate their HP numbers significantly, and maybe tweak their damage up by a few points.
Stick with only one. Do one of the existing short modules. When that module is complete, start a new one with a completely brand new party of characters and have someone else DM it. Rinse and repeat until the wanna-be DMs are satisfied.
But ultimately you need to pick one and learn, acclimate, study. Read guides, but don't let them be your crutch, you really have to 'learn' the game as much as you do your group's social dynamics. And judging by yours, some of them sound kind of retarded and not worth keeping on.
depending on your lvl you could probably magic missile him to death. There are more flavorful options involving taking advantage of his probably low wis and int saves but idk what spells you got available atm.
you would think so, and sometimes it is, but depending on your DM you may need to rp out the 10 minute cast time. He wasn't doing it to be a dick but our party wizard rarely got off a detect magic because someone would always scout ahead and bring out more trouble.
Sounds good. The PC found a stash of gear in a small burrow outside of town which he correctly assumed belong to the man about to skip town, he's been preparing for a while.
I guess if the PC immediately goes searching for him at the burrow, he'll find the NPC collecting his gear, otherwise i'll just try to nudge him in a different direction.
Haha, boy do I have a story for you.
>Playing 4e online campaign
>Large Beholder is squeezing to fit into corridor
>It's flying really fast, and is trying to eat us or some shit because it's the wizard's guard dog to his library
>"I cast magic missile"
>"But magic missile always hits. It doesn't even need a roll"
>"The beholder was going to fast"
>Group : "... It's taking up the entire hallway with its face. It has to squeeze to fit in here. How does it miss?"
>"It just does."
>And to the players he gave them no fucks
So this is the anon that's been posting about running the aquatic campaign a few threads ago. I need some input on something. Should I keep humans as they are, and have magically maintained bubble cities, or should I just give them amphibiousness and swim speed? They would be the only playable race that couldn't breathe underwater by default if that were the case.
Not terribly; They don't really have any common Ability Dependencies (Pally needs Str and Cha; Ranger needs Dex and Wis), nor do their features really supplement each other.
What are you trying to do, character-wise?
How would you go about creating a Steel Ball Run-like campaign?
>punch the DM in the face for this shit
>do not give a fuck about his ruling
>hold person turn 1
>Magic missle or cantrip attack him until he is dead.
>use shield or misty step if needed.
>grease can be handy too if you would rather use it than hold person.