QUARTERSTAFF DOESN'T HAVE REACH
>Official /5eg/ Mega Trove, contains all official 5e stuff:
>Pastebin with homebrew list, resources and so on:
>OGL and SRD for 5e
This time we talk about how you feel martial versus spellcaster balance is. Do you think its good? Do martials need help? Did concentration save D&D balance?
true? false? I talked to my buddy about it and he says we should run a game soon using playtest rules
Heres another call out into the void: does anyone want to start a chat group, or be in a group that plays by playtest? Only interested in playing in the bay area
Californiabut I'm interested in discussing it with any anons
I PERSONALLY feel as if the playtest rules made class abiltiies and player options at the forefront of what your gaming experience is, and by comparison the 5e published rules kind of push that all into the background, with attacking, spellcasting, and movement made the normal actions, and class abilities became something you do every once in a while.
If not running things by the last playtest packet, I think theres a way to balance it such that you bring ability and agency back to the foreground without creating "rocket tag".
Let me know. Even jab, shift, tumble, etc. could be good martial die abilities.
also the conan RPG has some really good options to use in combat.
If theres interest I'll start a group, if not I'll just start one in the bay and no one online will hear about it.
It does not.
I put this in here because a) I"ve made the past few 5egs, and b) an anon said he didn't want his DM to know that qurterstaffs dont have the reach property
It's a lot better. The capabilities of spellcasters are always going to eclipse those of martials, but in the average game martials are a lot more reliable in this edition.
But spellcasters are also a little more reliable in this edition than they were in past ones. The unlimited cantrips was one of the best decisions Wizards has ever made.
I actually think gishes might be king this edition. Between Paladin, Bard, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Blade Pact Warlocks some of the most powerful (Omni-Capable) classes in the game have it both ways.
Not to say the top couple spell levels don't bust the game wide open but nobody plays in that level range anyways.
>Did concentration save D&D balance?
It did a hell of a lot, but it's hard to say this early in the edition whether anything's been saved. Martials are still pretty low on utility.
I think the true strength of gishes this verison is that they sacrifice a TINY bit of depth to have the capacity to be useful ENOUGH, all of them, period, in combat to be able to save more spell slots for when they are needed.
Even druids, just having the capacity to be competent melee fighters means that they can save spells for healing, out of combat convincing people to do things, for avoiding pit traps, whatever it is. Thats the true beauty of the gish in this edition, is saving spell slots for when they are needed, and whacking a guy with something metal when not.
I agree whole heartedly. Not sure why I forgot Land Druids I n my gish list. I'm reluctant to include rangers or wot4e monks but shadow monks might get a pass too.
They all just do magic-as-utility so much better than their full caster counterparts who wield spell slots like a blunt instrument to solve their problems.
idk why but I love making these general threads, as long as I'm doing them I'll stand by anything I say in one. idk if anyones even noticed the "subtle" changes I've made to the OP over time
>the best or most powerful archetype subclass for each of the game's twelve classes
At what level range? At high levels I'd say Lore Bard. Decent skill monkey, and full casting with the ability to cherry pick the best spells from every other class all the way up to 9th level letting you get broken shit like Wish.
As a person who played a wizard to 12th level, I want to say that I love you martial guys.
lore bard is up there. thief gives the rogue some incredible tools.
Eldritch knight crushes the other two fighter archetypes on an already very powerful class at high level.
If we include unearthed arcana favored soul is just OP. the storm sorcerer was overpowered too until its published version dropped the bonus spells.
I thin scout probably kills the ranger but I haven't seen it in play.
Onion druid obviously works with one archetype.
Having only read the handbook and not played, I want to ask if you guys think this game is still high fantasy enough to have a more action packed adventure. By that I mean are characters still the cream of the crop, or are things as hyper lethal as older editions
So our DM decided he wants to switch over to Adventurer's League rather than continuing our ongoing game for some reason. He's starting with Lost Mines of Phandelver. Without any real coordination we in the group have ended up with 3 dickish or outright evil characters: Chaotic Neutral Half Orc fighter, Chaotic Neutral Cleric of Talos, and some sort of probably evil Gnome assassin. There's also a half orc bard but I can't remember much about the character beyond race and class, and one player who missed character creation so who knows what will happen there. The Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue are all gravitating towards being Zhentarim agents.
How badly is this likely to mesh with the published adventure given that the party seems to be essentially turning into a villainous party?
What kinds of cool monsters have you used in your games? Did you subtly change monsters in the MM or make things up wholesale? I'm planning on using a creepy stag-headed monster that pursues the party through a cursed forest. He's basically going to be a minotaur, but he's more about the chase than the fight.
Okay, some background.
I'm running a "campaign" heavily focused around dungeon crawling because one of my friends is the DM for a serious story driven campaign and he wants to play as well as DM.
Last session, my group of 3 level 5 PCs managed to rescue a white dragon wyrmling and convince it to help them throughout the dungeon, in return it would get to make the dungeon it's lair after they got what they were looking for. (Which was a sapphire encrusted dragon tooth.)
So they make their way through the dungeon with this new guy, who fully intends to hold up his end of the bargain, and they get to the "boss" room.
She's basically an ice princess, bored of her duties and likes to rebel. She offers the group to her hoard of treasure if they can beat her guards, which are 2 hill giants reskinned to be frost giants. The dragon wyrmling takes issue because it seems like they aren't upholding their end of the bargain. They manage to calm it down and descend into her treasure room, which contains way to much gold for them to count.
They manage to kill the two giants, and the dragon gets pretty beaten up. So this is when the dragon decides that they're not going to uphold their end and betrays them, taking a luck blade with 2 wishes. (This was to test the PCs to see if they kept their word, if they didn't the ice princess, who was watching from the back of the chamber would have struck them down and taken her sword.)
Now, they're chasing the dragon wyrmling down and that's where we ended the session.
If you were a white dragon wyrmling who couldn't fly and was fleeing a group of adventures, what would you Wish for /5eg/?
From my experience casters are just as solid as martial fighters in an overall sense. They only excel in social and rp situations and that part is still dependent on the general party and players.
I'm not a very smart dragon, and i'm rather young, so i'd probably wish for them to just go away. That could mean be teleported outside the dungeon. It could be sent to the other side of the world, or It could mean warped into the Astral Plane and even farther. So long as it's away.
They get to keep any treasure and items they had with them, but they don't get the wish dagger or see the wyrmling or ice princess. Wherever they go, note the Ice Princess and the wyrmling and now allied with one another after those events. This could mean everlasting winter to dragon shenanigans building a horde in a fortress of ice.
To be a strong adult so he could fight the party.
At that point he becomes an ancient white Dragon and erupts from the dungeon to fly away but drops the sword. The fall may break the last wish gem (your choice) but the party can still grab the sword. Later on the party will come across the now Pissed off ancient white Dragon who has claimed his own home somewhere else along with a massive treasure hoard and the fight will be epic.
One of these two are probably going to happen, although he already made it out of the dungeon and the ice princess has made it clear she's not going to help or hinder either of them.
I have a tiefling warlock who is casting disguise self to look like an average bloke and yet to play his hand. This can be dispelled and detected right? He can't pull some bullshit and have it not be detected or dispelled can he? My other players are getting bored with it and I'm worried that when he does reveal himself to them they'll disregard it for the sake of not liking him.
I'm I tending to have the Townmaster shake his hand and double take at what he think he felt then maybe make him roll for deception.
Disguise Self doesn't hold up to physical contact no, so your player will have to try and decieve the town mayor. Disguise Self also only has an hour duration, unless he has invocations already and took the Mask of Many Faces invocation, which then he'd have to apply every hour ingame time.
Playing into the abyss soon, /tg/ with a guy that's a new DM.
Is there anything I can avoid to make his first few games go smoothly as possible? I've been forever DM and I really would like to stop and be a player for a while.
more basic shit the better, like don't play X class archetype.
*out of the abyss, sorry
Dude's great, really want him to enjoy being a DM like I do, but I obviously don't want to read the book to avoid doing things, that defeats the entire point.
Playing it right now, seems pretty straight forward although my DM has customized several encounters to be harder due to us steam rolling the majority of fights.
The only hint I'll drop is that you're supposed to run not fight off the start. You wouldn't really get that from the way it's setup (atleast no-one in my party did until SHTF) and it can easily lead to a TPK
Play a Ranger with the Outlander background and Underdark favoured terrain, remove the food and drink bookkeeping. Go to Slubloodop with the fish people, then to Gracklestugh, then to Neverlight Grove, then to Blingdenstone, then jump at the call to visit Gauntlgrym, in that exact order.
Other than not rolling an evil character in a mostly good party? I got nothing- been playing OoTA for a while in the Encounters league, seen pretty good variety in what you can roll up.
This guy knows what he's doing.
that's what I'm trying
hm, yeah. I understoond some of those words.
I mean that's just basic. I think we have 2 evil characters, and maybe 1 good, but it's more manipulative evil than anything.
Fish People -> Sailing -> Deep Dwarves -> Mushroom People -> Deep Gnomes -> "Hey remember this character from the novels?"
Basically make it a little easier on the DM by going along with the plot a little. Don't be afraid to push him a bit by asking odd questions or exploring, that's how he learns, but don't derail the whole thing by randomly killing important people or somesuch.
The fact that it doesn't fuck you for multiclassing is stupid though. I really hate how fighters have to lose Extra Attack which is basically their damage and even if you go Druid 1/ Monk 19 or just a feat for level 20 Monk you can do full damage with a Cantrip.
Nah, no need to read the novels to get it. The character in question is Bruenor Battlehammer, he's got a whole article on the FR wiki if you want to read about him but there's no need to read the novels really.
I need some help /tg/
My party is heading to a large city. I have a few plot hooks that will take the story in a different directions depending on which one the decide to take.
I'm just feeling very uninspired when it comes to fleshing out the city itself. Are there any good city sourcebooks I can steal places/factions/ideas from?
Everyone who multiclasses misses out on their capstone feature. Fighters' is Extra Attack (3). This isn't unreasonable. Damaging cantrips aren't particularly important, they're more of a spell caster's basic attack than a class feature.
If you're mad about the lower levels of extra attack getting delayed... casters get delayed on learning spells of the next level when they multiclass which is just as big a deal. Most classes can't afford to lose their 17th level at all. For Fighters that's your second Action Surge, for full casters that's 9th level spells.
No, I am mad that casters at higher levels don't lose out on their free damage even if they multiclass. I don't even get scaling Cantrips at all excepr Eldritch Blast because it's basically what makes Warlock not as shit as Ranger. But 3 Warlock/ 17 Paladin still gives maxed out super ranged eldritch blast. Casters already have more spell slots than they can use most of the time. Maybe I'm running my games wrong but all casters I've seen use 1 to 2 spells per Combat and then spam Cantrips
It sounds like your players are correctly assessing the situation they are in, and only using the slots they need to use in a given circumstance so they have more when they actually need them.
Also known as playing a caster correctly.
>Maybe I'm running my games wrong but all casters I've seen use 1 to 2 spells per Combat and then spam Cantrips
Make the fights harder. If your casters aren't running out of high level spell slots and low on low level spell slots by the end of the day when they rest you're either being too generous with your long rests or the fights aren't challenging them. Of course some players are so worried about what might be coming next that they won't spend spell slots until it looks like a TPK is incoming.
The point of cantrips scaling is that if they don't scale, there's no point to them at all. In 5e they're intended as a replacement for basic weapon attacks, something to use when you're out of spells or when the combat doesn't warrant spell usage.
I just don't see them as being good enough to be worth complaining about, at least when they aren't augmented by class features.
I think all martials should have the battle-master system implemented so they get maneuvers and a number of superiority dice dependent on the class.
Also Wis focused casters need some love and fixing as well as letting the monk have a proper caster progression with Ki being the equivalent of the sorcery point mechanic thus making them a proper half-caster in lieu of eldritch knights.
If casters need to cast more than one spells encounters TPK the group as far as my experience goes. The 2 spells per combat is either a) blaster type spam fireball or b) their one super concentration spell didn't work so well so they use another one.
They would've been fine with the base Cantrip damage to replace weapon attacka since they use their spellcasting ability to hit and can even use Saving Throws so the enemy might be fucked by its shit saves. It isn't broken but I feel it is still unfair.
>letting the monk have a proper caster progression with Ki being the equivalent of the sorcery point mechanic thus making them a proper half-caster in lieu of eldritch knights.
I think this stupid fucking meme should die.
Long Death is alright, it has the Undyinglock problem of having features based around something you're supposed to avoid and it has a worse version of quivering palm which is still alright. The feat thing they can do is quite good but doesn't always come up.
Sun Soul is very versatile, and Radiant Sun Bolt gives you a good ranged option. Overall I'd rate them both about the same as Shadow, not as good as Open Hand but then what is?
Sun is a pretty interesting archetype. It allows for monks to stay at a short range away and still punch people with light beams. Open hand and shadow are much better but the ability to stay out of melee quite effectively makes up for monks low tanking potential.
Long death only is Good for being super hard to kill with it's ki points being able to keep it alive and fighting. Nothing worth noting otherwise but still better than wot4e
Reading through the PHB to find novel character concepts/builds: how viable would a intel-focused Warlock be? By mid-level, you could have quite a few at will information gathering abilities (detect magic, speak with dead/animals, read any text) that won't cost you any spell slots.
How do i make my game less combat heavy? I've got a sort of fluctuating group of 5-8 players. I need to be able to drop combat to once or twice a session at most with lots of players so we don't go for 4-5 hours, but at the same time i need to keep the game going long enough when we have fewer players easily capable of getting through 6+ combats in the same amount of time.
Should i just bring another board game for the days i have fewer players and end a session early rather than try and keep a consistent game length with more / less players?
Is there like a website that just has hundreds of generic non-combat encounters i can pull from and mold to my setting? I've taken loads of stuff from old CRPG side quests and basically 1:1 ripped it off since my players haven't done that shit, but i just can't find enough non-combat material to pad out my games.
Sounds interesting, but in my experience DnD is typically pretty combat heavy which is not where the character concept shines. In a heavily political game (or other game with non-combat options) it would be fun.
I'd probably play it as some cheesy film noir style PI if I was doing it.
If you can't/don't want to design noncombat encounters yourself I'd just bring the board game, or prune the group. You only need four players for a campaign and people who can't consistently turn up on time and stay for the duration can't play, simple as.
Warlocks really don't have much combat potential anyways. Agonizing blast invocation with hex and eldrich blast.
This sounds pretty solid. If built right you could be a pretty solid utility guy / skill monkey.
Thing is i've designed so much but this campaign i'm planning to last for atleast a year+ and i'm just burnt out on ideas for non-combat stuff.
Setting is Urban and in game the players own a small tavern so whenever there isn't a player their character is just going to be NPC / milling about, all the players are cool with the whole freeform different party / number of players every week, and i can crunch the numbers and tune combat accordingly.
I just need like, 10 non-combat encounters to every 1 combat encounter to balance things out time wise. And i can't come up with that many non-combats before shit gets repetitive as fuck.
>Warlocks really don't have much combat potential anyways. Agonizing blast invocation with hex and eldrich blast.
I know, I'm just asking if he's willing to sacrifice what little he does have. I had a player do something like that as a Feylock once, didn't go well for him.
Depends on who you ask. Looking at the description of Polearm Master, which allows you to use the butt of the staff to strike, 5e quarterstaff technique seems to be the 'kayak paddle' striking-with-both-ends kind, which doesn't particularly use the staff's greater length.
Well honestly he would not have to sacrifice it. He could grab agony blast and some utility invocation at lvl 2 and build it up from there. Honestly silent image would be best because basically it's like minor illusion but bigger and mobile and lasts longer.
What you need is a long non-combat story arc. Find a reason for them to make enemies of the local city government or something. Have some guy try to shut down their bar or something. The best part of this sort of thing is that it's the sort of thing that takes time, so you can pepper in episodes of some petty bureaucrat fucking with them over some real or imagined slight as needed. If you really want you can slowly spin this into them getting sucked into some sort of full fledged conspiracy.
Look at your PCs skills and tools. Chances are good everyone has at least one that isn't being used in combat if at all. Even the cookie-cutter backgrounds in the book should give you enough to come up with something for them to do.
>put a lot of effort into planning out interesting encounters
>have plenty of story hooks (missing family members of prominent family, somethings going on at the temple, maybe the flaming fist would like to know what happened to their missing guards)
>beat it over players' heads that something is going on with Umberlee
>player dick around at the table and don't pay attention
>"um, I don't really know where to go, DM where should we go next?"
Holy fucking shit y'all maybe if you paid some fucking attention you'd understand what to do. I'm basically spelling shit out for you. If you want me to just deposit you in front of a dungeon every week, then why the fuck are we playing D&D and not some other fucking game.
It actually makes a great deal of sense if you actually know how to use a quarterstaff and don't just play videogames all the time.
Same with spears. You're one thread behind the curb.
I really really really hate to admit it, but you're right. They're all new players and they're used to RPGs spoonfeeding them "go here, then go here, cutscene, skip, go here."
I'll have to talk with them. I want them to have fun and joke around, but not so much where they can't follow really simple plot breadcrumbs.
Are paladins worth playing in 5e, or should I just go with cleric?
What do you think of the following changes to races:
Goliaths are resistant to Cold damage
Dragonborn breath weapon gains Recharge 6
Minotaurs get +2 Strength, and then +1 to either Int, Wis or Cha
Humans have Skill Versatility (from half-elf), a tool proficiency of their choice and Variant Human is banned.
I've considered also giving Humans expertise in a single skill instead of the tool, but that felt excessive.
>Goliaths are resistant to Cold damage
Makes enough sense.
>Dragonborn breath weapon gains Recharge 6
I don't think Dragonborn really need the change, but it seems harmless enough and if the player would like to use the breath weapon more it would be neat enough.
>Minotaurs get +2 Strength, and then +1 to either Int, Wis or Cha
Don't care, I think Minotaurs being a player race is fucking dumb to begin with so I just pretend they don't exist.
>Humans have Skill Versatility (from half-elf), a tool proficiency of their choice and Variant Human is banned.
Variant human is way too strong so this change is definitely warranted.
Another possible option would be giving Variant human only +1 to a single stat.
>I've considered also giving Humans expertise in a single skill instead of the tool, but that felt excessive.
That does feel a mite excessive.
Honestly, Rangers keep up with martial damage up until level 8 or so at the cost of one Hunter's Mark per two-three combats in my experience. That leaves plenty of slots for utility, or even a Hail of Thorns to start out combat. As archer gishes, they're damn capable, and only slightly less so as melee.
I think Variant Human is nice for interesting features by taking Linguist, Observant and so on, but the problem arises when it is mechanically superior for what feels like 60% of builds, with Polearm Master, Heavy Armor Master, Resistant and other feats you can take 1st level instead of 4th or 8th as they are balanced around. If you want to keep some of the interesting feats you could award them to players as boons, as in my experience they get picked up very rarely since they have little use in combat.
>Goliaths are resistant to Cold damage
why, no thanks goliaths are pretty good as is
>Dragonborn breath weapon gains Recharge 6
>Minotaurs get +2 Strength, and then +1 to either Int, Wis or Cha
don't care but sure
>Humans have Skill Versatility (from half-elf), a tool proficiency of their choice and Variant Human is banned.
seems like a lot but if you want. i'm playing a vanilla human and i do miss not having an extra skill
>I've considered also giving Humans expertise in a single skill instead of the tool, but that felt excessive.
Maybe its just me but I love the thought of playing a minotaur warrior. I have a character concept for a NG minotaur warrior who is very kind hearted but unnaturally clumsy / reckless because of his physical stature and strength that i made for a game a long time ago that i never got to play. The DM never even set up a date for the first session.
Cheap asshole here.
Does anyone have a scan of the DM-screen?
Paladins are great in 5e. Solid damage, heavy armor, good spell options. Past level 11, they're a little more a burst damage class than the fighter's more reliable DPS, but Improved Divine Smite mitigates that. Oaths offer some nice rounding-out options; I'm partial to Ancients for offering some nice utility and mild AOE options.
Having to burn spell slots to Smite is a mixed blessing, since their spells are much more useful now, but it does mean you can smite more than you could in 3e.
Now you're asking about them in comparison to clerics, so I presume you mean a warrior-focused cleric. Clerics are not terrible warriors, but they're not great at it. Tempest, War, Nature and Life will get you heavy armor, and the first two will get you martial weapons, but clerics never get Extra Atrack. They DO get +1d8 damage at level 8 (once a turn only), which is actually pretty handy, but it's not as good as Extra Attack. Clerics are spellcasters here, and while you can certainly contribute in melee - your damage is not piddly, it's just it's just not as good as martials - your heavy spells will have the most influence.
So, to sum up, if what you want to play is a paladin, 5e lets you use the Paladin to do it; you don't have to resort to using Cleric, and Cleric mostly won't get the same job done anyway.
I think I've finally figured out why the 5e Monsters Manual feels so lacking in terms of content.
There's not enough variants of the monsters.
Take the 3.5 Monsters manual, not only does it just have more monsters printed in it, but so many of the monsters have variant versions that make them relevant at higher levels. Something that just doesn't really happen in the 5e book.
Hydras used to run he gamut from CR 4-11 (13 if you include Cryo/Pyro variants) now it's fixed at 8. Lycanthropes used to go between 2 and 14, now they go from 2-5. Creatures like Harpies and Mind Flayers had stated out variants with class levels. Umber Hulks fit in at both 7 and 14. Elementals used to have 6 different age variants. And on and on.
The 5e book is so lacking in later level threats and I think this might be the major culprit.
I'm fine with them trimming the fat and getting rid of shit like Tojanida and Yrthak and Krenshar that barely needed to exist, but making the more iconic monster relevant over larger level ranges would do a lot to allow greater variety.
I'm saying nerf caster, not buff fighter. You seem to think otherwise. I agree, but I still think casters are above martials in this edition. The whole wizards are problem solvers in everything still exists, even if they can't instantly replace their entire party with summons and save or die enemies. One spell can still win an entire encounter with the enemies flopping around like fish on land.
Since AC doesn't change much over time, you don't need new variants to make threats for later levels. A rakshasa with a Shield Guardian and a couple ghasts is as big a threat to a level 14 party as a rakshasa by himself is to a level 8 party.
What they need are some easy-to-use monster scaling rules. They almost start doing it in the DMG on page 273, but then transition into new- monster creation without explicitly describing how to scale existing monsters.
That said, it says on page 274 of the DMG:
>Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your monster must have a challenge rating equal to the level of the characters to be a worthy challenge. Keep in mind that monsters with a lower challenge rating can be a threat to higher-level characters when encountered in groups.
So, with that in mind, /tg/, let's try to spitball some monster-scaling ideas.
The actual granular HP totals are a little less important than an important distinction: Can the PCs drop this monster in one turn? Can ONE PC drop this monster in one turn? If they can, then the individual monster is not a threat at all and even groups are not dangerous unless there are many. If it takes two players to drop a monster, then groups of three or four are dangerous.
So if you think a monster is a little weak, increase its HP by 50%, and increase its attack bonus, AC, saves, and spell DC by 1.
>You want to pit your 5th level party against a Hydra in a gladiator match?
>You want the Mind Flayer mastermind that's been antagonizing the party for the entire 15 level campaign to be a credible threat on his own?
>"Muh rule bloat"
First of all, Monsters aren't rules. They're content. Complaining about more monsters is like complaining about more adventure modules or whatever. More content is always better as long as it's decently written. More rules is not always better. I like 5e because it's more rules light than 3.5, that doesn't mean I don't want more content that USES those rules.
Secondly, rules bloat wasn't the primary problem with 3.5 anyway.
Those are so arbitrary as to be useless, even more so than CR. Try going off the monster creation rules instead.
To increase a monster's CR, for each CR between 1 and 30, you:
- increase their HP by 14*, or 44 for CRs 20 and up
- increase their damage-per-round by 5, or 17 for CRs 20 and up
- increase their AC by 1 at CRs 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 17
- increase their to-hit and save DCs by 1 at CRs 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17, 21, 24, 27, and 30
* Resistances and immunities can change effective HP if you want to keep with the CR guidelines. If they have a ton of resistances, especially to non-magical BPS, change their actual HP instead by:
- 7 for expected CRs 1-4 (the same for immunities)
- 9 for expected CRs 5-10 (or 7 for immunities)
- 11 for expected CRs 11-16 (or 9 for immunities)
- 11 for immunities at expected CRs 17-19
- 35 for immunities at expected CRs 20 and up
Right. In fact, I think I'm going to throw a hydra at my party at fifth level. I'll just throw in some environmental complications for them to take advantage of if they're clever.
I didn't give them those magic weapons so I could go easy on them.
Why the fuck should I have to?
3.5 had monster advancement rules too, ones that were both easier to use and more versatile than the 5e ones. But I barely used them then and I don't see why I'd want to use them now. Why would I want to apply these loose as fuck rules that'll probably result in something shitty and unbalanced if I could get something written by actual game designers?
Is convenience no longer a good thing? Even people that hated 4e praised it for how easy it was to GM.
>You're asking for a dozen versions of each Monster
Dedicating time to statting out different versions of the same monster is inherently less interesting than dedicating time to new content.
It's not hard to build an encounter using powerful lackeys or simply improving on your NPC's defense a bit. A book of different versions of the same thing is just boring.
What is this bullshit about monks needing to be half casters?! There are literally 3-4 completely NON magical archetypes (berserker, champion, battlemaster, open hand monk) and to remove yet another is fucking stupid. I blame 4e for making everyone Magic last edition..
The 3.5 book managed to have more different monsters than the 5e one ON TOP of the variants.
Variants doesn't mean there should be less different monsters.
I seriously cannot grasp why you think more options would be a bad thing, it would allow for greater variety in terms of designing encounters while also allowing a greater density of content without needed to spend more budget/page space on art resources and flavor text.
>Dedicating time to statting out different versions of the same monster is inherently less interesting than dedicating time to new content.
They're not doing either though, we just have less content overall.
>What is this bullshit about monks needing to be half casters?!
They don't need to be, it's just that the archetypes that ARE half casters have a needlessly convoluted and shit system for casting those spells and there's no reason they should.
Notice that he said "In lieu of Eldritch Knights", not "In lieu of Paladins". He's not proposing that Open Hand be given casting as well.
Honestly, after a certain point, why isn't everyone magic? You're exceeding the bounds of what humans are normally capable of, so saying "it's not magic" is either disingenuous or an excuse to keep martial classes weak by forcing them to adhere to an arbitrary scale of "realistic"
>Thief and Assassin don't exist
Also, Open Hand monks can heal themselves and magically compel people to not attack them. Not to mention that base monk gets magical slow falling, the ability to turn invisible, and doesn't need food or water past a certain point.
>Open Hand monks are non magic
Ki is just bullshit magic. I don't care what you call it, if you're using "Mystical energy" that allows you to do physically impossible shit like heal your wounds, project yourself into astral space and speak any language then you're using magic..
They have more monsters because they decided to opt out of any sort of readability in their design in favor of squeezing as many words onto a page as possible. I would gladly have fewer monsters if it means not having to sort through that mess anymore.
I'm not saying more variants is bad. It's just not necessary with attack and AC capped. Those variants in 3.x and 4e were there because low level enemies would have no chance attacking high level players, and low level players had no chance attacking high level creatures. Now, a goblin can hit an adult dragon with a 16. You're essentially complaining that we no longer have the solution to a problem that has been excised from the system.
The self-heal could just be "Pain Supression", catching arrows is just being nimble, kicking niggers and knocking them down isnt magical. Quivering Palm or whatever could just be a 5 finger exploding heart technique, punching as a magic weapon could be hard however...
I have a question:
I wanna play as a guy who makes aromatic candles for a living, and generally doesn't fight, but mixes up scents to create a variety of effects (a horrible stench to stun someone, a pleasing aroma to help with diplomacy, etc)
I have no idea how to go about this. Any tips?
I'd suggest playing a different game.
You couldn't even pull something like that off in 3.5, and 3.5 had 11 billion books that allowed to make a viable build that could do basically anything.
So I've had an idea for a plot hook to start some new level one players.
Basically, some old dude on a farm is complaining that somebody keeps stealing his scarecrows, and will pay a small amount if the party can help him. Maybe some food instead of gold, or an old heirloom. Some kind of reward that's useful to the players but within the price range of a farmer.
The party can investigate or wait out at night and watch or whatever they choose. The point is, the scarecrows aren't being stolen, they are coming alive and running away. Where the plot goes from there is a work in progress, and I'd like some suggestions if possible.
How good is a multiclass War Cleric/Fighter? I'm level 8 in cleric as a minotaur with charger and GWM, and just got that nice +d8 to weapon damage. I was thinking about how that would help if I had more attacks, in addition to the limited "extra attack" war cleric gets, which I'm pretty sure does stack with the fighter's, since it's a bonus action.
The fuck, man
Are you like, serious? Scented candles is what you want to roleplay in a world of dunjins and wywerns and awesome heroes?
something is buried under the farm, something old and powerful and alien, and its causing all kinds of problems, things floating, water turning into slugs, sink holes, bad dreams, and scarecrows reanimating. dare ye descend into one of the sinkhole and slay the creature?
Chaositects are at it again, seeking to steal all the scarecrows in the world for creation of a monstrous scarecrow amalgamation that is akin to the Burning Man but even bigger, strawier and also animated with horrible whimsy of kender-tier Chaotic Neutral. Will the players dare to pursue the cackling chaositects into the Sigil and ruin their wicked plans before they destabilize the very base universal forces that hold the world together?
Y'all remember discussing +1 weapons vs Viscious a few threads back?
I've been thinking about the numbers for it and assuming a character who hits on an 11 (largely because that's an easy number to work with) and who hits for about 14 average (greatsword with either +2 Rage bonus or GWF style, plus 20 Strength) then giving him a +1 weapon adds about 1.25 damage per attack roll (50% chance of +1 damage plus a 5% chance of +15 damage = 0.5 + 0.75). So, for Viscious to be balanced there it'd need to deal 25 extra damage on a crit.
If he's got advantage then the average bonus from a +1 weapon is 0.75+15*0.0475 = 1.4625 damage per attack so the Viscious weapon would only need to do 15 damage to stay even.
I think if I were running a game I'd consider upping Viscious to +20 damage or so, and maybe allowing it to trigger off of any crit.
Or you could just consider it an option for the DM who wants to give you a magic weapon without breaking game balance in half.
I seem to remember people in 3.5 saying that another +1 was better than any of the +1d6 abilities, and that was on every hit. If DMs chose loot like they do in 5e, it'd make a good halfway mark to give the player instead of just a raw power boost. But players tended to buy/craft/customize their own loot instead.
Vicious is more for things like daggers and shortswords, where the flat damage bonus is considerably more substantial relative to their damage die/bonus crit damage.
Additionally, there's no reason a vicious weapon cannot also be +1.
I think this does a great job of making their magic feel more, for lack of a better descriptor, magical. It isn't just a rote response to any challenge they encounter, it's something they pull out only in dire circumstances where mortal might is insufficient.
While its possible im incompetent, i searched for roughly 1hr to figure out how poison works, and couldnt. The particular issue is ray of sickening. If someone could tell me or point me to a page number on how poison works, id be eternally grateful.
There's a few different types of poison in 5e. There's poison damage, there's poison that knocks you unconscious instead of killing you when you hit 0, there's poison that simply knocks you unconscious immediately, there's poison that does a TON of damage, but in your case, you're looking at the Poisoned condition, which is with the rest of the conditions on page 290 I believe it is.
>Or you could just consider it an option for the DM who wants to give you a magic weapon without breaking game balance in half.
If that's the intention then why is it rarer than a +1 weapon?
Anyway, I guess what I'm really doing is brainstorming numbers that would give the swingy big numbers implied by the weapon whilst actually dealing similar damage to the +1 weapon. I'm not saying anyone else has to or should make it stronger, just what I'd do. I think I'd rather give a magic weapon with no damage bonuses (and maybe some minor non combat thing like being able to cast Light on itself or something) than the current Viscious because it currently feels like a trap option ; it's worse than it looks at first glance which can make players feel bad.
Daggers and shortswords used by whom? A +1 weapon is worth a lot more than Viscious to a Rogue since Sneak Attack makes bonuses to hit worth a lot more. A level 8 Rogue with a shortsword and 20 Dex that's hitting on 11s would need Viscious to deal 32.5 damage to be equal to a +1 weapon. As long as you're averaging 7 damage per hit then the +1 to hit will outweigh the crit bonus without even taking into account the +1 damage, so realistically you'd need to be in a situation where you had a d6 weapon and only +2 to your stat to even have a chance of Viscious being equal or better.
But yeah, it's something that only matters if you make it matter. I like the design idea behind a weapon that puts all of its damage into crits, so I'd like to see what one equivalent to a +1 weapon would look like.
>saves the +1 damage for crits
Every crit deals extra 20 damage? Or
Out for every attack you hit it gets a hit marker, when you score a crit all hit markers become aditional damage
>if that's the intention why is it rarer than a +1 weapon
I'm sure it wasn't the "intention" of the developers; it was a suggestion for a savvy DM. There's lots of things in this edition that are not quite as fully thought out as other editions, even if overall it's a good product.
>rogues, sneak attack, vicious daggers
Assassins would get more bang for the buck out of Vicious. Which, by the way, has only the one s in it.
But yeah, vicious is pretty terrible. It's basically just an option that does virtually nothing except "be magic", but still technically improves your damage.
Perhaps if it did +2d6 damage but dealt 2 damage to you? That's similar to the older version of vicious without making it utterly useless.
Would you allow a paladin to summon a higher CR creature with Find Steed if they cast it at a higher level? The paladin in the campaign I'm running really loves his mount but it's just not cutting it at 12th level. To be honest it really hasn't been cutting it since 10th. Would allowing him to summon a pegasus be to much if he casts the spell at third level? What about a unicorn as a 5th level spell?
I hope this subtle meme of "asking for advice on how to build progressively less effective characters" continues. Looking forward to the STR-based Cobbler Erotica Enthusiast multiclassing into Caseiculturist questions next thread.
You know that monks in chink stories are basically wizards training their bodies to become immortal.
And focus on body strengthening magic.
D&D also gives them magic albeit not as available or versatile as proper casters and doesn't follow the immortal cultivator theme.
Magic is still magic in the end.
So giving a new spell-casting mechanic to a half-caster sounds plausible.
Let the monks get spell slots till level 4 and let them burn through ki points to boost a spells damage outpout or duration.
This would also require for a Wis centered spell list to be created mainly for the Wot4E monk and maybe another archetype but keeping it to only one archetype is also good.
Also what part of the battle-master maneuvers is spell like except for the dies you expend?
It's actually the best middle point between weaboo fightan magic and "I hit it with my sword and now it's your turn Dave.".
Like what is "weaboo" in tripping an enemy or parrying a strike?
If there is a reasonable chance of failure (Inside their max load range but not their lift range, poor grip handholds, awkwardly shaped, held in place by something else) then it requires a roll.
Kits of Old from weeks ago thats already in the mega anyway?
Also someone took that out of the OP before I started making them.
But I can put it back in next time I make a thread if I make the next one.
What's a good multiclass for a Bladelock?
I was thinking of either rogue (for Sneak Attack and Expertise) or Paladin (Oath of the Ancients).
My DM had a nostalgia trip at seeing "roll" as the default for attributes, so we did. I'm rocking:
I'm wanting to play a facey type character (so half-elf), and for whatever reason the Warlock really appeals to me.
At low levels. High levels seem pretty weak for Warlocks, since Invocations are mostly crap or unexciting.
Party includes an Elf Bard (with criminal background for rogueish stuff), Half-Elf Sorcerer, human Fighter (battlemaster) and human Cleric (war). Starting at level 3.
So, I tried to order the weapons by the difficulty of making them (with the intention of this factor affecting rarity and price and availability in different regions/settlements).
But I realized pretty quickly I have absolutely no idea about any of this shit. Could someone who knows more about this topic help me out, here?
>Red - most common, basically anyone can make these out of random shit
>Orange - fairly common, only minor skill or material gathering required
>Yellow - somewhat uncommon, some skill and material gathering required
>Green - very uncommon, large skill and/or material gathering required
honestly you pretty much have the stats to actually make a pure bladelock.
if you really want to multiclass you can, but your stats are 28 points plus however much an 18 is (19 points if it keeps scaling the same way, +1 pt cost when the modifier goes up?)
If you're starting at 3 I would definitely start single class anyway up until at least level 5.
anything with a wooden haft will be easier to make than a sword. Entirely wooden weapons like clubs are very easy to make (pretty much anyone with access to wood and a knife can whittle one with enough time, and without much training), weapons with wooden hafts and metal parts like axes and simple polearms require you to have access to a forge and know how to work metal, but aren't as hard to make as swords. More complicated polearms would be a little more difficult to make (factoring in hooks and the like). Swords should take the most skill to make at the same level of quality all things equal.
Size of the weapon shouldn't matter in this categorization. A handaxe and a greataxe are both axes, one's just bigger than the other, and if the smith knows how to make both I see no reason it would be significantly harder for them to make one over the other. However, more materials used + more time spent making it = more expensive.
Also I think making bows and crossbows is a little more difficult than you think it is.
Paladin is probably the best since you can convert your warlock resources (spell slots) into melee damage via smite. You also get a fighting style and armor/shield proficiency.
Plus, Paladin spells are pretty unique and very separate from the warlock spell list, so you'll have great variety.
As far as what kind of split you're going for, it depends on what you want. How much of a caster do you want to be? Paladin 2/Warlock 18 lets you get full caster progression and at the same time your melee will be almost as good as a full paladin. The only thing you'll miss out on is Improved Divine Smite, which is just 1d8 damage.
If you go Paladin 8/Warlock 12, you get the +cha damage to your melee, 5th level spell slots with 1 6th level spell slot, and your Paladin auras. So fairly high utility at the sacrifice of 7th-9th level spells. Additionally this is the cutoff point for maximum melee damage since the +cha damage requires 12th level.
If you want maximum spell slot efficiency for your smites and want to mainly be a Paladin, then Paladin 12/Warlock 8 (or 13/7 if you don't care about the ASI) is pretty good. This is when you get your 4th level spell slots from Warlock, which yield the most damage from Divine Smite. You also get Improved Divine Smite from Paladin, and 3rd level Paladin spells and slots. The downside is that you will never have slots about 4th level.
There are other cutoff points if you want more Paladin than Warlock, but I feel like the ones mentioned above are the most fun, especially Paladin 2/Warlock 18. This also isn't taking into account fluff, but the best part about Paladin/Warlock multiclass is that every single oath pairs really well with every single patron. My personal favorite is Oath of Devotion/Great Old One to get that insane zealot feel.
its true but it gets a worse rap than it deserves imo. but yes its just mechanically worse than heavy weapon fighting or using a sword and board (or what have you) in most (all?) scenarios
except for melee rogues
is there some kind of template for making good looking homebrew character classes?
does dmsguild have guidelines? i'm not going to post there (fuck dms guild) but if they have a good looking one i would use that
mega only has for spells or monsters as far as i can tell
There's a really good photoshop guide with templates on some guy's homebrew blog. I forget what it's called. Walrock or something. I think he posts here. There are some basic formatting documents put out by the DMsG, but they're pretty ugly, so I wouldn't follow them.
two right feet.
You have the kind of stats to pull off pretty much any race you want, since having a CHA boost or not is solved after level 4, but you are already going half-elf so that's fine.
If you go rogue for SA, you'll be a dexlock since you have to use finesse weapons to get SA. So put your 15 into Dex and bump it to 16, put 18 into Cha (which becomes 20), and one of the 14s into Con. Use your second bump for Con, then aim to take Resilient (Con), which will make it 16 and also give you proficiency in Con saves, which you'll need if you spend time in melee concentrating on spells. I'd recommend bumping your dex to 18 first, then getting Resilient, then finishing off Dex.
Even if you go paladin, go Dex.
Paladin gets you a bunch of goodies, and you could take it as your first class so you get plate.
Is undying light available? If so, Dragon Sorcerer, +UDL and stack that CHA to damage on GFB.
>no house rules
>no custom races
>no custom monsters
>no custom settings
>no deviation from RAW anywhere
Is pure Warlock a viable thing? Their later levels (past 9 basically) seem so 'meh'. Well, Lifedrinker at 12 seems really nice (Cha bonus to Pact Blade damage).
Armor: Is the Mage Armor invocation worth taking? Should I suck up the 1 less point of AC and go with Studded Leather? Pick up Medium Armor proficiency at 4 instead of +2 to a stat? I have a 14 I can put into Dex (since the max dex bonus for all medium armor is +2).
Str v. Dex: If I stick with light armor (or Mage Armor), I'd almost certainly want to go Dex over Strength. The weapon options for Finesse are extremely limited (basically comes down to Rapier and Whip), but I'm okay with that.
Extra Attack: I can pick it up via the Thirsting Blade invocation at level 5, then if I multiclass I can swap the invocation at another level maybe?
I was thinking Ancients with Great Old One via a slightly different route. I really liked the "maybe your patron isn't even aware you exist" line about Great Old One locks and decided my "patron" is in fact a planetary devourer type thing. I siphon his power to keep him asleep, otherwise he'd wake up and consume the world. (Naturally, there is a fanatical cult that wants to awaken him and need me dead to do it!) I don't expect to actually hit 20, our campaigns rarely last that long, but I was thinking Paladin 6 / Warlock 14? Enough to give my near-by allies a boost to saves, still be able to create a thrall via GOO pact. Oath of Ancients, because I'm taking on this whole warlock thing to protect life.
PHB only I'm afraid :(
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but, thanks for the advice. I've wanted to try this out. Couple questions, though:
You talked about taking the Oath of Devotion with the Paladin 2/Warlock 18 build, but don't you get oaths at lvl 3?
Also, do you think it's worth it to take the Pact of the Blade for Warlock? I always lean towards chain, because I love having familiars, personally.
Lastly, what are the vital spells?
>No giant octopus mini
>No giant constrictor snake mini
>Still no axe beak mini
And I thought I had trouble finding giant crabs...
Have you considered using custom tokens using some card stock and 1" or 2" metal washers? They're pretty solid and you can put some nice artwork on them with just a little image editing.
I did not consider such a thing, no. I have, however, had a little luck finding animal minis at various wildlife online gift shops. Like a very cool looking Elk statue that, once attached to a base, would make for a stellar Giant Elk I'm willing to bet.
Paladin 6/Warlock 14 definitely works, and still gives you access to up to 7th level spells.
I assumed you wouldn't get anywhere close to 20th level, but if you wind up going Paladin/Warlock, my suggestion is to start as a Paladin until 2nd level, then switch over to Warlock until you decide you want more Paladin. It delays your second attack, but your smites will be on point so you'll still be delivering competitive damage, and your EB is still very powerful.
If your DM is allowing SCAG material (which he should, it's officially released material), the Greenflame Blade and Booming Blade cantrips more than make up for your delayed extra attack.
Also I think that's a really cool character concept and fits Paladin/Warlock perfectly.
I meant that generally. I usually roleplay the oath I intend to take from level one, even if my character never winds up "officially" taking the oath (reaching 3rd level Paladin).
I love Pact of the Blade, and I feel like the Paladin multiclass is all it needs to be extremely viable. That said, you don't NEED it, and the other two pacts are definitely fun and offer their own unique abilities. Keep in mind that while Chain offers an uber familiar that is indeed awesome, Tome allows one to get a normal familiar that is still awesome.
Spells are kinda up to you. You don't need damage spells from your Warlock list except for Hex if you want insane damage. The SCAG cantrips are wonderful, as are Bless and Cure Wounds. Misty Step lets you melee extremely hard and really adds to that magic warrior feeling.
I usually just focus on utility and crowd control spells when I take this setup since GFB/smite is all I need to deal damage.
i mean... how long is your campaign going to go?
my advice either way is hit 5 in one class and then multiclass, so you will have plenty of time to think about it
you're correct about swapping the invocation later.
what i would do is this, half elf, +2 14, +1 to the 15, +1 to either the 14 or the 11. so you have say 10, 12, 14, 16, 16, 18. you don't need a 20 at level 1.
with 5 ASIs you can end up with 20 strength/dex/charisma or if you want to be dex based 20 dex/con/charisma which is w w w wild. (or you can have like 20 strength 16 dex 18 con 20 charisma or something). not that you need to 20 all your stats, take some feats since again you're at 47 point buy by my reckoning.
dex is probably better over all but since you have stupid high stats its kind of dope to go strength based and still have dex based AC.
if you go dex based i would dual wield.
but manly muscles are way way > > > > better than being an edgy fast guy.
i currently am playing a rogue.i would go strength because its rare that you'll be able to without really hard choices for your char at 27 pt buy.
sorry i know this post is really rambling. i'm a bad writer and too caffeinated besides. bottom line is your stats are so good you should just come up with whatever idea you want for your lock and then build it.
pure warlock gets meh after 10, maybe lifedrinker is cool, maybe thrall is cool. but otherwise you won't have a level 9 spell which if you ever get to 17 could be pretty cool.
i really wish wizards had just thrown warlock a bone. well thousands of bones because they botched the last half, but thrown them a bone and let their capstone ability also affect their level 6-9 spells. then they could at least be the only class who while having a shit list to pick from and no scaling spells over level 5, could cast 2 level 9 spells in a day.
tldr: hit 5 and decide if you want to multi
I found it http://walrock-homebrew.blogspot.com/2015/07/my-template-how-i-make-my-crap.html for those interested.
I don't have photo shop on my computer (lame, I know) so I was hoping there would just be a docx or whatever page or a website that spits them out.
But thats okay, maybe I just need to make one myself.
Dear anons, i want to produce a few pdfs for the current game. Like, compilations of lore and that kind of stuff. What is the name of the font used in 5e material? Also is there a template out there? Thanks in advance.
>monk has no abilities to do anything outside of combat
>consistently ranked as one of the worst classes in combat
Why is this game so fucking incompetently designed? Why is there a class that sucks at everything?
>>monk has no abilities to do anything outside of combat
>tongue of sun and moon
>purity of body
>cloak of Shadows
>even fucking elemental attunement
Do you not read, or do you just like to bitch?
The martials can be heroic and legendary without being magical. I never said realism.
Forgot the rogue. But theif gets UMD and the assassin... Well maybe you're right they just get foe study (or whatever) and poison, not Magic, right?
It should also be noted that monks do above-average damage at low levels, and when they start falling behind they get the ability to stunlock enemies. They also have the least equipment dependence of any class, for better or worse.
I can take the monks abilities as heroic and legendary not explicitly magical. Magic doesn't exist in real life and a lot of what the open hand does is imitatable in real life, again not looking for realism anyway but even if I conceed and say that sure, monks are Magic, that enforces my original point of there being a huge lack of magical classes.
Also the BM fighter isn't Magic, never said it was. Learn to read faggot.
If you use Disguise Self as an Aarakocra, are you stuck only disguising yourself as Aarakocras because of the 'same arrangement of limbs' restriction, or does that just mean that you disguise yourself as any humanoid in general, and can then apparently fly without any visible means? Because the former seems unduly restrictive, while the latter seems somewhat ridiculous.
Thinking of running either PotA or OotA since I have both and have read both. Question is which one should I? PotA is fairly good, with the PCs able to focus on a single cult before moving on to the next one, tying it back to the base town. But OotA is also, in my opinion, more grand, dealing with madness, demons and
myconids and gelatinous cube bros.
So, which one do you think I should run, /5eg/?
I think most GMs would allow you to disguise as any humanoid by pulling your wings in close to your body. Disguise self is instantly seen through if they touch you, and can be seen through with a check, so putting really strict restrictions on the wings seems like overkill.
I can move 10 feet further than you in six seconds if I have no armor on me whatsoever. So much utility.
How does this help me do anything outside of combat? You realize it only reduces fall damage by a negligible amount, right?
>tongue of sun and moon
Not bad but it's 17th fucking level and everybody else in the party has probably had something similar since level 3 if not lower.
>purity of body
Again, something that would keep a monk alive but doesn't allow them to do anything.
This is just useless.
Useful in a pinch, but the cost is too high.
Good point, but it's strictly a stealth ability. You'll be outclassed by any thief.
>cloak of Shadows
Same as above. Nifty, but you're still just a cheap knock-off of another class.
>even fucking elemental attunement
Largely considered the worst monk subclass and as someone who played it, I can see why. Your abilities are either made specifically so you can't do anything (a gentle gust of wind, so helpful) or you end up blowing all your ki points to do something the rest of your party has already been able to do for a few levels now.
You managed to name 2 useful things, man, and you're still just a watered down thief which, by the way, badly outclasses the monk in combat.
They are consistently behind because of the multiple attacks and damage rolls. Trends it down. Again, reason why they are rated in the bottom 2.
>they get the ability to stunlock enemies
Useful, but that insures that you will get to do none of the "useful" things listed above except the two shadow abilities that don't use ki points.
How would zombies react to disguise self if a player diguises themselves as a zombie?
Also, should you roll deception when you have disguise self cast on yourself and you're walking near enemies and you're diguised? I feel like you should, but at the same time the spell seams neutered if you have to.
Someone has to be the lowest if you rank them. It really shouldn't be a question of whether they have a high dpr, but whether they can handle enemies of appropriate CL, and if the class is fun to play. The answer to both is yes, so they aren't incompetently designed.
People want monks to be the badass wushu masters we see in movies, but that doesn't really fit D&D's class niche structure. Fighters have to be the best fighters, or they are completely useless.
Would the addition of Fist Weapons (which are just reskinned short swords basically) and a brawling fighting style allow the fighter to completely replace the Monk? I hate homebrew but I hate the silly monk class even more, and our setting is low magic as well...
Absolutely none of those things are true.I can tell you from personal experience that the fighter, wizard, cleric, thief, and fucking bard all outclass the monk in combat by miles.Outside of combat, monk matches only the fighter in uselessness.
All I want is for classes to fill roles. The monk, as a class, should not even exist. There is nothing that it does better than any class and, in a group game, that means you will be sitting on your hands a lot.
Undead tend to have low Wisdom scores so they're actually more susceptible to being tricked. The problem with that is that they usually don't care and try to kill you anyway. Combined with disguise self it would be easy to get past them, though.
People are allowed a check to see through the disguise. Depending on how simulationist you want to be, You could have them make a deception check to see wether the enemies notice something off about their behavior, prompting the int check to see past the disguise on a failure.
>The problem with that is that they usually don't care and try to kill you anyway
This is how I ruled it. I had a player take a dead zombie (misnomer) and make a disguise out of its corpse so she could sneak past other zombies. Not even Disguise Self, just a zombie suit. She was a Dragonborn. I thought the entire idea was fairly silly.
Ah, fair enough. I had a player spot a group of zombies and then cast Disguise Self on themselves to make them look like a Ghoul they had faced earlier. I had him make a deception check, and he passed (I set DC as 10 because I forgot that it'd be opposed to Wisdom). Then he tried to open a door past the zombies and rolled like an 8 on his stealth check, so I had the zombies notice him and begin a combat.
Would yall have done that differently?
>I can move 10 feet further than you in six seconds if I have no armor on me whatsoever. So much utility.
Monks don't use armor. Ever. And moving faster than everyone else around you is useful if you're intelligent enough to use it. So, useless for you, I guess.
>How does this help me do anything outside of combat? You realize it only reduces fall damage by a negligible amount, right?
Well, sometimes people fall while exploring towns and dungeons. Are you really this stupid? When you get Slow Fall, it wipes 30 feet of falling damage no matter what, andbit will consistently wipe 60' of falling damage. At max, the most damage you can possibly take from falling is 6.
Jesus fuck, man, do you read at all? No out of combat utility? You understand all languages at no cost! Wo4E gets easily as much utility as the average Bladelock.
Yeah, I can't keep reading this. You don't even realize how dumb you are. You're actually too stupid for /tg/. The board with all the quest threads.
1)You're being really agro about an opinion and stating subjective determinations as fact.
2)I don't really disagree with the idea that Monk doesn't need to be a class, much like Barbarian. They can easily be portrayed archetypes of fighter, rather than as unique classes. However, it's easier to have them be separate for game design purposes.
3)If all you want is for classes to fill rolls, is there a roll you feel is missing, or even grossly underrepresented? If not, why waste time bitching abiut a class failing to meet those expectations? Why worry about how something you don't care about not being good? I understand someone who loves the monk archetype being mad that they don't do what they want, but you're saying you don't even want it in the game.
4) >I can tell you from personal experience
Look, I know people on here will sometime argue about games they don't play, but I've been playing 5e regularly, so chill out.
I'm not involved in this discussion, but I've played in a steady 5e game since it was in playtest, and monks are really not very good. Rangers are much better, I've never really seen anyone fall behind or have any problems with rangers, but monks just suck.
I feel like you didn't let the player play personally. If you don't feel like a plan can work, don't make them roll. , just let there character preform the action then fail. Rolling is for uncertain outcomes.
It's more fun to make them blessed by god, biblical like. They can speak in tongues and handle snakes without being poisoned and can even transubstantiate themselves to the realm of the gods physically.
>And moving faster than everyone else around you is useful if you're intelligent enough to use it.
There a very few situations where moving ten feet per six seconds is useful.
>Well, sometimes people fall while exploring towns and dungeons.
Wow. That's super useful. In case my highly dextrous monk trips over himself.
>You understand all languages at no cost!
About 14 levels after everyone else sans fighter can do the same thing! Oh, but at least I don't waste a low-level spell slot to do it. For fuck's sake, I'd probably have a magical item that does the same thing at that point.
Again, these do barely fucking anything outside of combat and in combat, the monk is completely outclassed.
You've given me nothing. Sorry you like the monk, but it was a horribly designed class that fits no particular role or utility.
>30% of the Dungeon Master's Guide could be replaced with "Just make something up lmao" without the content being functionally different
>"Playing without houserules is "playing as intended"
Honestly, I've seen monks played from levels 3-12, and I've personally plaid a monk in a one-off, and they were fine. There were times the other PC monk completely dominated combat, and I even went Way of the Elements and didn't feel left behind.
>Wow. That's super useful. In case my highly dextrous monk trips over himself.
Or, you know, a pitfall trap opens, or there is a high ledge that you need to get down from. You act like featherfall isn't one of the most commonly taken utility spells.
I didn't play one, but we've had several players try to play them, across several adventures. They went down alot, were limited at range, just didn't seem very powerful. The people who played them both left with a bad taste in their mouth. I dunno.
>ruin their wicker plans before they unweave the very base universal forces that hold the world together?
You had one job.
Not that I think this is a good explanation, or sound logic, but I do think it's a probable consideration. A +1 greatsword can deal up to 15 + modifiers damage. A vicious greatsword can do up to 21 plus modifiers. There are things that it can kill in one attack, or one less attack, that a +1 greatsword cannot. Plus it could be a rapier or shortsword we're talking about. If you give a band of goblins + 1 swords then they are more dangerous. If you gave that band of goblins vicious swords instead then they might just fuck your players up.
How would I go about making a pokemon trainer character? I was thinking about statting out the pokemon itself (Blaziken?) as a fire monk and then having the trainer be a non-combat character who shouts out commands and stuff, and blacks out when the pokemon faints.
So you guys are telling me that our party Monk dies a lot not because he does stupid shit (which he does a lot), but because of his class? I never had a problem playing the four elements Monk. Perhaps if people focused on more than just blowing all their Ki on useless flurry of blows or failing their stuns over and over and instead, you know, took the bonus action dodge or disengage once in a while, they might have a different perception of the Monk.
Why play monk when you can just be a badass dex fighter? I don't see the appeal of the class, except or you know, oriental fetishism. We were fucking around before our game, and my dex fighter beat the shit out of the party monk. The monk couldn't catch his arrows effectively and got crushed when he moved into melee, despite my character using only shortswords.
mfw archers rule, monks drool, and I got dubs
Without a summoner class, and with the current shitty state of beast friend rangers, PKMN trainer is a hard build unless your GM really likes the idea and is willing to give you magic items that summon allies, like the Guenhwyvar statue.
> Worse than rogue.
Nope, not even a little bit, the monk is better at stealth, does more damage, and is much better at being a lone scout then rogue, on top of obviously vastly superior defensive capabilities.
The only thing rogue can do better is have expertise in a skill or tool (and the bard does this better). If you are angry about classes that shouldn't exist, monks should replace rogues as the stealth masters.
Also talking about monks and damage is really strange since they have the only save or die in the game, so theoretically they can do infinity damage every other turn, beating every other classes DPR.
Look at this dignified looking motherfucker. He left the shithole Kingdom of Many-Arrows because his full-blooded orc brothers were savage fucking retards. Now he's a priest of Oghma. A scholar, a hero, a warrior-poet. He speaks a dozen languages. He is adept with a mace and with divine magic. He's wiser than you will ever be. He's saved hundreds of lives. He's bedded literally 200 women of all known races, even a female birdlady.
Holy shit just look at him.
>There a very few situations where moving ten feet per six seconds is useful.
Chase through streets
Moving through dangerous terrain
Racing someone to a MacGuffin
Do you adventure at all?
>Wow. That's super useful. In case my highly dextrous monk trips over himself.
Okay. So you just haven't played D&D then. That's why you haven't heard of traps or pitfalls that involve falling, right? Because they're all over the place.
Hell, the monk in my party leapt off the third floor of a tower to catch up to a guy once.
>About 14 levels after everyone else sans fighter
It's actually 12 levels, and it's everyone sans cleric, druid, barbarian, paladin, and ranger. The fighter can get that spell.
Do you read? At all?
To address your point, you get it at no cost, and you don't have to cast it so you can always understand the creatures around you without having any foresight or losing a spell known.
I'd keep arguing, but you clearly want your mind to be made up without regard to how the game is played, whether you've understood the text, or really anything else.
I'm gonna get flak for this, but I don't like the Fighter as a concept. I think it's stupid. He's just "the guy who fights." He doesn't even have a particularly interesting way to fight, he just fights. At least Wizards and the other arcane classes have interesting bits to them, the Fighter is just "you get these amazing abilities and you fight well."
I am appalled at you fools who would remove the Monk to integrate it into the Fighter, when the FIGHTER should be removed for being generic trash. This thread likes to talk about sacred cows, and the Fighter is the one that really needs to be gotten rid of.
So /swg/ how powerfu would Dark Lord of the Sith Yoda be. Say after order 66 he escapes to Dagobah and has been there meditating on the Dark Side, feeding off the Dark Side energy on Dagobah. When Luke searches for Yoda he gets wiped out by Yoda himself and Darth Verde gets unleashed on the unsuspecting Galaxy.
I think that an old lady from a wealthy part of town I'd going to offer them some money to calm he pet fluffikins down. He gets so rambunctious, but she's had him since he was small. He's been so naughty that she's had to lock him up in the ballroom, and some strapping young lads such as them could certainly handle him.
They've been trying to schmooze the nobility, so they'll jump at the chance.
They'll be able to utilize terrain features to take car of it. Hopefully.
Sorry, that was a general rule rather than a specific response. Including some sort of roll when the outcomes are "Player ghosts past the enemies and gets to feel really cool for succeeding at a sneaking mission" and "Combat is initiated and they have to fight their way out" is definitely in the "two interesting outcomes" category.
New Goddess: Lissandri
Origin: The half-elven daughter of Corellon Larethian and the goddess Sune. Revealed following the events of the Sundering.
Worshippers: Half-elves, wanderers, poets
Based out of the Crossroads Cathedral in Avondale, the newly-founded faith of Lissandri is popular among half-elves and those who favor the arts. An all-female order priestesses and warriors (Valor Bards) known as the Dawnsingers, protect the interests of the faith and do good deeds in the name of the goddess. The Crossroads Cathedral itself is surrounded by an enormous garden that hosts exotic plants gathered by half-elf wanderers from all over Faerun.
Ok, cool. So I did OK there. I suppose that if I were to redo it, I would first ask him what he wants to do (rather than, you enter the room, they look at you, make a deception check). I'd let him say that he wants to act like a zombie to slip past, ask him about how he wants to be zombie-like, then make him roll deception (with it being an opposing roll).
And then not worry about opening the door, just letting him do that without a check.
Does that sound better?
A necromancer would notice, but zombies don't logic. This how the event went down as I understand (feel free to correct me):
GM: There is a group of zombies between you and the door.
Player: I cast disguise self to look like a ghoul, they won't have a reason to attack that.
GM: roll deception to act like a ghoul, dc 10
Player: I pass.
GM:Roll Stealth to open the door without them noticing.
I'm not saying you handled the WRONG, but this is how I would have resolved that:
Option 1) Player: I cast ds.
GM: Roll knowledge arcana or dungeoneering dc 10.
GM: Zombies attraction to life is unnatural, changing how you look won't do anything.
Option 2: Player: I cast ds.
GM:You start to approach the group of zombies, and they turn towards you. The spell must not be effective
*Note: If you say this after he's in the middle of the zombies you're punishing him, if you do it where the rest of the party can come to his aid, you're not.
Option 3) Player: You know.
GM: You walk through the zombies and get through the door. What are the rest of you doing?
I am vehemently against the wings on back Aarakocra, they're shit. Aarakocra wings are built like pterodactyl wings with three fingered claws around the middle, so they have four limbs by my account.
I really appreciate the advice guys.
There's a lot of nuance to being a DM. It's a fair amount of work and I think a lot of it goes under the radar. I can definitely see a lot of room for improvement for myself.
>You're being really agro
I don't play MMO's, MOBA's etc. No idea what the hell you are even trying to say.
I am stating my opinions as opinions. Do I seriously need to parse this every single thing I say with "I think" or "in my opinion"?
This such a ridiculous tangent apropos of nothing that I said.
>If all you want is for classes to fill rolls
What is the point of classes if not to give players basic roles? D&D is meant to be a group game and, in an attempt to allow everyone an area they can shine in, they used the idea of classes to limit what players can do and what they are good at.
Monk, it seems, was meant to be a frontline class that is mobile, helping another character take out the opponent in front of them before rushing to another. They fail at this and any other role that another class occupies.
I'm glad you play 5e, why does this make me wrong again?
This. Monk is in the front, but it requires you to use two stats to max out your AC, so CON. is going to be your 3rd highest. On top of that, their health die isn't great, so they just aren't going to have much health and they're going to get hit a ton.
They get a lot of attacks, but that just means their damage is spread out and therefore, more likely to be cut down. It doesn't help monk weapons are among the weaker weapons you get. A fighter with a polearm mastery feat, for example, is going to consistently hit and damage more.
They don't do much for status effects except for stun, which a.) costs your very limited ki point supply b.) is a con. save so it won't be much use against a tough opponent, the exact type of thing you'd want to spend ki to stun c.) is a status effect that only lasts 1 round.
>b.) is a con. save so it won't be much use against a tough opponent, the exact type of thing you'd want to spend ki to stun c.)
Why don't you use your huge speed to get into enemy casters/archers and stun them?
>Chase through streets
>Moving through dangerous terrain
I move 5 feet further at half speed. Do you read?
Has nothing to do with speed. That's survival. Do you read?
>Racing someone to a MacGuffin
Which is the same idea as "chase someone through the streets". Do you read?
>That's why you haven't heard of traps or pitfalls that involve falling, right?
You know what's better than that? Not potentially falling to your death in the first place. Less prevalent in the editions you have clearly started with, but plenty of those would outright kill you.
>It's actually 12 levels, and it's everyone sans cleric, druid, barbarian, paladin, and ranger. Do you read? At all?
I don't have my book in front of me, but I'm pretty sure none of that is true. I believe cleric and druid get comprehend languages. Fighter definitely doesn't unless arcane knight can, again, don't have their spell list.
I really don't care if you "continue arguing" or not. You haven't acknowledged the issue, let alone address it and keep on posting "you're dumb and gay" like we're back on the playground.
Hey 5eg! I'm looking through the homebrew database for Artificer or Artificer-like classes/class options. I understand the quality of these are all over the place, so are there any people like or that they can vouch for being balanced or what not?
Are you kidding? Nothing I said was even controversial.
If classes weren't meant to provide roles, why were they even made? Seriously, how is that even trolling? What is this great and obvious reason I'm missing?
If Monks weren't meant to be moving around, why up their speed? Why make a class mobile with multiple attacks if it's supposed to be sedentary and lock down one target?
You're being ridiculous
I guess I can acknowledge the fact that some people fight a lot of humans while my groups have always largely fought monsters, but there's some utility there.
Still though, only one round for the Monk's weak damage output to put them down and the very limited ki pool means your aren't dodging or disengaging as a bonus, which I think is more important.
You can't be this retarded.
>Starting when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you can manipulate your enemy's ki when you harness your own. Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target [...]
>If you can make multiple attacks, you can split them up during your turn.
>Not walking around, knocking two people prone, and smacking a third down, all while dealing your full damage at faster than normal move speeds
B-but my Fighter's extra attacks and action surge!
>Ki recovers on a short rest, like action surge
>Ki also can be use more often than action surge for Flurry of Blows at higher levels
>Monks also get extra attacks at full damage
The difference is that Fighters can wear heavy armor and will always have better AC than Monks, as well as higher HP.
But that still requires one hand free, correct? So instead of combining drawing a throwing weapon and throwing it as an action, you would have to drop your weapon, then draw and throw as an action.
Unless you're dueling with a single knife or something, which sounds awful.
since this thread is just about dead i've chosen to go over this post, in which you make the most points
this is obvious shit bait, monks don't even wear armor
this has come up in games ive been in, so idk why you are hating on this. if you don't do dungeons with pit traps and spelunking idk maybe its just the games you're in, but my dm is mad into it
>>tongue of sun and moon
its actually 13th level. if you don't use languages yes its not that great but idk what to tell you about that. its a useful and cool ability.
>>purity of body
disease and poison don't come up in the games i've been in thusfar, but this would be really useful if they were to, idk why you hate this ability
agreed but whatever other classes get ribbons too
shadow arts just gave monk some of the best spells in the game and you think it sucks... well idk what to tell you. pass without trace is insane
free. teleportation. out of jail, through doors, upto windows, whatever you want. if you can't think of good uses for this idk what to tell you
>>cloak of Shadows
>>even fucking elemental attunement
>You managed to name 2 useful things, man, and you're still just a watered down thief which, by the way, badly outclasses the monk in combat.
they're totally different
>They are consistently behind because of the multiple attacks and damage rolls. Trends it down. Again, reason why they are rated in the bottom 2.
monks damage isnt bad, good with stunned enemies
>>they get the ability to stunlock enemies
because a monk has to spend ki to do something it means it wont be able to spend ki doing anything else? bad bait
so all in all i rate you 2/10
>I move 5 feet further at half speed. Do you read?
Dangerous, not difficult. Dangerous terrain refers terrain that is in some way harmful, and getting out of it a turn faster means avoiding more damage.
I do read. Evidently, you dont, so I don't think the rest of your post will be worth my time. Idiot.
Open Palm monks are more a melee controller than an actual damage dealer or tank. They perform very well if you act to support teamwork. Knockdown, Pushback, Speed, Stun, and decent damage let you apply force and control where and when it's needed. Don't be afraid to spend ki points where necessary. Knock the enemy your heavier fighters are pounding on on his ass and give them advantage, pair up with the rogue and engage their targets to make sure they get sneak attack. Go after enemy casters and other ranged. That sort of thing.
>Whenever you hit a creature with one of the attacks granted by your Flurry of Blows
So only if you use a ki point and hit specifically with one of the attacks granted from that.
>Immediately after you take the attack action on your turn, you may make 2 unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
It specifies immediately, immediate overrides general, so everything you just described is impossible unless everyone is standing right next to you, which negates the movement speed completely.
Fighters are consistently dealing more damage because they have access to stronger weapons.
>Monks also get extra attacks at full damage
Depending on your level and how shitty your weapon is, I guess.
>The difference is that Fighters can wear heavy armor and will always have better AC than Monks, as well as higher HP.
So they have higher AC, access to magical armor, access to more varied and stronger magical weapons, deal more damage overall, take more damage overall, have useful combat abilities that aren't limited by ki points, and have slower move speed which is largely meaningless.
>quote my post
>address nothing in my post, go on a completely unrelated tangent
>quote someone else's post
>I rate you 2/10
What just happened?
>I addressed the one thing you got wrong, so I'll just pretend like I didn't read the rest so I don't have to address the points I got no response to
Good, don't bother. Again, you've given me nothing here. Don't know why you keep saying you'll butt out but keep responding with the same "you're dumb".
I guess that's not trolling though.
>So only if you use a ki point and hit specifically with one of the attacks granted from that.
Two attacks per turn that can knock up to two creature on their ass? Sign me up.
>It specifies immediately, immediate overrides general
Not in this case. Movement occurs simultaneously with any given action or turn. There is no overriding rule here.
>Depending on your level and how shitty your weapon is, I guess.
At 5th level, this means 3d6+12 damage per round assuming all attacks hit.
>So they have higher AC, access to magical armor, access to more varied and stronger magical weapons, deal more damage overall, take more damage overall, have useful combat abilities that aren't limited by ki points, and have slower move speed which is largely meaningless.
That's nice. Did you know that monks have magical attacks, Evasion, can choose to Dodge as a bonus action, deal more damage than Fighters at higher levels with a Flurry of Blows + Extra Attack, have proficiency in ALL SAVES, and can stun creatures? Also...
>have useful combat abilities that aren't limited by ki points
They have a resource pool, it just isn't named ki points. Action Surge can be done once per short rest (or twice at 17th), and Second Wind can be done once per short rest. Battlemasters have a dice pool.
I don't really have an issue with monks, since they do what they need to do.
Min-maxers going to keep min-maxing, while I'm going to balance the encounters in a way that doesn't rely on mix-maxing.
At 5th level, a fighter wielding a maul can do 4d6+10 damage, which balances out to one damage less maximum. One the whole, I believe that they do more damage.
Now, if I remember correctly, the fact that this is 2 attack rolls instead of 3 actually increases the damage output because it's less spread out.
>deal more damage than Fighters at higher levels
Any power gamer can tell you this is wrong. I'm pretty sure they are one of the lowest damage martial classes.
Yes, fighters also have resource pools, but more importantly they have fighting styles and stances that don't need to recharge. Tunneler stance doesn't need to charge and will consistently keep people off the casters because they can't past.
Bonus actions and the likes are useful, but consistency trumps all.
>but more importantly they have fighting styles and stances that don't need to recharge
You mean things that a monk intrinsically has, like two weapon fighting?
Ah, so you need to balance the fighter out with some UA. I understand.
Note that unlike other illusions, Disguise Self does not become faint after physical interaction. Someone who interacted with it would know it was an illusion, but not what the person really looked like.