D&D Fifth Edition General /5eg/

File: 1388359364277.jpg (62KB, 450x418px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x418px

>>46741988
>addition

>>46741988
Generally by seeking an inner peace and tranquility that doesn't compel me to spam my commissioned character art until someone compliments me on how cool I am.

File: 1377030033127.gif (4MB, 375x212px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 375x212px

>>46742069

>addition

You know what would be great for our medieval themed RPG game? A FUCKING KUNG FU GUY!

Official 9gag approved memes list!

>glaives/halberds/weapons with long shafts
>4 suits of plate armor
>6d20 down the line
>fudging rolls
>bladelocks
>bag of rats
>dragonborn are a meme race
>dragonborn are a meme race is a meme meme
>martials are uninteresting (true, but a meme)
>non dms giving bad advice to DMs.

Keep producing the memes you hilarious rusesters you! I'm gonna compile em once we get enough into a bingo sheet for everyone to enjoy.

>>46742021
The lead container crossed my mind, by I figured it would be pretty useless if he could just detect me instead.

>>46742134
>>martials are uninteresting (true, but a meme)

This statement is a meme

>>46742021
Also our travels are about to take us over open planes for about 4 days travel.

>>46742134
>bag of rats
What's this about?

Rolled 6, 11, 2, 6, 11, 4 + 6 = 46 (6d12 + 6)

>>46742134
Fucking lol. I can't help but think you're missing a couple though.

On the topic though, the patrician stat roll is
>6(d12+d4)
and choose where to implement the stat rolls. Although I don't think that is possible to roll on 4chan.

Rolled 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 1 = 17 (6d4)

>>46742203
Yeah, "dice+6d12+6d4" yielded "6d12+6"

Anyway, here are the d4s.

Party as follows:

>Life Cleric (tough as nails frontliner)
>Wizard
>Arcane Trickster Rogue
>Monk

What would be a good fifth character?

>>46742247
Put a Barbarian up there to sponge damage with the Cleric.

>>46742184
Fiendlocks and Long Death monks both have features that let them gain health on killing creatures. So you can carry a bag of rats around, kill a rat, and gain health or temporary health (can't remember which).

It's a relatively innocent but definitely gamist move. I like it, because that seems like something death obsesed monks and demonic bargaining warlocks might do.

>>46742163
Yes, that's what I said.

>>46742203
Interesting. Why do you think this?

>>46742133
>whining about a 1E class
My only regret is that they lost their amazing level names.

When I got dragged into dad's 1E grog games at 18, I tried to talk my way into playing elf monk so I'd get to be Grandmaster of Flowers at level 18.

>>46742247
Do you know what path the monk is taking?

>>46742296
Open Hand.

>>46742287
>My only regret is that they lost their amazing level names.
That's true for every class though

>>46742247
Maybe someone with decent charisma, such as sorcerer or warlock. Even better if he can also frontline, so Valor Bard or Paladin.

>>46742287
>at 18
as a kid, 18 was for the level

>>46742337
true, true

>>46742325
Then I would go with bard or a different school of wizard. Party has all it's bases covered, so bard will kinda just enhance that, and wizards compliment eachother AND the party. I'd go control if he is going blaster and buffer/debuffer if he is going control.

>>46742268
>Interesting. Why do you think this?

Nulls the power imbalance imposed by lucky 4d6-take-the-best-3 rolls and still allows for flexibility. It actually leaves the option for some seriously underpowered stats, admittedly, so I suppose it needs further consideration.

File: 1438886323203.png (348KB, 586x586px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 586x586px

>>46742203
>Average stat is 9
Gee whiz, that'll be great for the meatgrinder.
What's next, 1d4+1d6+1d8+2?

>>46742469
I have no idea what it is you're going for, but have you considered 6+2d6?

How does the Great Weapon Fighting style interact with magical weapons? A magical greatsword that does 2d6 slashing + 2d6 necrotic damage, for example. Do you reroll 1s and 2s only on the basic 2d6 or on all of them?

>>46742578
Just the base unless it's a second attack.

>>46742148
>>46742181
Well then you seem to have two precautions to worry about:

1) Stay over 1000 feet from the BBEG. This one is harder to keep track of, but this is the maximum range for both Locate Object and Locate Creature. That essentially leaves Scrying as his divination ability of choice. That spell, however, only lasts for 10 minutes and has a casting time of 10 minutes.

2) See Invisibility/Detect Magic. When you see the divination magic wink out, that means you have 10 minutes to stow the lead-covered item somewhere (preferably while you still have a decoy).

File: 4d6drop1v1d12plus1d4.gif (486KB, 2473x748px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 2473x748px

>>46742469
For comparison's sake, here are both.

>>46742578
>>46742601
This. Assume you're skilled with the weapon, not the magic.

>>46742247
BATTLEMASTER or Barb

File: hyped.webm (314KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 360x270px

>>46742134
>non dms giving bad advice to DMs.

Shadowhog is still butt-blasted, I see.

>>46742656
?

>>46742656
I share your reaction, but that item predates our friend the dice fudgepacker.

>>46742628
>>46742469
Doing some quick math: the average ability score of the standard array is 12.

If you do pointbuy, and get an array of 3 13s, and 3 12s, the average is 12.5, and I believe, but can't be totally positive that the average only goes down if you deviate from that (since deviations result in higher costs of points: to go from 13-14, you need to spend 2 points, where all other stat increases below that are only 1 point).

So I think it's safe to say that any die rolling method has to have an average/mean of 12ish. I don't know that I'd use 1d12+1d4 then, unless I was deliberately going for a lower powered game.

>>46742147
>>46742411
I'm a juggler myself and I can easily conceive a skilled knife thrower being able to throw a dagger while juggling other 2.

As a DM, I'd probably set variable DCs. 20 and the character manages to throw it normally. 15 and he throws it with disadvantage. Lower than that, he hurts himself and maybe lets the daggers fall to the ground.

>>46742845
>As a DM, I'd probably set variable DCs.
...What, in addition to the AC of what he's trying to hit?

Straight disadvantage. Don't fuck around with a test to see if you can throw at all, and then a test to see if you can hit the target.

>>46742845
>>46742897
It's for situations like this that I prefer to implement a dungeon world sort of mechanic: attack. If you miss by half the target's AC, there might be consequences such as hurting yourself. Disadvantage is useful here as well to reflect the difficulty of the task.

>>46742897
I see your point, but he's doing two differents things in which he could fail. Which is why I'd ask for different rolls. But your suggestion works too and is simpler.

>>46742947
Yeah, the success/conditional success/botch mechanic is one of the better Apoc World mechanics, and it's not hard to port around.

>>46742979
It's combat. Dice are already flying everywhere. More rolls slows things down even more.

If it works for your group, fantastic, but it's added complexity for little gain.

So they ever going to post splat books, Or are they going to keep pumping out adventures until we all rage quit?

>>46742947
>If you miss by half the target's AC, there might be consequences such as hurting yourself
>The rogue nimbly ducks under your axe. You take 1d10 psychic damage.
??

>>46743036
>until we all rage quit?
Don't lie to yourself. You've got nowhere else to go.

>>46743036
^publish

>>46742845
>>46742897
>>46742947
So probably a Sleight of Hand check, maybe Acrobatics or Performance. Difficult for a normal person to do, but the Bard or Rogue rocking +5 from Dex and Expertise would be fairly reliable. It might be a bad choice near the beginning (only a +7, +8), but it becomes auto-succeed for the rogue at level 11 and level 13 for the Bard.

>make jester bard
>pick sleight of hand and expertise
>spell focus is a juggling check
>keep drawing new daggers as you throw the third one when you're not casting a spell.

>>46743044
If you weren't a goddamn mong and actually bothered to follow the post order, you'd realize that they were discussing a specific niche situation from the last thread, not a universally-applicable rule.

As it stands, you're just being pithy and stupid.

>>46743044
In the situation I was dealing with, a rogue is juggling knives i think, and trying to launch one at his target all assassins creed style. The inherent risk of the activity to me means there should sometimes be consequences to failure.

>>46743104
I think it was a joke. As in, the dwarf missed the elf and dies of shame.

File: grah.png (116KB, 450x321px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 450x321px

>>46743077
>So probably a Sleight of Hand check, maybe Acrobatics or Performance.
I'm out.

>>46743030
The original idea was to use a Sleight of Hand check to see if a character successfully juggles the weapons, so that a nimbler character would have better chances than most. Also I just like the idea of a rogue with expertise in Sleight of Hand being able to pull off this kind of shit.

>>46743044
>You try to attack while juggling swords
>You miss badly, you hurt yourself

File: totalstatsofvariousrollingmethods.gif (548KB, 2489x747px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 2489x747px

Here's another way of looking at stat rolls: the likely amount of total stats. Since that's really what's likely to fuck a character over. Simply not having enough stats to do anything.

>>46743077
That's one way of doing it, and total rolls wise, it doesn't really require all that more dice versus simply giving them disadvantage. Actually, it would reward the player for choosing sleight of hand as a skill, or whatever it is in 5e.

I'm really bad about remembering the names of 5e skills, constantly referring to them as 4e counterparts, or even using 4e status like bloodied. So far it hasn't actually impacted gameplay though.

>>46743101
>>spell focus is a juggling check
What?

>>46743223
I know it's not allowable RAW, so one of the items juggled is the actual focus, there, everyone is happy.

Anyway most of the good bard combat spells don't have material components.

>>46743132
>wear gloves
>even if you fuck up, you don't hurt yourself
It's not like juggled knives have the kind of impetus to stab straight through your palm after falling a mere 1-3 feet.

This seems like a whole lot of additional rules just to get around something that a lot of people feel isn't fun: draw restrictions. Rationalize the stupid rule away or slap the Ammunition property on whatever throwing weapon you want if it really needs to be put to paper, then call it a day. It's not like throwing multiple knives is going to be significantly more useful or powerful than what other classes can do by default.

>>46743104
Damn, that buttblasted sperg rage. Truly a wondrous phenomenon.

>>46743132
>>46743159
Makes sense. But still:
>the rogue swiftly dodges your thrown knife
>the knife ricochets off the wall and plunges into your leg; take 1d4 piercing damage

>the knife fails to penetrate the knight's thick steel armor
>it ricochets off his chest-plate and plunges into your torso; take 1d4 piercing damage

I don't understand why the enemies AC has anything to do with successfully launching the knife without hurting oneself.
> If you miss by half the target's AC, there might be consequences such as hurting yourself. Disadvantage is useful here as well to reflect the difficulty of the task.

>>46743246
>there, everyone is happy
Not if the spell has somatic components :^)

Also, RAW, a Bard uses an instrument as a spellcasting focus. Hope you're juggling violins, anon.

>>46743132
>juggling knives like a hella f*ckin' epic edgelord

ew

>>46743283
A fife.

>>46743279
> Guys, you know what this game really needs? Cartoon physics.

>>46743203
From this, I think we can see some definite flaws with the 1d12+4 and the 6d20 down the line.

Notably, both have much lower average stats than either 3d6 drop lowest, or 5+2d6. We already know 6d20 down the line is the manliest stat roll particularly because of how often it screws the person doing it. So 1d12+1d4 having a lower average (albeit, a more consistent average) doesn't bode well for it.

Between 5+2d6 and 4d6 drop lowest, it's kind of a toss up. The former offers a higher average and more consistency. The latter offers a lower average and a bit more variability. Both end up in desirable spots I think.

>>46743279
Yeah, that's why I think now I'd go with the dungeonworld+sleight of hand check. Good point anon.

>>46743279
Just say the rogue dropped it and took one damage if he fails the roll by a lot, no need to do this dumb shit.

I feel like compared to the shenanigans that other characters can get up to, juggling (even in combat) shouldn't be particularly stressful or dangerous.

>>46743317
dat reading comprehension

the green text is hyperbole to accentuate how stupid the greentexted quote at the bottom is

File: can you read.png (71KB, 440x74px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 440x74px

>>46743283

File: 088252042.gif (4MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 500x281px

>>46743351

Why are Conjuration Wizards just flat out better alchemists than Transmutation wizards?

>>46743371
> Not knowing the rules.

You can't use a Spellcasting Focus unless your class features specifically say so, and even then only of the type listed.

A Wizard can use an Arcane Focus, or none at all.

A Druid can use a Druidic Focus, or none at all.

A Bard can use an instrument, or none at all.

Well fucking done, boss.

>>46743396
Because you lack imagination.

>>46743279
I agree with you, which is why I suggested using Sleight of Hand first.

>>46743396
Why are they?

>>46743417
>A Bard can use an instrument, or none at all.
If there's a material component. You don't need a focus for Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire, Thunderwave or Vicious Mockery.

>>46743371
Class A can use item P for task X.

Does not imply that Class A can use any item for task X.

>>46743417
This is true, but I would allow a different focus for a bard. They're not all musicians.

File: 738217388213gif.gif (97KB, 410x324px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 410x324px

>>46743452
>If there's a material component. You don't need a focus for Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire, Thunderwave or Vicious Mockery.

Anon was talking about using a spellcasting focus *at all,* not only when needed. If you are Anon, pic related.

>>46743371
>>46743283
I'd let a juggling bard use juggling knives as a focus. Fluff it as the bard makes sounds from the knives clanking against each other in the air, or swooshing through the air, etc.

Or even just the bard hums while doing it.

>>46743497
>dancing-tuning-fork.gif

wut

>>46743497
Not that anon, but would juggle tuning forks to make DM happy

File: 1389193844149.gif (429KB, 173x142px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 173x142px

>>46743517

>>46743500
>the bard makes sounds from the knives clanking against each other in the air
I'm no juggler but I imagine that the items being juggled are not supposed to collide.

>>46743539
Can I juggle 8 throwing knives in combat, throwing two on every turn and not needing to use an action to draw another - because of juggling.

>>46743643
>Can I juggle 8 throwing knives in combat, throwing two on every turn and not needing to use an action to draw another - because of juggling.
...And thus we've come full circle to the original question.

RAW: No.
RAI: Probably not.
What you're gonna do: Whatever your DM allows.

>>46743643
RAI: sure but I'm going to ramp up your DC the more knives you juggle. Eight items should be pretty damn close to max DC.

>>46743643
Drawing only one knife is a free interaction, though. And the DC for juggling 8 knives would be fairly high...

But now I really want to play a bard that lived his whole life as part of a travelling circus.

Greatclubs should do 1d10

File: 2260489-thom[1].jpg (48KB, 512x640px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 512x640px

All this talk of juggling has reminded me of one of my favorite characters.

Given that, I'd totally allow a juggling assassin circus bard. It sounds like a cool roleplaying exercise, and GMs should generally encourage those.

Anyone know the statistics for advantage/disadvantage.

I remember them coming out to like a +3/-4, respectively.

>>46743766
U no like item variety?
Think Greatclub should be different from quartstaff?
U R WRONG, THEY BOTH STICK.

This is just like the glaive/halberd/stick with metal on it argument, but somehow even more sad. Do greatclubs and tridents have any reason to exist on this gay earth?

>>46742247
Someone with health, you are set up real nice for a tpk with that layout.

>>46743817
generally a +/-5. The higher or easier the DC, the lower the benefit.

>>46742247
Frontline fighter

Y'all gonna get your shit pushed in with all those glass cannons

>>46743817
http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

>>46743851
you know what, let's just take everything that isn't a longsword/greatsword/longbow and take it out of the game

>>46742247
you need a real tank, like a pally/fighter/barb.

you can make that cleric as tough as possible but they still won't compare to a barb

>>46743810
I'm really weirded out because just today at work I was thinking of playing a juggler in my upcoming campaign, and then this shit starts in the thread.

Would Oberon, Titania, and Puck be fair game for fey patrons?

>3d6 down the line, top two highest can be switched to classes' main stats

Does that seem reasonable? I like the randomness but forcing people into certain classes to be useful is kinda shitty, imo.

>>46744068
You're welcome, anon.

>>46744203
I don't see why not.

>>46744203
READ THE FUCKING MANUAL(S)

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>46744228
Hence they choose class first

>>46744252
That's possibly even worse. Yay, I'm a sorcerer with 8 charisma?

>>46744228
Just let people assign their rolls for fucks sake

File: dagger dagger dagger.jpg (69KB, 1024x1448px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x1448px

>>46742053

>>46744203
Yeah sure.

>there are people who don't use point buys

>>46742134
I don't get this shit.

>>46744356
There are also people that don't just play Gurps even though Action and Dungeon Fantasy can do what D&D is trying to do better than D&D.

>>46742134
>4 suits of plate armor
I haven't heard this one. Explain?

>>46743517
It's a goal post, it's moving. Moving goalpost is a logical fallacy for when you change what's being argued about to prove your point.

>>46744459
You know how creepy castles and haunted mansions have like, knights as decoration? Suits of armor standing on little plinths with swords and shit? Four of those in Death House. The meme is they're functional suits of full plate and anyone can just jack them.

>>46744487
The meme is that there are people like you who think they aren't functional.

>>46744526
>armor suits used for decoration
>not having the joints fused to keep them from falling

File: 20110128203738!Trollface.png (3KB, 199x176px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 199x176px

>>46744557

>>46744487
>4 full suits of armor
>you c-can't p-ut them on because reasons!!1!

>>46744459

This:
>>46744487
>>46744526
>>46744557
>>46744575
>>46744584

Is why it's on the list. Not just guaranteed replies: guaranteed category-5 spergstorm.

Dragonborn are a meme race and anyone who plays them is "mom said I could play too" tier

File: rtfm.jpg (320KB, 500x572px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 500x572px

>>46744203
>Oberon
>Titania
Fuck's sake, anon.

At the risk of continuing a meme, weren't suits of armor in houses largely decorative instead of functional? I'd imagine that people would cut corners on suits of armor meant to go in a house: thinner plates, less flexibility in the joints, no internal padding or comfort features. Maybe even no straps: just nail them into a mannequin.

File: 1439446537591.png (99KB, 360x269px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 360x269px

>>46741988
>Players come over to make characters
>We playing Zelda 5e setting
>First player arrives, immediately picks Kokiri Life Cleric
>Small, tricksy, now with ultimate heals
>I can live with it
>Second player arrives
>Won't pick anything until his gf arrives
>She finally arrives, picks Zora Valor Bard
>Oookay so two spellcasters
>Player 2 is fairly bro-ish where party composition is an issue
>What's he gonna play to balance this shit out?
>Warlock.
>Sheikah Fey Warlock
>Three 9th level spellcasters (kinda)
>Fuck

How can I take control of this situation? I'm shit at planning counters to spellcasters.

>>46744696
Focus on small amounts of combat-focused monsters. Things that close in fast.

>>46744696
>I'm shit at planning counters to spellcasters.
Why do you play D&D then?

>>46744228
>>46744252
>>46744267

why no point buy system?

what exactly is the point of randomizing people's stats?

>>46744686
Okay, I read the patron entry, and titania and oberon are mentioned, but not Puck.

Is puck a thing? Is there any other source I can read up on the fey and their politics?

>>46744777
Fun. Variety. 18s.

>>46744609
Yeah, I see what you mean. There's a clear distinction from decoration armor and usable armor. Didn't know it was a meme, though.

>>46744696
Kokiri champion sword and board DMPC

:^)

>>46744228
Sure, if you want characters that are weaker than a 15PB commoner.

Literally the only people who claim that 3d6 is amazing are people who cheat.

>>46744787
>Hey guys, I know you all got characters without a single 15, but I got two 18s so fuck you
This is the most fucking retarded reason to support the stupidity that is 3d6 in order.

Not even Gygax did 3d6 in order at his table.

>>46744696
I'm going to assume there's a bunch of homebrew rules you're using for the racials, so I'm going to answer this is very general terms. They may not actually apply.

Two of your casters do not have Dexterity Save proficiency. Keep them moving and off-balance by using monsters that force Dexterity saves. Area of Effect abilities will also be good here.

The Valor Bard has Dex Saves, but not Wisdom saves. Use supporting monsters with strong single-target save-or-sucks.

Remember that you're not trying to kill the party; you're trying to make them come up with a strategy to survive and prevail. Design your encounters in such a way that any one of will struggle, but the three of them working together will win.

>>46744696
With no real frontliner, they'll be mostly screwed if they have to fight a big number of monsters.

I think your players should be more worried than you are.

>>46744695
Generally, I would imagine they fit in three categories:
1) Decorative. Fancy-schmancy, but not usable in combat. Might not be wearable at all.
2) Heirloom armor. This is certainly not the case in Death House, and is the one case where it makes sense to have usable armor. This is where the armor is displayed, but it is maintained and kept battle-ready because it belonged to and is kept in honor of some family member.
3) Used armor set for display. Cheap, but more readily available. Just have your local smith set the joints and you have a relatively cheap (compared to the previous options) armor set. Not usable.

Basically, the two options for displaying armor are joined pieces (less expensive) and full-on displays (more expensive, usually for heirlooms).

>>46744782
Well, why would you want that little shit puck as your patron anyway?

Pick pact of the chain and make him your familiar

>>46744844
Cause he's like picking nylarthotep as a patron. Generally, the trickster assholes are the cooler patrons.

>>46744805
>>46744824
Who the fuck uses 3d6? It's 4d6 drop the lowest. And if you have to do it in order your DM is a jackass, and the whole game will be shit anyway.

>>46744787
I'm newish to DnD so I just don't understand the reasoning behind all the completely obtuse old mechanics like rolling for stats I guess

also that in order thing is just straight up pants on head retarded. Oh boy I wanted to be a cleric but I got a 6 in wis, guess I shouldn't go cleric now. Whats the fucking point?

also I really hate that you could start out level 1 with an 18. Hell you could have multiple 18s. Again, pants on head retarded. Do like that you could have a 6 and be really shit at something though, that's fun for a character, so long as you could chose where that 6 went

>>46744875
They were already dumb in AD&D; there were like a million variant rolling methods, and Gygax's favorite method was a mess that usually resulted in weird rolls, with like 9d6-keep-3 on your class' main score.

>>46744875
Then don't play that way.

Stat assignment varies with the group. Express your preference and let the DM mull it over; chances are he's as big a fan of 3d6 straight as you are, largely due to having to hear the howling of players burned by it.

>>46744734
large amounts of tiny creeps are also good, because they'll use up the spells quickly

>>46744861
>It's 4d6 drop the lowest. And if you have to do it in order your DM is a jackass, and the whole game will be shit anyway.

This.

>>46744875
>hate the idea of having 18s at first level

literally why

File: abilities RAW.png (77KB, 677x229px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 677x229px

>>46744861
literally RAW

>>46744861
What our group does is 4d6 drop the highest 7 times, then drop the lowest score. And then assign the ability scores however you want to for your class.

>>46744903
Again; just why?

I don't like RollPlaying and I know pointbuy encourages minmaxing (though you can't go over 15 or under 8 so even full minmaxed it's really not that bad) but it's just better.

>>46744955
>by level 4/6ish you have a maxxed stat

that's just dumb my dude. Correct me if I'm wrong but a 20 in a stat means you're like a fucking legend at that thing, no? I don't think players should be that good at something at so early on.

if you're a minmaxing autist who only gets fun out of muh stats and dps then I'm sure you love the idea. I personally wouldn't want my character to be godly at something before like level 10+

Roll 4d6 three times, drop lowest each. Assign to stats.

Subtract 12 from each roll, then subtract that number from 12. That generates 3 different numbers. Assign them to the next stats.

For example, say I generated an 2 16s, and a 9.

I'm playing a warlock, so I assign these to to charisma (16), Constitution (16), and strength (9).

I then subtract 12 from each number generating (4,4,-1), and subtract each number from 12, generating 8,8, and 11. I then assign these to dexterity, (11), Wisdom (8), and intelligence (8).

>>46744849
Yeah but Nyarly is a force to be reckoned with, the master of all lie, the grand vizier of the blind deaf and dumb horrors from beyond, the wielder of powers even their originators dare not attempt to comprehend

Puck is a fucking sprite with rogue class levels

>>46745004
If you don't like RollPlaying, pick a different game, man

>>46744955
Not him, but it leaves little room to improve.

>>46744969
What do you mean by this?

>>46745018
Whats the fucking point of doing all that?

>>46745028
Are you aware that DnD is a Role Playing Game, anon?

I'm giving my group an Instant Fortress, well, a red wizard is. I need to stuff something not so nice inside of it, something scary.

What's a good solo monster for a group of 8 or so level 5-6s? It can't require food and can live a long ass time, I was thinking a bone devil that whispers sweet nasties in their ear.

>>46745018
>12-9=1
need help with your math there, buddy?

>>46742133

>Only asians know how to fight in hand-to-hand combat

fucking what?

>>46745065
>I'm giving my group an Instant Fortress

ABORT

seriously abort, that shit is broken. Even if you don't allow your players to use it for the fucking instant 10d10 damage it's still pretty BS

>>46745045
Trying to come up with a stat rolling system with high variability, but also limiting the potential for players to be stuck with absolutely unplayable stats.

>>46745069
d'Oh.

>>46745106
that shit is too long, anon. If you were to start off a session with new players and make them do that they'd zone out five minutes into the session.

Just do 27 point buy or 4d6

>>46745106
8-Straight.

Roll eight arrays straight, 3d6. If they don't like any of them, they select standard.

>>46745149
It's not too hard. It takes about 1 sentence to explain:

Roll 3d6 3 times, then flip those numbers over twelve. The higher your first three numbers, the lower your second three and vice versa.

If you want high variability and 'playable stats' just do fuckin 1d8+8 assign wherever or something instead of whatever complicated shit that was. Flipping a number over twelve? What is this, FATAL?
1d8+8 is an average of 12.5 versus 4d6d1s 12.29, and has an equal chance for everything 9-16. Basically the normal range.

But non-standard-array methods are shit so ;^)

>>46745092
What is exactly is broken about it? I guess you could activate it in some pretty silly places, perhaps its better to save it for planar adventures.

>>46745256
Math is hard anon
I play d&d to slay dragons and shit not to do math

Just use fucking standard array or point buy

Or do 2d6+6 ezpz

File: 1367941730426.jpg (60KB, 539x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 539x720px

>>46745274
>being afraid of negative 2
>mfw

>>46745286
It's an amazing item for a situation that's planar.

Even then if I was going to give something crazy like that to my players, I'd probably give them a boat, or a really swank caravan, or a spelljamming ship, idk.

>>46745274
Looks solid to me. I prefer standard array too but if I had use a roll system I would probably use this.

>>46745274
The problem with 1d8+8 (or the superior 1d9+7) is that it can result in unplayable sets: 9-11 for all or most stats is possible. In fact, summing up the probabilities, a total of 66 or less stats is possible about 20% of the time.

I like the elegance of the flip method, because it controls itself. You're guaranteed to have stats at 12 or above using it, but not all of them.

And really, it's no more complicated than using tables. In fact, you could generate a table for it, to take all the math out of it (though saying you're playing RPGs to avoid math seems silly to me).

Roll 3d6 3 times, record the result. For each number, consult the following table, and record that result.

18:6
17:7
16:8
15:9
14:10
13:11
12:12

That's literally no more complicated than stat arrays.

>>46744996
>What our group does is 4d6 drop the highest
why

>>46744824
>Not even Gygax did 3d6 in order at his table.
Yes he did. He LOVED 3d6 in order.

The thing that most people get wrong is the idea that he made you PLAY that. Gary would absolutely allow you to reroll your entire array as many times as you'd like. That man just really loved to roll dice.

>>46744996
shit tier system

>>46745065
I reckon a single bone devil would be wrecked by 8 PCs. With such a huge you probably need to give a solo monster a huge increase to HP if you want it to be a challenge at all. Or at least legendary actions.

You could even consider a Beholder, with more HP and slightly nerfed rays. A CR 13/14 creature is still a Medium encounter for your party, by the books. That's even if your party has no magical items.

>>46745065
>>46745431
>With such a huge party

I reckon a Death Tyrant is also possible to use, since it is undead.

>>46745402
>tfw GG was basically a gambling addict who found ways to make the addiction less destructive

>>46745521
He was a Christian man, he believed in God!

Not like those, heavy metal

devil worshiping

SLOBS

How do you introduce new players to the "correct" way to play?
This is the first forray into D&D for most of my players, but we have been playing for a few months now. There's a lot of talking both in and out of combat which really bogs the game down. They'll be talking over me describing something/asking the group a question so I have to repeat it.
Another thing I'm noticing is that they're metagaming, but they don't even know what that means. Like straight up just saying "oh this guy probably has slashing resistance because we haven't killed him yet" and rolling dice before I've asked for a roll, things like that.
Of course I'll talk with them, but I'm sure others have dealt with this. Any thoughts?

tldr: How can I help my group become better players?

>>46745395
This is all true enough, yeah. (Well, I dunno the probabilities there, but sure). It's not much different than stat array maths of summing various numbers (it's all basic arithmetic), but then I don't personally much like the point buy either.

I think you'd definitely want to just put it into a table like you did - while "-12 two times" isn't complicated, it's at least kind of weird, and a small table is good for visualizing/confirming.

>>46745286
well if you don't see how an instant, infinitely re-usable 10d10 damage in like a fucking 50ft radius that also enables the party to get a long rest whenever they want with pretty much assured safety isn't gamebreaking I really don't know anon

>>46745431
honestly I don't think a GM should ever really do a fight that is just all the PCs vs 1 thing. It's just kind of boring, if there's only one threat (obvious exception being if that one threat is something fucking insane like a kraken or tarrasque)

also, your monster will only get a single turn compared to the parties 4-8 turns. That just generally means that when it gets its turn, it's really not going to be able to threaten the entire party unless it's got a massive AoE like dragon breath.

I like to have a big threat and then several minor threats the players also have to keep in mind. Maybe the floor is crumbling underneath them in some places, maybe there is a bunch of hazards like lava or traps, or maybe it's just a handful of additional mobs (those mobs should also be varied IE some ranged some melee etc)

spreading out damage and keeping everyone in the party relevant is what I feel a GM needs to do to keep encounters fun and engaging. One of my favorite things to do is have melee opponents the melee characters can fight, and also flying enemies/enemies up high in a tree or some shit that the casters/ranged characters need to fight. Makes everyone feel useful in some way

>>46745395
But with 3d6 you can doll a 3, would you give them a 21 in something else then?

File: tumblr_mx5xqzur0V1rx4ivwo1_500.gif (999KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x357px

>>46745656
I am a player in a group like this and would also like to know.

Has there been any sort of attempt to homebrew spelljammer for 5E yet?

Beyond the Moons seems to have been dead since 3.5 so I figure not.

File: king_slime_by_crazy0ghost-d90qph1.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>46745065
Maybe some kind of slime king/mother slime. Each time it takes damage, it breaks off into a smaller slime with HP equal to that damage, and proportional stats. The smaller slimes may split or not based on your discretion. There should be something to mark the original, maybe a core, so when it takes its last health in damage the core is struck, killing it. Whether this kills all remaining slimes, or stops them from splitting further, or whatever is something you could think on.

>>46745728
Hmm. Good point.

Roll 6d3. Solves the problem.

>>46745656
>How do you introduce new players to the "correct" way to play?

The correct way to play is the way they enjoy to play.

It really sounds like your players just suck/are not really into/ just don't get it.

You need to tell them that DnD is a Role Playing Game, not a RPG. By that I mean it's about playing a character and interacting with the world in meaningful ways, not just running from place to place killing stuff to get stuff and doing shallow quests to get more stuff

some people will get it and enjoy it and some people just won't. you can thank games like skyrim for that

I had the same problem but I just told my players exactly that and they do their best not to meta any more. Meta will happen even in the best groups, it's inevitable and a small amount of meta is part of the game. It's more about translating that meta into something that makes in-game sense; IE "This Bullette has a tough hide, it doesn't look like our swords are doing much. Maybe we should change tactics"

It's your job as the DM to tell them stuff like that, give them little in-game logic tips especially if they're all new. "That didn't look particularly effective/The *creature* doesn't look phased by your attack/Your weapon struggles to find purchase against the beast's tough hide/ etc"

If your players are friends you can expect some chit chat but you should tell them to keep it semi-game related while they're playing.

TLDR you need to explain to your players what DnD is about, but you also need to understand that they might not like what it's about, and you need to understand that the "correct" way doesn't exist. The way you want them to play, with roleplaying and engaged, active playing (which btw is the way it should be played IMO)

>>46745671
That's what legendary actions are for, anon. A single boss monster that can take on an entire party. A Beholder shoots 3 random rays on his turn, plus it has 3 legendary actions to shoot another random ray each. That's already 6 party members threatened every round. If it's in its lair, there's also Lair actions to spice things even more.

On top of that, it has an anti-magic cone so that casters have to keep moving if they want to be useful.

I agree with you that variety is good, but every once in a while a legendary monster can be both very interesting and dangerous.

>>46745766
Giving them a 21 in something and a 3 in something else could make for hilarious results, they but 3 into int don't let them read or say big words, 3 are can't even carry a back pack, 3 con and they are always sick

File: half swording.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

Are there any rules for half swording?

So is there really any reason to grapple? I feel like anything I'd get done grappling would be a lot less significant than if I just hit them with a weapon a couple times.

>>46745834
Yeah, I agree. I want to avoid low powered stats. Rolling 6d3 ensures a minimum of 6 for each stat, while preserving the 18 max.

>>46745864
Shoving to prone while grappling to seriously hurt their defense.

>>46745864
>hit it with a sword.jpeg
To keep something from running away.

>>46745797
My post wasn't really about legendary monsters, I said that stuff like tarrasques and krakens (legendary monsters) work well in a party V 1 scenario.

It's still somewhat boring to have an encounter only be everyone wailing on one thing, even if that thing is a beholder who can pew pew every turn.

Again, personal preference. I'd always add something else they need to be aware of, otherwise it just turns into tunnel-vision which for me is boring. Time limit, hazards, other enemies, another goal IE protecting something/someone or maybe someone they need to capture is getting away while they fight this thing, they need to get to X place fast but this thing is blocking their way etc

>>46745864
certain situations/flavor. One session my fighter grappled the boss mob so the rogue who had been absolutely wailed on by the boss mob could get the killing blow for revenge.

also something like you need to take this guy alive, but he's not really in range for non-lethal damage.

again, it's just for fun , really. the whole advantage this is nice too

>>46745861
Battlemaster manoeuvers and Martial Adept

>>46745796
Yeah, I understand that there is no correct way to play, but there are more enjoyable ways to play. And I've had players say that sessions were boring and I can only think "no shit, you guys zoned out of combat and talked over plot."

In regards to the meta stuff, I do give little hints in combat like what you said. That is what makes it frustrating that they have a conversation about resistances and switching weapon types mid round.

But, good shit anon. You've given me things to think about.

Gonna run curse of strahd, any tips for it?

>>46746013
Make sure they notice the plate armor in the death house. Four free suits of full plate is awesome.

File: Oh_you.jpg (38KB, 447x335px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 447x335px

>>46746024

File: 82866959a686cd9e0161eac0626ddfc5.jpg (87KB, 517x350px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 517x350px

>>46745656
>>46745744
>>46745980

also a huge thing for getting new groups into the game is visual representation. Miniatures, drawn out grid maps etc

if you are in need of visual representation for characters/monsters/npcs I'd suggest pathfinder pawn boxes. Solid quality, and for about $70 you can get like 900 pawns which are everything from Gnomes to Dragons. Grab the NPC codex box, the bestiary box, and the monster codex box (in that order of importance)

if you don't have the dosh/aren't willing to invest that heavily into your sessions you can find PDFs of all those online somewhere, from which you could print out the ones you want and have some representation (albeit flimsy shitty paper cutouts)

but again it just seems like your players aren't big into it. I have players who have done six sessions and still need to be prompted to make a perception check or something like that, and I have players in the same group who have done alot by their own initiative straight from first session (both of these players being first timers)

File: 1429782896153.gif (54KB, 228x199px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 228x199px

>>46746045
Couldn't help myself.

>>46745885
Why not just do 2d6+6?

File: GGA001-SML-product__88829_zoom[1].jpg (69KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 750x750px

>>46746059
I find Pathfinder pawns a little too limiting, and crazy expensive in general.

These are the guys I use. They're little acryllic pieces that you can slip pieces of paper into. Just print out one-inch little paper figures and stick them in, and you have as many minis as you want, as well as making sure you have the ones you need, and the ability to even label them so that you can tell them apart.

>>46745399
Because it's more fun when most of your stats are under 10. It means that everybody in the group needs to depend on each other

>>46746180
The pathfinder pawns all look great, and I got all three boxes (each box having around 300 pawns) at $27 each

yours is obviously cheaper but I just prefer the pawns. I have never really wanted for anything from them, they have pretty much anything you could want (even found a half-orc bard for one of my npcs)

and if I really, really wanted a really specific NPC or boss or PC model I can jump on ebay or miniature market and grab one

>>46746096
See:

>>46745395

Basically the same reasoning that applies to 1d9+7 applies to 2d6+6

File: sigh.jpg (106KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 554x439px

>>46746240
>>46745395

The real problem with rolling for stats is most DMs take this weird stance that you aren't allowed to reroll for them ever. Just do this >>46745402

It's what I do. 3d6, in order, they can swap one stat, but they're allowed to reroll the array and use which ever one they want as long as they roll it in front of me.

People wind up with varied stats, but nobody walks away unhappy with their results, and people have fun doing it. It literally solves all of the problems people have with point buy, rolling, and assholes in general.

Planning on playing a life cleric / sorceror soon and I have a pretty important question. Does the damage increase on the booming/green-flame blade spells happen at character level or at the casting class level?

>>46746285
With my group we used the 4d6 drop the lowest and allocate as desired method, with one reroll on a single stat or rerolling the entire set. Worked pretty well, everyone got something they were happy with and the guy who managed to somehow roll a 6 for his charisma went with it and we have a borderline autistic socially retarded wizard in the party now who has no idea how to interact with the world outside of his spellbooks. He's loving it and so are the rest of us.

>>46746372
Character level.

File: Paper Counter Stands.png (2MB, 1630x788px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1630x788px

>>46746225
In my case, unless I wanna buy used online, the only pathfinder pawn boxes I can find have a lot of pieces, but never enough for what I need. Like, for example, if I need a militia of like 12 guards, or 20 goblins, then I get generally screwed.

I bought the Litko paper stands, and I just spend maybe 40 minutes finding a picture, putting it in word, and then cutting them out with a exacto-knife. After that, I just fold them up and place them as needed. I can even save what I use in case I need to recycle.

Another fantastic part, is I can even number them, so it's easy to remember who has taken what damage or been afflicted by what status. I can even take a wet/dry erase and mark the piece directly. They've been a FANTASTIC help.

Sorry for low quality photo.

My players are about to stumble on an ancient cache of technology from a civilization from long, long ago.

Thing is, I was trying to integrate in the idea that there's some actual Shadowrun levels of technology going on from a long time ago as a big revelation, but I'd rather not have them stealing fully functional combat exoskeletons, because that both doesn't make sense and I'd have to nerf them hard in some way.

Any ideas for cyberpunk-style magical technology that can make for decent treasure?

>>46746506
Vibroblades/chainsaws/beamsabers/lasers are all pretty popular as weapons, and implants might be fun if players have to figure it out in an eye/head/hand of vecna kind of way.

ALSO, jetpacks.

>>46746506
Pneumatic impact hammers, swords with laser edges, ablative armor that's resistant to magic, and yes, as >>46746540 said, jetpacks.

>>46746506
Gay and never fun

>>46744875
>I'm newish to DnD so I just don't understand the reasoning behind all the completely obtuse old mechanics like rolling for stats I guess

D&D is for people who grew up playing D&D and new players are brought in because those old people who play D&D want to keep playing the game they started with. It's a vicious cycle.

They tried to break it once, but people who grew up playing D&D want to play D&D. For better or worse.

Is there a good guideline on how much should a creature's CR increase if you give it acess to spells, but otherwise keep the stats similar (aside from increasing the hitpoints to be appropriate to the new CR)?

File: Graverobber-TF04-EN-VG.jpg (77KB, 544x544px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 544x544px

I just started playing a grave robber undying warlock with the dungeon delver feat. I'm having a blast. I know that the undying boons are more for fluff, but I've been getting a lot of use out of Among the Dead.

>>46747120

You're meant to look at how much damage it can deal per round. Add up how much it would likely do in the first three rounds, then divide by three. That's your damage estimate.

>>46747160
That doesn't strike me as a very good system. You could theoretically give a creature access to only non-damaging, but still veyr powerful, spells (ones that incapacitate the target, or make the creature harder to kill), and the CR would remain the same because the dpr doesn't go up.

>>46747198

It's not meant to be a science. If the creature's spells make it particularly difficult to kill, bump up its effective defensive CR. If it can totally incapacitate PCs with a single save-or-suck, then you can estimate that at least for one round, its effective damage is equal to a single PC's hit points.

There's a bit of eyeballing and adjusting involved. If you want a system with more 'scientific' monster creation rules, look to 4e.

>>46747137
>AoD
Yeah that sounds fun as fuck if you have a good DM

>>46747137
Defy Death shouldn't require a rest to re-use Y/N?

>>46747137
Get a Cleric to cast Sanctuary on you and cast Protection from Evil and Good on yourself and then go hang out tombs and annoy Lichs

>>46747198
>incapacitate a target
>get advantage on all attacks and auto crit

the dpr would increase numb nuts

>>46747864
>only non-damaging

>>46747876
Unarmed strike

>>46747888
While they're using their action to cast spells?

Anyone got a higher res version of the monster manual?

>>46747957
Fine. You can make your monster do anything you like and give it anything you want and if you want to you are perfectly at liberty to only give it Augury and no ability to do anything else

Have fun

>>46745980
>And I've had players say that sessions were boring and I can only think "no shit, you guys zoned out of combat and talked over plot."
I recently had to drop a group because every session followed the same pattern:
> group needs full basic rules explained to them again; promptly forget them
> group explores a bit, attacks first living creature they see
> group kills creature; session devolves into lore rolls to learn more about what they'd killed and an OOC autofellatio competition.

5 sessions. It got old.

File: 1460040876435.gif (782KB, 222x120px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 222x120px

So I wanna make a character relying on Crossbow Expert and a whip (and the occassional rapier). I have thought about going battlemaster or beastmaster, but I'm undecided. Some insight on this?

>>46749533

Beastmaster is considered the weakest archetype in the game, and it doesn't really contribute to the whole crossbow-and-whip combo you had in mind. Battlemaster is probably the better choice.

>>46749533
Go with bladelock for the whip. Take combat initiate feat

>>46749589

I've never seen the attractive to bladelock. I mean, yeah, you get a free weapon and proficiency, but in this case wouldnt it be better with fighter? Especially if I take combat initiate later on

>>46749589
Actually, aside from making the laughable damage comparison to Eldritch Blast even more obvious, would there have been any blatant balance issues with letting a pact weapon be ranged with infinite ammo?

I'm wracking my brain here, but I can't think of any reason, other than maybe 2 days before printing, wotc realized if people could have pact crossbows they'd instantly realize eldritch blast is better in every way. Rather than fixing the issue, wotc decided to remove the ranged option and hope nobody noticed it.

>>46746506
Basically anything that's awesome but intermittent. As long as they can only use it 1/day, or have to repair it between uses, or whatever.

>>46749677

That's other of the reasons I dont like lock for this character. Sure, free weapons, but having EB why would I even want to use a crossbow and a whip? Bladelock seems fine if you go for good and/or rare, not for a whip that every slaver has and that costs 2g.

Also, no acrobatics and athletics for obvious whip shenanigans

I need ideas for technology based cantrip analogues for a class I'm making (so very basic tech shit)

So far I have:
Flamethrower (fire damage in a line)
Stun Gun (lightning damage and small stun)
Grappling Hook (piercing damage and pull)
Bola (ranged grapple)

Need more ideas guys, I'm pretty dry today

>>46749670
To me the attraction is being proficient with all weapons. If there were more interesting weapon feats like polearm master/sentinel, blade pact would be a lot more attractive.

But the idea of playing a guy who runs in firing a hand crossbow, before turning it into a warhammer to charge, and finally a glaive/halberd/polearm to ward off every foe seems fun.

>>46749737

Still, you cannot create two weapons at a time, and you cannot create ranged weapons, so I could only use the whip. The idea is curious, but I don't see it with this char.

I'm looking more into a fighter or beastmaster. A pet seems cool, ensnaring big guys for my falcon friend to rip his eyes, but Beastmaster looks so bad.

>>46749719
>Conjure wrench
>Throw wrench

>>46749719
floodlights. Think a bright flashlight on your belt, that you use to give people disadvantage on attacks.

File: dwdnd.jpg (509KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1280x1024px

So why does /tg/ have such a hateboner for Alignments?
I'm honestly wondering the logic behind it, rather than trying to b8 people into pointless shitposting

Unless it's core reason is "Morality is Subjective" - Then it's a copout

>>46749834
Because it's stupid and pointless, makes games actively worse the larger the role it plays, and is only kept around out of tradition.

>>46749834
Because it always comes down to one guy arguing "the game says alignments are this" and another guy arguing "I don't care, alignment is subjective."

>>46749834
>Unless it's core reason is "Morality is Subjective" - Then it's a copout

If I follow a strict code of ethics, am I lawful, neutral, or chaotic? The answer is "well, it depends on where that code comes from". Tell me that's not retarded.

Alignment tries to boil human morality down to nine choices, and offers no actual benefit after having done so. The game gets nothing out of the system, it doesn't add anything to the fun had at the table.

It's shit, Dave.

>>46749815
That might just be crazy enough to work

>>46749832
I like it, or limited blindness

>>46749864
>>46749882
>>46749899
Understandbale but why then not change it to "Your actions are seen as LG/NG/LE etcetc"?

>>46749834
It's an inhernetly confusing system that assumes some sort of objective morality.

If you want morality powered powers, then those things are more accurately captured with a portfolio of tenets to obey.

If you want roleplaying, those things are more accurately portrayed with a portfolio of personal beliefs and convictions.

Also, because a lot of people make stupid alignment charts like yours.

But as an example of how unhelpful the allignment is, consider Picard and Sisko. Both are lawful good characters, but both are lawful good in such a different way. Picard views the law as sacred, unwilling to bend or break it, because it has a higher societal value: the cost of making an exception to feel good in the moment to picard is too much.

Sisko is willing to break the law to protect the law. he'll accept being amoral or immoral if it protects the greater good: the ideals of the federation. He'll dirty his hands to protect that lawful, beautiful system.

Both are reasonable portrayals of lawful good people.

And nothing I just said will prevent a hundred replies from people with their own interpretations of Sisko and Picard from calling me retarded, and placing them in any of the alignments. You can make arguments for every single one.

Because that alignment system is useless as a tool for character interpretation.

Part of it is that the objective morality of DnD has fallen out of style, so people don['t realize Good has an objective meaning within the context of DnD. So they do silly things like try to apply DnD morality to universes where DnD morality doesn't exist. Oh wait, that's what the author of that chart just did!

>>46749961
Ravenloft largely did away with the alignment powered powers by making them impossible to work.

Birthright made them pointless, because even a cleric of the setting's main LG god could be Lawful Evil (one of the archbishops was, at least in 2E), and a lot of the "good" rulers were in the evil spectrum.

>>46749993
I don't think there's anything wrong with alignment powered powers, but it needs to be portfolio based instead of chart based in any sort of non objective morality universe.

For example: if your paladin is a paladin of the god of flowers, they should only maintain their powers as long as they promote the cause of flowers.

>>46750024
To be fair, that's already what 5E mostly does.

Big E evil is undead and outsiders, mainly, and I would probably rule that a 5E protection from evil would even affect a demon who broke alignment, like Grace from PST

>>46749677
For Bladelocks at my table, I fluff their Eldritch Blasts as their pact weapon becoming a longbow/shortbow/javelin/whatever and firing bolts of magical force.

It just makes sense to me.

>>46749899
>If I follow a strict code of ethics, am I lawful, neutral, or chaotic?

You're lawful, or at least having a strict code of ethics that you endeavor to never violate is a heavily lawful trait. This isn't even a difficult question.

>The answer is "well, it depends on where that code comes from"

No, having a strict code of ethics (that you endeavor to always follow) is the hallmark of Lawfulness.

>>46749834
>So why does /tg/ have such a hateboner for Alignments?

I honestly don't know. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on the planet who gets it, which is weird because it's so damn intuitive to me that it feels like it should come naturally.

>Unless it's core reason is "Morality is Subjective" - Then it's a copout

Particularly since D&D helpfully defines all nine alignments for you...

File: Tech.png (719KB, 288x1488px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 288x1488px

>>46749719

Alright /5eg/, I have 4 statements and 4 questions.
1a. The warlock invocation "Book of Ancient Secrets" states that I can scribe spells that I 'find' with the ritual tag.
2a. The Cleric class can prepare 11 of the 30 ritual spells in the PHB.
3a. It would take a total of 62 hours and 1550 gold to scribe all 11 spells.
4a. The invocation lists no limit to the amount of spells that can be learned this way.

1b. Does having my Cleric party member teach me about the spells count as 'finding' them, as the invocation does not specify scrolls or demonstrations?
2b. What if the Cleric prepared or even cast them for me?
3b. How much of a That Guy am I being for attempting this, keeping in mind that my party is prone to frequent days of downtime and that my character is a genius that loves to take hold of every advantage he can?
4b. Would you allow me to do this in your campaign?

>>46750071
Simple, elegant, looks awesome in my mind.

>>46750096
Your formatting of these makes me sad, but,

1. Yes.
2. This would be how the cleric teaches you them.
3. It's not That Guy'ing at all, it's a solid use of your time and resources to have an additional source for the magic rituals, in case something should happen to your party's cleric. Your party has access to those rituals anyway via the cleric, so nothing meaningfully changes.
4. Yes.

I have determined that I'm far too lazy to be a DM.

Alignment is useful as a tool to get novice roleplayers thinking about their character as a separate entity from themselves. It's a pair of starter questions to get the player to establish roughly where the character lies on the respect-the-law / do-what-you-think-is-right and the selfless / selfish axes.

During the game, at least in my group, it has little to no bearing on things. Alignment is free to change based on in-game developments - if you start out as lawful good but then play Judge Dredd, your alignment will adjust to lawful neutral (the greater good doesn't matter, it's all about THE LAW).

>>46747198
If it cannot kill a PC then it doesn't have a CR, because it's not capable of being a threat on its own. It can annoy them for as long as it takes to un-fuck themselves though.

>>46749960
Because why? For what benefit? Why fix a system that adds nothing to the game?

>>46750072
What if my strict code if ethics is to promote chaos and fight order?

>>46750151
Verisimilitude is always a benefit

Looking for Char sheet anons work, is it in the mega or?

>>46750166
Surely your code would compel you to not follow your code?

>>46750187
Why?

>>46750048
If a Demon breaks its alignment it ceases to be a Demon.

>>46750166
>What if my strict code if ethics is to promote chaos and fight order?

That's still a Lawful trait. But you're not a slaadi or demon, you're a humanoid. Your every action isn't going to necessarily line up with your alignment. Your alignment is the result of your actions and intents, not the source of it. So just because you have *a* lawful trait doesn't mean that you're necessarily Lawful.

Slaadi, by contrast, do not have a code of ethics that requires them to promote Chaos; they simply *are chaotic* and spread Chaos as a result.

>>46750072
>No, having a strict code of ethics (that you endeavor to always follow) is the hallmark of Lawfulness.

no, this is shit

lawfulness is about promoting order and society, sometimes at the expense of the individual. chaos is about promoting freedom and the individual, sometimes at the expense of society. neutral is a balance of the two. that's how it was in the beginning and it worked that way. it has nothing to do with whether you follow a code or not, which doesn't make any sense.

>>46750198
That's not really how Planescape did it, especially not Planescape: Torment, which was largely about the big thread of what is the nature of belief and existence in an universe where believing in something hard enough can make it become true.

You can unmake someone through logical fallacies, you can make someone exist just by lying hard enough that you're this person and lie to that figment of your imagination well enough that he'll conjure a magic item he "owes" you out of thin air.

And Grace is a LN Succubus.

>>46750096
1. No.
2. No. The Cleric would have to scribe them onto a scroll using the rules in the DMG to allow you to copy them, so that you have them written down to copy.
3. Not really, you're not whining about it and disrupting the game.
4. Every response to this question is going to be if they'd allow you to do this in their campaign, and my answer is no: I'd do it as outlined in question 2.

>>46750187
Not necessarily, but a truly Chaotic code would be fairly loose, open to interpretation, and a truly Chaotic person won't feel particularly bad if it has to be violated for one reason or another.

>>46750208
>That's still a Lawful trait.
Having your own rules isn't a lawful trait, no. This is a really stupid, baby tier understanding of what law vs chaos is.

>>46750078
Much appreciated anon, most of those are pretty great, if a bit too strong for a cantrip

>>46743203

So I think I understand what's going on here, but why isn't the axis labeled? If I understand it correctly, the bottom is the average value and the "height" of the curve shows the probability you get that result right? Like a Planck curve?

File: 2016-04-18 15_08_19-D&D Players Handbook (Full Color).pdf - SumatraPDF.png (55KB, 293x75px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 293x75px

>>46750222
I'm basing this on 5e's word on it. A succubus is Neutral Evil, ceasing to be so makes them something else.

>>46750220
>it has nothing to do with whether you follow a code or not, which doesn't make any sense.

Having a code? No, anyone could do that.

But having a strict code that you endeavor to always follow even if it comes at your own personal expense - within the confines of your morality - is Lawful.

Having a code that you generally follow but aren't too concerned about breaking, again within the confines of your morality, is Neutral.

Having a code that is open to interpretation, is fairly vague in its scope, and which you suffer no pangs of guilt for violating (once again, within the confines of your morality), is when it starts to be Chaotic. Even more Chaotic is not having a code at all and simply acting upon whim.

>>46750238
>law vs chaos

With regards to D&D alignment, it boils down to rigidity verses spontaneity.

File: i wear permanent press so I'm always cleese.gif (2MB, 500x391px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x391px

>>46750183

Read the OP.

Is this too strog for a cantrip-level thing?

Drill/Saw

As an action you can choose to make a melee gadget attack against a target within 5 feet. On a hit, the target takes piercing (drill) or slashing (saw) damage equal to 2d4 + your intelligence modifier. You can choose instead to use the action to rev the gadget, if you do then the damage die are upgraded to 2d6.

>>46750150
you can make a PC lose without killing them.

A monster that can only petrify things, preserving them eternally in a prison of stone would be a high threat monster, even if the pcs could later be revived.

CR is more about how much of a hindrance the monster is to the current PC's goals, not it's ability to kill them.

>>46750304
At most it makes you neutral. Also encouraging chaos as a rule isn't the same as being rigid.

>>46749834
Because bad players and bad DMs use it as a crutch for bad characters, bad setting design, and bad rulings.

Alignment is a tool. A tool is only as good as the person using it.

How much better would an Eldritch Knight be with the Bladesinging cantrips (Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Lightning Lure and Sword Burst) or are they just not that good anyway?

>>46749834
Around when 2E was on its last legs, I'd just played PST for the first time, I basically decided to make a chart based on another system's moral/ethical axes.

Alignment was justified based on traits. The only supernatural effects that affected alignment were now either scrapped, or made the purview of the paladin. Paladins' abilities were based on Kit, they could now have multiple alignments, and picked what their smite/detect powers would work on between undead, fey, and a specific type of outsider.

Then removed all alignment restrictions; you could now make a knight in shining armor paladin whose job was hunting and smiting undead who was a complete asshat and probably more a danger to his proteges than some of the intelligent undead he hunted down.

This type of discussion is why alignment is shit.

Imagine this:

My guy likes to fight the man. He believes strongly that people should largely be free of governments, which are the tools of tyrants, and draws holy power from the strength of his convictions. He uses this righteous power to advance the cause of free peoples wherever he goes.

versus this:

>my guy is chaotic good, but the DM made my paladin fall when he helped the town guard put out a fire. I explained the situation to him, and the DM said that no, my guy was lawful good, and fell because he violated his strict moral code by working with lawful good guards.

Do yourselves a favor: don't use alignment. Sure it's a tool. It's a shit tool. Think out your character's convictions, wants, and needs. Don't try to stick a round peg in a square hole.

>>46750400
It would be more versatile with the cantrips, but you're already doing more damage as a fighter anyway.

>>46750276
it's shit because it doesn't create any kind of dichotomy. good vs evil makes sense. you're saying law vs chaos boils down to...people who happen to follow a stricter code versus people who follow a looser code, with no specific behaviour or ideology beyond that? why would people be "aligned" with the fact they follow a code or not?

here is how it is supposed to work, before they screwed it up:

>Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches.

>The believers in chaos hold that there is no preordained order or careful balance of forces in the universe. Instead they see the universe as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent. They tend to hold that individual actions account for the differences in things and that events in one area do not alter the fabric of the universe halfway across the galaxy. Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over his own destiny and are fond of anarchistic nations. Being more pragmatic, non-philosophers recognize the function of society in protecting their individual rights. Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society.

>>46750421
How could demons and devils be "the essence of lawful evil" if lawful just means the demons follow a strict moral code?

What is the essence of following a strict moral code?

>>46750400
They're only really particularly good as a way to get 2 attacks while casting War Magic. IIRC their damage doesn't scale quite as fast as Fighter's bonus attacks. Lightning Lure and Sword Burst would be better than the first two.

Booming Blade on a bard would be nifty, but would also reduce some of the appeal of going Valor imo.

>>46750319
>CR is more about how much of a hindrance the monster is to the current PC's goals, not it's ability to kill them.

Except that's demonstrably false in 5th edition.

>Playing a race without darkvision in OotA
Am I fucking myself over?

>>46750411
So bad DMs are the cause of alignment being shit?

>>46750337
>At most it makes you neutral.

Having a code? It is a lawful ACT. It doesn't necessarily make you lawful; that depends on how much emphasis you put on following the code.

>>46750411
>I explained the situation to him, and the DM said that no, my guy was lawful good, and fell because he violated his strict moral code by working with lawful good guards.

...I don't get it. Why would a lawful good paladin fall for working with lawful good guards? I assume there's a typo somewhere that is preventing this from making sense.

>>46750421
>it's shit because it doesn't create any kind of dichotomy

Are you kidding? Law and chaos are just as fundamentally at odds as good and evil. Ultimate law would be a universe in absolute stasis where nothing ever happened. Ultimate chaos would be an unending morass where nothing ever lasted. So there's your metaphysical angle. Just read some old Greek or Babylonian myths: ancient myths are very much centered on the idea of order verses chaos rather than good verses evil.

Or watch some Babylon 5. The entire conflict between the Vorlons and the Shadows is about law verses chaos, with the younger races (including humans) caught in between what is literally an alignment argument between two abusive precursor races.

>>46750491
Alignment being shit is the cause of alignment being shit. You can't contain a character's personal code into two words, but that's what alignment requires and encourages. Moreoever, the terms are so poorly explained in the resources that tons of different interpretations are valid, leading to disagreement between the players.

Explaining your character's convictions, goals, and fears in a short paragraph gives far more information to the DM, and leaves far less open to interpretation.

People say alignment is a roleplaying aid, but it's a really shitty one: you either use it as a substitute for describing your character's goals, fears, convictions, etc, leaving tons of stuff open to interpretation, or you explain your character's goals, fears, convictions etc to the DM, in which case why the hell are you using alignment?

>>46750526
There's no typo. That was an example of a flaw with alignment: the multiple different interpretations.

The DM is interpreting the character's paladin as lawful good because he "follows a strict moral code", but interpreting the guards as lawful good because "they're good guys who work for the law.

NEW FEAT: Lich-kissed
(Combining the Evil Brand and Lich-Loved feats from 3.x)
-Gain either +1 Con or +1 Cha
-Undead with 3 or less Int perceive you as undead too, and will not attack you unprovoked
-Gain advantage on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks on undead with Int greater than 3

>>46750551
>The DM is interpreting the character's paladin as lawful good because he "follows a strict moral code", but interpreting the guards as lawful good because "they're good guys who work for the law.

Yeah, but that's just a shit DM. What makes a Paladin fall is strictly defined by the Paladin class itself in 3.X:

- You knowingly associate with Evil characters;
- You commit an Evil act;
- You cease to be Lawful Good.

How does helping someone put out a fire under ANY definition violate ANY of those? For that matter how does being lawful good prevent you from putting out fires, least of all in concert with other lawful good characters?

Your example is bad and nonsensical. It's not even a shit DM story because there is exactly zero possibility of a DM actually being this shitty in real life, unless they were drunk and/or high off their ass and didn't understand what they were saying.

File: 2016-04-18 15_45_25-D&D Players Handbook (Full Color).pdf - SumatraPDF.png (1MB, 684x676px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 684x676px

>>46750551
Except what you posted was an example of a DM being shit and punishing a player for doing something normal, probably because he's a shit DM who just hates Paladins.

The alignments are all explained pretty well in 5e's PHB. (Though where it says "society" read "the honorbound pseudo-medieval-Europe presented in most western fantasy genres"

>>46750592
Oh yeah, forgot to ask: is something like this even worth offering?

>>46750598
>Your example is bad and nonsensical.
You just unintentionally described alignment. It promotes stupid situations like that. And no, I never said it wasn't a stupid situation. That's the point.

>>46750610
And yet, this single page describing all morality in the fantasy universe that is DnD fails to educate anyone. Just look at this thread and the multiple and varied interpretations of various alignments. Those descriptions are also more useful for describing general cultures of societies, rather than individuals with nuances.

>>46750526
>Are you kidding? Law and chaos are just as fundamentally at odds as good and evil. Ultimate law would be a universe in absolute stasis where nothing ever happened. Ultimate chaos would be an unending morass where nothing ever lasted. So there's your metaphysical angle. Just read some old Greek or Babylonian myths: ancient myths are very much centered on the idea of order verses chaos rather than good verses evil. Or watch some Babylon 5. The entire conflict between the Vorlons and the Shadows is about law verses chaos, with the younger races (including humans) caught in between what is literally an alignment argument between two abusive precursor race

none of which has anything to do with this code bullshit. for example, being "lawful" in ancient cultures was about accepting your proper place in society and following the rules necessary for society to function. by your definition, someone following the strict code to "ignore all social rules and overthrow all social order" would be LAWFUL, and not chaotic. this would be seem completely retarded to anyone from an ancient culture.

the definition of law that D&D originally gave here >>46750421 more closely resembles law in the ancient sense, which saw the natural order of the universe and the natural order of society as interconnected, and where humans flaunting tradition and social mores, or failing to respect hierarchy and tradition, could bring down chaos on everyone. this code shit is irrelevant - unless they happen to be following a code of lawful behaviour, but in that case it's the lawful behaviour which makes them lawful, not the code. someone following a code to behave chaotically is still chaotic.

>>46750640
>And yet, this single page describing all morality in the fantasy universe that is DnD fails to educate anyone

It's not my fault, or indeed alignment's fault, if you can't read.

>>46750640
> It promotes stupid situations like that.

...no it doesn't!

Look, I've been playing this game for a long-ass time, I have never, once, in all that time, come across a DM who said "Your Lawful Good character ceases to be Lawful Good because he worked with Lawful Good characters."

I cannot possibly be the only one here who finds this to be beyond retarded. Anons of /5eg/, back me up here. Even if you think alignment is shit surely none of you think it's THAT shit.

>>46750665
I think a Chaotic Neutral moron just ruined one of this guys games. And then possibly fucked him up the ass.

>>46750661
Actually, for my personal groups, I throw away objective morality and require the players to just list their character's beliefs, desires, goals, etc. It's more nuanced, and results in easier times DMing for me.

But I'm talking about people in general misinterpreting alignment, which this thread is evidence of.

>>46750665
You need only look at any that guy or that dm story about paladins. If the system causes so much misery because of how unintuitive it is, why defend it so?

>Abjuration wizard
Is it any good? Charging the shield seems like a problem

>>46750704
>You need only look at any that guy or that dm story about paladins

No I don't!

That Guy DM stories at least contain the illusion of a moral choice. Where is the choice in "if you put out this fire, you cease to be lawful good"? "If you work with lawful good guards, you cease to be lawful good"?

I really feel like there's some vital context you're leaving out here. Like the fire was burning a witch or something. Because otherwise you're trying to tell me something that makes about as much sense as "John Hancock's signature is on the Declaration of Independence, and therefore he is not a Founding Father."

Return to Castle Ravenloft /w Monk, Ranger, Lock, Pally, + me

And I'm terrible at deciding what to play as.

Suggestions?

>>46750773
Champion Fighter.

>>46750478
No. There is a such a thing as a torch. Also half the underdark in OotA is lit up anyways. Any pc thinks that the extra 60 feet of shit sight is going to help them spot dangers before they get spotted is an idiot.

Could someone say me where i can find a "wealth per level" table of some kind?

The games my group had was a bit short on money and magical items in general, the GM's were handwaving it most of the time, and we'd like to have some sort of reference to compare how close we were to the "intended" wealth.

>>46750704 (here)

I'm tired of arguing this point, so I'll just leave you with this.

alignment is shit. It can be used as bad training wheels for new players, but it'll develop bad habits. If you as a DM want to use alignment based magic and monsters (such as demons that are the "essence of lawful evil"), then you need to do a better job than the PHB or the DMG does of defining and fleshing out the alignments.

>>46750745
The context was explicit in the post: a "lawful good" paladin, lawful only because they follow a personal code of fighting the forces of law (a valid interpretation of alignment put forward in this thread) aides the forces of law who are lawful good (because they're good guys who work for the law, another valid interpretation).

He falls because instead of adhering to his personal code of fighting the man, he helps the man. (and the DM is shit, but the DM would be less shit if alignment wasn't around)

>>46750704
>But I'm talking about people in general misinterpreting alignment, which this thread is evidence of.

I think the issue is that debating alignment is not the same thing as alignment being shitty. In the real world strict moral codes are debated all the time. That's basically what rabbis and imams in Jewish and Muslim faith, respectively, are: religious lawyers who look for different interpretations of their faith's rules, with some theological duties on the side.

If anything alignment being flexible in what it is from party to party is a feature, not a bug.

File: rXOM35367HR6bp4C4kO.gif (317KB, 735x1803px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 735x1803px

>>46750807
>He falls because instead of adhering to his personal code of fighting the man, he helps the man. (and the DM is shit, but the DM would be less shit if alignment wasn't around)

No, a shitty DM is a shitty DM. Alignment only gives him a way to express his shittiness, it doesn't change the fundamental flaw in the person.

Also your argument still doesn't make sense because alignment is and always has been the sum of your actions, not any one individual action. A Lawful Good person who works to put out a fire, through some strange and esoteric interpretation of alignment, may in fact be said to in that moment not be acting "lawfully". But that *doesn't matter* because his actions remain otherwise, overall, Lawful and Good.

Do you seriously need schooling from the Order of the Stick?

>>46750773
The paladin is going for Devotion, right? So he gets Turn the Unholy? Anyway, if no one else wants to do it, you can go full caster (and eventually learn Sunbeam).

Alternately, go Fighter, pick up Protection, and tell the warlock you're his custodian now, and he's going to go full glass cannon and *like* it.

>>46750798
If I'm not mistaken "wealth per level" is just for starting out. You don't automatically get money as you level, you only have as much money as you find in world.

>>46745004

I think if you have a 20 in a stat you have a deep well of potential in it, but you're not necessarily a legend. The class is what makes you so legendary.

This kind of falls apart for some classes, like Fighters, I suppose, but I think it works well for Monks, most spell casters, Barbarians, Paladins...that's just off the top of my head too.

>>46750798

No such thing in 5e, and in fact the game is balanced around players *not* getting a bunch of magic items.

>>46750072
>If I follow a strict code of ethics, am I lawful, neutral, or chaotic?
>You're lawful, or at least having a strict code of ethics that you endeavor to never violate is a heavily lawful trait. This isn't even a difficult question.

What if that strict code changes all the time? Year to year? Month to month? Day to day? Second to second? At what point do you stop being lawful? Do you ever stop being lawful?

The main problem with alignments in previous editions is that they were tied to your class abilities and depending on how much your group cared about them (that is, if they were actually playing the game while paying attention to alignment) you could be forced to stop being a bard and lose access to bard shit if you haven't broken enough laws recently. Or maybe the DM decides your regimen of drinking, womanizing, and swindling has become routine. Its like clockwork. JUST LIKE THE LAWFUL PLANE OF MECHANUS.

On the other end are people that think once you write "neutral good" on your character sheet its immutable, so you have DMs saying "No, you can't kill him, your character wouldn't do that. He is neutral good."

So alignment takes a lot away from the game. But I haven't noticed it adding anything ever. Maybe you can fill me in on that and my hateboner will go away

>>46750798
Wealth for level wasn't even a rule in 3.5, it was stated to be a guideline.

There is such a guideline table that covers everything from nitty gritty low magic campaigns to high adventure heroic high magic campaigns in the DMG.

File: Orb_bfda3f_666773[1].jpg (139KB, 382x1433px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 382x1433px

>>46750894
>this mechanic lets shitty dm be shitty dm
>but another mechanic wouldn't
>lets use the shitty dm mechanic.

>>46745293

It seems worth trying out. I'm pretty sure once you do it once or twice it'll be easy to repeat.

>>46750592

Seems pretty weak for a 5e feat, but the real measure is whether your player will like it—or if you're the player, whether your DM will approve it.

>>46750798
As other people have said, there is no set wealth per level. Like Conan the Barbarian, you may start each adventure with rags or with riches, as determined by your own lifestyle choices.

If you want a means of comparison, the four characters in my party, each at level 8, have a total of 10 permanent magic items between us:

- +1 longbow
- 2 bags of holding
- dagger of venom
- wand of winter
- arrow-catching shield
- ring of cold resistance
- full set of horseshoes of a zephyr
- wand of web
- +1 scale mail

How's that stack up to your party?

>>46750731
Svirnefblin Magic, spam Nondetection out of combat for easy recharge. Alternatively, take 2 levels in Warlock for the Mage Armor invocation for the same, if slower, effect. Last of all, you can technically spam the Alert ritual, but that is much slower.

FWIW, I tend to have a different view of the magic item economy than the DMG; I tend to have my players come upon something significant or heirloomy at around level 4-5, and then after that it's pretty much mainly consumables and shit. Or items that are important macguffins for a specific purpose.

>>46751038
>but another mechanic wouldn't

Sure it would. Say you ditch alignment and instead just use the Personality/Ideal/Bond/Flaw background system in its place. A shitty DM will penalize you for not acting in accordance with your Flaw or not working towards your Bond.

How would I go about making a mercenary captain Paladin, Oath of Vengeance? Basically a leader of a small elite group of infantry that fight for coin, although their word is their bond they don't hesitate to fight dirty if they're hard pressed to win.

Should I just go Battle Master Fighter with Inspiring Leader instead?

File: call bs.gif (108KB, 262x303px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 262x303px

>>46750319

>CR is more about how much of a hindrance the monster is to the current PC's goals, not it's ability to kill them.

CR is calculated based on the creature's AC, HP, attack bonus, expected damage output per round averaged over the first three rounds, and save DC. The book recommends certain adjustments, such as multipliers for resistances and immunities, treating flying as +2 AC for creatures below CR 10 with ranged attacks, and so on, but it's fundamentally based on the creature's ability to deal, receive, and avoid damage. See DMG pages 273-283.

>>46750623
Nope, as is I think that feat only works with zombies, even skeletons have more than 3 int. Nonabilities don't really exist like they did in 3.x, so there isn't really a good way for this feat to say what you want it to say, and apply to what you want it to apply to like in that edition.

>>46751098
If your bond is what powers your magic, that might be appropriate.

We're already a step above alignment, and it came straight from your mouth.

>>46751116
You...just make exactly what you described. There's even a Mercenary background in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

I don't understand the question.

>>46751116
>Should I just go Battle Master Fighter with Inspiring Leader instead?

Yes

>>46751116

The battle master makes more sense to me. I don't see how smiting stuff really contributes to the character concept, whereas fighting dirty and giving allies temporary hit points and free movement fits really well.

>>46751125
>Trying class features to character backgrounds

No.

>>46751116
Oath implies some sort of conviction. What would your character's strong conviction be? Fighting for the highest bidder implies no convictions. But maybe you're planning on pulling an akatsuki on your DM, in which case, go nuts.

>>46751169
>warlock tells his patron to go fuck himself and starts working for a cleric worshiping a traditional god
>should still be able to eldritch blast

No.

>>46751203
Depending on the bargain struck this seems reasonable.

>>46751203
Warlock powers aren't granted by the patron that way. They're taught by the patron but for all intents and purposes Warlocks are just half sorcerers.

>>46751125
Using some bonds/flaws in the PHB...

>"My town or my city is my home, and I will fight to defend it."
DM plays up every bad aspect of the player's home city, forcing them into situations where they had to defend it from people trying to change it for the better.

>"I follow orders, even if I think they're wrong."
DM has the player's superior officer order him to burn down an orphanage.

>"I will bring terrible wrath down on the evildoers who destroyed my homeland."
Those "evildoers" were just hapless civilians doing a job with families to support. You're a monster for killing them. Do you kill orc babies too?

>"When faced with a choice between money and friends, I usually choose money."
DM constantly has NPCs offer the PC money to betray his friends, and loudly complains when he never does, including coming to /tg/ and whining about it in what they think is a "That Guy" thread.

Shit DMs are shit DMs. The systems they're given doesn't matter.

>>46751203
the warlock is taught magic by their patron in the manner of a tutor and his pupil, and imbued a little magic on the side, but neither of these can be retracted by the patron because the warlock is a not a direct conduit of their power