/5eg/ - D&D 5th edition general

>>47452159
My favorite elves were like the Huns or Sioux some other nomadic horse riding fighting culture. They were a little crunchy and I guess like WH wood elves but I'm not super versed in the WH lore, these sprung up between a player and myself discussing his Elven culture. There were also civilized high elves who tended to be diabolists.

>>47452206
Like wood elves in terms of close to nature, but on the plains and steppes? That's cool.

>>47452112
I've seen an option for if you're a half elf with aquatic ancestry in the sword coast adventurer guide, but it's just that you swap out one feature for a swim speed (30ft). Not seen any stats for whole aquatic elves though.

>>47452159
>Why are elfs the best?
they obviously aren't, but they are cool. One of the reasons is that they're stealthy, and another reason is their arcane abilities.

>What's your favorite kind of elf
Probably the Moon Elves of Faerun, or the Drow Elves

>Are there any <douchy> elves in your setting that stand out from the rest?
Well, I had this character I played that killed a archmage. He was a CE Drow Rouge

>Do you keep elf subtypes to a minimum, or is every clan another type of elf?
I feel elves classified by High, Wood, and Drow Elves; but there can be certain separations

Nice OP image.

Someone please explain to me how adventure league gets their side modules.

I've been told theres a way to submit a dungeon of my own creation?

File: 5e_PHB_Classes_Ranger_Class-Feature-Table_Critique-2.png (943KB, 1197x773px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1197x773px

>"What's with all the hate on the ranger class? I think it's fine lol."

>>47452159
We had a South American themed continent with two cities, Sun Elves and Summer Elves (who were at war over something the other races didn't understand).
We've also had Eagle Elves who lived in a village in the side of a cliff overlooking a big forest, using gliders and wind magic.

One of my players hates elves because they're so snobbish, but once he played as one, and found he enjoyed BEING snobbish, he quickly found a new favourite character!

>>47452429
Not that many people get to level 20, let alone with a ranger, their capstone is so underwhelming it's obscene.

>>47452429
>>47452496
Oh man I just reread it and THEY CAN'T EVEN USE THE BONUS DAMAGE ON BOTH THEIR ATTACKS!!
Outrageous!

Getting to choose after you roll is pretty nice, but the fact it's favoured enemy only? You better hope the DM keeps throwing those enemies at you!

>>47451645
>http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3414-Is-STORM-KING-S-THUNDER-The-Next-D-D-Storyline#.V0av4WgrKUk

>More Forgotten Realms
Meh, but okay, whatever.
>Giants
FUCK YEAH! Let's see some northeast faerun in areas of the world that haven't gotten love since 3e conveniently forgot what Pelvuria was.
>Sword Coast
FUCK YOU.

>>47452159
My setting has City Elves, theyre roughly a quarter human and the result of being born into slavery for ten generations under human rule, in one of the "evil" kingdoms.


The elvish isles dont want them back because theyre racial supremacists locked down tighter than japan pre Commodore Perry

>>47452159
>Why are elfs the best?
Mostly due to longevity giving them time to master quite a few things, it's why adventurer elves tend to only be around 20-40 years old.

>And what is your favourite kind of elf?
Probably Sun Elves from the Forgotten Realms, or AD&D Drow.

>Are there any <adjective> elves in your setting which stand out from the rest?
Not particularly, there are a few different cultures among the subraces and some are weirder than others, but none stick out as a sub-race.

>Do you keep elf subtypes to a minimum, or is every elf clan a different 'type' of elf?
I steal from FR's, Sun, Moon, Wood, Sea, Drow, and just have different cultures with different concentrations of the elven types.

File: 5e_PHB_Classes_Ranger_Class-Features_Foe-Slayer.png (201KB, 456x174px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 456x174px

>>47452496
Yeah, let's compare it to other capstones:

Ranger (pic related):
>add wisdom mod to dmg or attack roll
>only once per turn
>the bonus doesn't even have a minimum of 1 (what if the ranger is fighting a wisdom devourer or something and his mod becomes 0 or less?)
>against one of your favored enemies
>AGAINST ONE OF YOUR FAVORED ENEMIES
>at level twenty, you have three chosen from: abberations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undeed.
>3 out of 13 options; 23% chance that an encounter involves a favored enemy given that the encounter is random; 77% chance you DON'T get to use your capstone feature

We'll compare this to Barbarian next...

>>47452429
Ranger is easily the weakest class in the PHB. Nobody with a brain is going to deny this. It's only ever useful if your DM is ultra-anal about the details of your group's supplies and travel. (And even then, 90% of the utility in that department a ranger provides can be replicated by a Druid.)

Hunter has some pretty solid archetype features at least, so you get to pretend you're not an underwhelming class at low levels at least. You still get outperformed by every other martial however, and it only gets worse as you level up.

I find it especially hilarious that a Valor Bard can outperform a ranger in virtually every way while still getting a fair chunk of their gimmicks, since Magical Secrets lets you pilfer the unique level 4 and 5 ranger spells that are balanced around half-caster progression 4-7 levels early. (Hello, swift quiver.)

File: 1291520634133.jpg (61KB, 699x550px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 699x550px

>>47452661
>changing racial enemy at lng/short rests houserule
>MUH RPG FLAVOR of rangers carrying an undying hatred since they were little babbs!

>>47452661
>>47452496
It really says something when even in 5e, where like half the classes have underwhelming capstones, Ranger still stands out amongst them as being awful.

File: 5e_PHB_Classes_Barbarian_Class-Features_Primal-Champion.png (183KB, 557x140px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 557x140px

>>47452661

Barbarian (pic related - note, they also get unlimited rages at level 20)
-increase str and con (and their maximums) by 4
>+2 to str and con saving throws
>+2 to hit on ALL attacks on ANY creature
>+2 damage on ALL attacks on ANY creature
>+40 hitpoints
>+2AC (Unarmored Defense)
>as per Indomitable Might, a minimum of 24 (in all likelyhood, the Barb has max Str) on ALL strength checks
-no daily limit on rages; rages can persist indefinitely (no penalty, so the barbarian is just going to be raging all day by default, meaning...)
>advantage on ALL str checks ever
>advantage on ALL str saving throws ever
>+4 to ALL strength-modified attacks ever
Note*: when a barb reaches level 20, he gets a +6 to damage on ALL ATTACKS EVER
>resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing ALWAYS
>can't be surprised EVER (by feral instinct) since he will be raging by default
>massive bonus to relentless rage: enjoy your +2 bonus to the Con save you get to make EVERY time you drop below 0 hitpoints
Assuming the barb has maxed his Con, he automatically succeeds the first con save upon hitting 0 HP (d20 roll of 1: 1 + 7 +6 = 14)

And that's not even considering the archetype features

>>47452967

the barbarian and wizard seem the best by far. Barbarian capstone is better than Foresight. All martial should be getting an ability on par with the Barbarian capstone at level 17.

File: disgusting.png (304KB, 299x412px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 299x412px

>>47452967
>>47452661
I don't even want to bother doing more of these (might whip them up in an inforgraphic).

But let's just condense Ranger vs Barbarian capstone

Ranger (20Wis/20Dex)
>23% chance of getting +5 to the attack roll OR the damage of an enemy ONCE per round (+1.15 damage or to hit once a round)
>...that's literally it, just that one thing

Barbarian (20Str/20Con)
>24Str/24Con
>permanent, unlimited +2 to hit on all attacks against any creature
>permanent, unlimited +12 (+6 on two attacks) damage per turn against any creature
>permanent +2AC
>permanent advantage on str checks and saving throws; permanently gets a minimum 24 on all strength checks
>permanent resistance to physical damage
>100% chance to drop to 1 HP when you would instead die once per short rest
>95% chance to do it AGAIN without a short rest
>always gets to participate in surprise rounds

>>47453049
The wizard capstone isn't actually that great. One free cast of one level 3 per day? Actually a pretty minor deal at level 20.

The level 18 wizard feature, the one that gives you unlimited casts of one level 1 and one level 2 though? That one is fucking nuts. It's basically the class's real capstone.

File: 5e_PHB_Classes_Wizard_Class-Features_Spell-Mastery-and-Signature.png (299KB, 320x362px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 320x362px

>>47453360
>The wizard capstone isn't actually that great. One free cast of one level 3 per day?
Actually, it's a free casting each of two third-level spells and it refreshes on short rests.

Agreed though, Spell Mastery is much better.

File: Character creation list.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

I really like the material made by Matt Mercer, but it doesn't have the stamp of approval that the featured DM's guild items do. However the quality of his work has made it the measuring stick by which I grade all other homebrew material. Would it be too far to add it to the list?

>>47453449
>gunslinger made by Matt Mercer
>McCree voiced by Matt Mercer
>implying it isn't just a Blizzard shill attempt
Wake up sheeple

File: 1464135397584.jpg (99KB, 494x391px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 494x391px

>>47453518

>>47453360
God damn, Spell Mastery is the shit:

>unlimited castings of Misty Step (bonus action cast)
>unlimited castings of Shield (reaction cast)

That's it, my next character will be a wizard.

Anyone have advice on how to play an Eldritch Knight?

>>47453360
>>47453433

two third level spell scrolls per short rest is pretty nuts. counterspell, haste/slow, dispelled magic, fly are all good spells. lower level spells, except absorb elements and shield will eat into your actions without as much influence.

>>47453672

every spell is shield, except absorb elements

Just survived two deadly encounters our DM threw at us back to back. We weren't even running on full resources.
He didn't let us level up even though xp was more than enough to go up an entire level.

Had lots of fun though. Felt good to win. Still, I feel as though he's a bit on the side of adversarial DM. I just wanna play a lighthearted campaign that spans a year or so, mostly medium to hard fights, with deadly reserved for BBEGs. Is that so much to ask, senpaitachi?

>>47453829
>senpaitachi
oh shit the filter goes plural, didn't know that.

File: rexxar.jpg (96KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x506px

>>47453198
barbarian just needs a subclass with nature magic and a subclass with animal companions and its all set to replace the ranger as the premier wilderness fighter.

>>47453360
you're also getting your 9th level spells around that time, which is another game-changer. not a capstone but it has the same feel.

>>47453698
>lower level spells will eat into your actions

>>47453603
>gain 30 extra feet of instantaneous extra movement for a bonus action each turn (basically super-powered cunning action dash)

Shield is alright, but only once per turn (costs reaction), so you don't want to be putting yourself in positions in which you would NEED to use it.

Always-on Detect Magic sounds pretty good to me.

>>47453827
Does the same go for Arcane Trickster?

Relativity new D&D player here looking for some multi-class help.

Currently Rogue 3 in my campaign and am looking into possibly going into Ranger 5 in an attempt to make a strong longbow build. Extra attack, archery, and colossus slayer seem to compliment this well. My question is, when is an optimal level to begin multi-classing in this situation?

>>47453883

shield lasts until your next turn. you have +5 AC forever, unless you use your reaction on something else. using misty step means you can only use your action to cast a cantrip.

>>47453883

misty step and shield won't do anything if you get power word: stunned, or any other bullshit scaling throw cc. that's why I say free counterspell for every short rest is worth more.

>>47453883
>>47453933
>>47453953

how much does all this actually matter when you have wish?

>>47452159
> Favorite kind of elf
I lean toward spooky fey-style elfs over the haughty kind.

I did kind of appreciate what Iron Kingdoms did/tried to do with elves being a young upstart race of arrogant assholes, though. I feel like hubris as a result of having been explicitly told by your gods that you're an improvement over the other races was an interesting twist.

>>47452718
I have a dude who's really enjoying Ranger, even with a Druid in the party.

Then again he only took five levels in it and then went Rogue. Plus it's OOTA so it's been 90% Underdark all the way, combined with the background feature that's Outlander but for Underdark it's been useful.

>>47453972
Wish can backfire pretty easily, the only thing it safely does is replicate spells.

>>47453972
Blowing a 9th level spell slot casually is fairly silly anon. Wish has some real drawbacks too, if you don't just copy a lower level spell effect. Even at a wizard strongest you can only cast wish twice per day, and why waste it on basic combat?

>The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you. After enduring that stress, each time you cast a spell until you finish a long rest, you take 1d10 necrotic damage per level of that spell. This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way. In addition, your Strength drops to 3, if it isn’t 3 or lower already, for 2d4 days. For each of those days that you spend resting and doing nothing more than light actvity, your remaining recovery time decreases by 2 days. Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.

>>47453911
No, just go Fighter5

What you want:
>extra attack
>archery fighting style
>+1d8 once per round

Fighter5 gets:
>extra attack
>archery fighting style
>extra action once per short rest (can be used to fire a bow 4 times in one round)
>bonus action to heal 1d10+5 once per short rest

If you go Champion, you have a 10% chance to crit on every attack roll

If you go Battlemaster, you get 4 d8 superiority dice and three maneuvers (if you pick precision strike, you get to add a d8 to your attack rolls that miss, essentially; handy for an archer); the dice refresh on short rests

If you go Eldritch Knight, you get two wizard cantrips (true strike for advantage on the next turn's first attack (if you have no other way to trigger sneak attack) and ray of frost (can drop a pursuer's movement by 10ft and cunning action dash if you need to get away from someone)) and 4 first level wizard spells with 3 spell slots (Shield is really good for a rogue and pick another three)
Spellcasting ability here is intelligence. Your rogue probably has decent int? What rogue archetype did you choose?

With ranger, the additional useful features you get up til lvl 5 is:
>learn an additional language from favored enemy
>{2,2},{3,1},{4,0} choose one where {x,y} x is first level ranger spells known and y is second level ranger spells known
>4 first level ranger spell slots and 2 second level ranger spell slots
>primeval awareness as a 1st level spell (expends slots)
Keep in mind that wisdom is the spellcasting ability for ranger spells.

Do you guys think a githyanki raid force in the Sword Coast would make for ainteresting "BBEG"?

If my understanding of the multiclass spellslot rules is right, as wizard can you learn a spell you have the spellslot for but not the wizard level?

>>47454083
being able to replicate any spell, from any list, instantly and without cost is really, really great. you should never use any other feature of wish, it's a trap to lure you away from the true power of the spell.

>>47453449

MM did some DMing for wizards proper recently, so I wouldn't be surprised if his archetypes get featured as a result

>>47454260
Thank you for such a helpful post. When would you recommend to begin dipping into fighter?

>>47454451
I guess it depends on which rogue archetype you chose. At rogue5, you get uncanny dodge, which could save your life. But if you chose arcane trickster, you can get shield at rogue3 and trivialize uncanny dodge twice per day (you're a ranged rogue so you shouldn't be getting hit all that much anyway).

Anytime after level 3 is fine really. If you wait til 5, you get uncanny dodge but then you're also 2 levels behind on your extra attack. I'd go for it here at level 3.

I could give you some more suggestions to make the most out of your rogue archetype if you'd like to let me know which one you chose.

>>47454553
I chose the arcane trickster archetype and did choose shield as one of my spells. My original idea was to get something with the archery style to balance the sharpshooter feat.

>>47453672
The most important thing to remember is that you are not a Fighter/Mage, you are a Fighter with a few nifty magic tricks. Your magic should focus on utility and support, don't try to be half-warrior, half-blaster or some shit like that, it won't work (or at least, there are much better ways to do it with other classes).

File: What are birds.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

Okay, so quick question
Assume a rogue has the magic initiate feat, and has the green-flame blade cantrip
On a melee sneak attack with a shortsword, would they be able to add the cantrip damage as part of the attack? So whatever the sneak attack damage is +1d8?

>>47454299
That is a possible interpretation, but not the intended one. Basically, when learning and preparing spells, you're only supposed to consider the levels in the class for which you are learning and preparing spells. You only combine your levels to determine the levels of your spell slots.

Of course, they left the wording of this a little too ambiguous, so a base reading leaves it open to interpretation. Basically, like a lot of the vague rules that resulted from WotC's "natural language" kick, you'll need to ask your DM for their interpretation just to be sure.

>>47454614
Do you already have the feat from Human Variant? I'd say either way you should go to rogue4 for the ability score improvement/feat (I forgot to consider this).

Offsetting the -5 from Sharpshooter:
>precision attack maneuver from level 3 battlemaster fighter (4x per short rest)
>advantage: lots of ways to grant yourself this if you're creative; if you find you don't use shield very much, you can ask your DM if you can switch to Find Familiar on one of your level ups: take flying snake or owl and it can use its action every turn (no penalty to your actions) to fly next to a target, use the Help action, and fly away (flying snake and owl have Flyby which means they're immune to opportunity attacks); there's also the True Strike cantrip if you're desperate
>fighter1 gets archery (+2 to range attacks)

I'd say definitely take one more rogue level to take Sharpshooter if you haven't yet or bump dex up.

File: 1458472854443.jpg (108KB, 365x301px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 365x301px

>>47452159

File: 1458471735866.png (813KB, 900x662px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 900x662px

>>47452159
check it yo. FUCK elf fags

>>47454737
Yes. You can apply sneak attack damage to a GFB attack, assuming the normal conditions for sneak attack are met.

GFB and BB are notable for being melee weapon attacks, NOT melee spell attacks, so you can use things like sneak attack, manuvers, or anything else you could use on a normal attack alongside it.

>>47455083
Cheers, thought so but he used it against another player when the other guy initiated PvP and took off a quarter of the guy's health in a single blow and kept dodging his spells because they guy kept using ones with dex saving throws, it seemed a little OP

>>47454737
As the somatic component you make a melee weapon attack so SA should applyas long as you meet the usual requirements for it.

Also if you want a Swordcasting rogue then rather take a level in dragon sorcerrer for free mage armour.
Pick swashbuckler as your archetype since it benefits from high Cha and nets you a 100% safe disengage/dash.
Then learn booming blade since it is beter than green flame blade on one target.
Get your self the defensive duelist feat and laugh at your DM trying to do anything to you in melee.

File: 4faa42fc6e4462a57e577f03d167c176.jpg (122KB, 736x1188px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 736x1188px

I'm multiclassing as an Ancients Paladin/ Archfey Warlock but have no idea what his Personality/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws should be. I've got a vague idea that he should have a somewhat twisted idea of what "beauty" and "the light" are (as I'm certain the Fey themselves would, considering their fickle nature), and that he should have a strong devotion to his master, but beyond that I'm drawing a blank. I don't even know what the price was for my pact yet.

Any ideas?

File: 492.jpg (537KB, 900x1226px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 900x1226px

>>47455815
Courtly love! Arthurian knights were constantly getting seduced by weird magical bitches. Maybe he was literally seduced by his patron, who requires him to be faithful to her and forswear all other romance even though she rarely makes time for him (both because she's flighty and because time passes at an irregular rate in the Feywild.) Also, she's already married, and her husband is the jealous type. Also, she's carrying the paladin's child and it is 100% certain that the child will grow up to kill his father and undo all the good he ever did in his life. That's a pretty good price. It's a classic, and it gives you and the DM something to work with without making the character immediately unplayable.

>>47455892
Is the patron also his half sister?
Arthurian legends were pretty magical realm

>>47450771
What's your metamagic? Maybe you want stinking cloud (sulphurous fumes) or Web (Restrained is great with dex save spells, flammable). Immolation still looks like a weak spell to me.

>>47452718
The ranger-specific spells are still balanced to their spell level. Plus you'd need a fighter or ranger dip for the fighting style. I wish people would think before they regurgitate this meme.

>>47455960
There was also that time when Sir Bors the Younger was very aggressively courted by a whole pack of succubi.

>>47454299
No. There's an example and everything.

>>47454614
Sharpshooter is great for bypassing cover for ranged sneak attacks, but be aware you'll often risk more damage than you stand to gain with the power attack. Getting battle master is a great idea, if that's how you want to play it.

Should be starting a campaign this Saturday. What's a good way to make Sorcerer fun? Going with a few newbies so leaning on a fun build.

I was thinking of a LG Tiefling with Wild Magic and a huge guilt complex due to a childhood of terrible, magical "Oops"es.

>>47454737
Technically, you're adding the sneak attack to the cantrip, but yeah. Everyone else got this covered.

>>47456118
That can be very not fun if you're always the center of attention and always accidentally fucking things up. Use spells that can help other people share the fun, like Enlarge/Reduce.

>>47456118
Be a James Bond type secret agent. Tons of social skills, magical assistance through spells like Charm Person, treat your Firebolt like a pistol, that sort of thing.

>>47456118
I really don't think being lawful and having wild magic fits.

>>47456499
You can't control having wild magic.
Hell, the reason wild magic first came into being in the Forgotten Realms was because the LG god of paladins smacked the LE god of tyranny so hard it broke the fabric of reality.

>>47456499
Wild magic is less about being a whacky random crazy caster than it is about having accidental magic

I made a wild magic sorcerer for a future campaign that is the grandson of a djinn (genasi) and can only cast wish, the wild magic being the problems that come with messing around with that spell

>>47456109
Since Fighters and Rangers can take the Archery fighting style for +2 AB with their ranged weapons, Sharpshooter is less "dangerous" for them to use than GWM, at least on their own. The ubiquity of knockdown-granted advantage for GWMs kind of shifts it back, but if you're not in a party that is going to knock stuff down, routinely find yourself firing at enemies who are too distant from allies to be knocked down, or have allies who can give you advantage through other means, Sharpshooter is a lot better for pumping out the damage every round.

>>47456499
This ain't Mystara, magic isn't inherently chaotic anymore, and "random" magic isn't any more intrinsicly chaotic. Standard FR uses of alignment don't punish you for accidental or non-purposeful acts; if you wanted to heal a guy and somehow blow him up with Wild Magic, you don't actually get Evil or Chaotic points for that (but a Lawful character would most likely try to hedge his bets against that kind of accident as much as possible).

>>47456752
Well I'd make the point that continuing to use something that is inherently chaotic is a chaotic act.

why is character development in 5e so bad? half of the feats are garbage and there are tons of trap options. supposed to play a game of this soon and I'm already not looking forward to it and wishing we'd play something else

>>47454299
No. Unless you have the means of scribing a spell you know as, say, a Sorcerer down and then copying it into your book as a Wizard (transforming it into a Wizard spell) you're out of luck. This obviously doesn't work for spells that aren't on the Wizard's list to begin with, whether you gain them by multiclassing or through Magic Initiate.

>>47456777
In every edition of D&D that has feats you're lucky if half the feats are good.

A character can be special and unique without requiring options from a book to make it so.

>>47456777
Feats are an optional rule
>Tons of trap options
Porque?

>>47456763
But it's not inherently chaotic, that's the whole point. It is random but not chaotic. It's not your fault.

The only time Wild Magic should shift you towards Chaotic is when you are being deliberately reckless. Unfortunate accidents are just that. It's the same as if you were trying to slip some fleeing child-thieves on Grease as a non-Wild Mage and one of them spins around and bonks his head just so and dies from a concussion. The result was largely unforeseeable, so you're not a murderer and the universe doesn't move your alignment. Now, if you're on an elevated platform or a bridge with no railings and you slick those same child-thieves and one goes flying off to their doom, that really is your fault, even if you didn't intend it.

>>47456777
Even despite your trips, I'm afraid to say you're wrong.

5e is the most trap-option-lite edition so far.

>>47456016
it probably is a weak spell, but I like it.
It's only a vocal spell, which is awesome, for one.
and my metamagic options are quickened, twinned, and heightened. I could change those up, but I don't really see the point.

Is there any reason to play a Warlock other than if you enjoy the concept of the otherworldly patron?

You only get 5th level spell slots, and the patron abilities are very situational.

I'm running a game right now where one player is playing a Great Old One warlock. I've been working with him on good ideas on what he can do with the character, and it seems like the best option is for him to be a spy. Since he gets telepathic powers, is good at deceit, and can get the disguise self evocation to basically shapeshift at will. Other than that I don't see where else he can go.

This is complicated by the fact he has 10's in everything except for Charisma and Con which he has 20 and 17 in respectively.

>>47456830
yeah, but there were so many in 3.5 that you could pull together almost any character concept you wanted. I'm not saying that 3.5 is perfect (because it isn't) but I look at what my future options are for my character in this and it's so boring. "lol just rp" isn't much of an answer, especially when games like Shadow of the Demon Lord manage to give you tons more options while being a simpler game

I was considering playing an Inquisitive rogue, until I read this piece of garbage:

>At 9th level, you gain advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) check made on your turn to find a hidden creature or object if you do not move during that turn. If you use this ability before moving, you cannot move or ready movement during your turn.

mike mearls is a fucking potato

>>47456777
>half of the feats are garbage and there are tons of trap options.
Only if your game consists of literally nothing but killing monsters all day.

>>47456913

Is there some kind of item that his patron could bestow on him that might give him a more versatile/expanded role in the party? An item with one or more spells attached, or an item that amplifies his psychic powers?

>>47456913
>You only get 5th level spell slots
You only get 5th level spell slots for your per-short-rest ability. You still get one spell per day of every level above 5th, they just didn't want unlimited daily high-level spells.

>>47456913
Did you gloss over Mystic Arcanum? They get the same level of spells as other casters.

>>47456848
I should clarify, because someone's going to read the book and say "BUT THE LORE SUGGESTION SAYS YOU COULD GET MAGIC FROM LIMBO OR SOME SHIT AND THAT PLACE IS SUPER CHAOTIC".

The source is irrelevant for this purpose. A rock that grows on Mechanus into a perfect cube is no more NECESSARILY inherently Lawful as a result of being formed by that plane's laws than another rock that naturally grows into a perfect cube because that's its crystalline structure. It is not necessarily infused with Lawful energies or anything like that; it's just a cubic rock in both cases.

Usage of a certain power source does generally "taint" characters. If you enter into a pact with a demon in exchange for power, that is potentially a one-time Evil act; if this power's persistence does not rest on you continuously serving to the demon's pleasure or performing Evil, you are free to do a shitload of Good with it and be a net positive for Good across the multiverse. Just because you're killing that vampire with Hellfire instead of Angelfire or Vanillafire, or ripping him in half with rippling muscles you got from a JO sesh with a demon, doesn't make that slaying less Good.

A Wild Sorcerer who is Chaotic to begin with is probably not going to care about the consequences of the random "chaoticness" of his spellcasting, but it's that lack of caution that is going to shift him further towards Chaos, not his continued usage of an unreliable power source. Characters put their faith in or utilize all sorts of unreliable people, objects, and plans all the time and aren't punished for it because they either have a reasonable expectation that things won't go awry or are not the primary actors in something that does (which is all alignment shifts care about--who actually did what, not who told them to in a way that was left open to dangerous interpretation).

>>47456999
Less than half of 3.5 feats were good. The great majority sucked. Realistically you used the same set of feats for most characters based on their role, and a lot of the feats were just shitty tax-feats on actual good ones.

>>47456777
I guess you're going to need to make your character unique by actually roleplaying for once then, won't cha?
Don't worry; it doesn't require dice or rules or anything to do that part, just an imagination.

>>47456999
Isn't that an Unearthed Arcana article?
As in "This is not even playtested, so ask your DM about it and make changes suitable for your campaign."?

And in 3.5e it just came down to knowing what mechanically worked and what didn't, and building around that.

>>47457100
if the rules don't facilitate roleplay and character differentiation, what's the point?

I might as well just do some improv rp.

>>47457106
Most of the level 9 archetype abilities for rogues are on that same level anyway.

And you're spot on about what people actually played in 3.5 if they wanted a character that could survive past level 5.

>>47457026
I suppose that could help, yeah. He hasn't gotten his pact boon yet since we've only played once so far.

I was more asking a more general question about the class and using him as an example.

>>47457056
>>47457069
I guess I did miss that. Still seems less useful than the other casters, though. It seems like Warlock's are more useful for utility stuff, I guess. I've only played core Pathfinder before this so I'm not familiar with the class yet.

>>47456913
>>47457026
Warlocks get up to 9th level spells, they just get a single spell of 6, 7, 8 and 9th levels, in exchange they can shit out 2-3 spells per short rest guaranteed and always at max level (5)
There are also invocations that give extra spells/special skills, and the best damage cantrip in the game

If he picks tome he gets rituals and 2 bonus cantrips from ANY CLASS

If he picks chain he gets a CR1 familiar with the ability to turn invisible or other crazy shit, plus eventually hold monster for free

If he picks blade he gets to always have a magical weapon for any circumstance that he can dismiss at will

As a GOOlock he gets what basically amounts to unlimited telepathy from the start and some of the most awesome mindfuckery spells in the game

Warlock is not just fine, it's fucking fantastic and if you give him a special item you will just have it cross the line into broken

How could I make Hobgoblins into a playable race?

>>47457141
3.5 babbies are spoiled as hell.
We can't help you then if you can't wrap your head around it, sorry mang.

Here's the door >>47449715

Just making sure:
A fire draconic sorcerer can't apply their charisma bonus or elemental adept 1's count as 2s to the web spell, correct?
Specifically the bit about it catching fire and dealing 2d4 damage.

That would mean the minimum for starting your turn it it would change from a measly 2 damage, to more impressive 9, especially since you would be normally hitting them with a fire spell.

>>47457148
I ran a campaign with a warlock player up to level 20. Before level 11, the warlock was less useful than the wizard and sorcerer in the group due to falling back on cantrips so much sooner than them. Once Mystic Arcanum comes online and they start gaining more pact slots, they get a lot more useful. They don't have the greatest high level spell selection but there's something functional of each level.

Warlocks look a lot less impressive when they just Hex and Eldritch Blast all day. When they're dropping multitarget control spells or stuff like Flesh to Stone, Force Cage, Dominate Monster, and Foresight, they look a lot more impressive.

>>47457227
yeah dude, I'm spoiled because I'd like the rules of the roleplaying game I'm playing to facilitate roleplay instead of being told to make it all up. I mean they couldn't even get things as major as the ranger right.

I haven't played D&D in like 2 years, I don't know why you're getting so assblasted.

>>47457294
What kind of feats do you want from 3.5 that aren't in 5e?

>>47452159
I was making a race of cave elves for my custom setting. Then I suddenly remembered Drow. Wew.

>>47457294
You're spoiled because you need to be spoonfed RPing using rules and you literally came on here and immediately whined when you didn't get any.
When you whine as soon as something non-essential is taken away as your FIRST course of action, you are spoiled.

And I'm not angry, but I'm curious why the hell you are wasting your time on a thread about an edition you don't want to play for a game you're not going to enjoy.
That's like, a DOUBLE waste of time.

>>47457077
First, you need a DM who is going to make you roll on every spell.
You have a 5% chance of triggering a roll for a Wild Surge with a cast.
There's 50 options, eight are POTENTIALLY bad, so a 16% chance to get one of these bad rolls.
There is a 0.8% chance that something POTENTIALLY bad is going to happen, assuming you roll every time.

To see how this gets whittled down even further, let's look at something like 13-14 effect for a Wild Surge: you cast Confusion centered on yourself.

There are POTENTIALLY creatures around you.
They are POTENTIALLY not bad guys. Note that this is now the cut-off for alignment shifts, because the confused actions of a creature are neither its fault nor yours.
They POTENTIALLY are not immune AND fail their saves against the spell.
They POTENTIALLY roll the "attack the nearest creature within reach" effect on their turn.
They POTENTIALLY are still within reach of a creature.
That creature is POTENTIALLY not someone you want to get hit; you don't care if enemies hit other enemies.
The attack POTENTIALLY hits.

This is obviously a lot more dangerous if you happen to get something like Fireball centered on you, but a Sorcerer isn't exactly in a position to be casting a lot of touch-ranged non-combat spells on people to begin with.
>hey guys I'm going to Detect Magic now so everyone get 30-60 feet away from me

A kindly anon posted this link

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3414-Is-STORM-KING-S-THUNDER-The-Next-D-D-Storyline#.V0av4WgrKUk

when I asked about the D&D Live at Meltdown product announcement. Thanks, anon.

On the other hand, what the fuck WotC? How is there still no PHB2 or MM2 or some shit? I feel actually kinda mad about this and I don't know why.

Is there any information at all about an actual release like this coming out at some point? I really hoped/expected it this fall but I guess not...

>>47457390
Reminder that originally they wanted to have less classes in the PHB because some of them (ranger, sorc, monk, warlock) weren't really fleshed out enough yet.
Beta testers got angry as fuck and yelled at them for trying to sell more books instead of printing the classes right now.

>>47457208
+1 CON, +1 STR
Medium
25ft speed
Darkvision 60ft
Martial Advantage: Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to a creature you hit with a weapon attack if that creature is within 5 ft. of an ally that isn't incapacitated.

Leadership: You can utter a special command or warning whenever a nonhostile creature that you can see within 30 feet of it makes an attack roll or a saving throw. The creature can add a d4 to its roll provided it can hear and understand you. A creature can benefit from only one Leadership die at a time. Once used this feature cannot be used again until you take a short or long rest.

>>47456777
/tg/'s official 9gag approved list of troll feats:
>Athlete
>Actor
>Dual Wielder
>Dungeon Delver
>Durable
>Elemental Adept
>Grappler
>Inspiring Leader
>Keen Mind
>Mage Slayer
>Martial Adept
>Medium Armor Master
>Savage Attacker

Meme feats:
>Lucky

Well-synergized feats:
>Charger+Mobile
>Charger+Great-Weapon Master for +15 damage and battlefield control
>Sentinel+Polearm Master
>Skulker+Sharpshooter
>Crossbow Expert+Sharpshooter
>Tavern Brawler+Shield Master
>Linguist+Observant
>Keen Mind+Observant
>Sentinel+Great-Weapon Master
>Dual Wielder+Mounted Combatant (enjoy two-weapon fighting with lances)
>Mage Slayer+Sentinel

>>47457077
>usage of a certain power source does not* generally taint characters
Expounding on that, there used to be a few sources (negative energy, typically) that did, and some other spells auto-shifted you, but they're pretty rare. This was mostly to work around the whole "I'm a good Necromancer, I'm raising all these zombies to help kill bugbears" schtick; making zombies in the conventional necromancer way, by pumping them full of negative juju, was always bad, no matter what your intentions or what you went on to do with them. You could eventually overcome that shift, but you still got that shift to begin with.

File: qm12922883276.jpg (32KB, 525x349px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 525x349px

I'm thinking about playing a highfantasy/multiverse spanning campaign. In order to not have to nerf the more powerful outsiders, I was planning on introducing Ambrosia as an rare magical item. It halts natural aging, increases on ability score to 24, and adds your charisma bonus to your armor class, saves, and attacks. I was debating having it change the players type to either fiend, celestial, or fey too. Thoughts?

>>47457461
>Meme feats:
>Lucky
what exactly do you mean by this

>Dual Wielder+Mounted Combatant (enjoy two-weapon fighting with lances)
oh baby.

>>47457461
>Mage Slayer is a troll feat
Only in the sense that you get to troll casters into never targetting you or using all their actions to teleport away.

>>47457390
One is on the way supposedly, but it will be a while

They did a survey about a month ago about what people wanted to see in it

Plus if you want extra content there are the SCAG and EEPC

>>47457436
I'm not sure what stage of play testing you're referring to. I remember monks for most of it at least, but that's also the only class out of those I would normally play

>>47457270
Correct, since the fire damage isn't actually coming from the spell itself, it doesn't count for your fire-based features.

If you set the web on fire with a firebolt, or something, though... you might at least have an argument there, though it's up to your DM at that point.

>>47457356
>And I'm not angry, but I'm curious why the hell you are wasting your time on a thread about an edition you don't want to play for a game you're not going to enjoy.
They're clearly not wasting their time... after all, you're still biting, aren't you?

>>47457499
Probably that people generally speak highly of it and that's just how you say that in sardonic meme-speak.

Or he's referring to that disadvantage turned into super advantage thing with lucky where using lucky when you have disadvantage means you can pick the best of 3 d20's

>>47457340
more weapon specialization options, elemental substitution (why the fuck can I not just play a pyromancer?), alternative uses for class abilities (a lot of the cleric turning ones were cool), monk style feats

interesting archetypes would be nice too. there are so many fantasy archetypes you could do, but they haven't.

>>47457632
>using lucky when you have disadvantage means you can pick the best of 3 d20's
That's still not how that works, but whatever.

>>47456707
Sharpshooter is also more dangerous for rogues because they have higher base damage thanks to Sneak Attack.

>>47457390
>How is there still no PHB2 or MM2 or some shit?
One of the stated goals of 5e is to avoid the huge flood of splatbooks that mired down the previous editions so badly. They want to put out fewer splatbooks, but give each book more time and attention, more meaty material, and higher quality. We've yet to see if they'll succeed on those goals, but that's their plan, anyway.

In the meantime, check out the Unearthed Arcana articles, which have a bunch of new material. It's all early stuff, not very playtested, so the balance is something you'll need to pay attention to, but it's a good source of new material for those who are looking for that.

Me, I'd much rather have two or three well-made, well-tested books per year than one thrown-together pile of shit per month.

>>47457499
>what exactly do you mean by this

>>47457632 Nailed it with >disadvantage turned into super advantage

>WotC can't into english
>fucked up the syntax to give the feat a ridiculous benefit
>"uhhh, yep thats how it owrks :)... all intentional!"

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/21/how-lucky-feat-works/

>>47457643
>weapon specialization
What effects from 3.5 weapon feats aren't covered by 5e feats and low level class features?

>elemental substitution
point taken, though there's enough spell variety for fire, lightning, and cold to focus on those 3 types pretty easily

>alternative uses for cleric turning
That's covered in the domains now.

>Monk style feats
Like what? Most of the monk type feats I can remember anyone using in 3.5 would be covered by a 3 level dip into battle master fighter.

>>47457692
>Me, I'd much rather have two or three well-made, well-tested books per year than one thrown-together pile of shit per month.

if only that was the case

>>47457712
Considering we haven't seen the first splatbook yet, there's literally no way of knowing if that's the case yet or not. I remain cautiously optimistic.

>>47457743
The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was shit.

>>47457712
My gut tells me they are avoiding the 3.0 to 3.5 situation where a lot of the 3.0 content had to be redone after 3.5 came out. They'll at least come up with something for the most problematic existing stuff before really putting out a lot more crunch material.

>>47457743
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide isn't a splatbook? It has race and class options in it. Most of them are good even.

>>47457705
>>47457632
ah, right.
I've actually told my party that's how it works, I should have realized that's where the meme bit came in, apparently that's RAI, which I didn't know.

>>47453672
Either get Int high or Dump it and wait for buffs later on. I played an EK as my first character and was underwhelmed. They aren't that strong in the beginning but get much better with Blur Haste Fly etc.

>>47457709
I don't know about "monk style" but they do sort of lack anything as flashy as sharpshooter or great weapon master. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that dex melee types don't operate exactly the same as strength ones, but they could probably use a bit more love

I came across a PDF of a homebrewed hunter class here a while ago, some kind of derivative of the Witcher. Does anyone happen to have it handy? I'm not having any success in tracking it down myself.

>>47453911
I would say get your ability score upgrade first at least. Average AC of monsters slowly increases with Creature Rating. Get 18 Dex before you multiclass.

About the longbow build, rangers are pretty alright on their own without it. Get the Skulker feat and just pick people off at range while hiding.

Of course if you do want to get extra stuff fighter may be better. Unless you want spells like hunters Mark.

>>47457758
>>47457772
I wouldn't really call SCAG a splatbook. It's a setting book that just happened to have a few mechanical bits in it. Splat books would be something like the core book lines (PHb, MM, DMG II, III, and so on), the Complete lines, that sort of thing.

Setting books have setting info and sometimes a few player options. Splat books are the books that are almost entirely player options.

>>47457819
Dex already does so much that Strength needs its higher damage niche IMO. Battle Master covers so much of what 3.5 tried to accomplish with 100 shitty weapon feats that were part of feat chains with illogical prerequisites.

>>47457712
Well, after the growing pains of Horde of the Dragon Queen and the only okay follow-up that was Rise of Tiamat all the adventures have been pretty damn solid. POTA is a fun traditional D&D campaign with a plot of "fight the evil cult(s)", OOTA is harrowing survival about nobodies rising from the dust to defeat demon lords, Curse of Strahd does the gothic thing really well. Any new mechanical supplements are going to be fighting with the adventures for time and resources, so I'd rather they stick to them while they figure out what they want to do with new mechanics and make them high quality. Rather than rushing out some garbage that's going to haunt us forever as soon as possible.

>>47457855
I must be out of touch with how the average person plays the game. I run my campaigns for long enough that my recurring players haven't had a chance to exhaust what's in the PHB yet.

>>47457845
Blood hunter, mercer's homebrew witcher class

It's in the DMsguild for free, would post mine but it's watermarked because I donated

>>47457709
>What effects from 3.5 weapon feats aren't covered by 5e feats and low level class features?

what if I want to be a whip dude? or really good at throwing weapons? like they could have easily made "Master Thrower" feat or some shit.

>point taken, though there's enough spell variety for fire, lightning, and cold to focus on those 3 types pretty easily

right, but you're just taking spells because you have to at that point and not because they fit with your character concept

there were a ton of alternate cleric turning abilities that could easily fit into a number of the current domains.

>>47457903
That's it, thank you.

>>47457886
It's the divorce between playing and discussing. I bet if you take a survey of nearly any D&D community most of its members are DMs. We play less but theorycraft more and like to discuss the mechanical ins and outs of the system. Thus a glut of splatbook content means that there's more to discuss online, whereas less means we exhaust what content there is faster. Less-bad content with a slower release schedule is better for the health of the game overall though.

>>47457886
I would love for anybody around here to be able to stick with a game for that long. The longest thing I've had around here has been a story-less dungeon crawl with a GM trying to teach himself Pathfinder and refusing to listen to the two long-time Pathfinder players trying to teach it to him.

I would love to have a chance to play a character that actually has an impact on the game world, whose story matters. As it is, the only enjoyment I get out of gaming with my local groups (other than hanging out with friends) is getting a chance to try out new mechanical combinations every few weeks, because all the games are nothing but short-lived excuses to fight some random group of monsters.

But there's not a ton of interest in 5e anyway, so I still haven't gone through all the possibilities in the core books either.

>>47457928
>really good at throwing weapons
Take Dual Wielder.
Ask your DM if Sharpshooter can apply to throwing weapons or make that "Master Thrower" functionally identical with them.

>whip dude
There's not exactly feats for guys who want to be good at rapiers, hammers, or the net, either. You've got shield guys, fat two-handing guys, and a handful of polearms.

>>47457956
Oh man, I feel for you. My players have hit level 9 in OOTA at last and it's almost the highest we've ever gotten. Surpassed only by a short campaign where we leveled up once a session and had hit level 13 when it crashed and burned.

It's amazing fun looking back at the characters as level 1 scrubs and now having them be powerful adventurers schmoozing with kings and leaders.

>>47457928
>whip
Sentinel makes good use of the range of a whip. Duelist fighting style adds damage to it. Battle Master maneuvers like Disarming Strike and Trip Attack fit a lot of the stereotypical whip maneuvers. What can't you do with a whip in 5e that you could in 3.5?

>throwing weapons
Sharpshooter applies to throwing weapons. Duelist fighting style applies to throwing weapons. Battle Master maneuvers again cover special effects. What's missing?

I'm confused about the point with the spells. In one hand you say you want to be a pyromancer (the most supported element in 5e) and then you say you're just taking spells because you have to. Which is it?

>>47457928
>>47457643
>>47457709
They got rid of weapon focus/specialization/expertise/whatever for two reasons. First, it was the most glaringly obvious form of feat tax. Everyone who hit things with weapons needed to take it to keep up. Second, it meant you were constantly finding loot you couldn't use and agonizing over whether to use a backup weapon that was more appropriate for the situation but you weren't specialized in. It wasn't fun because it deprived you of options both at character creation and during play.

It's bad enough that they kept the feats for crossbows and polearms. Good riddance to all the rest.

>>47454952

Humanity would do this to elves, we've done similar to ourselves.

All the martials get maneuvers now.
What niche do you give to Battle Masters now besides "slightly better at it"?

>>47457928
Just what do you want to do with a whip that you can't do?

>>47458043
Exclusive access to the maneuvers that you shouldn't be able to attempt just because you know how to use weapons, like disarming a guy or fighting defensively.

>>47458043
does the battlemaster need to exist once you've done that? the general bland flavour of the subclass is a hint that it's only there as a vehicle for that mechanic.

>>47458028
Weapon focus/specialization/expertise is now called fighting style under fighter, paladin, and ranger. And thank goodness they didn't make you pick specific weapon types.

>>47458043
If everyone gets maneuvers, that should include fighters. Fighters pick champion, eldritch knight, etc. and also get maneuvers.

>>47458043
This is a terrible idea

But if you were to do something this retarded there are several courses of action
>exclusive manouvers
>higher dice
>free feats
>free proficiencies

>>47458043
That would be silly. It would also free up the Battlemaster to be more of a Lazylord kind of Fighter spec.

If I were to do that I'd make Commander's Strike 100% a Battlemaster thing, and give them a bunch of abilities based on shouting at people to make them hit harder and faster.

Thinking about it it'd be Purple Dragon Knight but with Commander's Strike.

>>47458008
>Sentinel makes good use of the range of a whip. Duelist fighting style adds damage to it. Battle Master maneuvers like Disarming Strike and Trip Attack fit a lot of the stereotypical whip maneuvers. What can't you do with a whip in 5e that you could in 3.5?

Not have to play a battlemaster?

>Sharpshooter applies to throwing weapons.

The power attack functionality doesn't, and it doesn't help with being limited on weapon draw actions unless you take the dual wield feat.

>Battle Master maneuvers again cover special effects. What's missing?

Gee, I really love being shoehorned into this class (that offers little rp flavor) in order to make a competitive build.

>I'm confused about the point with the spells. In one hand you say you want to be a pyromancer (the most supported element in 5e) and then you say you're just taking spells because you have to. Which is it?

Yes, you are taking spells because you have to - if I want to play an cold magic caster, I'm eventually going to run out of cold spells to take. This was easily fixed in 3.5 with energy substitution. My icemancer taking web because I've run out of appropriate ice spells makes no sense.

>monk/paladin multiclass

Can it work? my understanding on the unarmed strike errata is that it qualifies for smite & dueling style etc

>>47453829
Speaking as a DM that likes to challenge my players: Talk to them about it.

If my players don't come through by the skin of their teeth, then I feel like I did a shit job at DMing. I like my players to feel like they're earning their victory.

If you'd like your DM to tone it down a little bit, talk it over with them (and double check with the other members, some of them might enjoy challenging campaigns and that's why he's running hard on you guys) and they'll likely bring it down a little bit.

>>47454064
That kind of campaign is basically the only situation that the ranger isn't shit. As long as you have one or two terrains that you do most of your adventuring in, they're decent. However I think most campaigns that aren't official adventures are just randomly strung together quests, going from area to area.

>>47458240
So you want to be good at fighting but object to multiclassing the class called fighter, which is "better than you" at swinging weapons? Weapon builds in 3.5 frequently dipped 2 levels of fighter because of the bonus feats. 3.5 fucked the fighter over by making all it's class features disguised as feats that every other class could take.

Why do you need 10 different spells to do cold damage with? That's what spell slot scaling is for. Just because you're a cold caster doesn't mean you don't also have a use for hypnotic pattern, hold person, blindness, shield, counterspell, etc.

>>47456777
>>47456999
How can one person get so many trips, and still be so wrong?

>>47458337
Edition war trolling for (You)s

>>47458240
You complained about not being able to specialize, but you don't want to take the class that best fits one of those specializations?

It seems that your problem with 5th ed is that it's still new. If you took just 3.5's core book you'd feel just as limited. Give it a few years and there will inevitably be more books for specialization, but given the way WotC has been handling it so far they still wont be what you're looking for.

The problem is that what you liked about 3.5 is what a lot of people disliked.

>>47457439
Ok this is interesting, why the 25ft movement speed, and no proficiencies? I'd expect some proficiencies.

>>47458246
The problem would be that both monks and paladin features are competing for your bonus actions. You'd probably lose out of less if you just picked up tavern brawler

>>47458383
Martial Advantage and Leadership are that strong.

>>47456999
Dude, it's a character, not a Magic the Gathering deck.

Part of what's great about 5e is that you can play basically any character you want, and it'll still be useful in some capacity. For all the talk about how many options 3.pf has, 98% of them are utter SHIT, so most character concepts don't actually make any sense to use if you plan on surviving.

In 5e, you can make choices based on the story and what it would make sense for your character to do. You can play fairly unoptimized builds and they'll be able to keep up fine (hell, look at how many people manage to have fun with the ranger).

>>47458394
Nah, I don't like that very much. I'd get rid of Leadership for proficiencies similar to Elf Weapon Training.

Why do rangers only get 4 out of the 6 fighting styles? What's wrong with a ranger that wields a greatsword? What am I missing here?

>>47457439
>Martial Advantage: Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to a creature you hit with a weapon attack if that creature is within 5 ft. of an ally that isn't incapacitated.
No limit sneak attack... I wanna say that this steps on the rogue's toes but then again the half orc gets an 11th level barbarian class feature for free racially.

I think it would be more reasonable for that to be a d4 though.

>>47458246
>>47458387
Plus, you're now Dex/Con/Wis/Cha, and likely running low on ASI's unless you plan very carefully.

>>47458437
That's cool if that's your preference but Leadership is a non-magical version of one of the best spells in the game

>>47458458
That's precisely why I think it's too strong for a race to have by default.

>>47458103
Why wouldn't Fighters be included in "all martials"?

>>47458500
You're agreeing with what I wrote so I don't know why you're asking.

>>47458448
>Why do rangers only get 4 out of the 6 fighting styles? What's wrong with a ranger that wields a greatsword? What am I missing here?
Neither of the Holy Two (Aragorn and Drizz't) used two-handed weapons, so your Ranger isn't allowed to either. It's the same reason Paladins don't get archery or two-weapon styles... apparently there's just no room in WotC's imagination for a holy archer or dual-wielder (despite the fucking awesome image of a plate-clad paladin wading into battle with a pair of Holy Avengers).

One of my first house rules was that Fighting Style grants any style, not limited by class.

>>47458522
They probably wanted rangers more dex specialized while paladin's more str to make the two classes feel more different

File: 1463818959453.jpg (29KB, 300x260px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x260px

>show up to 1st session in new campaign
>friend of one of our regular players is playing, let's call him Tom
>everyone hands our DM their character sheets
>standard stuff, 1 or 2 characters are extremely well written
>get to Tom
>''I'm playing a Rogue whose family was murdered by demons and now he hunts demons but also blames the world''
>make a mental note that I will probably have to pack up my dice soon
>start playing
>we all get to town
>first thing Tom does is rob the inn keeper
>he gets spotted by a regular patron at the bar
>he gets kicked out of inn, inn keeper threatens to call the guards if he comes back
>Tom: ''Is there an alchemist shop in town?''
>DM: ''Yea, it's not very big bu-''
>Tom: ''I go buy a bunch of alchemist fire and burn the Inn down''

We ended shortly after the guards tried to rescue the innocent people in the Inn, all while Tom's character ''Laughs from the shadows at the foolish scum''. He came up to one of our players after the session and said how he hopes the DM will include his secret backstory about he is half devil and his devil ancestor is in a war with the demons. This was 2 hours ago, fucking kill me.

File: aragornarmydead_300x225.jpg (21KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x225px

>>47458522
Aragorn did hold his sword in both hands. So did Minsc, for the record.

>>47458573
>next session
>A gate to the Abyss opens and a pack of demons drag Sir Edgelord away for eternal torture

Hey, it was in his backstory

>>47458573
This doesn't exactly sound like the perfect crime. Unless your DM just doesn't give a shit that sounds like a bounty is about to pop up

>>47458448
>Why do rangers only get 4 out of the 6 fighting styles? What's wrong with a ranger that wields a greatsword? What am I missing here?

Nothing majorly, but it's a theming thing. A class's flavour is defined by what it can't do as much as what it can. So a Ranger can't go HAM with a big fuckoff sword like a Fighter (whose whole thing is versatility) or a Paladin can They're also meant to be independent, so they don't get the Protection ability to defend their allies as well as the others. Similarly a Paladin must stand at the vangaurd smashing faces with either a huge weapon or a shield to defend his allies. It also helps differentiate the classes mechanically, Rangers will lean towards Archery or TWF which interact well with them and their dex-based nature. While Paladins will tend to favour heavy armor and strength weapons, which do more damage in line with their very burst-heavy mechanics.

>>47458571
Funny thing is ranger mechanics work better with 2-handed weapons than with dual wielding. Any turn you use a bonus action for something besides an off hand hit, the 2 hander is better.

>>47458573
>This was 2 hours ago, fucking kill me.
No. You fucking kill him. In game or out, your choice.

>>47458585
Yeah, my point was more about the perception of the "proper Ranger" and "proper Paladin". I couldn't remember for sure, but I figured that Aragorn would have two-handed his one sword at some point, it's just that the overwhelming perception of Aragorn is as a dual-wielder (mostly because of that one scene with the torch, and people being fucking idiots).

>>47458622
That's true for both really, but rangers are probably best off with bows due to their spells and the hunter archetype. Dual wielding seems kind of like a bad investment that's mostly only good for low levels in general to me

>>47458383
Because I fucked up the move speed, and I took both those features from the MM entries, and they are really great

>>47458476
It's a race with +1s in its bonuses
Literally worse than a variant half-elf with guidance

>>47458516
Your first post was restating an implicit so I don't know why you made it.

>>47458667
Guidance doesn't do attack rolls and saving throws for a whole party at once. It's more like Bless.

>>47458667
>It's a race with +1s in its bonuses
>Literally worse than a variant half-elf with guidance

I was thinking of going to take a sort of average from all the hobgoblin entries for the stat bonuses. Like +2 STR and +1 INT.

>>47458722
The point was you don't need a battle master at that point. You're already rolling its features into the other fighter archetypes.

>>47456207

Character I have planned really isn't going to be a joke, constant screw-up character, just with a guilt complex due to Wild Magic surges as a child. Well meaning and composed but that magic can have a mind of its own.

Kinda want to build a character a bit out of the norm to encourage creativity among the new players.

>>47456277

I may try to balance a toolkit that is more for support than just me nuking the shit out of the enemy.

File: aragorn.jpg (104KB, 736x1185px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 736x1185px

>>47458585
i had the same thought so i looked it up. he wields it one-handed in the books (which makes sense because he's huge).

two-handing looks cooler though, and viggo is not 6'6'', so it's no wonder they used that in the film.

Hey /5eg/, three questions about class options and such-

-What would be the best for brewing grenade weapons like acid flasks, alchemist fire, and bombs? I'd thought it'd be Transmutation Wizards but I didn't think it was right.
-Any official options for crafting weapons/armor as of yet?
-Would someone care to post the .pdf for the Vampire prestige class? I know it's a race option in Zendikar but there was a Prestige Class someone posted in a thread a couple weeks ago and I forgot to save it.

File: 1457439522436.jpg (31KB, 470x512px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 470x512px

>>47458815
>6'6''
I did not realize that Aragorn was that fucking tall. I really need to reread Lord of the Rings

>>47458751
The point was what the Battle Master should become.

>>47458840
Is that particularly huge for Middle Earth dudes?
I know Aragorn's one of the last of the super-human race but I wouldn't be surprised if more humans were that huge.

>>47458869
And their point, in turn, was that it should become nonexistent, because there would no longer be a place for that archetype at all.

>>47458831
There's an artificer archetype for wizards in UA, but it isn't very good. Transmuters are the closest thing to a class that makes magic items that's official as far as I know. Per the DM's guide it's 25gp of progress for an 8 hour day towards magic items, but that's for anyone with magic. Making up a feat with your DM is probably the best way to do it

>>47458731
You can only use leadership once per rest

>>47458732
It's what I did, the only standout scores are str and con

>>47458831
Anything that gets you proficiency with alchemical equipment would work for your first question.
Crafting is on page 187 of the Players Handbook. They've made crafting into a pretty simple affair that just requires the right proficiency, money, and time.

I also need that vampire archetype, the Vampire class from 4th ed was one of my favorite things about it.

>>47458925
Thanks, that seems like a good option.
>>47458991
Ugggh, I forgot all about that, thanks for reminding me.

>>47458913
It was a post about what niche to give it, not "should we delete it". Giving it a niche implies it's still around.

File: 1463525372096.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47458831

>>47458956
Ok, some of this is taken from a 5e racial building guide example.

+2 STR, +1 CON.
60ft Darkvision.
Martial Advantage that scales:
1d6 at 1st lvl
2d6 at 5th lvl
3d6 at 11th lvl
4d6 at 17th lvl
Weapon Proficiencies: Longsword, Longbow, Greatsword, Javelin.

How's that?

>>47459079
>Martial Advantage that scales:
>1d6 at 1st lvl
>2d6 at 5th lvl
>3d6 at 11th lvl
>4d6 at 17th lvl

>literally unrestricted sneak attack as a racial ability

This must be a troll.

>>47459079
Giving easy-to-access extra damage on that scale would be pretty bad design. Half-orcs get a pass because it only triggers on 5% of attacks. I would dump martial advantage altogether, honestly, come up with something more flavorful.

>>47458956
Yeah, and leadership once per rest is really good. Not "broken", good. I like it.
>>47459079
I think in older editions hobgoblins weren't a str/con race. I also remember at least one setting where they favored flails and blunt weapons. There's already enough sword love going around.

>>47459062
Not that guy, but it's sort of a dead end conceptually if you take out the special technique part. If I had to keep it and not just replace it with a new concept I'd probably expand on the "know your enemy" angle and just give it abilities related to identifying and exploiting enemy weaknesses. Maybe give it some wisdom ability score related perks just for the sake of their being a fighter class that has that niche and it tying into the identifying part a little

>>47459111
Sneak Attack is granted also by advantage, this is not.

>>47459167
>unrestricted sneak attack
>unrestricted
Nice reading comprehension, dumbass.

>regards that it shits all over a class's main feature by being triggered on 100% of attacks
>still is deluded as to consider this acceptable

>>47459150
3.5 made Hobgoblins Dex/Con.
>>47459079
That Martial Advantage is too strong unless it's like once per short rest.

>>47459150
I'm just going by the weapons used in the 5e MM. I may swap out something for a scimitar because I like curved swords.

>>47459079
>>47459111
>>47459140
The DMG has the hobgoblin race and it gives:
No ability scores
Martial Advantage
Darkvision 60

That's literally it

I added some stats and a nerfed version of leadership as per the MM

Again, this is all literally off the official published books with only 3 minor balance changes

If you want to change stuff further then that's on you

>>47459205
>>47459209
I failed to mention Martial Advantage requires a bonus action to use.

Hello /5eg/, noobish player here.

Are there guides available out there? Fourth or so session in, I feel like we're playing wrong. We keep getting our asses kicked by random encounters, it may be due to me not being to roll over 10 any time ever, or the DM rolling a lot of 20s, but I feel like we're missing something.
We're playing an introductory scenario, the party consists of a Rogue, a Fighter and me as a druid.

>>47459252
That makes for a shit PC race.

Just to help with this problem here is the guide i'm using.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/pub

>>47459255
Oh, just a guaranteed +4d6 damage on every turn because lol why not! Just a casual two never-miss off-hand greatsword swings for being a hobgoblin

>>47459296
At 17th level.

>>47459296
>Just a casual two never-miss off-hand greatsword swings

No, it's added damage to an attack. You still need to hit. Also, that's 4d6 at 17th level and requires a bonus action, meaning it only happens once per turn it you hit.

>>47459312
Serious question: do you suffer from asperger's syndrome? You seem to be incapable of self-criticism.

Just because the monster has some ability in the MM does not mean that that ability would be balanced to implement in a PC race.

>>47459283
Again, you do you, but what I wrote up comes directly from the DMG and MM

>>47459283
I'm thinking martial advantage might just be kind of shit for a player race. It's too good at low levels, and making it relevant at higher ones is also kind of fucked.

>>47459256
Oh shit nigga, it's your lucky day. My DM made this AMAZING document for me that helped me out a ton when I first started playing D&D. Gimme a sec, lemme see if I can find it

>>47459339
No I don't. I just don't actually see what that problem actually is. I'm genuinely confused, 4d6 at 17th level seems rather inconsequential to me. Maybe you could explain more clearly why this is actually a big issue?

>>47458731
Yes, but bless can be used multiple times a turn by many characters. This only works 1/rest.

I don't know why you think this is strong. If anything its very underpowered compared to things like the half-orcs ability to never die, or free elven cantrips.

If anything I would make it a number of times per short rest equal to cha mod minimum one.

I'm thinking of making a kind of compadrito themed halfling for a game that's coming up. I'm going for the Sword College Bard, throwing daggers.

Any other things I should do? How many levels can I safely multiclass for flavor without fucking up?

>>47459339
4d6 for your bonus action at level 17 isn't incredibly strong anon. I would rather have GWM (and use the bonus action from GWM instead too)

>>47459390
It's an issue because it's just damage for free. Fighters need to expend superiority dice to stack damage ontop of their attacks, and that maxes out at 1d12 per expenditure. Hunter rangers need to dedicate an archetype feature to deal an extra 1d8 once per round on a hit. Barbarians throw +4 damage onto their attacks after level 16 (+4 is the MINIMUM of 4d6). Granting a free additional 4d6 damage per turn as a racial ability shits all over and outperforms all of these (and more).

>>47459256
What you're missing may be a fourth player. It's generally assumed that a party will have 4 or 5 players.

The most basic tactics are to always gang up on one enemy at a time, never split the party, and focus your healing on keeping everyone conscious rather than keeping everyone at max HP.

>>47457436
>>47457524
>>47457692

Yeah, I was pleased with SCAG. I haven't been keeping up to date with UA, though.

I applaud their efforts to avoid 3.5e splat hell. I dumped loads of cash on stupid 3.5e/third-party d20 stuff back in the early 2000s and to be honest the majority of it was trash even then without the benefit of hindsight making it look even worse. I'm glad they're trying to avoid that.

I feel, however, that something hard to define is missing without properly tested, high quality first-party core supplements (as opposed to SCAG-like settings/adventures). Like, a presence? I don't know how to define what I feel is missing, it just sort of feels like 5e is undersupported, or at least it's hard to see what support theyre hard at work on when it's just a setting book every year and no real tangible sign of a big authoritative core supplement.

I recognize that this perceived lack of something being hard to define and wholly subjective is pretty nonsense, it's just ~my feeling~ on the subject. And I can't shake it.

File: The Unofficial Guide to Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47459256
Here you go. It's a little bit dense, but there's a lot of really great shit in there. Give it a chance, I hope it helps you too

>>47459545
Does it have lolis?

>>47459545
>>47459526
Thanks!

>>47459545
Not gonna lie, I heh'd.

That'll teach me to thank people before opening up links!

>>47459071
Thanks, man.

>>47459511
Thanks for explaining your point. I understand it much better now. What if instead of Martial Advantage I instead used the Leadership hobgoblin characteristic?

>>47459395
>Any other things I should do?
Make sure your DM doesn't know about draw restrictions so you can actually throw two daggers in your first round of combat.

>>47459609
Leadership sounds fine.

>>47459639
Is there a way to quickdraw?

>>47459609
+2 STR, +1 CON.
60ft Darkvision.
Weapon Proficiencies: Longsword, Longbow, Greatsword, Javelin.
Tactics (Leadership):1 minute duration, non hostile creature within 30ft can add 1d4 to any attack roll or saving throw. Creature can only benefit from one die at a time. Recharges on Short or Long rest.

File: 5e_PHB_Feats_Dual-Wielder.png (41KB, 331x183px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 331x183px

>>47459675

File: image.jpg (51KB, 262x257px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 262x257px

Instead of having a singular entity as a Warlock patron, would it be possible to have a group instead? For example, a pantheon, cartel, or a court. How would you play a Warlock whose masters' wills and goals don't always align? How would such a pact come about, and what would be the cost?

>>47459696
Why are you so obsessed with giving weapon proficiencies?

Are there official dire flails yet?

>>47459772
They're significantly underpowered compared to other races without them, and Hobgoblins are very martial creatures, it makes sense they would know how to use weapons.

>>47459800
A large flail has double damage dice

File: orcdireaxe.jpg (7KB, 435x202px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 435x202px

>>47459800

>>47459735
Have your character start by enacting deeds that are unanimously decided by the group as what should be done. But as they get stronger have singular entities call on him/her to further their goals for more personal power at risk of being found out.

Picking between the patrons you worship sounds like a powerful character building event.

>>47459675
Convince your DM that if a guy can walk around with a shield on his arm all day and pull his sword or whip a giant greataxe off his back out when surprised, you can pull two daggers out when surprised, or at least always have a dagger in hand. The "necessity" of Dual Wielder to pull out both your weapons at the same time is absolutely retarded. Nothing is broken by allowing TWFers to actually TWF right off, or from letting characters make as many throwing attacks as they have attacks and ammo (how the fuck is a Fighter throwing 8-9 javelins worse than him firing 8-9 arrows?)

>>47459826
You already tailored them to martial classes, in which case the proficiencies are redundant. Those proficiencies don't matter unless you're trying to make a caster using the SCAG cantrips.

File: spikedsap.jpg (8KB, 231x302px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 231x302px

>>47459829

>>47459735
Well I had this idea of a fiend patron warlock whose patron is actually a demon-enslaving church. They capture scores of mid and low level demons and "harvest" their magic, granting it to their champions

>>47459800
Just ask your DM if you can treat it like a longsword/warhammer. D8 for single handed and D10 for two hands. Makes no sense why you can't use it the same as either of those weapons.

>>47459863
I'm not worried about that because Dwarves and Elves then also have redundant weapon proficiencies.

>>47459891
The dire flail was one of those weird double weapons in 3.5. Dual Wielder feat with a flail in each hand replicates the functionality.

>>47459863
Pretty much this, i think he's just trying to tailor a custom hobgoblin race to whatever it is he has in mind

File: Screenshot_2016-05-26-18-10-40-1.png (2MB, 1403x1611px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1403x1611px

For future reference

File: Immortals.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47459735
Just crib the Immortal Spheres from BECMI. Check the part about what the Spheres are and then how the Councils work, maybe read some of the individual Immortal bios.

In the case of a 5E Warlock, their patron is a whole council which controls access to or understanding of a power source, but they are not the source of power themselves. This is actually pretty much exactly how every other Warlock patron works (a Fiend teaches you magical secrets, he doesn't empower you directly like Gods used to do for Clerics).

>>47460058
Those are no good for PC race options.

>>47460058
>no playable races get +2wis
>WotC releases playable race Aarakocra
>nerf to +1wis

For what purpose?

>>47460100
Except for the ones that are literally PC options

>>47454713

Care to mention one of those better ways?

(Not that guy but interested)

>>47460106
Because apparently flying 50 feet is OP

They should have taken the hit to dex instead to wis though, but whatever

>>47460058
>no Duergar
what.

>>47460135
Not the other guy either but multiclassing is the best way to pull off the more half and half characters

And warlock, but it requires feat investment

>>47460158
>Aarakocra Ranger
>Hunter Multiattac Whirlwind
>Mobile Feat
>Pump dex and wis

>drop down in concentrated group of enemies
>whirlwind them all with a rapier for 1d8+dex
>also throw a horde breaker in there
>fly away taking no opportunity attacks

Now I just need to find a game...

>>47457486

Why Charisma specifically? Lots of classes use that as a dump stat. Maybe have it be a selection of stats?

I'd also make it increase the ability score and increase the cap over flat out making it 24.

>>47460228
Or you could just stay high up in the air and volley+horde breaker

>>47460326
>the concept of an aarakocra stomping down in the middle of a horde of enemies mid-battle, slicing them all up and then launching back upwards is fucking badass
but
>Volley is objectively better than whirlwind
>there is literally no reason to take whirlwind unless you're a strength ranger for some reason

why is wotc so bad at game design

New campaign setting book when?

>>47459154

doesn't monster hunter already have wisdom as an important score?

also, I think it should just be the best martial dice user. Give it some unique maneuvers, have them learn more, make their dice a grade higher, etc.

Not that I think every martial class gaining maneuvers is necessarily a good idea. Some of them hardly need it anyways (Rogues).

>>47458240

>(that offers little rp flavor)

probably the least true thing i've read so far

>>47458878
Aragorn's average for being part Numenorean. But he's very tall for a normal man.

>>47460413
You know, whirlwind+horde breaker with a greatsword actually doesn't sound half bad, plus you can grapple a guy too and do something really retarded

>>47460452
Battlemaster knows all maneuvers but can only access a handful at a time which he prepares the day before like a wizard.

The argument for all martials getting maneuvers isn't that some classes need them more than others, its just so that martials can have variety in combat.

>>47460452
My perfect system would involve a whole shitload of maneuvers which are shared across classes, but they have stat or class requirements. You can lock some of them as Barbarian-only, while others might require you to have 16 Dex (and therefore be more oriented towards Rogues, but not leaving out some high-level Barbs or ranged Fighters). Some of those could have mental stat requirements as well if you wanted to replicate more Warlord-y stuff or the stuff that wasn't explicitly magical in Bo9S.

>>47460488
People who only played 3.5 actually believe that because fighters had nothing unique in that edition. They were a trap class except for a 2 level dip.

>>47460513

Yeah, this was actually my initial thought too. He practices his maneuvers.

>>47460514

I still stand by not every class having them. Rogues are really good already, they don't necessarily need martial dice.

>>47460452
But monster hunter is UA

Don't get me wrong, I like it personally but I'm not counting on it until it gets an official release

And it already kinda has manouvers, they're just hard-coded

>>47460513
I'd like to see maneuvers with out-of-combat utility. Not necessarily on the level of the martial die stuff that allows for Fly speed (jumping, really) or somehow Charming people, but stuff that you can spend as an actual resource so the DM goes along with your request of Flying Dragon Kicking the door without needing you to roll higher than a 17 on a d20.

Magic users get away with stuff because they spend resources to do it, and once that's out, they're much less useful. If the fighty-types could also expend portions of their in-combat power out of combat, players and DMs would probably be cooler with them doing (super)heroic stuff.

>>47460557

is it wrong for me to like both of those? they're kind of simple, but there's something enjoyable about them at the same time.

>>47460452
I wasn't really counting unearthed arcana stuff. I don't like the idea of a better martial dice user for the same reasons I wouldn't want a wizard archetype that had more spell slots than the others. Expanding on what the class can do or giving a niche specialization rather than directly improving a core mechanic feels like a better way to handle it to me.

File: The_Book_of_Weeaboo_Fightan_Magic.jpg (42KB, 360x471px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 360x471px

>>47460514
So 4e? Come on now

If you like 4e so much just take all the martial at-wills, balance them with regular attacks and put them in a pdf

And please put this on the cover so I can ban it on sight

>>47460623
>filenames_like_this.jpg
Why? You might as well put on a trip at this point, you'd hardly be more conspicuous.

Is there a proper class tier list yet?

>>47459639
>Make sure your DM doesn't know about draw restrictions so you can actually throw two daggers in your first round of combat.
Or just walk around with at least one dagger already drawn when you're in a dangerous area.

>>47460552
Fighters are also really good already. So are Barbs. They're just not useful outside of a fight in the way that other classes are.

What Rogue feature is giving them extra usefulness in exploration and social situations? They have an easier time with rolls thanks to Expertise and Natural Talent, but these don't exactly open any doors that they or other classes didn't already have.

Cunning Action and Fast Hands don't mean anything outside of a fight unless a DM is going to rule that you take slightly less time to perform these actions. Supreme Sneak is, again, just rolling slightly better. Second-Story Work removes a climb speed penalty and lets you jump five feet further at best, and that's really the most "useful" thing I see. Infiltration Expertise and Imposter are the sort of stuff you wouldn't disallow any other class from attempting, the Rogue just gets to establish himself unfailingly while a DM would probably ask what part of a character's background gives them the skills to forge an identity (and there are numerous actual Backgrounds that imply skill here). Mage Hand Leg--nope, that's just magic.

And the archetype that gives Barbarians utility usually has that stuff come at the expense of better combat options and is a magical archetype besides.

>>47460690
No, because no one can agree on shit besides the Four Elements Monk and Beast Master Ranger being the worst and bards being generally the best.

>>47459544
I think the perception isn't yours alone, but it's based on the past.
Previously we were used to D&D having the vast majority of shelf space because it was the big titan on the battlefield.
Now, unless the team has significantly expanded it's like what, 8 or 9 people?

And as a result, they're also going into the market with the thought of sharing the space with competitors instead of trying to drown out the competition, because trying to drown them just leads to losses from individual books not selling enough.

So in comparison, yes, 5e is very undersupported, in a world where D&D is no longer trying to be the titan, it's got about as much support as RPGs that don't try to flood you with 50 different class options every two months.

>>47460623
what's wrong with weeaboo fightan and 4e

>>47460719
Also the classes aren't nearly as far apart as they are in 3.5 or PF so it wouldn't really serve any purpose aside from creating an endless debate

>>47460719
Which, in my opinion is how it should be. Everything is balanced and flavorful enough that all options are fun. I'd still play as a Beast Master or a Four Elements Monk because they are fun.

>>47460135
Best: Valor Bard, Warrior/Mage MC
Doable: Bladesinger Wizard, Dragon or Favored Soul Sorcerer, Blade Pact Warlock, Abjurer Wizard, Non-Valor Bard

Also, Mountain Dwarf makes it easy to turn most any mage into a semi-gish, just because you get a solid martial weapon and medium armor right off the bat. A Mountain Dwarf Abjurer Wizard makes a decent gish, for example, as long as you make good use of temporary hit points to cover for your crap hit die.

>>47460673
I honestly have no idea what you mean by that
I got that picture from 1d4chan

>>47460765
Nothing per se, I just get triggered by the "martials aren't interesting" meme

>>47460860
but what can you do with a martial

>>47460719
Damn. Thanks, anyway.
>>47460778
Please get over yourself at any time.

>>47460883
You can be batman

Martials were made for people who can improvise and think on the fly and for people who just want to hit shit with a stick

Two very different groups and they both get what they want

If you just want to read spell descriptions all day just play a caster, if you want to fight *and* read spells then play a gish

>>47460965
>Martials were made for people who can improvise and think on the fly
why can't casters

>>47460883
Beg your DM to allow any random shit you can think of.
Call him a shit DM if he doesn't, and make threads about it on /tg/
It's a win-win.

>>47460988
Because spells say specifically what they do, nothing more, nothing less

>>47460965
>be a wizard
>improvise and think on the fly
>read spell descriptions
>improvise and think on the fly using your spell descriptions

>>47460815
Never mind, I just keep seeing
>filenames_like_that.jpg
and I've gotten paranoid because there was a persistent troll who used that format exclusively

>>47460965
>>47460988
>>47461031
Martials = can't go wrong
Casters = arguably better, but you need to know which spells are good and relevant at the given moment, and you have to keep track of which ones you know and which ones are prepared etc.

File: spoiler.jpg (26KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x500px

>New DM and players to 5E, otherwise decently experienced
>DM wants us to start at 9th level
>An arcane trickster rogue, thief rogue, battlemaster fighter, bard, and barbarian party
>No cleric or druid
>Rolling with it because we decide RP is more important to us

How screwed are we?

>>47461098
You're perfectly fine, have the thief take the healer feat

File: 5e_Build_Ranger-Fighter_Hunter_Greatsword.png (18KB, 914x370px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 914x370px

Rolled 2, 2, 1, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 5, 6, 6, 1, 5, 1, 4, 1, 3, 2, 5 = 71 (20d6)

>>47460623
>>47460815
Don't worry about it anon, he's one of my fans who is obsessed with me to the point that he (thinks he) knows the format I name my files under.

>>47460502
I was actually working on a little build along those lines today. pic related.

>charge into group of enemies with greatsword
>whirlwind
>GWM power attacks
>disarming strike a couple of them
>pushing attack the disarmed foes 15ft away from their weapons
>walk away from the horde taking opporunity attacks at disadvantage
>stand adjacent to the weaponless opponents such that they need to disengage to retrieve them
>horde breaker one of them
>GWM
>sentinel when they try to disengage and retrieve their weapons

>>47461086
You literally can't do that

>>47461135
No, have the Trickster take it

>put a healing kit on everyone's belt
>enjoy bonus action Healer feat healing from 30ft range

>>47461098

You don't need a healer. Healing isn't usually that great anyways. Plus, the bard learns healing spells.

>>47461157
Just make sure when people need healing they sheathe their weapon(s) and use their action to hold the bag open so the mage hand can use it

>>47461078
>You create a sound or an image of an object within range that lasts for the duraton. The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an acton or cast this spell again.
>If you create an image of an object—such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest—it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can’t create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory efect. Physical interacton with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. If a creature uses its acton to examine the sound or image, the creature can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investgation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature.
The "improvise and think on the fly" use of this spell is obvious. Say a Sorcerer casts Minor Illusion to create a flipped-over table and hides behind it. This happens out of a creature's view, so it's not immediately obvious that this table is unnatural or out of place for the room (if you're outdoors, it's a rock or something). A creature who sees this object, even if he knows there's a creature behind it, is unlikely to make ranged attacks at this enemy who is in cover. The spell doesn't say it grants cover (because it doesn't), but a creature would not be inclined to try their luck anyway. It would take a full action to potentially discern the object as fake, which is even better than not taking a shot at the sorcerer.

Because the spell is largely open-ended in what it can create, you are limited only by your imagination and creativity in what you can potentially fool enemies or other creatures into believing. This "nothing more, nothing less" spell description gives you a wealth of utility to play around with which comes from a creature's reasonable expectations of reality and interaction; it isn't "the target makes a Wisdom saving throw and either ignores you or trips and falls prone on a failure".

>>47461137
That works great actually

>>47461078
but they can be used in creative ways, can't they

>>47461137
Well you burned all your resources but it's alright

I assume you don't think you're disarming and pushing-attacking those guys on the same turn though without an action surge,

>>47461291
Other than illusion spells, not at all

File: 5e_SA_Healers-Kit_Mage-Hand.png (62KB, 811x793px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 811x793px

>>47461258

>>47461261
But that's not being creative or thinking on the fly, that is following the spell description to the letter, which is all you can do

>>47461357
That doesn't go against what I said at all though

If you strap open healer's kits to the other's belts the contents will get tossed out as they move and fight

To use a healer's kit it has to be held open by someone so that the mage hand can use it

>>47461340
>>47461368
Gee, if only there were someone involved in the game whose sole purpose was to do things like adjudicate improvised actions and decide what is and is not a valid use of an ability. Somebody who could listen to a proposed use of a spell that may or may not involve a use the spell's description doesn't explicitly mention, and decide whether or not that use makes sense and fits the power level of the spell.

Gee, I guess we'll never have anything like that, will we...

>>47461317
Oh, you're right I fucked up.

I originally intended:

>whirldwind
>disarming strike the toughest looking one
>hordebreaker pushing attack him 15 feet away from his weapon
>take attacks of opportunity to walk adjacent to him
>sentinel him when he goes for his weapon

Proceed to repeat whirlwind when the others come to surround and horde-break the weaponless guy until he's dead. Then repeat with the next toughest looking guy.

I'd consider forgetting about boosting wisdom in favor of taking Martial adept for 2 more superiority dice. So that the process can be repeated three times. My bad.

>>47461368
Since you're going to try and pull this shit with every illusion spell, how about something like Grease? The description says creatures in the area have to save or fall prone and it's treated as difficult terrain. Ignoring the decades of fuckers using Grease to create raging infernos (which it doesn't), you don't think a caster is ever going to get his DM to go along with him using the grease slick to help move heavy objects, scoop some up and throw it in an enemy's eyes, or whatever else you could do with a real puddle of slippery shit?

You think if a caster makes a Grease slick, covers it up with an illusion or a carpet or something, and baits an enemy into charging him, every DM is going to rule that the moment the enemy enters the slick he falls prone and his movement immediately stops? That he's not going to go sliding on and fly right off the cliff or into the fireplace as the caster hops out of the way, all according to his plan the whole time? This isn't improvisation?

File: 5e_PHB_Equipment_Adventuring-Gear_Healers-Kit.png (185KB, 559x130px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 559x130px

>>47461417
I don't see any clause in here about the tax you're describing.

>>47460719
I thought Druids were the best

>>47461479
N-no. And my justification is that I hate admitting that I'm wrong.... please stop replying so I can feel like I won the argument. Please!!!

>>47461428
Well, if you're fighting a lot of guys frequently then I don't see why not. Kind of niche though.

>>47461493
Neither is there anything about 'strapping a healer's kit to their belt'. There is no RAW about the situation you're trying to describe, only RAI - and I wouldn't rule that a healer's kit in someone's inventory but not in one of their hands could be accessed by anyone, let alone the floating hand, because other items in the same circumstance can't.

>>47461421
Any good DM will do all of that, until someone spouts off something about caster superiority

>>47461479
Grease is exactly what I'm talking about, it used to do all that but now it does what it says on the tin
Fall prone on the spot and difficult terrain

>>47461493
Well logically you gotta hold an item to use it, if you're using it without holding it that means you have access to it, which would imply someone else is currently holding it

>>47461619
>You can't do that!
Jeremy says you can.
>Well you need to do A first
There is no clause stating that A needs to be done
>I don't want to be wrong so you can't do it

Okay, anon. I think it's past your bedtime.


>>47461644
>lying dead on the ground
>healer feat+mage hand

>in fight, needs a boost
>mage hand (which is capable of pickpocketing and picking locks) utilizes the kit that is strapped to the individual

>>47461674
That's pretty nice that the guy had the courtesy to place an open healer's kit on the floor close to where he had the misfortune to drop dead

And as soon as you show me the rules for strapping stuff to an individual then they won't be doing a lot of that

>it's in a belt pouch

Tell you what, spend an action to take the healer's kit out of the pouch with the mage hand and you can absolutely use the bonus to heal

>>47460745
That's a really good point. The market is so different from the AD&D and 3/3.5 days but I guess my expectations never adjusted with it. Very good insight.

>>47461736
The usage of a healer's kit already accounts for the opening of it as part of the action.
If opening it required a separate action, the kit description would state such.
Also:
>Taking six seconds to open a simple leather bag to access the contents

>>47461674
What does
>strapped to the individual
mean in terms of actual RAW?

Show me where in the healer's kit entry you can do that, because it's apparently a completely unique action as no other item in the game can be interacted with in such a way. If you can do that, why can't I strap half a dozen wands to my belt and use a bonus action to fire whichever one I want?