/5eg/ D&D 5th Edition General

To start off, what's the class or archetype you feel is most missing from game at the moment?

That doesn't mean the one you want the most but the one that isn't covered in the rules at all right now.

File: 1473197319471.jpg (91KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x500px

>Ranged rogues are actually pretty good but they play more like snipers: you're trying to set up one big Sneak-Attack fueled mega-shot.

tfw level 9 Thief w/ Oathbow
>5 sneak attack d6 + 3 oathbow d6

>>49437277

meant to quote >>49437172

(sorry)

>>49437242
Summoner/minion master. Not that I want it, but it isn't really a thing in 5E.

>>49437242
If we only count the PHB there would have been quite a few to mention, but what few splats we've had actually covered a lot of them quite nicely (e.g. swashbuckler, bladesinger). I'd still like to see an avenger - light/no armor, big fuckoff weapon, divine mission with gray morality. Probably the second-best thing to come out of 4e (after the warlord).
Also, psionics when

>>49437305
>Summoner isn't a thing
Good

File: Reaper is an insensitive stereotype.png (191KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 500x250px

What do you think the next unearthed arcana will be about? Also, is picrelated a fiend warlock or a long death monk?

>>49437242
Good question desu senpai

File: Thalassian6.1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49429826
>The ocean is an oft-neglected part of a fantasy realm. What sets the briny depths in your games apart?
i made this for my games. people like them.
i need a better name for the race tho.
thrass maybe?

>>49437360
Mearls mentioned an encounter-building variant. Same outcome but a different (easier?) method.

>>49437332
The Avenger blew hard goats in 4e. The Vengeance Paladin is a much better fit for the concept.

>>49437229
>+1 AC should never be in a feat
It already is, and this fighting style will always let the big guy with a big axe and most archers hit harder than this feat which falls between the two on ability to hit and allows TWF to outdamage archery.

The +1 AC has a cost and is makes both heavily armored characters and lightly armored melee classes better at their roles, and the reaction is for kiting classes to kite better without stepping on a swashbuckler's toes at all.

>>49437374
>Mearls
>(easier?)

>>49437242
I would like a ToB style class done using the Warlock as a template for the class. It only gets the Extra Attack instead of the Pact Boon, but the rest of the template would be the same.

>>49437383
>It already is
Yes, on the dual-wielder that sacrifices the +2 AC from using a shield. You're just trolling now, right?
>makes both heavily armored characters and lightly armored melee classes better at their roles
>Everyone should take this feat
Now I KNOW you're trolling.

>>49437375
I like the idea of a divine 'rogue' class though, which is fragile but skilled and can punish heavily in the right circumstances.

>>49437370
and i'll add that the biggest problem with the ocean in fantasy is that the is no one to introduce your party to it. elves indtroduce you to the forest, dwarfs to the underdark, orcs to the mountains. their needs to be a REASON to goto the ocean, and a way to introduce the party to that reason. thus, aquatic PC race solves all those problems. and it cant be a shitty privitive race either, it has to be a fully developed interesting race that is engaged with the world. or it wont work

>>49437370
I think it's a tad overpowered (both Silver Tongue and Skill Versatility seems over-the-top) but in general it's comparable to a half-elf with waterbreathing. I'd definitely allow players to take it. Only other suggestion is to not name the race after the Blood Elf language.

>>49437375
Agreed, the mechanics were lacking. Doesn't mean it's not doable. I like the vengeance paladin, but I think there's a flavor difference between "SMITE ALL THE EVIL" and "SMITE THIS WELL-HIDDEN EVIL IN PARTICULAR."

>>49437462
Most aquatic fiction I've read indeed starts with the introduction of an aquatic character. This makes sense.

>>49437437
But anon, battlemaster already exists.

Didn't notice that we'd jumped threads, so here is my question again.

Anyone tried Mercer's gunslinger fighter archetype?

Might throw one together for a pirate character, and want to know how the class fared.

>>49437499
>I think it's a tad overpowered (both Silver Tongue and Skill Versatility seems over-the-top) but in general it's comparable to a half-elf with waterbreathing. I'd definitely allow players to take it.
it designed to be a half elf replacement. my world world doesnt have half elves, and has these guys instead. the race abilities are very similiar. also very similiar to the merfolk WOTC designed fro zendikar a while back, i think they stole from me.
>Only other suggestion is to not name the race after the Blood Elf language.
i named them after the greek word for ocean. thalass. fucking warcraft. i agree tho i need a better name. any suggestions? hows thrass sound?

>>49437592
http://critters.boards.net/thread/116/mercer-gunslinger-rules-fighter-archetype
Just looking at the class, I'm not a huge fan. I've never liked Pathfinder's grit system, and the archetype honestly doesn't accomplish much that a ranged battlemaster wouldn't.

The guns are also pretty overpowered (pistol is so much strictly better than anything else in the weapon list that everyone will start using it).

>>49437612
Thrass is hard to say. :(
Going by your theme, I'd stick to your original strategy of naming them something Greek-related. Thalassian might still work if your players aren't the type to make Warcraft references.

>>49437462
It doesn't matter how good a reason they have or how charismatic and inviting their guide is, non-aquatic PCs are just not going to go into the water. Not only can they, you know, not breathe unless you contrive some magical air supply for them, but even then a significant number of their abilities are severely hindered or don't work at all. They're going to be slower, their equipment is going to be damaged, and three-dimensional combat is going to be a pain to figure out.

Unless your players want to do an all-aquatic campaign, no single one of them is going to want to be an aquatic PC unless they have a secret fetish for splitting the party and dying.

>>49437449
Half of all classes have shields as an option, but all classes have melee focused character archetypes (if not the whole class). Those lightly armored classes get better at their jobs.

Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin are the only three classes that have the AC and class features to focus on an AC build, and this feat makes them better at their job.

Any ranged character, and any character using heavy weapons will not take this feat. They will always take the ASI, their preferred fighting style feat, or GWM/SS. Always. They would be better optimizers for doing so.

Even within a fighter with the Duelist fighting style: there is the STR based fighter with a shield and plate armor taking this feat to boost damage and give some defensive abilities that pair with Shield Master for 21AC, while a DEX focused build would wear half-plate and use this feat combined with defensive duelist for 18AC with a reaction up to 24AC. It make two very different characters better at their jobs.

It also means a monk can reach 22AC if they wanted the investment, a rogue can hover around 18AC at a maximum, a bladelock hits the 18AC too, etc.

>>49437592
It's pretty damn well balanced in my opinion, the guns do more damage but no other weapons have the fuck up potential of these. The reload keeps you wasting attacks, and it's all about risk to up the damage.

I have a level 3 gunslinger and they are doing pretty fine.

Good homebrew.

>>49437517
Even you know that it isn't the same, though. A battlemaster is a really good fighter while the ToB classes are a lot different in function and realistically in flavor.

File: anneduffybloodconsciousness.jpg (102KB, 736x771px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 736x771px

Would you allow a bondage-themed psychic human subrace in your games /5eg/?

>>49437684
No

>>49437650
>all dungeons are either 100% land or 100% water
youre really not very good at this

>>49437684
While it's my fetish I leave my ball gag at the door when I play DnD.

>>49437705
What does that have to do with anything? If a dungeon is 50% underwater, prepare to have that dungeon 50% skipped.

>>49437668
>The reload keeps you wasting attacks
No more than crossbows. Though I agree misfire balances it out somewhat.

>>49437650
>secret fetish for splitting the party and dying
If they had that they'd be DMing.

>>49437655
You keep repeating reasons why this feat is good for everyone, and I keep telling you this is the exact reason it's overpowered. Listing reasons it's useful isn't helping your case.

>>49437741
>all areas are either 100% water or 100% land
still very bad. im glad youre not my GM, or one of my players

>>49437741
you ever play Wet Dry World on Super Mario 64

>>49437783
or the zelda water temple is another good example

>>49437747
I agree that crossbows do have a similar deal but that can be solved by the feat, where that issue is completely gone and you get other bonuses. This would be something a fighter would get it they were planning on using crossbows. You can't get rid of the misfire without a homebrewed feat.

Also the misfire gets more dangerous the less Int you have, so if you dump stat Int like all of us do you could end up with 2-3 attacks of not firing.

I won't say the gunslinger is weak at all I think it's strong, but I don't think it's OP.

>>49437696
Why not?

>>49437766
Now you're not even making sense. If an area is halfway between being underwater and not, like boggy shallow water, being aquatic and having a swim speed isn't going to be a huge help there because there might not even be enough water to swim in. The chance of running into such an area is hardly a good motivator to choose an aquatic race.

>>49437831
>the misfire gets more dangerous the less Int you have
Am I looking at the wrong ruleset? I'm not seeing how int has anything to do with misfires.

>>49437830
>>49437783

You're not really selling me on the appeal of water-heavy dungeons by listing the worst levels in their respective games.

The worst level in a game is often a water level, for the reasons I've already given. And if one PC in a party is much better at speeding through such a level, that only enhances his ability to split the party. On land as well as in water, a cohesive party is only as fast as its slowest member.

>>49437864
He's probably talking about submerged parts of a dungeons. If a staircase just leads into dark black water a swim speed may come in handy.

A water breathing BBEG would stop PCs in their tracks if nobody had a swim speed.

>>49437880
When you misfire you have to make a check with your tinker tools to unjam the gun. The player's handbook says you tie an ability check with a tool to make the roll, like a thieve's tools check is made with Dex.

I mean I guess it's up to the DM but if I were running the game it would be intelligence. If they made the tinker tools check with Dex then it would be really easy and maybe be crossing into overpowered.

What is the best pet for the new Beastmaster Ranger, and why is it Ape?

Heya /5eg/, I'' currently playing a Paladin in a campaign, and I'm playing him like a Saturday Morning hero. Even has a swear jar. I'm currently trying to figure out what god would best suit this. Currently think Pelor, but considering he drinks Milk instead of Ale, I need a god that's pretty extreme in the "Goodness", cliché, kind of way.

>>49438000
Bear or wolf because the Beast Bond spell doesn't work with an Ape. Its intelligence is too high for the spell.

>>49437979
All I see is "until an Action is used to repair and clear the weapon," which doesn't imply a check at all. So either you're extrapolating a lot or we're looking at different rules.

>>49438000
>le meme rhetorical questions

>>49438010
I can't help you pick a god but I just imagined early WWE Kurt Angle as a paladin. You need a way to make the milk truck moment happen.

>>49437911
Think about that, though. If there's a staircase that only one member of the party can go through, that party member should not go through it! That's splitting the party, and most of the time splitting the party is caused by one player trying to bring some ability of his character to bear because keeping the party together feels like a waste. "I'm a rogue, so I'll stealth ahead." "I'm really fast, so I'll run ahead of the party." "I can swim, so I'll swim into this mysterious abyss!" No, no you won't, because if you do that you will be all alone and unable to properly attack or defend yourself.

>>49438034
I believe we are then. I was talking about Matt Mercer's 5e Gunslinger Hombrew.

>>49438082
So am I, but I might be looking at an imperfect duplication (or you might be). Where are you reading it?

>>49437360
I actually made a Long-death monk based off Edgelord reaper. It was for a kek campaign but yeah, pulled the whole "Die Die Die!" and "I'm not a psycopath, I'm a high functioning psycopath!" memes. He wore a hooded cowl and a long-skull mask with silver-claw-tipped gloves to make his unarmed attacks with. The memes were real creamy that game.

>>49438010
Pelor is secretly evil, or at least there's a popular meme/running joke that he's secretly evil, so don't pick him. You're probably not playing in Greyhawk anyway.

Tyr is the god of doing the right thing and not complaining even when it really sucks for you. Every time Tyr has stood up for mortals or for his divine peers he gets screwed over for it, but he keeps on doing it. Tyr's a bro.

>>49438115
>Pelor is secretly evil, or at least there's a popular meme/running joke that he's secretly evil, so don't pick him.
Are you retarded?

File: image.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

>>49438091
Gunslinger Version 1.2, page 3.

And I was wrong if you fail the check which needs a full action to attempt the gun breaks and you have to spend half the cost of the weapon to fix it.

If you roll a 1 with a pistol and fail the DC 9 tinker tools check, you have to spend 125 gold out of combat to fix it

>>49438122
No, just full of memes
So yes

>>49438130
Seems it got nerfed since the version I was looking at. Do you have a full source?

>>49438147
I'm on my phone, but it's in one of the links at the top of the thread. Or a gracious anon can post it.

>>49438171
Found it, thanks! Will give it a read before commenting further.

>>49437747
You are mind-meltingly dense about this. I'm listing reasons why it helps makes the characters people fully aknowledge red the bump would find it good, and why it doesn't take things away from GWM and SS. You are saying because there are a lot of players that would take this it is broken, but you are not showing why an archer fighter or polearm wielding barbarian would choose this over the other damage boosting feats.

>>49438122
There's a fair amount of evidence in favor of the theory.

In any case, it's likely that anon is playing in a setting where Pelor isn't really a thing

File: 1446044633470.jpg (55KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 667x1000px

>>49432270
Does anybody have a pdf of the Planar bestiary from DM's Guild they can share?

>>49438237
>Creates a feat that's a must-have for every rogue, monk, and cleric and most fighters, rangers, and paladins
>Is proud of that fact
>I'M the one being dense

>>49438242
It's a fucking ancient 3e meme from the WotC forums you dipshit.

>>49438237
Not that guy, but it needs to be worse than the other two because they give up shields for their weapon types. Why would a PAM fighter choose this? Because he wouldn't be PAM, he would be using a whip and shield, with shield mastery.

Keep the cool bonuses but let the non-shield using fighters keep their high damage identity. Change the attack and damage to -3/+6. Makes them good and very competitive with the other styles, but now it's an actual choice for all of them, Ac or high damage. It's just more balanced than it is right now.

>>49438298
>*can't* name one other must have feat for monks or rogues or whatever
>*can* name one for fighters and paladins and others now

>>49437332
Based on your post and the other reply, it seems you're referring to a class called avenger from an older edition. But the name gives me an idea for something different-

A class built around reactions, maybe a fighter archetype. They start with one reaction but with more options to use with it- stuff like parry archetypes riposte. As they progress they get more reactions, to the point where it's like legendary actions that tough monsters get. Maybe "lair actions" at the top of initiative. Stuff like hide, move half-speed, block damage, expanded AOOS. If theres a feat to give you a minor version of battlemasters maneuvers, a feat to give you a minor version of spellcasting, a feat that gives you a minor version of the monk's proficiency in all saving throws, this would be the class that the sentinel feat or tunnel defender feat is a minor version of.

If it's a fighter archetype though, of course it wouldn't get extra attacks as often, which would mean having text in the archetype that contradicts the main class feature list, or at least says "the extra attacks gained from fighter levels can only be used as a reaction" which doesn't mesh with 5e design as I understand it. Maybe if it was a ranger archetype that went with the new UA ranger progression.

>>49438354
It's already significantly worse damage than SS without dedicating to TWF, and significantly worst than GWM even with dedicating yourself to TWF.

In the typical martial case beyond fighters the similarities fall away a bit more, but you are still talking 3 GWM attacks and only a Monk can beat that with this feat when they invest their ki.

>>49438237
>>49438298
Okay, dickish memery aside, the problem is that you've missed the point of feats in 5e. You're treating a feat as "something nice that helps you fulfill your role," but that's not what it is.

A feat lets you specialize and provides bonuses when acting in a particular way. Mage Slayer is only useful when fighting mages, Grappler is only useful when grappling, GWF is only helpful for great weapon fighters, Polearm Master is only good if you're using a polearm, and Crossbow Expert is only good for attack cantrips.

Your feat, meanwhile, is good for sword-and-board users (both defensive and offensive), literally every rogue and monk build, and in general anyone using any non-great, non-ranged weapon, which is most weapon users. The reason is that it's not narrow enough and thus provides an advantage to too many people. That's more than a feat's scope should be.

And even all that aside, +1 to AC is just too good for a feat (again, TWF means giving up on a shield, so the +1 in that case is a patch and not a buff). It makes the feat so valuable that in every case where the feat isn't specifically not allowed, it's a must-have, because of the tremendous efficiency of AC bonuses in 5e.

So to summarize, your feat is
A. Too wide in scope, and
B. Too strong,
which means it will not only see use on 80%+ of current weapon users but will also encourage all future players to create their weapon-users around it. This is not a healthy state for the game, so the feat must be toned down, in power, scope, or both.

File: [map] [town] craneport.png (1MB, 3353x3159px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3353x3159px

Does anyone have that flow chart or whatever of setting up a campaign and having multiple branches and paths for PCs to go down but ultimately leading to the same ending?

>>49438376
Full battlefield control at the expense of direct actions on your turn? That actually sounds pretty bitchin. Would make for a very interesting rogue or ranger archetype, perhaps? (Obviously shouldn't be on a spellcaster or a class with extra attack)

>>49437648
I haven't looked at the homebrew gunslinger and my experience with the pf gunslinger is somebody else using it in a game I was in some years ago, but I remember grit. The first thing that comes to mind is to think of it as ki, and the things you can do with it are like what monks can do, except with guns.
Spend a ki to make a precision/power attack. Spend a ki to get super long range. Spend a ki to get extra shots off from off the guns. Spend a ki to get a close range shot without disadvantage. I think if the 5e gunslinger homebrew was smart, it would do this stuff.

Not super familiar with 5e guns, haven't had a reason to look at them, but there should be limitations on them in certain ways- can only craft new ammunition on a long rest, takes an action to reload after one shot, can have multiple guns but they're expensive and rare, so extra attacks are either unarmed or gained through the spending of your characters resources rather than automatic. Spend a ki to reload as a bonus action or some shit.

File: Supermang.jpg (90KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 480x640px

>>49438434
>>49438434
>That river

Isley Isley Isley
I'll soon out diddlylift ye

>>49438376
building a class around a concept that only exists in the game's rules is kind of nutty. If you're going to make a homebrew player option that does good counterattacks, at least let it be a monk subclass based on judo or aikido - you know, something that's more than just a rule in an RPG.

Similarly, the Avenger was the product of 4e's class creation strategy of just brute-forcing every combination of a power source and a party role. As a result, it doesn't really have an identity apart from being "divine" and having a certain set of proficiencies.

>>49438448
Rogue may be good, I was picturing a moderately-armored sword and board kind of character however. I think the new ranger would be perfect for it since extra attack is an amndrchetype feature now and you wouldn't have to exclude it, and punishing enemies for daring to attack you/your friends seems pretty rangery to me.

File: ReallyNotThatFuckingComplicated.png (20KB, 1008x630px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1008x630px

>>49438434
I don't know the original chart you mean but I hope this helps

>>49438406
What the hell are you talking about. As written the feat out damages sharpshooter while using a shield, and is less than 2 damage behind GWM per attack. I proposed the changes because a character shouldn't get equal damage and also +3 ac ( 2 from shield, 1 from feat).

Copypastaing the feat you wrote into this thread so everyone can see how retarded you are:
This is the more correct wording:

Defensive Fighter (needs a better name)
Your experience on the field of battle has developed a keen sense of danger and opportunity with a variety of weapons. You gain the following benefits:
>You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are not wielding a heavy weapon.
>When another creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to move up to half your movement speed without provoking opportunity attacks.
>Before you make a melee attack with an unarmed strike or with a weapon that does not have the heavy property, you can choose to take a -4 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage. You must be proficient with the weapon used to make the attack to receive this benefit.

>>49438427
>lists weapon specialization feats
This isn't a weapon specialization feat, this is a damage boosting feat casting a net wide enough to cover the players not using the optimal method to damage other creatures. Of course it hits a wide range of fighting styles - that's literally the point of a feat like this.

I could make three feats but you are carving strange and meaningless distinctions - versatile weapons/weapons held with nothing in the other hand, attacking with a shield or second weapon in the other hand, and monks? Or do you want even further granularity? At what point do you stop gerrymandering weapon groups and just leave things simple?

This feat says "you will do less damage but you can avoid attacks better," SS says "you will hit more often with these strong attacks," and GWM says "you will do the most damage"

What other damage feat statement needs to be made?

I think you are seeing that a lot more options have become appealing that otherwise took a severe hit in a game with feats, and not actually evaluating the power as something that hurts the game.

>>49438510
Could also fit monk fairly well, now that you've brought it up. The "move" legendary action would work well with the increased speed monks get, and maybe ki could be spent to activate the extra reactions. Turn missed enemy attacks into knocking the enemy prone or moving them, letting allies get AOOs, allowing flurry of blows on reactions, etc

>>49438569
That +10 should be a +8

Would "+1 str, dex, or con and gain a fighting style" be okay as a feat?

>>49438569
>>49438600
Defensive Fighter (needs a better name)
Your experience on the field of battle has developed a keen sense of danger and opportunity with a variety of weapons. You gain the following benefits:
>You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are not wielding a heavy weapon.
>When another creature misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to move up to half your movement speed without provoking opportunity attacks.
>Before you make a melee attack with an unarmed strike or with a weapon that does not have the heavy property, you can choose to take a -4 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +8 to the attack's damage. You must be proficient with the weapon used to make the attack to receive this benefit.

>>49437242

Psion of every variety.

after that a summoner who focuses on a single particular creature. like a beast master but not nature and wisdom based, essentially.

>>49438583
>This feat says "you will do less damage but you can avoid attacks better
No, it fucking doesn't. Applied to someone who's already sword-and-boarding/roguing/monking, this feat says "you have better AC and mobility and also sometimes you do more damage."
Weapon style feats have the built-in drawback of lack of flexibility. This feat is not only stronger than most of them, it completely lacks any sort of restraint.
>I think you are seeing that a lot more options have become appealing that otherwise took a severe hit in a game with feats
Rogue was never weak, sword-and-board was never weak, paladin was never weak. You're not helping out underdogs (except bladelocks I suppose), you're just providing a blanket buff without any justification. Show me ONE feat that just generally and significantly improves combat performance with near-complete disregard to the strategy used ("no heavy weapons" is a bullshit drawback when longswords exist) and I will stop arguing with you right this instant.

>>49438600
In that case we are pretty close to similar.
I still think it's a pretty big boost because whomever uses it gets a total of +3 ac because they will get a shield equipped.

Why don't you change the feat so you just can't be using a shield while you use it?

File: tridentgauche_1.jpg (92KB, 650x168px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 650x168px

Any good homebrews for a parrying dagger?

1d4 damage, +1 AC while TWF?

>>49438694
"Because defensive fighters will want to use a shield and I'm more concerned with preserving my original concept than with game balance"

File: true20_damage.jpg (126KB, 523x715px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 523x715px

Entertaining a thought of implementing True20-style damage in 5e.

First things first, I know it's a death spiral and that it negates / requires reworking of everything hp-related, basically a new system. But that's just it, I'm thinking about it, not thinking about implementing it right away.

But, let's pretend we only have martial characters and archetypes. Ability scores / saves / proficiencies and action economy is per default 5e. How do you need to change the math to keep roughly the same probabilities of hitting things?

>>49438712
I'd reduce the damage to 1d3 (otherwise it's strictly better than the regular dagger).
As for the special property, maybe something like "you can use your reaction to add half your proficiency modifier against a melee attack roll." This would nicely simulate the need to use it more proactively than most defenses as well as its specialty in dueling.

File: conditions.png (137KB, 548x1028px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 548x1028px

>>49438729
Also here's a full list of conditions.

>>49438712
>PARRYING DAGGER (martial melee):
>1d4 piercing, finesse, light, special
>A creature wielding this weapon can use a reaction to gain +2 AC against a melee attack. The wielder must be proficient in this weapon and not wearing a shield to use this feature.

>>49438744
>>49438758
Making it martial would definitely make sense and allow it to keep the d4 (because martial weapons are supposed to be better than simple weapons).

>>49438569
>>49438583
Same guy? Seems like. Just wanna make sure the feat writer is the one I'm addressing.

The fighting styles/feats that make strong distinctions on what weapons or weapon/armor/item combinations they apply to are based on general conceptions of heroic roles, or else obvious roles dictated by the rules of the equipment players will use. Sword and shield. Two swords. Big weapon and no shield. One sword. They looked at the specific and obvious combinations that would come about based on weapon rules dictating how they can be wielded and made small boosts to help a character focus on that combination.

I see where you're coming from, in that there are power attacks for ranged weapons and for large weapons, and you're looking to make one for small weapons. The issue is that the way you chose to make the distinction (which is in fact a distinction made in the weapon rules, so good on you for looking at those) is still very broad, and that makes the feat almost a requirement for any character. Why would 80 percent of characters NOT take that feat? And if it is to be assumed that 80 percent of the time the game is played a certain way, the rest of the game needs to follow suit.

I like the +1 ac. I like that the power attack is smaller because the weapons are smaller. I like that it assumes characters are speedy and so are allows them to move more. I think all you have to do to make it really good and not an obvious choice for everybody is to restrict what weapons it applies to.aybe unarmed and the weapons rogues are proficient in, maybe a couple monk weapons as well, but that's getting real broad again.

>>49438640
Yeah, I think so.

>>49438718
If you aren't concerned with game balance, why post your feat on the internet?

>>49438684
Using your own logic SS and GWM. One is restricted to a type of attack, and removes disadvantage and AC bonuses due to battlefield position while giving a bigger bonus to damage than a versatile weapon with this feat. The other is solely focused on dealing more damage, and can deal the most damage. It also pairs with one of the best weapon restricting feats.

Both of those feats do exactly what you are saying, and you are not drawing a line or explaining why the line is needed other than saying it's needed.

And Paladins use PAM and GWM, and sword and board is incredibly weak when feats are involved.

>>49438718
Then why are you asking for game balance feedback? An effective +3 AC is too strong for a feat to enable, it's as simple as that.

>>49438663
Kind of like the sound of the second one. Maybe warlock archetype similar to bladester but gets a beast instead of a weapon, and can boost it with invocations.

>>49438744
regular daggers can be thrown

>>49438640
Feats should always be balanced against gaining +2 in your primary or secondary stat. In this case, I'd say it's a bit powerful but perhaps reasonable - fighting styles can give +2 to damage or to hit, which is quite good. Maybe lose the +1 str, dex, or con, and just make the feat give a fighting style, and you should be good.

>>49438810
Wouldn't that just be a stronger chainlock?

>>49438810

Warlock would be the way to go. I was thinking of a half caster, I guess.

>>49438797
>>49438802
Note the quotation marks - I was answering sarcastically as though I wrote the feat. I did not.

>>49438782
Not the same guy, but you are actually addressing the real concern: how broad should a feat get before it's too broad? SS and GWM are very, very similar (without PAM being so good SS is way stronger).

What if there was just a single +damage feat? The argument would be that it is too good compared to ASIs and it is a feat tax.

Ok, now there are two that covers less than half of weapons in the game. How many more feats should there be to not be too broad a feat?

If I am homebrewing a feat to fill that void, why make it several feats that begin to lose their distinctions the more there are? Even now looking at the weapons it gets less and less clear.

If it was a "one hand has nothing, including versatile" feat and a "both hands hold something different" feat then it would be hard to catch monks in either, and making a monk only +damage feat becomes very strange.

>>49438657
>Defensive Fighter
>Blah blah blah. You gain the following benefits:
>Choose either the Protection or Dueling Fighting Style
>When another creature misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to move up to half your movement speed without provoking opportunity attacks.
>Before you make a melee attack with an unarmed strike or with a weapon that does not have the heavy property, you can choose to take a -3 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +6 to the attack's damage. You must be proficient with the weapon used to make the attack to receive this benefit.
This is assuming you let Dueling apply to the monk.

How do I run a stealth based encounter successfully? My players are about to get their heist on.

>>49438802
It's not effectively a +3 to AC when as soon as you pick up a shield you sacrifice something else, but at least this is addressing a specific case. Is it really stronger than the defense fighting style benefit as far as effective +3 to AC goes?

>>49438800
I just realized it. You really are trolling.

But just for a second let's pretend you aren't. SS is only effective when using ranged weapons, meaning
1. It's worthless if someone closes in, and
2. BOTH YOUR HANDS ARE TAKEN.
I don't think you seem to understand how great of a drawback #2 is in a game with a high premium on buffs and where shields give +2 to AC. Same can be said for GWF - yes, you do a fuck-tonne of damage, but there are severe drawbacks. Notably: BOTH YOUR HANDS ARE TAKEN.

If you'd like, I can trivially draw up mathematical proof of the absurd gap in power between a GWF and a "Defensive Fighter" with AC higher by 3.

>>49438888
As written, Defensive Fighter is a complete feat tax on anybody who isn't using a ranged or heavy weapon, because there's literally no reason not to take a +1 to AC.

>>49438910
Seems fine to me

>>49438954
I think the point is that he insists on comparing it to GWF, which has a higher DPS but -3 to AC compared to a Defensive Fighter.

>>49438936
Plan for when stealth fails, because with dice, it will fail.

>>49438936
I kind of hate how stealth works in 5e desu. I would actually rather it was always a hidden roll the DM makes.

But basically whether it's on the table or theatre of the mind make sure you map out patrols and line of sights. Map out when those patrols stop or two guards get lazy and shoot the shit for 5 minutes too - have an accounting of how the whole place is observed before the PCs go into it, and then go from there.

I'd consider breaking down hiding and perception here a lot so there's a "noticed something is up, but not what something" too.

>>49438936
Make sure until the guards suspect something is afoot you use passive perception of the game will take forever thanks to perception rolls and they will most likely hear something thanks to RNG.

Stealth checks can be broken up into moving quietly or not being seen, so you could have them make do both if they are doing both but they would take forever cause so many rolls.

File: Supplement - Strongholds and Sentinels.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49438936

1) Provide decision points, not just Stealth checks. Give them clues, be very open-minded about different approaches. Encourage information gathering before the mission. Take clues from Shadowrun, basically. Planning can take a shitton of time and it's kind of the point. Guards' numbers and patterns, what other defenses the building has, best equipment and spells for the job, all that good shit. When they fail either because of a check or because of a poor decision, let things escalate. Analyze heist scenes you really like.
2) Use this fairly good homebrew straight or as a reference.

>>49438968
If you are using a polearm, a heavy weapon or a ranged weapon their respective feats are essentially feat taxes as well.

>>49438936
Decide what happens if they get caught for each step of the plan. Even the stealthiest party member is always one bad roll away from getting caught, and there are probably some party members who aren't so stealthy. Don't just assume that they won't get caught, and especially don't assume that they'll get caught at one specific point.

If their plan involves splitting the party, and it really was their idea, don't be afraid to make them suffer the logical consequences of splitting the party.

>>49438954
>as you pick up a shield you sacrifice something else,
Yeah, the ability to attack with a bow or heavy weapon. Which you weren't doing with this feat anyway. If you TWF then TWF would out damage sharpshooter while still getting more ac, hardly a trade off.

Are you on meth? Meth would explain this.

Playing my first 5e game tomorrow. Want to play a Face/Sneaky thief. Not too bothered about damage but meh.

I like the look of the Arcane Trickster having a permanent invisible Mage Hand with hilarious connotations.

However, it appears that the Bard trumps the Arcane Trickster in pretty much everything other than invisi-magehand with extra options.

Any effective suggestions/builds for going Arcane Trickster?

>>49437684
No, i dont like human subraces or psionics.

>>49439078
Rogue is the better sneak, with face stuff being secondary. Bard is more face and less sneak.

You have illusions and enchantments. Get creative with your illusions. Minor Illusion and Message are good for getting a message across without breaking your stealth. Don't bother with offensive spells: Sneak Attack will usually be better.

>>49439057
Not necessarily; GWF is slightly overrated (it only increases damage at higher levels against low-AC targets) except for champion fighters (because more crits means more attacks). Polearm master is only a tax if you're trying to be a zone-forbidding obstacle (because otherwise you have other uses for bonus actions or you're a fighter which gets lots of attacks anyway).
They're certainly not taxes on the order of a categorical +1 AC.

I won't argue with SS because it's actually pretty strong. But an archer would ALSO be able to take Defensive Fighter, so it's not a relevant comparison.

>>49438888
The feats are specific because they are meant to apply to specific situations- a lot of times this means the use of one particular class of weapon- and it does something to reward that particular weapon use with a thematic effect- big weapons hit harder, getting the really good shot off that fells a beast, using the length of the weapon to get a bonus attack. It also serves to help overcome a small hardship a character would face because they chose that weapon.

For example, two weapon fighting (the feat, not the fighting style) gives you plus +1 ac because otherwise you could have been using just one weapon and a shield. That's rewarding you for your choice of using two weapons by helping overcome or lessen the downside of picking two weapons.

Ideally a character will have one approach to weapons and stick with it. So the character with two weapons doesn't need GWM. But if two weapon fighter instead said, "if you have both hands full you get +1 ac" then everybody would take it and there doesn't need to be hardly any thought put into what weapon you pick, and there doesn't need to be all those other feats either. Most everybody has both hands full, so most everybody might as well get +1 ac too by picking that feat. And at the same time nobody is gonna go single-rapier or unarmed because those happen to be the two options that don't get you +1 ac, so why would you take them?

Out of the what, two or three dozen weapons on the list I can think of only 4 off the top of my head that are heavy, and one is ranged and one is special. That's still the large large majority of weapons that the proposed homebrew feat would apply to. That is what makes it seem like it would be required for most characters and make other options not seem so nice. That is also why I suggested limiting is it to rogue/monk weapons because that is what would help it meet the standards I named at the start- cont

>>49439078
If you weren't too bothered about damage, maybe you should have been a bard or some kind of tricky wizard. A one-third caster is not going to be able to match the magical trickery of a full caster, and the main advantage rogues have over bards is their combat ability.

Anyway, as an AT, avoid MAD and pick mostly spells that do not call for saving throws or attack rolls. Make Dex your highest priority, and don't even try to max out your Int. Shield is an okay choice for your non-illusion, non-enchantment spell, and so is Magic Missile, since neither key off of your Intelligence in any way. Remember that enemies don't get a roll to disbelieve illusions like Silent Image unless A: they try to touch it or B: they use an action to inspect it and make an Investigation check.

>>49437242

Witch Doctor

>>49439184
Those standards being reinforcing strong thematic character choices (rogues using small blades, monks using monk weapons), those characters being quick and moving when other people don't expect them to, and the +1 ac helps to overcome certain weaknesses those characters will have- being limited to light armor/unarmored.

>>49439078
>>49439145
Alternately, play a Fey/Great-Old-One Warlock. They get a good assortment of utility abilities, have naturally even more charisma than bards (because they're less MAD), and can pick incredible utility invocations. Take the thief background for stealth and thieves' tools and voila.

>>49439237
What does a witch doctor do that isn't covered by an existing archetype?

What is some good music to work on a Doomguide's backstory to

>>49439239
Even if you changed the feat like that, it just means all the sword-and-board fighters will switch to rapiers to grab the feat anyway. A +1 to AC that can combine with a shield is just too strong.

>>49439094
Have it anyway:

>Ardarvians

>Followers of the Iron Maiden Ardarvia, changed by their long centuries of worship
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Ardarvia

>Ability Score bonuses: +2 Con, +1 Cha

>Used to Abuse: Ardarvians gain an additional +1 HP per level

>Willing Submission: Ardarvians have advantage on checks to escape grapples, and on saves to avoid being grappled or restrained. Ardarvians don't have disadvantage to Dexterity saves while restrained.

>Born to Serve: Ardarvians have advantage on Persuasion and Deception checks they make while they are restrained.

>Intricate Artifice: Ardarvians have proficiency with Thieves' Tools and in either the Performance or Sleight of Hand skill.

>Power through Pain: When an Ardarvian deals damage against a creature which dealt damage to them this round or last, they may deal additional psychic damage to that creature equal to the damage they took, up to a maximum of their level + Con modifier. This ability does not work on creatures which are mindless. Once this ability has been used it cannot be used again until after a short or long rest.

>>49439244
>>49439188
Do other classes have any options similar to the AT's invisible mage hand with options? Is there a reasonable multiclass alternative?

Otherwise, given it sounds as though AT should be going damage with utility support, what direction am I supposed to be looking at there, as it seems as though if I use the mage hand I'm not going to be using the disengage etc

>>49439321
>+2 con
>+1 hp per level
wew

>>49439244

idk, brainstorming homebrew

>Your Patron are the spirits of the legba

>these druidic spells are added onto yours

>your mage armor adds your charisma bonus

>you are now proficient in concentration saves

>you now see into the ethereal realm

>You can cast raise dead as a warlock spell

>>49439355
I'm not seeing much that can't be conceptually played as a refluffed fey warlock with the proper invocations.

Also, adding charisma to mage armor is hilariously OP. I would play it

>>49439280
If that's the case, the weapons can be limited more. Just daggers and unarmed. Or specifying that it can't be used in conjunction with a shield- I think that wording is appropriate for 5e, though most things with that restriction will phrase it as requiring "one free hand" or something along those lines.

>>49438115
>You're probably not playing in Grayhawk
We tend to just grab gods from whatever we feel like, rather than a specific pantheon 24/7 as per setting.

>>49439078

Two levels of Rogue, Two levels of Wizard for Spell Singer, then back to arcane trickster all the way.

Get Mage Armor, Feather Fall and one other that you like. Maybe shield. For cantrips get Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade and Message

For race, pick either the forest gnome for the free Minor Illusion cantrip, or the Eladrin for the free misty step

>>49438486
kek

>>49439067
You'd still have 2 less AC TWF for the extra damage, because when you pick up a shield you sacrifice something; casting spells and holding a weapon, and the ability to do more damage.

+2 AC and maybe the option to shove versus potential of 1d8+5 additional damage. Your argument seems to be that shields are OP somehow - especially since a dueling style fighter with a shield is still outdamage and has a lower chance to hit than an archer.

>>49439184
I think you underestimate how much a difference to the game the +10 damage gives. Without taking those feats, when feats are an option, you are much worse off than if you built around taking one of those.

So what you are saying is have this feat used with rogue/monk weapons and then just never ever use the other weapons like a war hammer... and you are still choosing 50% of weapons to cover instead of 60%. Why purposely leave those weapons off any chance of +damage feat? For what purpose?

>>49439280
Shields are not as strong as you are saying they are, especially when you are capping your damage potential compared to other options and you have a lower burst of AC than defensive duelist.

Wew, made an entire 5 PC cast from scratch for a friend of mine who is going to DM for the first time with all his friends. I'm beat.

Seriously feel like a tumblr shipper, designing five way network relationships and shit along with balancing the party with something basic but interesting

Feels good though, to get more cool people into the hobby

>>49438758
Theoretically, why couldn't the wielder also use a shield? It would boost their defense but drastically weaken their offense, which is pretty much what would happen if someone tried it in real life.

>>49439506
Fuck it, I'll go back to my original stance. GWM and SS are cancerous.

>>49437242
A real Warlord. None of this Eldritch Knight shit.

>>49439506
>Shields capping damage potential
If I'm a fighter with 3-4 attacks per round, +2 damage to all attacks is almost as good as +1 attack. AND I get a +2 AC from my shield, which (depending on enemies' attack values) can defend against 5%-50% of all damage.

But this is all meaningless because as written this stupid fucking homebrew can be used by dual-wielders anyway.

>>49439556
Because in real life using a parrying dagger together with a shield is pointless. Parrying daggers were specifically invented to be used when you didn't have a buckler.

>>49439321
>bans the image keeps the content
I feel like the mods have been doing a good job recently, albeit it makes no sense to keep >>49437684 up and delete that

How many games/sessions do you recommend I play before I GM 5E for the first time? I'm still fairly new to tabletop/5E, but I'd really like to try it once I know enough about the game.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread if not then "he who does it for free" can delete

>>49439588
And with the feat the damage difference becomes even greater, just like with SS or GWM. Your shield puts you even further behind on damage with the feats in play, meaning you are avoiding more hits all while taking more 2-3 attacks against you each round at the same time!

>>49439586
>What is purple dragon knight

>>49439655
As long as you read the PHB and get a good handle of the rules within, you could start GMing right away. The DMG has good advice on it for newcomers as well.

And just remember: everyone sucks at a thing when they first start. There's tons of resources to help you along but the only way to truly get better at something is practice.

>>49439655
If you can play you can GM. I GM'd before I ever played. I'm actually just getting back into it but I'm finding sessions a real drain and would appreciate it if the group were more willing to GM.

Don't feel you don't know enough. You'll learn by doing.

I'm about to DM for my campaign tonight, and I'm at a moral crossroads.
My players have consistently kicked the shit out of everything I've thrown at them using the CR sheet, partly because I fucked up and gave them a couple of +1 weapons way too early. They've said that they need more of a challenge, and that they don't mind character deaths. But I don't know if they're telling the truth on that one.
They also attacked a hill giant in cold blood who was enjoying a drink at an inn. He was way above their level at the time, but I stuck him in as a potential ally/obstacle against the people they were actually fighting. But no, they attacked him anyway, and by the end of the battle murdered him in cold blood as he was trying to flee.
So this time they're going up against another hill giant, a troll, and a half-ogre who all want vengeance for their friend. There are 4 players, 2 level 5s and 2 level 6s, which puts it a little above "Deadly". I have no idea if they're gonna be pumped at an actual challenge, or pissed because it turns into a TPK.

>>49439588
I get that, I'm just not sure why there's a need to outright ban it if it isn't feasible anyway.

>>49439727
Related question, can you dual-wield shields?

>>49439749
One shield is OP enough, two would bend the system over a pinball table.

tfw as a new player you spend more time downloading homebrew to work into your solo campaigns than you actually do playing.

>>49438729

this seems terribly incompatible with 5e's design.

>>49439706
Attack in waves, have interesting/difficult terrain, keep action economy in mind when designing encounters (one versus 4 is an easy win) and don't be afraid to ramp up the difficulty to test out the waters

>>49438800

Honestly of all the classes in the game the difference between sword and board paladin and GWM/PAM Paladin is probably the smallest.

PAM Paladin's one advantage really is that it gets a bonus weapon attack every turn. If it was just sword and board vs GWM the difference wouldn't be that crazy since Paladin get most of their damage through smiting anyways.

>>49439918
Then why burn the feats at all :^)

>>49439506
>underestimate
Well, I wasn't taking them into account at all really, except aknowledging them as the inspiration for this defender feat. The +10 damage is definitely good, if you have a weapon that fits the parameters, which is a limited selection, which is why not everybody takes that feat.

I'm just trying to reverse engineer this guy's idea into something I could see in the PHB, which is just what I consider the goal of good homebrew. Honestly now that it think about it, the way I'm understanding this feat, people who would wanna use it already get bonus damage from sneak attacks and it's unnecessary.

>>49439953

Because they're awesome on barbarians and fighters? It's not as big of a deal for Paladins because more of their damage is smiting than static modifiers, imo. For a fighter though it's a 40 point difference since most of your damage is through static modifier.

>>49439918
>one extra chance to smite
>one extra chance for great damage
>smallest difference
You fucker, atleast suggest a shield master paladin who knocks everyone over and has good dex saves now

So for his birthday, me and my siblings are planning to run a campaign for my brother. Thing is, he likes those Victorian era type settings and I'm thinking of running a High Fantasy-Victorian era setting for him but I'm concerned about guns and their balance (though I guess I'll be using the Renaissance item guns which don't look too problematic to deal with)

How are they if I toss in the usual D&D sword and sorcery classes? Hell, is it too much if I allow players a pistol/musket at the start of their class when we start a campaign?

>>49440050

It's smaller than the Fighter, probably because the damage is more random. And it's not really GWM doing the work there. Since you're getting most of your damage out of smite anyways, it's not a big deal that it's a 1d4.

And yeah, using a shield over a pole arm has it's own advantages like getting more AC and grabbing Shield Master and other feats you won't have the ASIs to get if you go PAM/GWM.

>>49439237
Made this, try it on for size?
Barbarian Primal Path: Shaman/Witch Doctor
SPELLCASTING
When you reach third level, your rage puts you in a frantic trance and you are able to call upon spirits of a certain nature to bestow magical aide on you and your party.
CANTRIPS
You gain two cantrips of your choice from the druid list. You learn an additional druid cantrip of your choice at 10th level.
SPELL SLOTS
You use the same table as the Eldritch Knight fighter archetype.
SPELLS KNOWN OF 1st-LEVEL AND HIGHER
You know three level one spells of your choice from the Shaman list OR the list provided by your Spiritual Patron. You pick a Spiritual Patron at 3rd level. Other general spell stuff.
SPELLCASTING ABILITY
While raging, you can only cast spells from your Shaman and Spiritual Patron list. Also, spells gained from your Shaman and Spiritual Patron list can only be cast while raging. The exception is rituals gained from this list (See below).
Your spellcasting ability is Constitution. Your spell save DC is 8 + your Constitution modifier + your rage damage bonus. Your spell attack modifier is your Constitution modifier + your rage damage bonus.
Concentration is maintained by your rage, with your rage duration, with the normal rules for maintaining rage.
Spells you gain with the ritual tag can only be cast as rituals, but do not require you to be raging. Instead, you take (1d4 per spell level) + your Strength modifier in damage as part of the ritual.

SHAMAN SPELLS
1st Level
Absorb Elements, Alarm, Entangle, Thunderwave
2nd Level
Augury, Enlarge/Reduuce, Gentle Repose
3rd Level
Blink, Haste, Leomond's Tiny Hut
4th Level
Divination

SPIRITUAL PATRONS
NATURE SPIRITS SPELLS
1st Level
Animal Friendship, Earth Tremor, Purify Food and Drink, Ensnaring Strike
2nd Level
Animal Messenger, Barkskin, Gust of Wind
3rd Level
Call Lightning, Conjure Animals, Revivify
4th Level
Polymorph

cont

>>49440310

ANCESTRAL SPIRITS
1st Level
Bless, Comprehend Languages, Protection from Good/Evil, Sanctuary
2nd Level
Hold Person, Enhance Ability, Warding Wind
3rd Level
Aura of Vitality, Protection from Energy, Remove Curse
4th Level
Death Ward

DARK SPIRITS
1st Level
Bane, Detect Magic, Witchbolt, Unseen Servant
2nd Level
Blindness/deafness, Darkness, Silence
3rd Level
Animate Dead, Bestow Curse, Nondetection
4th Level
Evard's Dark Tentacles

ENRAGED CASTING
At 3rd level, you can cast a spell as part of the same bonus action you use to enter a rage.

HELPING THE SPIRITS
At 6th level, when you use an action to cast a spell, you can make an attack as a bonus action.

BLOOD IN, BLOOD OUT
At 10th level, as an action, you can take (1d4+you strength modifier) in damage to distribute the full amount of one of your hit die among your party members however you want. You can do this (Constitution modifier) times per long rest.

CONSULTING THE SPIRITS
At 14th level, you perform a 1st-level ritual (meaning you take 1d4+STR damage) in which you consult with the spirits about an upcoming battle or event. Mechanically this translates to your party gaining one of your hit die's worth in temporary HP, to reflect preparedness for upcoming events.

>>49440097
I'd wager go ahead and throw them in, if you're starting at first level any general mooks won't be much harder to take down without guns anyway. Maybe give enemies a secret dex save for half damage.

What is the most fun class and why is it Wild Mage?

>>49439699
>>49439694
Wow, didn't know it was that easy. Thanks anons

File: 13165454116.png (4MB, 1894x1339px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1894x1339px

>>49439655
>>49440365

If you want something simple to do to get a warm-up of DMing when you feel too overwhelmed with something like Lost Mines of Phandelver, you can try this module to DM for some friends. My brother wanted to DM but didn't feel confident with running Lost Mines so I made him try this out with me as player (though I controlled 4 PCs at the same time during our playtest.)

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/186488/A-Most-Potent-Brew--A-Basic-Rules-Adventure

It's easy to track, it's simple and well-made. It's another take of the classic D&D "giant rats in my cellar" adventure archetype.

>>49439981
You're missing the point. The point is no one plays a TWF paladin which gives all the listed advantages level 1 with no feats.

>>49440113
GWM I said like adding an entire 1st level smite to your attack in terms of damage. It's a big deal for Paladins and still the typical path Paladins take for a reason.

>>49440478

>typical path paladins take for a reason

I feel like that's just not true and is a very misleading statement. A paladin sword and boarding is just as "viable" and strong as a Paladin using GWM/PAM.

One thing I do want to note is I'm not talking about the homebrew feat at all (which is probably dumb, I haven't really looked at it and don't intend to weigh in on it). The thing I'm taking issue with is that Paladins "best" path is to take PAM/GWM. That's just not true.

>>49440365
Yeah, dming feels simply overwhelming at first, but so does Driving a car

>>49440518
>just as "viable"
Yes, absolutely

>just as "strong"
No, not by any definition

>>49440678

It is absolutely as strong. Dealing slightly less damage =/= less strong. If you just use GWM it's only dealing 20 less damage (assuming you're using it at all since it DOES reduce your chance to hit, which is non-negligible) and some dice a turn, and with just Pole Arm Master it's 1d4+1d8 less. In exchange for -2 (to -5) AC, having to use Strength (a worse save, less stat flexibility), and requiring two feats (meaning you have less ASIs to devote to your Charisma, and weakening you and your group's saves as a result). You're also missing out on Shield Master, which is an absolutely awesome feat.

It is just as strong. I certainly don't think Paladins need a dumb homebrew feat to make SNB as "good" as 2 handers.

File: parrying-dagger.png (20KB, 537x327px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 537x327px

>>49438712

>>49439706
The CR crap is supposed to show how many of those encounters the party can manage per long rest. If they are rested and have all their abilities they will shit over any "Deadly" encounter you toss their way.

>>49439339
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. If you specifically want a magic invisible hand helping you in combat, then you've picked the right class. Maybe it's not always the most optimal choice every single round, but does that matter to you?

>>49437220

Sorry to be a shit, some kind anon was willing to upload the 3.5 fiend folio and I forgot to save it to drive. If anyone can help me out I'd appreciate it.

>>49438910
Why is this one better than this one >>49438657?

>>49439188

>don't even try to max out your Int

You can get two feats and max out your Dex and Int in point buy. Absolutely put points into your Int. Dex/Int and some Con isn't MAD by any stretch of the imagination. You get a lot of good debuffs and giving disadvantage to ensure they hit is excellent, PLUS you want Int to make your illusions harder to see through.

You don't NEED Int but unless you're doing something like multi-classing into Bard or another spellcaster I don't see why you wouldn't put Int into your character and not needlessly narrow your already limited spell options.

>>49439339

You don't NEED to Mage Hand every round, but you can look to pick up Mobile at ~10 so you don't have to use Cunning Action Disengage against isolated targets. This lets you Versatile Trickster every turn if you have to to get Sneak Attacks off (or just abusing advantage to ensure you hit).

speaking of arcane tricksters, our party's barbarian is a bit of that guy, always talking about his character as if it was actually him and not a fucking game, in that really obnoxious way


How viable is it for me to conjure my familiar inside his stomach and shocking grasp him to unconsciousness from a distance?

>>49439855
I would be really happy if you elaborated.

>>49441412

You don't even need to, just kite out his rage and sneak attack him to death.

>>49441430

I just think getting instantly brought down to Dying + Unconscious because my wizard failed the first constitution saving throw that came his way is pretty bogus.

Especially at high levels, where some creatures deal so much damage in a single hit it is pretty much impossible to NOT fail. You COULD squish down the damage across the board, but then we have to ask ourselves if we're going to change so much from the core rules, then why not just play a different game to begin with?

>>49439382
>Also, adding charisma to mage armor is hilariously OP


idk bladesingers already add INT to theirs.


I once saw a homebrew that made bards a little more like warlocks, that I liked a lot. College of the fey. Gave'em a bunch of druid spells, a book of shadows and the ability to pull minor objects from thin air or something. It was cute

>>49441465

Not forever. You're walking around with 23 AC all the time every day.

I guess until you hit an anti-magic zone but that doesn't really happen that often.

>>49440310

I like it for shaman pretty well, witch doctor I'm less sure of.

>>49440753
I did the math a couple hours ago. GWM only raises your damage against relatively lower AC enemies. Against heavily armored targets, it can actually lower it.

>>49441513

Yeah, I see your point.

>>49441465
>bladesingers already add INT to theirs.
Bladesinger is specifically a defensive-themed archetype, and even then it's basically the strongest feature it has.
Also, I never claimed bladesinger wasn't OP. :P

>>49441559

well, those are the enemies you want a great weapon for

>>49441595

I wouldn't call Bladesinger OP. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not BAD, but it's still outclassed by Illusion Wizards, at the very least.

>>49441595

and the witch doctor could be a support archetype

imbuing teams with the power of certain arcane spirits, pulling off Druidic disruptive spells, and bonuses to casting rituals from your book of shadows, or getting your own shadow to be your familiar

I made a Human Barbarian (small party, had already fair share of exotic races), and started with the sentinel feat

Was there a better one?

>>49437648

>Thrass is hard to say :(

Nigga are you serious

>>49441718
Sentinel is solid, can't really go wrong with it if you're in melee a lot. Shield Master and GWM are fantastic with barbarian as well (GWM + Reckless Attack for massive, consistent damage).

>>49441755
Well, there's a say-nothing answer. You'd think there would be an official ruling on what happens when a shapeshifter becomes pregnant considering how many people can shapeshift in D&D.

>>49441777

it's a five man party and he'll share tanking duties with the cleric. I thought I might as well give it some ability to pull agro

My characters love heists and I want to give them one as part of their next session, two days from now. Can anyone help me out with some inspiring maps of mansions/palaces?

File: unfuckable.gif (1MB, 370x209px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 370x209px

>>49441826
rules regarding pregnancy tend to be bundled with pretty magical realmy systems. Just follow your festishes to what the answer should be in your game, and keep it in your game, degenerate.

File: EK.jpg (58KB, 400x646px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x646px

>>49437220
Some NPC, possible future PC (loaner character) help please.

Setting is a 'mage guild'. The character would be a younger person, new apprentice type. He, in the future, will be an Eldritch Knight.

But right now he is just a first level fighter. He is human though and I am giving him the Magic Initiate Feat to justify his being in the guild at the moment.

What would be the best choices for spells/cantrips? Suggestions?

The character is an NPC at the moment, but there is a good chance that he will be used by drop in players from time to time.

>>49442006

One of Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade, and then Minor Illusion/Prestigidigination/Message/some other minor utility cantrip.

First level spell should be something that ages well. Grease is nice, Shield is good, find Familiar has it's uses, Mage Armor is cool if you're going Dex.

>>49441993
The only thing I do regarding pregnancy is that half-breeds can't have kids; beyond that, it never comes up.

>>49439340
All those lashings really paid off, senpai.

>>49442006

Booming Blade if Tank, Green-Flamed Blade if dex. (Or was it the other way around)

Then add minor illusion because his job is drama and plot, and this gives you a free tiny hologram to help him relay information visually or audibly

Your spell is going to be Mage Armor unless dex is a dump stat. If not, then Find Familiar

This lets you have his crow flying around and taking a dump on the party every once in a while to remind the party of his plot influence.

Barring that, Feather Fall might be a good one to have if you plan on having your party fall down a cliff into the dungeon

Comprehend Languages might be a good one if you need the party to decipher something

You get the gist of it. Think of what the story needs, then apropriate the spell

>>49441755
>not planning it, just wondering
"asking for a friend"

>>49442057
Mage armor sounds good.

Do Green-Flame and Booming age well though? What about when the EK gets a second attack?

I think Prestidigitation sounds good for him either way, well help him act 'wizardy' and all that at least at some level.

>>49441358
I wrote the first one.

I get what he's going for you choose at the time of the feat to have it be more aggressive (+2 damage) or defensive (+1 AC) instead of getting both.

It's a cool idea, but it needs to be worded carefully.

>>49442357

Booming Blade and Warcaster is great, even after you just want to hit them with a regular attack. That said, there are level ranges where it's better to use GFB or BB, and there are level ranges where it's better to attack.

>>49442408
I think I will go with Green Flame if for no other reason than it sounds like more fun to describe when it gets used.

>>49442508

Sure. I think it's the better starting choice, and he can always pick up Booming Blade later on in the game when it becomes better. Once he gets some AC and can stand toe to toe more, use it with Warcaster to ensure enemies stay next to you or get punished hard for leaving. Definitely one of my favorite combos.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>49437220
/tg/, I'm still having trouble with my homebrew cats. There's too much advantage sprinkled about and I'm not sure what to replace it with.

>>49442278
>Think of what the story needs, then apropriate the spell

Certainly, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't to far off on him being effective. Certainly the story is all that really matters, and his place in it.

I expect to have him get used as a PC now and then, so I want to make sure the player isn't thinking 'oh this sucks' when he looks at the character. Balance of flavor and effectiveness.

File: gas chamber.png (1MB, 1312x581px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1312x581px

>>49437277
>when your sneak attack crits

File: Small Catfolk.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49442545
0/10 not small

>>49442589
0/10 literally cats

Gonna do a rogue/fighter multi-class and not sure which to start off with. The extra proficiencies from rogue seem like they'd be nice, but the weapon proficienies and little bit of hp from a fighter might help more.

What would you suggest?

>>49442746
Pick what the team doesn't have. If your team needs more damage start fighter. If they need more skills start rogue. Then go from there.

>>49442746

My first question is: why? What do you hope to gain from this?

You're probably going to want to go for Dex either way, so I figure the armor proficiency isn't as useful as the skills. Skill monkeys are always nice too. I'd start Rogue.

>>49442746
This multiclass just seems like it would make you a worse Fighter. I'd start with 2 Rogue levels then all your Fighter levels.

>>49442804
Eventually turning it into a pirate, using mercer's gunslinger, and the UA Swashbuckler, I'm aware it will end up kinda sub-par, but I'm interested in trying it regardless.

>>49437305

It's kind of poor game design to start with. Works great in vidya because you can pawn its decision cycle off on the computer. At the table though you either end up with one player being forced to make an ultimately unfun amount of decisions while the table watches them do it or you end up in that "you can have 4 summons out but only one of you can do anything each turn" and the fandom goes into hysterics.

I'm thinking of bringing a friend DM to guest play at our table, so that he can stab the party in the back by the end, reveal he's actually been gimping himself all along to pretend be lower level, be the boss fight, and naturally loose

So what's some decent challenge for 4 level 2~3 players PartyVPlayer wise? Barbarian for stretching out the rounds? Rogue or Ranger for Lair Actions? Maybe a multiclass Bard 2 Paladin X, that only plays his bard levels until the twist?

September sage advice is out.

Those who thought familiars can't use the help action have just been btfo.

>>49441464
>creatures deal so much damage

Are you sure you read this right? Because the damage is determined by margine of failure.

So Storm Giant's attack bonus is +9, which modifies base DC of 15, bringing it to 24.

Let's say our eeeh 9th level Fighter has +4 Con, obviously proficiency in Con save, so another +4, half plate for the sake of the argument (use only bonus AC not accounting for starting 10, so it's +5)

With +13 bonus to the save and possible advantage from a buff or something his chances are pretty okay.

I'm really wondering about the math side of it and what specifically one would need to change about DCs and other stuff.

>>49442944
Have him be a gang leader or a high ranking gang member so that it's not a bunch of people against just 1. He can have his cronies attack and he has experience controlling multiple monsters as a DM anyway, so you wouldn't even need to make them up. He could kind of co-DM.

>>49438712

I just treat them like shields: +2 AC, 1d4 piercing as an improvised weapon, no properties

>>49442545
You actually salvaged that, nice.

>>49443136
Thanks! Any idea of what I can do to give them less advantage and more stuff that separates them from wood elves?

>>49440753
Viable means that you are not lacking in versatility or ability in a meaningful way. What you are talking about has no issue whatsoever in the game, but it's not as strong.

GWM/PAM is stronger though. You will deal more damage, you will get more attacks. And not just "slightly" more. On top of that you are less reliant on your smites, which increases your versatility.

>>49443291

>you will deal more damage/get more attacks

at the cost of worse saves, a higher feat tax, and less AC. If you want to play a defensive character I wouldn't go 2 weapon fighting.

>and not just slightly more

in a perfect world where you never miss, you'll do a lot more damage, but -5 to hit isn't negligible and it's silly to say it is. if you're not using gwm then you're getting 1d4+1d8 extra damage that someone sword and boarding isn't it.

>>49442545

You should make an Int subrace too, since cats are usually pretty smart.

File: 1473965873036s.jpg (3KB, 125x110px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x110px

Where can I find a list of all the items? I have the player handbook but I can't seem to find any list of items. My friends and I are playing DnD for our first time and I'm going to take up DMing so I'm trying to compile a list of decent loot to hand out after their trials.

>>49442545

Feline Grace can just be replaced with acrobatics proficiency
Jump advantage can be replaced with the lion's ability Running Leap, with a 10 foot running start, you can long jump up to 25 feet

Natural Predator is just keen smell of the cat familiar. Proficency is in perception, advantage on perception based in smells

>Feral
The aaracokra proficency unarmed. A race for monks I suppose.

the advantage on climbing I don't get. Just let them use dexterity in athletics for jumping

>city

Oh hey, a warlock build

I don't see how these mechanics translate someone better suited for a task that much different than feral. If you want to have a more social build, build on that, because this doesn't really compete with the halfling as it stands

Refine this mechanic, there's nothing in it that would appeal to me

>>49443720
Chapter 5 of the PHB, Equipment.

>>49443753
>the advantage on climbing I don't get. Just let them use dexterity in athletics for jumping

Actually, this was a terrible idea, I'm sorry. But you really don't have that great mechanic appeal

Struggling to think of a suitable replacement though.
Casting Hunter's Mark as a racial once per long rest might be interesting.
This way you could do the same for City, and racially cast Charm Person

Shill me on why I should give up 3.5 and play 5e. From what I've seen it's still too much of an MMO on a tabletop like 4e was.

>>49443790
Thanks, but it doesn't seem to really have much. For example, bag of holding is not listed at all in the player's handbook.

>>49442589
NnnnnnnnnnffffffffffffKITTIES! :D

>>49443828
Magic items are in the DMG.

>>49443814

>persecution of catfolk

Meh? It's all about context, and in the context of d&d, catfolk are just funny elves or some dude who is way into druiding

File: 1b5.jpg (35KB, 293x636px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 293x636px

>>49443817
>MMO on a tabletop
Either you've never played an MMO, or you've never played on a tabletop.

>>49443817
We'd actually rather you stay away off in 3aboo land.

File: yeah yui.gif (965KB, 500x438px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 500x438px

>>49443817
It's more balanced than 3.5e (all character options are viable), has better encounter-building rules, plays better at the table, gets rid of the magic item conveyor belt bullshit, and is easier to homebrew and houserule for without the entire thing collapsing under its own weight.

>>49443863
If you don't understand the analogy or whatever you want to call it that's not my problem. 4e focused way too much on combat encounters and making each class a special snowflake with stupid bonus actions and class abilities per combat and all that garbage.

>>49443880
Typical 4/5e baby

>>49442545
>homebrew cats

I don't get this meme.
Why do people want to play this?
What is so different about it?
What is so god damn intriguing about this subrace that it has to be forced into literally every game in existence?

I'm legitimately confused.

Sidenote: I have all these same questions for drow players.

>>49443914
Because kitties.

>>49443899
I don't really care about balance because unless your DM is trash he'll make sure to take your party composition into account when designing the campaign. And I don't really see how 3.5 is hard to house rule or homebrew.

>>49443922
Don't get me wrong, I fucking love cats.

Why not just play a druid, though?

>>49443907
Two questions: Could you tell me what MMO actually tries to make classes distinct and interesting to play?

And could you explain why it's a bad thing?

>>49443937
Because, when you're a druid, you can only turn into a kittie.

Isn't it so much better to be a true, blue, actual kittie, instead of being a dude with magic pretending to be one?

>>49443933
Well, if you don't care about balance at all, then sure, 3.5e is easy to homebrew for because you go in expecting the DM to do the work of balancing for you at the table.

5e makes it easier to produce stuff is actually balanced that others DMs can look at and use, because it's easier to produce things balanced with the stuff that is already there, because the stuff that is there is universally viable without a ton of effort on the DM's part and the examples to compare to for balance are in a much narrower range of power.

>>49443970
Keep focusing on the semantics and keep dodging the point of the statement. It's encounter based instead of day based. It's just shoehorning stupid abilities to make the classes feel super special and make the combat super epic!

>>49443977
If you can transform your entire body into the form of a cat, you probably have enough control to only do it for the ears and tail.

And yes, cats are awesome, but I wouldn't want to be one.

You're not an actual cat, thouh and only have the ears and tail though, you're a human with cat ears and a tail and possibly claws, other than that you just look human.

I've never played D&D before, but the thing that has really got my attention is the world building aspect. The idea of a crude drawing of a region on a piece of paper eventually resulting in hundreds of hours of playtime really excites me. I've just been watching map making tutorials on YT for the past few days despite never playing before. Is that a strange thing to do?

>>49443817
It's not really like 4e at all.

It's similar to 3.5, but:

>Most situational modifiers are folded into the advantage/disadvantage system.
>Streamlined skill system, passive skill scores (essentially the same as taking 10)
>Total modifers and DCs are much smaller in general; the die roll actually matters. DC 30 is nigh-impossible.
>Less of the strict MMO/vidya-type mentality present in 3.5 and 4e: You can wear three magic rings or two amulets, and the math doesn't assume or require that the fighter has a +X sword of cockmunching at level Y
>Some "realistic" limits on mages, like actually having to maintain their more powerful, long-lasting spells, or having to expend more power to cast it at higher power
>Level 0 spells at infinite use
>Spellcasters are more distinct mechanically
>Alignment-based mechanics are dead.

>>49444015
I want to be a catfolk druid now... one that can turn into a human.

>>49444061
Hexcrawls have been around for decades. If you enjoy worldbuilding, fuckin' do it. Maybe get some friends in on it, write up a setting document, play it, share it.

>>49444006
>It's encounter based instead of day based.
But it's still based on managing daily resources, like HP.

And again, can you tell me which MMO makes you feel special and epic?

>>49444061
Worldbuilding is a hobby all its own, but when it comes to actual play, focusing too much on the worldbuilding can cause problems. You can get too obsessed with muh lore, have too much info for the players to process, or simply waste effort on things the players will never see or care about.

For a TTRPG, custom settings should be built as the players go, not fleshed out in great detail ahead of time.

>>49443970
A couple of MMOs spring to mind.

GW2 sort of does this. Each class has a unique class mechanic which defines play style. Unfortunately, the devs follow the lol school of game design, so unique and interesting things tend to get nerfed into oblivion. Mesmers are love.

Archeage is a hybrid classless and class based system. Your characters have ten skill trees, which they can freely switch between. Your class is determined by which three trees you have active. All trees have combos with all others. It results in some fairly unique classes. Shroudmasters are life.

Tera has the holy Trinity, but each class has a lot of nuance, and some of them are special balanced snowflakes. But also some of are almost indistinguishable from each other. Mystics are happiness.

Also, classes being distinct from each other is a good thing, but I prefer the archeage method where players don't pick a class so much pick things they want to do, and this results in a unique set of abilities.

>>49443970
Usually MMO's have different mechanics for different classes, but it ultimately just breaks down into knowing your rotation and not walking into dangerous areas for end game stuff no matter what you are
>>49443899
The bigger things for me were how much easier it is to design encounters, magic items no longer being an expectation on character creation or balance tool in later levels, and generally more open ended class features so you don't really need to jump through hoops for certain character concepts the way you might have in 3.5

Memery aside, what can be done about the Warlock's Blade Pact? The idea of a sort of sacrificial knife seems awesome, but it falls into the "caster going into melee when you might as well Eldritch Blast" situation.

>>49444172
If your party martial doesn't have a martial melee weapon and is fighting something resistant to mundane weapons, give it to him so he has a magic weapon for a minute.

>>49442746
To be honest, it's not an awfully bad idea.

5 levels in fighter gives you multi-attack, shield proficiency, longbow proficiency, second wind, action surge, a stat-up, a fighting style, possibly crits on 19-20 which works well with sneak attack...

Going beyond level 5 on fighter would be a waste, though, unless you're an EK relying on cantrips. In which case, maybe 7 or so.
Otherwise, you're too dependent on getting extra attacks, which you're missing out on due to the rogue multiclass.

Though if you're using guns or something, that still works fine. Just don't bother levelling beyond 5, probably.

Put rest of the levels in rogue.

Barbarian synergises with rogue better, but it's not the type of character you're looking for.

As long as you're careful with how much you multiclass, it can still be a perfectly viable idea.

>>49444068
Oh yeah, I almost forgot:

>prestige classes are dead, replaced instead with class archetypes, meaning that you don't have to play some mmo-style char-op game to wear armor and cast a few spells

>>49444172
Pretty simple fix. Turn the pact weapon into a pact object, and remove the initial pointless limit on ranged pact weapons.

The pact object can be any nonmagical object that your character can hold and carry. (Or some other limit, still brainstorming this). If it is possible to have proficiency with that object, you do.

>>49444172
Depending on your choice of patron and weapon, Bladelocks can actually be reasonably effective in melee - Green Flame Blade is nice on occasion, and Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke both make people think twice about hitting you. Hex also brings your damage up to par as long as you can concentrate on it. The issue is that Eldritch Blast is still better and requires less investment.

If you give Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker out as bonus invocations for Bladelocks they become really competitive with Blastlocks, though they should skirmish foes like a rogue rather than get stuck in like a fighter.

>>49444257
Are you thinking just ranged weapons? Or like toolkits and shit?

>>49439777
And two is also explicitly forbidden in the rules.
Which is concordant with noting that parrying daggers and shields are not compatible.

>>49444311
Toolkits and shit. It lets the bladelock have out of combat utility, something every other pact boon has.

>>49444253
>>49442746
Oh, right, I'll add to that.
Champion would probably be better than gunslinger, although not by a massively wide margin.
Battlemaster would be great, because you would be able to make sneak attacks as retaliation with gives you a massive damage boost. Heck, considering battlemaster exists, it's probably not even worth going champion.

Gunslinger is pretty suboptimal in comparison.
See if you can get gun proficiency some other way, unless the archetype is really supposed to fit.

Battlemaster(5)Rogue(15) works brilliantly together. The main gimmick here is using riposte to (weapondamage)+(superioritydie)+(sneakattack) damage outside of your turn and still be able to sneak attack on your turn, but that requires you to have a melee weapon out to riposte.
Only problem with that is you then can't use uncanny dodge on the turn you riposte, although the attack missed you anyway.

>>49442746
Start rogue, and be an archer. Archer fighters have a lot of times they could stand to have a bonus action.

>>49444321
Parrying Dagger
Martial Melee Weapon
1d4, Finesse
When wielding a parrying dagger in your offhand and not using a shield, you gain a +1 bonus to your AC.

Not as good as a true shield, but allows two-weapon fighting. Seems a decent tradeoff.

I want to play a rogue lock. Either thief or arcane trickster, and pact of the chain. What would you suggest for a level split?

>>49444172
Giving some more utility features would be my preference. There's already the life drinking, but if it gave some sort of bonus to eldritch blast the next turn, gave enemies some sort of save vs minor status, gave enemies disadvantage on something next turn or something of that nature it wouldn't have to compete with other warlock options specifically in damage output

>>49444363
Rogue 3/Warlock X

Gives you access to Expertise, Cunning Action, and the entry-level Thief goodies. Most of the rest of the thief stuff can be replicated with spells until you get to the capstone. Archfey patron would be best I think.

>>49444172
Give warlocks a special extra attack that's free for all warlocks, but can only be used with strength.

Remove the lifedrinker+thirsting blade spelltax.

Introduce more optional invocations such as
"Your multiattack now works with dex. Additionally, you gain a small utility such as being able to drag enemies towards you."
And one invocation should increase defensive abilities if you use melee, while also having an additional utility effect for range.

Give pact of the blade more non-combat utility. The other pacts offer non-combat utility, too.

Allow pact of the blade to use pact weapons as spell focii, allow two one-handed weapons or ranged weapons or whatever.

Possibly include a invocation for level ~12-ish that functions like war magic - use a bonus action to attack after a spell that isn't a cantrip.


There are a few key things that need to be done:
1. Give the pact some purpose other than 'you attack more and deal more damage with melee weapons'. There should be some utility.
2. Get the damage somewhere in line with eldritch blast without sacrificing a load of feats and such.
3. Give a defensive buff that requires you to put yourself in danger (i.e., melee combat) to use, so EB can't abuse it at range. This makes the bladelock not die straight away.
4. Offer combat utilities that vary from EB's. EB has 'you push enemies' and 'you have longer range'. Being able to pull enemies with ranged attacks or, say, disengage after weapon attack might be suitable.

>>49444363
either this,>>49444402
or the exact opposite for similar reasons, though a large part of the lock dip would just be utility and familiar, which you can largely get with a feat or two

>>49444499
>>49444402
I wonder if a bard lock would be more effective.

>>49443817
>>49444068
No paladins with 'detect evil' marching through and automatically determining everything that is wrong with the world.

Very few creatures have the ability to detect evil, and the only one I know of (sprite) has a very easy to pass charisma save to stop your grand evil cover scheme from falling to bits.

Of course, if you're a pure angel or devil, paladins can still detect that.

I'm sorry, but sometimes 'detect evil' is kind of a stupid ability to exist.

>>49444519
Depends on what you want. If all you need is someone who can handle locks and traps, be a Warlock with the criminal background and call it a day.

>>49444519
In a lot of ways it probably would. Sneak attack can't be used with eldritch blast so one way or another you're missing out on getting the most out of the big feature of either rogue or warlock.

>>49444519
bard lock could more easily do a split closer to 50/50 if thats what you mean, rather than just a dip for some shit
unless you really want to be melee though, you are right.

at the very least, bardlock (ranged) would be EASIER.

Is it stupid to just take Feats over stat increases? How big of a disadvantage are you do this?
I want to make a Paladin that rides a horse most of the time.

Polearm Master, Sentinel, Mounted Combatant and Resilience.

>>49444596
Best bet would be to maximize your combat stats (Strength or Dex based on weapon choice, Charisma only if you're making spell attacks- which your Smites aren't), then take feats to support your chosen combat style.

>>49444549
>>49444551
>>49444567
Basically, really like the idea of pact of the chain. But there's almost no reason to take warlock beyond level seventeen. I started thinking about dip options, and thought the skill monkey dips would be good, and fun.

>>49444472

>but can only be used with strength

this seems like a dumb and pointless addition

>>49444596
Resilience sounds kind of unnecessary for a paladin considering their saves all have charisma on top of them anyway, and those feats in general have mileage that might sort of vary depending on how many big monsters your campaign has (and the bonus action of polearm master might sort of compete with a lot of your spells)
But so long as you at least have strength or dex high and charisma reasonably high I doubt you'd be a burden to your group or anything

>>49444363
Rogue 5/ Warlock 15.
Compared to rogue 3, you also get one of rogue's strongest abilities - Uncanny dodge.
You get +1d6 on sneak attacks. You get a stat-up.

Use GFB and Booming Blade to keep up damage-wise with eldritch blast while also being able to add sneak attack damage. Go pact of the blade, obtain thirsting blade and later, lifedrinker.


Uncanny dodge will help you be not too incredibly squishy. It's a level 5 feature for a reason - level 5 features are strong. And, let's be honest, you're not doing much with your reactions anyway.

Arcane trickster is highly recommendable simply because you can use the spell slots on level 1 spells like hex if you need to. Also mage hand shenannigans.

>>49444652
if you just want a 3 dip then, bard is probably better. you get a few more spells per day, a couple more cantrips, 2 expertises, jack of all trades, and (presuming lore) 4 total skills of any choice. song of rest and inspiration arnt terrible either, and bard gets the bonus of riding on your casting stat already, so you dont need 13 dex to multiclass into it
unless you really want fast hands, or super mage hand, bard probably is going to be your preferred 3 point dip

>>49444657
>pointless
The point is to restrict martials who don't have 'extra attack' from multiclassing in to get an extra attack without spending an invocation to balance it out.

It brings more meaning to using strength - a neglected stat- on the warlock.
And yet, since there's an invocation to allow dex-based attacks, you can still use dex if you want to play that way.

Dex is simply stronger than strength for a bladelock. Their AC scales off of dex, and they'd have to make multiclass and stat sacrifices to get heavy armour or simply put up with having low AC.

>>49444472
Just give bladelocks thirsting blade and lifedrinker for free. It's the 'combat' pact, sort of like how champion is the 'combat' fighter archetype, so losing a bit of utility for better combat prowess is OK.

With TB and LD for free, your damage becomes comparable to eldritch blast for most of the time - Hex makes blasting pull ahead due to extra attacks, but theoretically opportunity attacks help with that. As far as buffs and utility, I have a few suggestions:

-Invocation that allows bladelocks to use an arcane implement as a shield - a magical disk of force or whatnot. Increases AC, but requiring the blade pact makes it more suited to folks who like melee.
-Invocation that automatically casts a level 1 Hex on a target you attack with your pact weapon - guaranteed extra damage, potentially more if you keep concentration.
-Invocation that gives opponents disadvantage on attacks when you damage them with your pact weapon, or some other debuff.

>>49444729

Just give it to them at level 5 like every other class in the game.

Like as an Invocation or something. I don't really see the big deal for a warlock using invocations to improve their damage; it's not like Pact of the not-blade doesn't have it's own 'mandatory' invocations (agonizing blast).

And if playing dex really is better then you're not giving them an incentive to use Str you're just trading out one 'invocation tax' for another. seems dumb and pointless.

>>49444472
>1. Give the pact some purpose other than 'you attack more and deal more damage with melee weapons'. There should be some utility.
Totally. I feel like there's a lot of opportunity to evoke the flavor of the 4E warlock which marked enemies and received boons for killing them, beyond the basic Hex ability. It's a pact of the blade, after all.
>2. Get the damage somewhere in line with eldritch blast without sacrificing a load of feats and such.
It kinda is and kinda isn't. A maul or greatsword is going to deal more damage than EB by default, but EB scales better after level 10 and overtakes it by a good margin, especially when you still need as much Cha for Lifedrinker.
>3. Give a defensive buff that requires you to put yourself in danger (i.e., melee combat) to use, so EB can't abuse it at range. This makes the bladelock not die straight away.
Armor of Agathys is kinda this. You can use it at range for just the temp HP, but if you use it in melee you also get extra damage out of it. It also addresses issue 2 at the same time.
>4. Offer combat utilities that vary from EB's. EB has 'you push enemies' and 'you have longer range'. Being able to pull enemies with ranged attacks or, say, disengage after weapon attack might be suitable.
Maybe a simple "enemy loses reaction" effect, even, though I think it'd be interesting to enable the dark magic warrior theme instead of another skirmisher. So pulling more than evading.

>>49437370
Call them Gungans

>>49444729
Why does it matter if warlocks don't normally need strength? It's not like there's a quota we need to make on classes that benefit greatly from strength. Warlocks already have to decide between dex cha and con. If you're adding strength into the mix you may as well add an invocation to give medium or heavy armor. Making an extra attack that only works with strength would just be needlessly technical, and replace the old problem with choosing between two different problems.
They should just make the pact give an extra attack after 5 warlock levels as part of the pact and give more extra effects to the bladelocks attacks as invocations along the lines of open palm monks or eldritch knight stuff

Shoot. Lockadins seem nifty too

File: catstgchanges2.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49443685
An Int subrace would clutter things more, and I'd have no idea where to start with it.

Not that I'm entirely opposed, but I'd like it to be a little simpler?

>>49443753
You have a point on Feline Grace.

I like the Running Leap ability, hadn't thought of that; I don't get to GM much so I hadn't seen it.

Natural Predator is pretty much keen senses with the addition that you can smell things good enough to track people.

Climbing is because cats are good at getting up things. Dex on jumping does seem strange, as you admit. The climb advantage thing was recommended by another anon, but it is fairly boring.

City are pretty lackluster, yeah.

The problem I have with them casting Charm Person is that the homebrew I based this homebrew on did something similar with Enthrall(because lul his waifu was enthralling hue hue) and I want to stay as far away from that as possible.

Is this any better?

>>49443914
Mostly for the chance to play something a little more primal without going to furryland. It also adds a bit more detail and variety to the game.

>>49444824

Maybe I'm just crazy, but cats learning abilities is supposed to be pretty good as far as house hold pets, and I think it'd be neat to see a subrace for the 3 mental stats. Maybe that last part is just me being weird though.

Either way, I think some bonus to learning/recalling things would work. Some kind of bonus to remembering things similar to the keen mind feat, maybe?

quick question, does the pirate variant feature work in icewind dale? I'm playing a pirate and he tried to steal free drinks at a bar there but my dm was like ''no these guys are too badass they aren't having it''

>>49444730
Warlocks are still spellcasters.
The new beastmaster ranger, the rogue, the wizard, the cleric, the sorcerer, the druid and the bard don't get it for free.

This prevents all the spellcasters from automatically being good at everything.

If you get a spellcaster within 5ft, their spell options are limited. They can't use ranged spells effectively. If they could all just melee as effectively as their cantrips, it'd be a bit silly. The martials would weep about being less special.

Pact of the tome users would be just as effective if not more effective than pact of the blade users at melee combat.

If you limit it to the pact of the blade, it's still suboptimal. This would cause the pact options to look like: 'You get a couple of cantrips', 'you get a little helper' and 'You get a melee damage boost'. It just doesn't fit in. Not that pact of the blade fits in right now at all either.

As it stands, agonizing blast is still pretty mandatory, even for pact of the blade users. Less so, but it probably isn't worth avoiding unless your charisma sucks and you intend to neglect charisma to get your dex up. At that point, it feels like you should probably be playing a different class like EK.

So really, TB and LD should be effectively free to keep the damage up, but it should be done in a way that doesn't defile the other pact choices with a straight-up combat upgrade when the other two are mostly utility.
Having at least one very tasty invocation should balance that.

>>49444730
Whoops, I think I included the bit about agonizing blast tax to your post instead of the one below.

And also, continued from last post:
>bladelocks get a shield
This isn't really a good idea.

People would just pick bladelock not JUST for better reaction attacks and 5ft attacks if they can't escape from melee, but it would also mean it's even more of a straight damage upgrade.

Yes, they should be more durable and do more damage, but it should have more of a cost than 'you sacrifice pact of the tome / pact of the chain.'
The pacts aren't supposed to be incredibly strong, even if you can potentially abuse guidance/familiar/shillelagh to some extreme.

>>49444753
It does give an incentive to use strength. If they somehow obtain medium or heavy armour, they'll have reason to stick with strength - Deal more damage and save an invocation. There are still the downsides of not having gooddex.

Also, as above in a previous post, agonizing blast is still quite recommendable for a bladelock who hasn't dumped everything, or who isn't going all-in.

Actually, I'm kind of confused now. I guess I'm sort of agreeing, because the invocation tax stops people from picking a pact just so they get free versatility without any investment other than the pact. And pacts aren't super-powerful.

>>49445040
>The new beastmaster ranger, the rogue, the wizard, the cleric, the sorcerer, the druid and the bard don't get it for free.
I can't speak for the new Beastmaster, but Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards all get extra attacks (Bladesinger, Favored Soul, College of Valor respectively). Druids can wildshape into a form with multiattack, and Rogues don't strictly need it due to once-per-round sneak attack. Clerics don't get a proper extra attack, but War domain grants a few per day as well as bonus damage.

Bladelocks are the only 'gish' class that don't get an extra attack.

>>49445092

>it does use an incentive to use strength

no it doesn't.

>if they somehow obtain medium or heavy armor

they already get medium armor by base, iirc. but basically if they multi-class out, it makes them better at using strength? It's still dumb. It's dumb and totally unnecessary.

They shouldn't get extra attack at level 3 anyways.

>>49445097

That's not free doofus, they're getting extra attack as part of their subclass features, unlike fighters or barbarians who just get it for being fighters and barbarians. Warlocks should get it as a subclass feature, just like bards/wizards/sorcs.

>>49445132
That's fine. Taking up one of your invocation choices is not, particularly when eldritch blast scales twice as hard for zero investment.

>>49444807
not much more technical than rogue's 'finesse weapons' or barbarian's 'no heavy armour but you go strength' restrictions, but I can see the problem that an ordinary warlock might get confused when they aren't really inclined to care.

The idea is just to make 'strength or dex' more of an option. Right now, you're offered the possibility of using strength weapons with pact of the blade with a maul or something but there really isn't much of a point. It's a bit of a trap if anything.

I think extra attack as part of the pact is probably alright. Lifedrinker as part of the pact as someone has suggested is a little more dangerous, since you're giving the full melee capability to anybody who decides to give up a familiar or a few cantrips.

>>49444757
>2.
The problem here is there isn't really any reason to go maul. You'd have to go get heavy armour, or else you're losing a ton of AC, and trying to get yourself killed.
Lifedrinker works off of number of hits, and favours two-weapon-fighting.
Gotta multiclass to make strength weapon bladelock a choice, really.

>3.
Armor of agathys is a good point. Works better if the warlock has time to actually use it before a fight, though. I guess while they're closing distance and not EBing.

>4.
Not sure how dark warrior would be, though. I suppose a risky playstyle of 'deal damage to survive' works out.

>>49445156

eldritch blast still requires an invocation choice in order to maximize it's damage as well.

I don't think it's that big of a deal but I also don't think it would be busted if they got it somewhere by base.

>>49445175

>but there isn't much of a point

GWM/PAM says hello, how do you do?

>>49445113
>no it doesn't
Then why does it give 'proficiency with all weapons'?
That tempts people into thinking 'Oh, I'll get the BIGGEST and BADDEST and MOST DAMAGING WEAPON' rather than 'oh, I'll get a rapier'.
Heck, it even discourages dex right now because it doesn't work with two weapons - only one - discouraging two-weapon-fighting and going for a rapier is less attractive since you don't have a shield.

Rapier's still the best option right now for them, I think.

They don't get medium armour, and unlike some suggestions, it's a bit dangerous to allow medium armour as part of the pact as EBers might pick it just to be tankier and not actually use the blade.

If extra attack is part of the pact, it's assumed you get it at level 5.

>>49445097
They're a bit gishey, but when you realize they lack spells such as 'shield', they're sometimes actually more vulnerable in melee than a wizard or sorcerer.
So they really need an overhaul if they're going to give a 'gish' feel and deserve extra attack.

Most gishes get gishy because a path option gives it to them. People seem to think that 'pact of the blade' should be a path, but the path is really more the level 1 option. Pacts are less powerful that archetypes.

File: 1433217374023.jpg (152KB, 583x777px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 583x777px

>EB focused warlocks taking pact of the blade just to be better defensively
I doubt it, especially when they can play mountain dwarf or variant human and get it, AND other pacts' benefits.
It's not like we have a full caster bard that gets it, or full caster clerics that get that and plate, or wizards that can maintain 13 + Dex and, twice per short rest, increase that by their Int mod again.

>>49445190
Go home GWM, you're drunk.
Warlocks don't get as many feats as a fighter does, so it's more painful for them to take that feat.
You'll probably want the feat for medium armour instead, so that you won't be a 13/14 AC with 1d8 hitdice melee buttercake that all your enemies trample all over, or otherwise forcing you to sacrifice your charisma for shitty saves.

You could deal more damage than EB or even a dexterity warlock, but it's not significant enough to warrant dumping dex or charisma for it. You might as well play fighter or paladin by that point.

However, you might be able to make a paladin-warlock or fighter-warlock multiclass with GWF work for that.

>>49445234
They lack Shield but they get things like Armor of Agathys, plus the Fiendish Vigor invocation, both of which serve to reduce damage rather than raise AC. Honestly, if they got Thirsting blade automatically they'd be a fairly decent gish - just more caster/rogue rather than caster/warrior.

>>49445280
If you're talking about free pact of the blade shields, it'd happen for sure.
Racial options are different. Variant human could also give you other feats than 'you can use shield' if you wanted. Variant humans sacrifice a lot of features in order to get that feat, even if it is strong.

Dwarfs don't give relevant warlock skills other than constitution, and in that case they're sacrificing, say, variant human feats in order to get that stuff.

Wizards sacrfice powerful path options such as portent or 'you have resistance to all spell damage, and advantage on saves against spells. You also get a ward that takes all the damage fro you', or 'you can make an illusion out of anything and make it real'.

Pacts aren't path options. They're a neat little utility feature you get alongside level 2 spells that opens up a few extra invocation options.

>>49445305
Fiendish vigor is certainly good for such people, although it might actually favour ranged casters who have more time to cast it in combat (They can run and hide better) and.. Well, you only get one 'free' fiendish vigor of 8 temporary HP at the start of combat. At least armor of agathys has a strong incentive to be in melee, since it only returns melee damage.

>>49445305
I think what I can definitely agree on is that thirsting blade should be free. Even if you have to take pact of the blade to take it, a ranged warlock wouldn't take pact of the blade since they could just get GFB or BB instead for a melee option.

Lifedrinker or something similar is the one that might be bad if it was free.

File: 1461114985864.jpg (194KB, 857x1200px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 857x1200px

>>49445353
Yeah, people would give up a free invisible spy and assistant that you can direct and utilize a continent away, or the ability to take rituals like a wizard and know a number of cantrips from any list including those that make you better at melee than a bladelock, for 2 AC that takes up a hand.

>>49445175
Mountain Dwarves make good out of the box blade locks. Half elves do too if you prefer the higher AC dex build. I think with your spells you could stand as a group's tank then. Maybe you can rely on Temp HP and fire shield effects instead of high AC and hex.

You can't use two-weapon fighting with lifedrinker since your second weapon isn't your pact weapon.

Armor of Agathys lasts an hour. You cast it when the mages are casting False Life.

Dark warrior would be not a skirmisher. You tank with Temp HP and you deal damage by hurting them when they hit you, as an example. Or the Hexblade that uses debuffs to make up for leather armor, as a prior edition analog.

>>49445376
Hmmm.

Maybe add some utility to Lifedrinker? I'd say that whenever you deal necrotic damage with Lifedrinker, you gain an equal number of temporary HP, but that overlaps with AoA and Vigor. Maybe something like the Abjurer's Ward ability - deal necrotic damage with Lifedrinker, gain a ward that reduces incoming damage by the same amount? It'll max at 5, but if it's refreshed by attacking it's gonna be up night constantly.

>>49445399
A ranged warlock doesn't NEED a hand.

If they get shield proficeincy, it's practically a free +2 AC for them.

Let's put this a different way. What if you put 'You gain a familiar' in the fighting styles for a fighter? It doesn't feel. Fighting styles are supposed to give a small combat boost to fighters, and anybody who wants something flavourful like a familiar will be denied +1 AC, for example.

Something like a familiar shouldn't be one of the options when lined up against a flat, always-useful combat boost. It encourages players to make their characters less interesting in order to make themselves more effective in combat.

Certainly, familiars can help in combat a bit and so can pact of the tome, but they're only minor things alongside utility benefits.

>>49445406
That sounds more 'skirmisher' than what I suggested to me.
Having temporary HP, running away and getting that temporary HP back sounds more skirmisher.
They still have full spellcasting, so they shouldn't tank as effectively as the full tanks. They might be able to sustain a similar level of tankiness if they do damage and have an ability like fiend warlock's which gives temporary HP, though. That's what I was thinking.

>>49445416
I do think lifedrinker would be nice with some utility, too, rather than a flat damage boost. I think a flat 'you get HP back' is a bit much though - it should be more utility-focused. Maybe like decreasing an enemy's movespeed, for example.

File: 1450325093476.jpg (342KB, 600x1025px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 600x1025px

>>49445469
>Invisible familiar helping you every turn
>Free host of extra cantrips for combat including Shillelagh and SCAG melee cantrips
Nah, blade either needs to help them be noticeably better at combat OR provide utility somehow. Right now it's straight up worse at combat than Tome, unless you get MAD and have great weapons, but even then you instantly lose if you involve a single level multiclass or feats. If dumping your casting stat or AC stat or health stat in order to use a BIG SORD didn't already constitute a loss while tome has a magic stick that scales with casting.

>>49445040
>Warlocks are still spellcasters.
no they're not lol they're fucking trash, they don't even have real spell slots and their list is a big list of shit
They're worse at casting spells than paladins are as far as I'm concerned.

>>49445537
You can technically hover your familiar 5ft above a creature and have it help you every single turn without being spotted unless your enemies have 'detect invisible', but that's mostly RAW abuse. If you do this all the time, the DM will probably enforce that your familiar has to at least make their rough location known and thus put themselves in danger, and likely die. And while you can replace familiars every short rest, your DM might well also decide that familiars aren't FORCED to do everything you tell them to, and using them as suicide munchlets will be punished.

The DM can't argue with you being ~20% harder to hit just because you're wearing a shield.

If you want a warlock option that allows you to use shields and armour and gish about, pact of the blade is really in the wrong place. Instead, there should be an entire path based around it. Unfortunately, I don't think warlock paths are particularly suited to it either. Neither the path/archetype nor pact options are significant enough to warrant 'Valor Bard' levels of gish. Valor bard competes with lore bard, which is a suitable match.

If there was an alternative warlock with a significant level 3 path likethe bard, I could see it working.

>>49445600
They're built to be a bit unusual and not as spellcastery as a full spellcaster, but still much more of one than a paladin.
Paladins don't get foresight.

If you don't feel they're spellcasters, that's a different issue that needs fixing entirely.

>>49445469
>Having temporary HP, running away and getting that temporary HP back sounds more skirmisher.
You start the fight with Temp HP from a spell or invocation. You get more Temp Hp during the fight from killing enemies. You don't have any ability to run away, and you wouldn't waste the time to do it for 5-25 more temp hp anyway. Plus, since it's most effective in melee, you wouldn't run away, you'd just cast it again right there.

>>49445621
Since they get a path feature at level 1, warlocks could totally be open to some pretty wildly variant paths like clerics get with their different domains. I could totally support a warlock path that changes their prime attribute to INT, for example.

>>49439340
It could be +1 Con +2 Cha

So multiclassing basically fucks you out of ability score improvements and feats.

>>49445778
don't it mean you can't reach level 20 in your main class, too?

>>49445778
Eh, kind of. Most classes get ASIs every four levels or so, so you can basically line up when you change class to still get an ASI when you normally would. At least for earlier levels. And not for fighter, because they get ASIs so often.

That's the trade off of multiclassing. You may get your weird niche mechanic you're going for, but you won't get the most out of most class features.

>>49445622
Yeah. That's more what I was thinking of. They're rewarded for sitting there and attacking a lot, but they'll be in a tight spot if something then prevents them from keeping that health up or they start getting bursted.
Similar to rogue, actually. Rogue suffers more against bursts of attacks given how uncanny dodge works, and has similar levels of HP. They just don't have the temporary HPs.

>>49445641
An int-focused warlock sounds like it should be a thing. I want to see more love for int.

>>49445778
Not really.

It fucks you out of later level stuff like level 9 spells if you multiclass too much, but..

It depends. If you're multiclassing out of spellcaster, it can fuck you up much later down the line.

However, if you level to 4 or 5, you can still get those ability score improvements.

5 is a pretty optimal level for many clases, although 1 or 2 or 3 can be some lower investments which delay your improvements.

>>49444674
What do you mean by 'their saves all have charisma on top of them anyways"

this might seem like a stupid question, but whatever. i want to start a game of dnd with a few friends, but i dont know how to write a campaign or dm, and its my first time. is it possible to get something like that online, like a full situation or quest or whatever its called?

>>49445876
Aura of protection I assume