Are Barbarians any gud in 5e? They're always my favorite

All martial classes are underpowered in all editions,
it sucks building a Barbarian only to see him dominated off a cliff on the first round by some flimsy magical bastard.

>>49653296
Yes, they're good. I've heard bad things about berserker subclass, but I honestly don't get it.
Also, I'm somehow SURE that asshole who's shilling for Dungeon World in every thread is going to show up in a post or two, shitting on 5e.

>>49654166

This is a lot less true in 5e, and the thing you're mentioning literally every class is vulnerable to. If anything I find DMs more willing to blast the fuck out of the casters BECAUSE of this notion that they are superior to martials.

To answer your question OP, Barbarians are probably the "worst" martial in 5e but it's not be a very big margin. Hell, if you go totem archetype you become probably the tankiest thing in the game.

>>49654166
1e, 2e, 4e, and 5e called.

>>49654166

.... That's not true of 4e.

There are plenty of decent martial characters, and status effects don't completely fuck up the HP to zero win condition

>>49653296
They are okay. Lots of HP and respectable damage. Some utility, not too much though. Really annoying daily resource limit.

>>49654166
>look at this loser, never experience what it is like playing the glorious martial übermensch of 4e

>>49654197

With the advanced brand split, I'm not even sure if 1e or 2e actually defines anything.

>>49654166

Spotted the 3eaboo

>>49654223
2e Player's Option adds some silly fighter stuff. Not sure if any of that is in 1e.

>>49653296
Yes, they're very good. Ridiculous damage, tanking ability, and 5e even added a decent amount of utility.

>>49654182
Berserker isn't bad, it's just that Totem is extremely flexible and strong, and several of Berserker's abilities don't synergize with the Barbarian toolkit.

For instance, Frenzy gives a bonus action attack, which is pretty good. But with the Exhaustion, you can only feasibly frenzy once per day. On top of this, if you're a Barb you are probably grabbing the Great Weapon Master feat, which gives bonus action attacks on crits and kills, assuming there's a lot of mooks around thats a decently reliable source of bonus action economy to begin with. The intimidation feature is nice, but it's biggest mistake is keying off of Charisma. Barbarians already pretty MAD with STR, CON, and DEX, and WIS is far and away preferred to shore up your precious mental defenses. CHA is a dump stat as much as INT is most of the time.

Compare this to a Totem Barbarian, where you can get ridiculous things like resistance to ALL damage (except psychic), rage powered flight, bonus action dashing, pack tactics, and some handy rituals like Commune with Nature and Speak with Animals? Totem is just a much more complete and thought out kit.

Battlerager seems ok, I haven't played with it much.

Does it really matter how strong the classes are?
It's an RPG and not a competitive game.

File: Minor_Scale_test_explosion.jpg (31KB, 400x313px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x313px

>>49654197

Martials are still shitty in 5e, hence why Eldritch knight is basically the only good option.

Have fun with all those Battlemaster trip maneuvers when I'm 30 feet off the ground, using mage hand to rip your bow out of your hand, or just pull your arrows out of your quiver so you have to spend a round picking them up.

>>49655616

> it's okay if shit is unbalanced in my outdated 30 year old RPG because we're all working togther! If the wizards walk in and blow everything the fuck up while I sit there firing arrows for 8 damage a round, it's okay, cause we're all on the same team!

Neck yourself.

>>49655696
>Spending your action in combat using fucking Mage Hand.
>Thinking you can rip a bow out of someone's hand with Mage Hand
>Fighter can just pick up a couple arrows as part of their move before shooting you

Not only are you wrong about Martials being shitty, but you aren't even dealing with them as a Caster properly.

>>49655696

>Mage Hand explicitly cannot attack or do anything in combat that would resemble an attack
>Even if it could, you can pick something up as your normal "interact with an object" during initiative
>Drawing ammo, moreover, is part of the Attack action

But keep being a wrong faggot, it is a good look for you.

>>49655696
>the eldritch knight using non-evocation, non-abjuration spells
>mage hand being able to do either of those
kek

>>49655907

> A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range. The hand lasts for the duration or until you dismiss it as an action. The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again.

> You can use your action to control the hand.

> You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it.
The hand can’t attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds.

Explain how any of that precludes me being able to pull the arrows out of your quiver?

Can't fire a bow with no fucking arrows.

>>49655800

Sure, I could just blast them oblivion and summon creatures to grapple them while I rape them with SoDs (depending on edition) but blowing the fuck out of a 20th level fighter with a cantrip is just so much more fun.

>>49655867
>anything in combat that would resemble an attack

I'm doing the equivalent of drawing a weapon. What's wrong with that?

>>49655959
you act like snatching up a few arrows takes more than a free or bonus action at most. besides that, motherfucker could use a grappling hook and chain or a fucking lasso to pull your ass back into melee range. and don't tell me you're going to resist that with your scrawny mage ass

>>49655959
>Using Conjurations to grapple
Not a great idea, it eats up your concentration. The Fighter has a decent chance of escaping with high Athletics and only needing to escape as movement. All it takes is one successful escape before he's in your face, fucking you up. Fail your concentration check and that big fancy Earth Elemental is now hostile toward you.

>Blasting them
Sure, Fireball does a decent amount. But Fighters with 3-4 attacks, and Action surge will out damage you. And they have more hitpoints to survive than you do.

>BTFO a Fighter with a cantrip
No cantrip can do this.

There are a select few spells that can ACTUALLY fuck up a Fighter almost guaranteed, but those are few and far between. And those are pretty high level.

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

320KB, 500x572px

>>49655959
Instead of incorrectly using mage hand and complaining about it, the better way for a eldritch knight to deal with archers would be to just cast shield as a reaction and fucking attack. I can only assume pretty much everything you say or claim to think here is just the result of not knowing what you're talking about though, since eldritch knights are more often considered kind of so-so compared to battlemasters. Also disarming someone isn't the same as drawing or stowing your own weapon

File: fertilizer_plant_blast.gif (2MB, 303x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 303x540px

>>49656007
>you act like snatching up a few arrows takes more than a free or bonus action at most.

Do it. In real life. Right now. Throw some arrows on the ground and pick them up then try to shoot them off.

> , motherfucker could use a grappling hook and chain or a fucking lasso to pull your ass back into melee range.

Get fucked, I'm 40 feet in the air. Implynig you can even throw it that far let alone entangle me in it.

>>49656118
>No cantrip can do this.

Yes I can, I am literally pulling arrows out of his quiver with a fucking cantrip. As a FREE action. Meanwhile I'm blasting his ass while he runs for cover on the ground because I'm in the air where his pussy-ass weapons can't reach me.

>>49656161

I'm talking about wizard, not eldritch knight. Eldrich knight has actual spells so he is viable against a wizard.

Note that the only edition to fix casters was 4e, which accomplished such by literally turning martials into casters.

>>49656515
Mage Hand is not a free action, it requires an action to use. Which means you wont be doing any blasting while you're doing this.

And regardless of whether or not it's practical to do in real life, it's written explicitly in the rules that you can pick up something and attack with it on the same turn.

>>49656515
>Get fucked, I'm 40 feet in the air. Implynig you can even throw it that far let alone entangle me in it.

Strange, Mage Hand has a 30' range. Your fucking hand just vanished and you are getting filled with fucking arrows.

Also using Mage Hand to do anything IS your fucking action.

Lern2fucking read nimrod.

>>49656515
Use Mage Hand to pull some arrows out of a quiver. In real life. Right now.

If mages aren't constrained by what's possible in reality, martials shouldn't be either. Fuck you.

File: 1365109770100.jpg (26KB, 400x349px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x349px

I wanted a thread about Barbarians.

>>49654166
>all martials
Tome of Battle called.

>>49654182
Frenzy is useless, nobody is going to use it because exhaustion rules are too much of a hidrance. I've been GMing 5e for almost 2 years and if someone picks berserk they stop using frenzy once they realize how exhaustion works, then they ask for either Totem or Battlerager (now). Rest of berserker's features are pretty good though, specially retaliation

As for the class in general...too passive, the only active feature they have is rage, rest is literally there, you don't even have too think when/how/why, too passive

>>49656638
>If mages aren't constrained by what's possible in reality, martials shouldn't be either. Fuck you.

Nope! Faulty logic. Cause, see, my mage has magic, so he can break the rules. Whereas you are constrained by them. Deal with it.

>>49656678
This is what happens when a neckbeard who was bullied by chads projects his inadequacies onto martial classes and takes his frustration out by incorrectly playing casters in an effort to exact revenge.

Also what happens when idiots take that bait,

>>49656727
fact remains that your argument of being unable to shoot an arrow after picking it up is btfo by the fact that the source-book itself says you can do it.

>>49656613

Cool, I'm 30 feet in the air then, I don't care about 10 feet either way. You still can't reach me with your shitty sword.

Or better yet I just go up invisible, pull them out of your quiver (not an attack, remember faggot?) and have the mage hand give them to me. Oh look, you have no more arrows! Now I can stand over you and pummel you mercilessly with spells while you swing your sword on the ground and cry about it. Then I stick my erect cock in your corpses mouth and laugh at the kind of idiots who choose to play fighter classes.

>>49656727
Why are some classes constrained by the rules of reality whereas some classes aren't? "Muh magic" seems like a pretty lame excuse for that, and is in itself faulty logic.

>>49656727
Not him, but the phrase should be:
If mages are able to buttfuck reality then you shouldn't have martials that swing swords ok next to them.
Want martials that swing sticks ok? then you have wizards that do parlour tricks
Want wizards that bend reality to their will and then rape it in the ass? then you have Cuchulain as martial

Easy as that

>>49656775

Show me where the core book says picking up arrows is a free action. Also nothing is stopping the mage hand from lifting them 15 feet up in the air and watching you jump for them like the midget kid who had his lunch money taken away.

>>49656783

If you don't like magic, play a different game.

> "Muh magic" seems like a pretty lame excuse for that, and is in itself faulty logic.

Then it shouldn't be in the system. It is a blanket excuse for why wizards can bend reality's rules. Whereas why do you get to be superhuman with no magical aid?

>>49656678
Okay. Barbarians are fine for 5th ed. Their features in general are kind of boring, and they don't really feel like they improve very dramatically for a lot of levels (until their amazing capstone, but I doubt most people really get there). This is probably because their specialty could be described as not dying from attacks. Despite that reckless attack, rage and the great weapon master feat alone basically guarantee a combination of being tough to kill and doing really good damage. One option if you aren't completely sold on later barbarian features is to just multiclass to rogue or something else after level 5 or so. The berserker archetype is also kind of mediocre in that the downside of a frenzy is kind of crippling after the first one in a long rest. That's really all you need to know about them

>Implying they're constrained by reality
Most martials aren't even able to do stuff that irl humans do, they're below humans, and they were constantly below olympic athletes

Insert "I've tried for 10 minutes to catch my mouse while having the cord tied to my hand" twiter

File: you right now.jpg (431KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1600x1064px

>>49656776
why are you so dumb anon? which martial player bullied you and fucked the girl you hopelessly pined after?

>>49656515
>Throw some arrows on the ground and pick them up then try to shoot them off.
First, this is explicitly something someone can do via the rules.
Second, using mage hand to try and take an arrow from a quiver would take your action for two rounds. One to cast the spell summoning the mage hand, the next to command it.
Third, I'm a random schlub and not someone with class levels, whether or not I can do something does not and should not reflect on whether or not a Fighter can do something.
Sort of like how wizards can cast spells despite myself not knowing strange math that breaks reality.

>>49656727
Nope! Faulty logic. Cause, see, he Fighter is a dramatic personae, with class levels and a hit die that lets him swat away what would EASILY kill *you*, and a starring character, so he can break the 'rules' of whether or not random people can satisfy your esoteric demands.

File: zlatan1.jpg (65KB, 700x680px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 700x680px

>guys wizards can use MAGIC what the fuck guys: the thread

>>49656786
>If mages are able to buttfuck reality then you shouldn't have martials that swing swords ok next to them.

Exactly. Fighter, barbarian, monk, and ranger should be removed from the game.

> Want martials that swing sticks ok? then you have wizards that do parlour tricks

Except I AM BTFO'ing YOUR FIGHTER WITH A PARLOR TRICK, THAT'S WHAT MAGE HAND IS MORON.

Or I can just use prestidigidation to turn your eyelids opaque so you are blind and I just walk up behind you and slit your throat with ease.

There are any number of ways to fuck up a fighter.

> Want wizards that bend reality to their will and then rape it in the ass? then you have Cuchulain as martial

Nah not really cause he wasn't a martial, he was a fucking demigod.

>>49656810
Are Dragonborn good Barbs? I wanna breath fire!

>>49656842
>he was a fucking demigod
So was Merlin and Gandalf examples given by wotc for wizards ;^)

>>49656799
>Whereas why do you get to be superhuman with no magical aid?
Because it's a fantasy game and stuff like that happened all the time in mythology.
Which is weird, because you rarely, if ever, see almighty mages in mythology or even in old fantasy novels. It's always the martials getting shit done.
How odd.

>>49656823
>First, this is explicitly something someone can do via the rules.

Cool. But it costs an action, and again even if it didn't I could just fly away with them and you have no fucking arrows.

And I can cast the spell while invisible dumb fuck then use the action the next round while your warrior can't see me.

> Third, I'm a random schlub and not someone with class levels, whether or not I can do something does not and should not reflect on whether or not a Fighter can do something.

You think fighters have training in picking up arrows really fast? You think that's something they teach in fighter school? No, most of them have fucknig Dex of 13, yours can't be much worse than 10, so there's like a 10% difference in speed by the shitty d20 mechanic where the difference between an 8 and a 13 is a 10% difference in success.

> Cause, see, he Fighter is a dramatic personae, with class levels and a hit die that lets him swat away what would EASILY kill *you*, and a starring character, so he can break the 'rules' of whether or not random people can satisfy your esoteric demands.

Okay, then the GM could just say "look! this NPC is the main character now!" and your fighter loses all his hit dice? Nah, don't think so.

Your narrative logic is fucking retarded.

>>49656862
They're actually one of the better races for Barbarians. +2 STR is great, a high CON will mean your Dragon's Breath is always relevant, and gives you an elemental damage tool if weapons aren't being very effective.

>>49656869
>So was Merlin and Gandalf examples given by wotc for wizards ;^)

Yeah and they were the shittiest wizards on the planet. Also Gandalf could have EASILY raped Boromir and Aragorn if he'd used the full extent of his powers, there is not even a fucking question of it. So maybe you should think twice before invoking Lord of the Rings in a casters v.s. martial argument!!!!

>>49656799
Page 190, in the Movement and Position section.

"Interacting with objects around you"
Here are a few examples of the sorts of things you can do in tandem with your movement and action.

(bunch of shit)
Pick up a dropped axe.
(bunch of other shit)

The book clearly states it bud. But can you expect a guy who can't even play the game properly to have read the rules? That's why I'm not mad at you, just disappointed that you're shitting up a thread.

>>49656920
I disagree, Half orc or Goliath are better, they actually get +2 Str +1 Con while Dragonborn gets +2 Str +1 Cha making them good Str Paladins

>>49656886

>Because it's a fantasy game and stuff like that happened all the time in mythology.

Not an argument.

> Which is weird, because you rarely, if ever, see almighty mages in mythology or even in old fantasy novels. It's always the martials getting shit done.

That's because D&D is not based on mythology. Go play some Greek faggot RPG if you want that.

>>49656922
>Moving the goalpost after one reply
Wew
Boromir and Aragon aren't demigods, Cuchulain is, compare Gandalf to his peers, anon.

File: jackedskeleton.jpg (197KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x768px

>>49656938
last time i checked orcs were in the MONSTER MANUAL and not the players handbook

>>49656922
>Gandalf could have easily raped Boromir and Aragorn

No shit, it's like comparing a 20th level wizard and a 4th level fighter. Also Gandalf was more akin to a lesser god to be honest.

>>49656978
He said Half Orc you bonehead.

File: interacting with objects is part of an action, not an action in itself.png (2MB, 1531x965px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1531x965px

>>49656799
Player's handbook, page 190.

Picking something up doesn't take a separate action.

>>49656978
>Half orc
>Literally with capital H
Are you blind or something?

>>49656938
Well sure, hence the "one of" comment. Not the best, but strong. You just aren't really going to find a better race than Half-Orc at Barbarian.

Generally I'd rank Barbarian races as:
Half-Orc = Variant Human > Goliath > Dragonborn > Mountain Dwarf

>>49656940
>Thatt's because D&D is not based on mythology.
By proxy it sort of is. Nearly everything in Appendix N was originally based on some sort of mythology. But even if we ignore that facet, those very same books all have martials doing incredible feats without the aid of magic, and any casters that do show up are usually subtle and don't do a whole lot.

And even if we ignore all that, you're still wrong because the "casters > martials" meme only happened around 3rd edition, and was promptly abolished as much as possible with later editions.

DnD 3e did a lot of damage to ttrpgs, it created a couple of generations of cancer ridden casterfags

File: orc magical girl.png (137KB, 773x1000px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 773x1000px

>>49656678

All theorycrafting aside, barbarians are great in 5e.

There's one in my weekly game, which has had 63 sessions thus far. My conclusion, based on those actual observations, is that 5e barbarian is a total badass. Very fucking tough, excellent damage, player clearly having a blast. Wolf totem is fantastic group utility, but probably the best feature is advantage on strength rolls when raging, which all barbarians get. You can do a lot of cool shit with what's effectively superstrength.

The balance in 5e is much better than in some editions, and all classes are good and playable. But I'd say the barbarian is better than average.

>>49657039
and it also encouraged turbo-autists to play tabletops, all looking to be the most optimized against their own teammates and shit.

>>49653296
They're incredibly strong, probably the best around level 10.

>>49655696
EK's are bad, seems like you've never played.

>>49657065
True. The only problem I really have with barbs is the lack of oomph with the berzerker archetype. I just with it was better built. Totem is just so much better it's insane.

>>49656903
>But it costs an action
How about you actually check the rules? A few people have been extra helpful and even posted relevant bits right from the book.

>And I can cast the spell while invisible
Which breaks the invisibility. Please read the rules.

>You think fighters have training in picking up arrows really fast?
Actually, yes. A common real-life tactic was to have your arrows arrayed out in front of you because it's faster than grabbing them out of a quiver.
>You think that's something they teach in fighter school?
Almost certainly, yes. Especially given the whole 'Extra Attack' thing, and Action Surge, which literally all Fighters learn. It'd be weird if they didn't, you know, practice things. When you start to factor in things like Battlemaster maneuvers, man, you *really* look like you don't know what you're talking about.

>10% difference in speed
That's not remotely how speed is abstracted, but I guess we're pretty firmly into "I've never played this game" territory so you go ahead and keep saying whatever.

>Okay, then the GM could just say "look! this NPC is the main character now!" and your fighter loses all his hit dice? Nah, don't think so.
The DM actually could do this, yes.
Surprise, shock, horror--the gamemaster is the master of the game! Truly beyond the pale.

>>49654188
How do you figure? From levels 7-11 they have the most damage and durability of all of the martials.

>>49657091
Well, if you were a martial in a 3e game you need to be optimized as fuck if there was a caster in the group.

And fuck god, poor monks.

>>49657091
And it also instilled an implication that magic is all powerful and wins forever, an assumption which follows the autists even if they do switch systems and perpetuates countless memes which they won't stop screeching about.

>>49657104
>seems like you've never played
considering his lack of system and rule knowledge, I think his experience has been limited to wet dreams of shitting on martials.

>>49657122
thus why any argument saying that 3e wasn't a shit is objectively wrong.

>>49656971

Then Cuchlain is magical, therefore not a martial. If you are a demigod in D&D, you either are an outsider (thus not a PC class) or a cleric.

>>49655616
Always found this line of thinking to be incredibly asinine, even if it is cooperative, no one wants to be consistently outshone and useless to the party.

>>49656999

Again, it doesn't matter, because my mage hand can simply lift them into the air where you can't reach them. Or bring them to me, where I tuck them in my quiver and then fuck your fighter's ass. Now, an eldritch knight can respond with his own magic, which is why he is the only viable fighter option.

>>49656903
>Your narrative logic is fucking retarded.
This is pretty rich coming from someone arguing that magic can literally do anything and is absent any internal logic, with zero ramifications, requirements, or extended details to care for.

The way you say magic 'works' flies in the face of virtually all fiction.

>>49653296
Barbarians are perfectly serviceable. Little less raw damage and versatility than the Fighter, but no reliance on armor and BEEFTANK levels of HP+resistance while raging.
Totem Warriors are very effective, Berserkers less so.

>>49657024
>all have martials doing incredible feats without the aid of magic

Sure. People do incredible feats in real life. Not telekinesis or burning you with living fire, thuogh, which is what my wizard can do to your fighter while plucking arrows out of his quiver so he can't shoot at me.

>>49657104

Actually I have played an EK and I kicked ass at it because I used magic creatively. But yeah, it's still a fighter at the end of the day so it will never be good as a pure caster.

>>49657190
>EK's are best because they also magic at things
>still no details as to how or why that's supposed to work

Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I can take your word for it. For shits and giggles, why don't you break down a few rounds of a party's combat?

>>49657114
>Actually, yes. A common real-life tactic was to have your arrows arrayed out in front of you because it's faster than grabbing them out of a quiver.

Yeah and they were stuck in the ground you fucking idiot. Not tossed around like toothpicks.

> That's not remotely how speed is abstracted, but I guess we're pretty firmly into "I've never played this game" territory so you go ahead and keep saying whatever.

Well given the d20 system uses this autistic mechanic where the difference in Strength check success between a cat and an olympic weight lifter is only 30 percent, I guess Ican't blame you for that.

> The DM actually could do this, yes.

Yeah? So that just proves my point about how your "muh plot armor" argument is bullshit.

> Which breaks the invisibility. Please read the rules.

Or I can just go up behind you and slit your throat while invisible.

>>49657226
D'oh, was supposed to be a reply to >>49657183
And, by extension, I suppose >>49657214

>Actually I have played an EK and I kicked ass at it because I used magic creatively.
Oh, sounds fun. Tell us about the party, campaign, and your most memorable exploits.

>>49657190
>This is pretty rich coming from someone arguing that magic can literally do anything and is absent any internal logic, with zero ramifications, requirements, or extended details to care for.

Well it can according to the D&D rules. Not my fault they put martials and casters side by side. That's (((Merals))) fault.

>>49656515
And if he has a crossbow, or a quiver of endless arrow?

>>49657269
Or, perhaps most terrifyingly, more than one quiver.
Considering a quiver only holds 20 arrows, your average Fighter is going to be carrying around 7.

>Disarming your opponent's arrows with Mage Hand doesn't give a save or hit chance, it works because I said so
Right, so your opponent can just rip off your helmet and pour hot coals down your armor as a free action too then?

>>49657316
I can't really picture a guy walking around wearing more than two quivers.

>>49657245
>where the difference in Strength check success between a cat and an olympic weight lifter is only 30 percent
Sure, if you continue not actually knowing the rules.
Here's a hint: size modifiers.

>So that just proves my point about how your "muh plot armor" argument is bullshit.
"Plot armor"? Dude, I'm literally pointing out how hit dice work. Are you saying hit dice no longer count as the game rules because it doesn't make casters the best? Because it sounds like that to me.

>Or I can just go up behind you and slit your throat while invisible.
Right, we all know how good wizards are at being stealthy, swift, and sure of hand and foot. Legendary with daggers, those wizards.
Fun thing, here: being so amazingly stout and sound of body, and so practiced in fights, this would not actually kill a Fighter or Barbarian. They're a cut above the rest by definition, after all. Especially if the Fighter's, say, wearing a gorget. And of course, the Barbarian would likely be resistant to the damage by nature of their bestial strength.

Perhaps it would kill a wizard, that sort of thing's hard to gauge.

>>49656776
>Cool, I'm 30 feet in the air then, I don't care about 10 feet either way. You still can't reach me with your shitty sword.
I don't have the book on hand but I'm pretty sure there is literally a barbarian exclusive feat that lets them leap up that high into the air.

>>49657259

I played a dwarf EK who ended up with a Dark Gift after four or five sessions where he was blind but had blindsense (fucking weird shit, I don't know). We played thorugh most of Curse of Strahd because I quit. I consistently out damage most of the party because I could effortlessly switch between melee and ranged fighting. Still was a fighter though, in the end.

>>49657111
I always thought the berserker was pretty strong, but my group is a 1 fight per long rest type.

File: 1412788040366.jpg (54KB, 494x397px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 494x397px

>>49657337
You might think so in real life, but remember, what you can carry in D&D is determined by STR, Fighter's primary stat.
Any Fighter worth their salt will be carrying as many varied weapons as possible (you know, in case you run into something with Resistance: Slashing or Vulnerability: Piercing) and plenty of ammunition for them as required.

>>49655616

It feels really shitty knowing that you contribute almost nothing to the party.

>>49657316
>>49657269

I can either pull out all the arrows or if he has a quiver of endless arrow, well, good for him, that fucks my plan then. But that just goes to show that a martial needs the aid of magic to be able to compete against it.

>>49657261
>Well it can according to the D&D rules
Oh, tooootally. Which you have assuredly read many times over, as evidenced by you having sweeping mastery of the rules, their application, and even their intention!

...Oh, wait, I somehow said the opposite of what I meant, as if it was irony for rhetorical effect. What I meant to say was, "this conversation is evidence you've never read the rules and perhaps have never played an RPG before in your life".

Sorry, I don't know where my head is at today that I would get myself so backward.

>>49657165
Martial comes from Mars the god of war, martial arts are basically the arts from Mars, martial definition isn't "non magical".

>>49657368
Eagle totem gives rage-flight, which I now realize gives them a fantastic anti-air option that I previously just saw as "just sprint/jump really fucking fast over any terrain".

File: 1406332390707.jpg (204KB, 623x960px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 623x960px

>>49657183
>Mage Hand can't attack
>"Attack" is defined as anything that requires an attack roll
>The disarm action requires an attack roll

Read the rules, but before that consider your first action was to cast mage hand. Even if you could use it to disarm (you can't) you would need to take a second action to try, by which time the fighter has either closed the distance or started shooting.

>inb4 flying or invisibility

Invisibility ends if you cast a spell, including Mage Hand. Fly gets you away from the Fighter but you're still getting shot at for at least one turn before your cunning plan fails to work. And then you get shot again. Congratulations.

Instead of trying to be clever, why don't you actually reading the rules and using a spell that can do what you want.

>>49657400
>I can either pull out all the arrows
Only one object from one container actually. You either get a single arrow or you would need to lift the whole quiver, which is almost certainly strapped to the Fighter's body.
Mage Hand explicitly only works on one thing at a time.

>>49653296
Speaking from my experience, the biggest limiting factor for barbarians in 5e is the lack of a charge action (unless you invest a feat). In the actual game I ran, where most encounters started in relatively open spaces, the barb had to use his full first round to get close to the enemies, while all his teammates and many enemies had decent ranged options, thus rleaving him to the mop-up duties. Sure, the barb had a backup throwing weapon, but he wasn't nearly as effective with that.

>>49657400
You can't pull a loaded bolt out of a crossbow, but otherwise I agree with you.

(and not like a single crossbow bolt is going to hurt someone anyways.)

>>49657368

Find it, then. I love how D&D is finally crossing into Wuxia tier bullshit just to try to keep martials even semi relevant.

Here's another idea: I create an illusion of me floating at 30 feet then fly up to 60 feet and blast the fucking barbarian when he does his faggy karate move to knock "me" out of the air. Happy now? Any creative solution you come up with my wizard can come up with something ten times better. Why? Because he's magic. And you aren't.

Hell, I could just win on turn 1 by summoning a dire weasel inside the back of your mouth the second you open it. BAM dire weasel inside your head, how much damage do you think that deals?

>>49655616
How did it feel being the last kid picked at gym, fatty? No one wants to be that.

>>49657420

If you're casting spells you're a caster, not a martial. By D&D terms they are separate, regardless of Latin word origins. Fighter in D&D does not have magical attacks (except EK).

>>49657439
>blast the fucking barbarian
His meat tank superbody eats your damage and laughs. Blasting isn't very effective in 5E, you know.
>Hell, I could just win on turn 1 by summoning a dire weasel inside the back of your mouth the second you open it
Wow man, you are really stuck in 3.PF. You cannot summon into an occupied space.

>>49657426
Also, both fly and invisibility are concentration, so you get one or the other.

>>49657383

What was the rest of the party like?
"Has a useful ranged attack option" is hardly a rare trait in 5e. Perhaps the only class you should expect to be without readily available or compelling ranged options is the Monk, and even then they boost the damage of a thrown dagger or dart with the Martial Arts feature.

>>49657436

Cool. He can shoot me once.

>>49657427

Then I can pull on the quiver and twist it enough to tip it over. You can only pick up one arrow at a time.

>>49657459
ToB are martials, they aren't casting spells and they perform supernatural tricks, what now?

God it feels great to live in an age where 3.x is rightfully derided as the trash it was.

Casterfags getting blown out ITT.

>>49657468
Fireball spam seemed to do a pretty decent amount of damage in campaigns I've been through.

>>49657468
You couldn't even do that shit in 3.PF.

>>49657459
Jesus christ, this again? Supernatural =/= Magical. Also, magical =/= spells.

>>49657480

He was still better than the Battlemaster fighter in the party who even had ranged attacks. But mine were better.

>>49657459
Monk is martial and has magical attacks.

>>49657485
>Then I can pull on the quiver and twist it enough to tip it over. You can only pick up one arrow at a time.
Cool. You only need to shoot one arrow to damage a squishy mage, and break their concentration, ending their flight spell..

>>49657485
One arrow, hit you, you likely fail your focus test, loose the flying spell, take damage.

So hard.

>>49657439
>I love how D&D is finally crossing into Wuxia tier bullshit just to try to keep martials even semi relevant.
I don't even have a horse in this race but going full-on ridiculous Kung Fu mystic warrior Wuxia bullshit doesn't seem like a reach or a bad move at all considering the whole point of D&D is pretending to be cool dudes doing impossible shit. Martials shouldn't just be guys who are "Pretty good" at fighting, they should be legendary figures.

I prefer magical classes myself but a warrior who can leap into the air and grapple a dragon is fucking awesome, why would that be a problem if the game allows it.

>>49657439
>I love how D&D is finally crossing into Wuxia tier bullshit just to try to keep martials even semi relevant.
Welcome to your first tabletop roleplaying game! If you didn't already know, TTRPGs, or RPGs for short, are a genre of games played with a group of friends around a table, using abstracted statistics and abilities to codify the characters and other elements of the game. Neat! Now that you've got a group of players and have chosen a game to play (Dungeons and Dragons [D&D] Fifth Edition [5e]), we're ready to start learning the basic rules that govern what we can, cannot, and might be able to do in the game.

>>49657505
Again with this shit.

Describe HOW they were better.
Strangers on the internet shouldn't have to hold your hand through a conversation. Learn how to fucking communicate. Nobody's here to play 20 Questions with you.

>>49657500
Oh, Fireball is great for mopping up crowds of weak kobolds and faceless guards, certainly. But Bear totem Barbarian has resistance to all damage (that is, including Fire), except Psychic (there are no good Psychic damage effects), while raging.
In addition to their titanic HP pool, best among classes, and that Barbarians have a vested interest in having high CON? Won't do much.

>>49657523
It's not like it's a particularly hard save to keep concentration

>>49657423
When I read it the first thing I thought of was "So I can leap into the air and kill flying enemies, cool."

How do Aarakocra work? Do they need to focus to fly or can they flap around all day?

>>49657566
Aarakocra fly freely. Their very entry gives a warning note to novice DMs about their power and suggests disallowing them considering how many issues an Aarakocra can trivially bypass with their method of movement.

>>49657468

Okay. Summon a rhino above your head and you are crushed by it when it falls. I still win, dumb fuck.

>>49657498

> samefagging this hard

>>49657541
>considering the whole point of D&D is pretending to be cool dudes doing impossible shit

Please find these exact words in the 5e rulebook (or any

>>49657585
>Okay. Summon a rhino above your head
That's not an attack and does no damage. Rhino falls right beside the person (in their space) since it cannot occupy their space. Rhino takes severe falling damage and is very sad.

File: Smug Anime Girl.png (395KB, 827x681px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 827x681px

>>49657585

>implying a falling rhino is going to do more than mildly irritate a raging bear totem warrior

>>49657601
My Barbarian tries to comfort it with Handle Animal. :(

>>49657585
>Please find these exact words in the 5e rulebook
Are you for real dude.

>>49657548

I had more effective ranged attacks than him because I had magic and he didn't.

>>49657601

> it cannot occupy their space

It landed on their fucking head, faggot. It doesn't need to occupy their space because it's 30 feet over their head, then falls on their and crushes them. I don't give a fuck where it goes after that. And yeah no shit the rhino takes severe falling damage but so does the fighter. Probably even more given he weights 300 pounds and the rhino weighs like 4 tons.

>>49657396
Dude, at that point you should just start throwing actual weapons at people.

Actually, is that a thing you can do in 5e?

>>49657617
And then they've armed him with a rhino! It's basically the worst possible move, he's about to get impaled by a very angry improvised weapon.

>>49657640
>It landed on their fucking head
Actually, it did not. Falling into an occupied space is not an attack and nothing says you make any sort of contact with anything within the occupied space.

>>49657640
1d4 at most for improvised weapon.

>>49657643
Only weapons with the Thrown property, which includes Daggers, Spears, Darts, Javelins, Light Hammers, Handaxes, and Tridents.
The best weapon to throw is the Javelin, since it has an ideal range of 30 feet and a maximum range of 120 feet.

File: 1 You.jpg (272KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1200x675px

>>49657640

>applying real world logic to dnd

lets follow this to its natural conclusion

the barbarian brains your shitty virgin wizard because magic doesn't exist

or

the rhino does 1d4 damage as an improvised weapon

pick one

>>49657643
Definitely, though the damage (and whether or not you're considered proficient) might depend on what you're throwing or how you're throwing it, as well as how the DM adjudicates it at their table.

If it has the Thrown property you can simply throw it as you would expect (so, daggers, javelins, spears, handaxes) and it's just another way of attacking with that weapon. Lobbing a longsword at someone could be trickier.

>>49657688
But what if you do throw your Great-axe? Does it just do improvised damage?

>>49657715
Yes, though if I were DMing I'd probably factor othr stuff into it. Throwing an axe at someone's head is probably gonna do more damage than throwing, say, a bottle.

>>49657585
>Summon a rhino above your head and you are crushed by it when it falls. I still win, dumb fuck.
I'm being rused aren't I? I don't know if 5e has the summoning rule for directly over solid ground that previous editions did, but a five foot movement before the creature's movement turn to fall solves this with ease. You are either being breastfed by your DM or you're fucking with us.

>>49657751
Think the rule has always just been unoccupied space.

>>49657693
I simply don't trust the Meme Reserve. They've never been audited! Who's to say they're not illegally manipulating the value of (you) and Pepe?

>>49657715
The default improvised weapon damage is d4, but this also assumes you're using a chair or something like that--something that definitely isn't a weapon and doesn't lend itself to being used like one functionally.

If something's like a weapon, to book suggests that the DM could use those stats. Basically: Ask the DM.

Personally I think I'd have it deal d6 damage and have a range of 15/30. Maybe d8 damage under the right circumstances.

>>49657777
PF is the easiest for me to check, here's the description of Conjuration magic
>"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

>>49657799
Huh, guess I've never had a gm who paid attention to that.

>>49656515
>Do it. In real life. Right now. Throw some arrows on the ground and pick them up then try to shoot them off.

Cast mage hand while flying. in real life. right now. I'll wait.

>>49655696
>1v1 me faggot, as long as i disregard the rules you can't hurt me

>>49657647

> implying a barbarian can lift a rhino let alone throw it

Yep we've crossed into full retard anime territory.

>>49657659

No, more like 7d6 for a 7000 pound creature falling on you. At least. In fact it'd be up to the DM. it's not an improvised weapon unless a falling boulder trap is also an improvised weapon. Stop doing false equivalencies you moron. There also is not an attack roll to hit because the wizard's aim is not really involved here, it'd be a simple Dex save.

>>49657807
Yeah, that prevents the "Celestial Whale Drop" abuse.

>>49657857
>Yep we've crossed into full retard anime territory.

But if he lifted and threw the rhino with or under the influence of magic, it'd be fine?

>>49654188
>>the tankiest thing in the game.
Moon Druid laughs at you

>>49657857
>In fact it'd be up to the DM
to remember that summoning rhinos in the air is a clear violation of the conjuration rules and kick you out of the party for repeated attempts at abusing rules, ignoring rules, and straight-cheating?

>>49657693

The rhino does not deal 1d4 because it's not an improvised weapon you fucking moron. And magic DOES exist in the context of D&D. Real world logic also applies because there is gravity and the sky is blue. Just because magic exists does not mean a non-magic person can jump around and jack off, just like the existence of black holes doesn't mean I can just jump through a wormhole whenever I please.

Your "world made of magic" meme needs to die, if it was true, Detect Magic would be like setting off a flashbang. Some things are mundane and some things are magic, by the very rules of D&D. Deal with it, nigger.

>>49657877
>But if he lifted and threw the rhino with or under the influence of magic, it'd be fine?

Yes. And there is a point I'm trying to make here but you completely fail to see it.

>>49657881

Where does it say that summoning them in the air is cheating? If the DM is butthurt about the rules that isn't my fault. No different than if he kicked me out of the game for one-shotting his NPCs.

>>49657857
barbarians have advantage on dex saves :)

>>49657857
It's not an attack, nor is it anything.
You cannot hurt someone with Mage Hand either by lifting a rock 30 feet above their heads and dropping it, because that is not an attack, and cannot possibly hurt them in accordance with the rules.
Traps are a special mechanic with their own ruleset. Falling things are not. They have NO mechanical effects.

File: laughing cum dumpsters.jpg (106KB, 507x338px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 507x338px

>>49656983
>Gandalf was a 20th level wizard

Gandalf was only a 5th level magic-user, child.

>>49657895
Question:
>Where does it say that summoning them in the air is cheating?
Answer:
>>49657799
Dubs speak the truth.

>>49657899

Good for them. I'll remember to use a different tactic on barbarians then.

>>49657900

I didn't say a rock, or Mage Hand you fucking moronic faggot.

> anything that's not an attack cannot hurt people
> anything without explicit mechanic effects does not happen

You're crossing into full retard territory here. So my fighter can be run over by a runaway cart and take no damage?

>>49657913

That's in Pathfinder, faggot. We're discussing 5e. I know autism makes it hard to stay on topic but please at least try.

>>49657895
>Yes. And there is a point I'm trying to make here but you completely fail to see it.

That you are completely stupid, have zero grasp of the rules, and are impossible to argue with because of your willful ignorance?

>>49656842
Eyelids are already opaque you absolute mouth breather.

>>49657938

Corneas. Whatever.

File: fags retarded and shit.jpg (55KB, 625x351px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x351px

>>49655696
Jeez, have you ever played a pen and paper at all? Maybe that shit flies in a d6 narrative system, but that is some hot retard shit you're spouting.

File: conjure animals.png (81KB, 566x599px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 566x599px

>>49657799
5e doesn't specifically say you can't summon things into open air; just 'unoccupied spaces', though I can't imagine many GMs would go along with some Operation: Dumbo Drop shit.

Another big difference with 5e: you don't actually choose which creature or creatures get summoned, just a bulleted option out of the ones in the picture. The GM picks what actually gets summoned.

>>49657857
>implying something said in levity is a serious argument
I don't know what time it is where you are, but I do know you need a nap.

>>49657933
Fair 'nuff.
5e conjuration. Summon monster...
Uh...
Oh.
Doesn't seem to be in the player's handbook.
Wait, hold on. it's under "Conjure" Specifically "Conjure elemental"

>"An elemental ... appropriate to the area you choose appears in an unoccupied space within 10 feet of it"
>"For example a fire elemental emerges from a bonfire, an earth elemental rises from the ground."

Looks like you can't summon an earth elemental in mid-air, or a fire elemental on top of a person who is not, themselves, standing in a fire. Because it has to be an unoccupied space, and an appropriate one... so the best you can do is summon an air elemental half your level in CR in the air over someone's head.

>>49658006
I thought a cornea was transparent, or am i thinking of the iris?

>>49658019
A wizard summons eight ferrets out of thin air, 20 feet above you. How will you be able to survive?
Checkmate, Martials.

>>49658064
Not a wizard spell ;^)

File: WeasleFancyPigeon.jpg (128KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 600x900px

>>49658064
...
You sir, earned your trolling merit badge.

Also, i may want to take one home.

>>49657915
>I didn't say a rock, or Mage Hand
Sorry, I forgot my "either" at the end of that sentence.
> anything without explicit mechanic effects does not happen
More accurately, the DM says what happens, not your dumb ass. They can say X damage, no damage, or the spell fails, or anything else.
>So my fighter can be run over by a runaway cart and take no damage?
Sure. That doesn't have any rules associated with it either. D&D isn't simulationist. DM could say you take damage too, but there's no guarantees.

>>49658064
Hey what if those ferrets climb up my pants?

>>49658089
I want to say that wizards in the Conjuration tradition get it, but that would also be a bit later on than usual.

>>49658100
Dare you enter my magical realm?

>>49657857
>implying a barbarian can lift a rhino let alone throw it
>Yep we've crossed into full retard anime territory.

Are you seriously implying that lifting a rhino is completely out of the realm of possibility for a class that, is based on a character archetype that is entirely about huge amounts of raw strength, will usually have maxed or close to max STR and CON, and has an explicit class option that doubles your carrying capacity and gives you advantage on strength checks to push, lift, or break objects?

>>49657523
>you likely fail your focus test
From a single arrow's damage? Unlike the fighter, wizards get more skill points than they know what to do with. I really wouldn't count on this happening with anything but your strongest strikes.

>>49657844

It's seriously some playground bullshit "NUH UH, MAGIC IS BETTER!!!!!"

>>49658128
It's not "muh magic" so it's not allowed to happen because "hurr realism."

Man, people really reach far pretending 5E is still caster edition.

>>49658151
>>49658128
Don't forget a level 20 Barbarian literally has 24 strength, which is beyond superhuman in game terms.

That's strong enough to wrestle a T-rex going by stats.

>>49658100
I'd roll to seduce the ferrets.

>>49658107
Nope

File: Conjuration.jpg (556KB, 1207x1622px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1207x1622px

>>49658107

>>49658140
>Skill points
>5e.
Please, tell us about your prestige class.

>>49658019
Something to be considered here is pretty basic, but the conjuration spells in 5e, with the exception of Conjure Elemental, allow the DM to choose appropriate location based summons.

In other words, if you cast Conjure Animals in the air, you'll probably get birds or bats.

>>49658201
>>49658225
Well, now I'm just wondering what I was actually thinking of. Hm.

I use mage hand to place a big steaming rhino turd in your eldritch knights throat, blocking your ability to cast with vocal components, or breath. It weighs less than ten pounds, and your don't get a save or armor class because it's not "an attack". Checkmate (incorrect) rules lawyer.

>>49656989
>>49657008

>actually taking his post seriously

>>49657884
>The rhino does not deal 1d4 because it's not an improvised weapon you fucking moron
Find "a living rhinoceros" in the equipment section.
That's right, you can't--therefor it's an improvised weapon.
QED.

If that seems unreasonable to you then perhaps you should revisit your posts in this thread thus far.

>>49658305
I was being humerus

>>49657815

No.

This isn't a valid response.

This is stupid.

That's because:

1) DnD follows a paradigm whereby people who aren't magically enhanced can only do what a normal human could realistically do. You're implying a common standard to two different things when the game doesn't.

2) Casting Mage Hand IRL is literally impossible and so cannot be tested. Picking up arrows can.


The other anon's a douche, but that doesn't mean you get to get away with being stupid and wrong.

>>49653296
Very!

Especially Half Orc or Mountain Dwarf Barbarians.

>>49658310
You'd find it in a monster manual because its a creature.

>>49658010

> doing anything that isn't explicitly mentioned by the rules is impossible.

I guess my character can't take a shit and dies of constipation.

>>49658338
>Casting Mage Hand IRL is literally impossible

So therefore it cannot be done in-game. Checkmate.

>>49658367
>I guess my character can't take a shit
Sure.
>and dies of constipation.
That doesn't happen though, because that's not in the rules either.

>>49656515
Pulling the arrows out of your own quiver is drawing a weapon. Pulling the arrows out of an opponent's quiver is a disarming ATTACK.

You're a shit player for thinking you can do this. Your GM is a shit GM for allowing you to do this. You belong together...

>>49658385
>hurr i'm so le funneh pretendin to be retarted xDDDDDD

You're not funny, You're basement grade levels of unfunny. KYS.

>>49658140
As the other guy mentioned? Not a thing. Roll your con, no bonus unless you take a feat, and those are both optional and mean given up an ability score improvement.

>>49658338
>DnD follows a paradigm whereby people who aren't magically enhanced can only do what a normal human could realistically do.
No, no it doesn't. In fact, the rules very specifically don't follow that imagined paradigm, as monks can run on water and shoot beams, while barbarians can fly, and those are just the surface level, obvious ones.

>>49658457
By your own logic players can only do what can be tested in real life. Magic can't be done in real life, so players aren't allowed to do it.
Don't blame me, I'm only following your fractured reasoning :^)

>>49658460
Generally speaking, its a 55% chance to make most concentration checks with no modifiers at all. Get resilient (con) and warcaster, and you cane make saving throws all day, especially if you have more than 10 con.

>>49658464
Both monks and Barbarians are magically enhanced, the monk especially. Or are you going to argue hurrr durr Chi isn't magic and hurrr durrr superhuman strength isn't magical...?

>>49658496
Show me where he claimed that. Quote it.

>>49657910
Who beat something not even dwarven armies could harm

>>49658140
This guy talked about skillpoints in 5e, his argument was irrelevant a long long time ago.

>>49658520
>2) Casting Mage Hand IRL is literally impossible and so cannot be tested. Picking up arrows can.
>>49658338

>>49658508
Neither of those is "magic" in D&D, while a druids whildshape is "magic" but not a "spell".

>>49658525
His other 15 levels were in Motherfucking Angel.

>>49658557
The phrase is not wrong though, Gandalf was a 20th level wizard, doesn't have to mean Gandalf has 20 levels in wizard class.

>>49658548
OK, so your quote shows he was only claiming a spell can't be tested in real life. Which is true.

Why are you making up all the other extraneous stuff?

Did you misread?

>>49656515
>Do it. In real life. Right now. Throw some arrows on the ground and pick them up then try to shoot them off.
Try casting mage hand right now. The rules of the game say picking shit off the ground is a free action. Deal with it.

>>49658019
>though I can't imagine many GMs would go along with some Operation: Dumbo Drop shit.

Why not? They have no reason to say no, besides hating creativity.

>>49658569
Gandalf was closer to a Planetar out of the MM than a wizard PC.

>>49658550
Yep, just as I predicted.
You know full well what is meant.

But if "magical" is too specific how about "Fantastic"?

>>49658595
>free action
There is no such thing as a free action in 5e, but you can interact with an item once per turn on your turn.

>>49658609
Even better, every single character class is fantastical, in this fantasy RPG about characters doing fantastic things regarding fantastic situations.

>>49658595

That's because it is magical. Magic doesn't need an excuse. Martial actions do. Deal with it. or go play an RPG set in the fucking Matrix.

>>49658360
And where is the damage it causes by dropping on someone?

>>49658626
Exactly.
Anything with a class is Fantastic.
Some monsters and items, also Fantastic.
The rest of the world is pretty mundane.
Glad we agree.

>>49658329
Yeah, I guess people were being boneheads for not seeing it.

>1) DnD follows a paradigm whereby people who aren't magically enhanced can only do what a normal human could realistically do...
I disagree with that premise.
The item interaction rules apparently confound that shit right off the bat, according to earlier arguments.
More substantially, the Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk classes grant features which let them all exceed normal human abilities a dozen different ways without magic.

It's not that D&D was made with realistic, banal normalcy in mind. It's that you should, in absence of exception, assume normality is more-or-less as we would expect it.
The catch is: Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks--as well as every other player character class--are by definition exceptional. The game is designed for those barriers to fold and buckle when a player character is up against them. Not necessarily easily or necessarily for free--that's a matter of context and the campaign's general ethos--but it is still a central axis of the how and why of the game. And it's still an element of a plot in general.

>>49658508
Are we not talking about D&D? Where we know for a fact it's *not* magic?
They function in antimagic fields. They cannot be dispelled. They function where the weave of magic is torn or whatever other narrative conceits there might be for a magical deadzone. They cannot be detected by Detect Magic.
At this the argument is simply "if it's exceptional it must be magic"; the game disagrees with you.

>>49658660
Aw, bad time for my internet to shit the bed. Basically all of this was already said.

...Also I forgot to actually quote >>49658338.
Eh, c'est la vie. I don't think anybody's lost the plot bad enough to not know what I'm talking about.

>>49658598
The dumbo can't move outside of its turn. The DM would choose a more appropriate creature. Thousands of people have drained this vein of "creativity" dry over the decades by attempting and often getting away with the same Bullshit thanks to coddling DMs. Do you need more reasons?

>>49658639
Fall damage applies to both it and the creature beneath it, assuming the GM allows you to summon it in mid air.

>>49658605
Gandalf is an Istari, aka wizard though. Not the DnD wizard though.

>>49658655
Are you not the anon who was initially claiming a paradigm existed where none does?
I don't know if I'd call the world mundane, magic is too baked into the setting and rules for that, but certainly closer to it than any classed character would ever be.

>>49658660
>all exceed normal human abilities a dozen different ways without magic.
Except lifting, jumping, running, etc

>>49658703
No I'm not him, but to me it seemed all he was claiming was that players are exceptional and used the term "magical" when "fantastic" would have been a better fit. There's no need to be unreasonable.

>>49658701
The Istari are just a subset of the Maia though, the ones reincarnated on middle earth during the third age. All of their magic comes from their nature, and Planetars have a fair bit of innate casting. It isn't a perfect match, but it's pretty damned close.

>>49658729
Ah, then i see your misunderstanding, that anon was commenting on an arguement regarding Caster v Martial and, at least seemingly, supporting the claim that non-caster classes are restricted to realistic acts, or worse, acts performable by an average human such as the non specific "you".

>>49658269
A wizard couldn't do that but an Arcane Trickster could with Mage Hand Legerdemain:

>You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature.

You can also take it out of your but as a bonus action.

>>49658803
A creature is not a container. Objects and creatures are clearly defined and different in 5e, with many spells intentionally not interacting with objects.

>>49658655
>>49658626
>>49658609

> muh semantics

Doesn't change the fact that a human can't jump 30 feet into the air.

>>49658690

No, other than that Dm is full of shit and is just nerfing martials because he wants to.

But in a real situation, it would fall on his head and deal a shitton of damage. 5e doesn't have falling damage rules but 3.5 does and a falling 7 ton elephant would be a few dozen d6s. Your fighter is now dead. Lol.

>>49658767
The only evidence I saw of that was claiming a spell can't be tested in real life. You could take that wildly out of context, but I don't see why you would.

>>49658831
It's the
>picking up arrows can
part that implies that you, or any other non fantastical person could "test" their own ability and thus limit the actions of a non magical, yet fantastical, being.

>>49658830
In D&D, some PCs can.

File: f3d8887605f3fc644a54065fb8ad27ff0b142da015285ed3198b86b260fda401_1.jpg (20KB, 500x581px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x581px

>>49655566
>rage powered flight
I already knew about this, but it made me think of pic related and I can't stop fucking laughing

>>49658861
I tend to agree that something as relatively mundane as picking something up should be easy for a fantastical being. No one wants tomjear about how Tiamat swallowed Gilgamesh before he had a chance to pick up his spear.

Still, if that's not what 5e does, then perhaps a new system is in order.

>>49658830
>nerfing martials
Are you having the same conversation here?
Why are you applying 3.5 rules for damage while ignoring the 3.5 rule that prevented the situation in the first place? I don't pull out a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card from Monopoly and throw it at my monitor when a guard catches me stealing in Skyrim.

>>49655959

>Manipulate an object.
>an object
>Object.

Singular motherfucker. Have fun inconveniencing me with yoinking one damn arrow.

>inb4 'I'm only pretending to be retarded.'

>>49656515

Use mage hand in real life. Do it. Right now.

It's a game fucknut.

>>49658830
5e doesn't have falling rules?

>Few dozen d6
I was pretty sure D&D terminal velocity was 10d6 max for falling damage.

>>49659046
Regardless, an attack roll is necessary to manipulate an unwilling target or its worn gear. Which mage hand cannot do.

File: Eagle Totem Barbarian enters Rage.gif (989KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 500x200px

>>49658874

>>49659071
Close, 20d6. That is only yourself being damaged by a fall though. There are no rules for damaging something with a falling object.

>>49658711
>running
Fighter: Dash, Action Surge to dash. Rogue: Dash, Cunning Action to dash as a bonus action. And these are both only level 2 features, letting them move faster than anyone else could even try to. The Rogue can do that shit all day, expending no resources.
Monks: That one feature that let's them spend Ki to get a bonus dash.
Additionally Monks and Barbarians get features which increase their base movement speed in general, which means Dashing, for them, simply nets them more total movement.

If you're meaning to compare it to real-world athleticism: a character's movement speed assumes a combat scenario where the character is always combat-ready and aware.
Non-combat movement rules are designed with long journeys, traveling while gear laden, and moving as a party in mind.
There are not rules to compete in a 100 meter dash, and what movement rules there are clearly are not designed to represent that. If you wanted to see if your Rogue can break an Olympic record you'd have to come up with your own rules for that.
Perhaps a more fare comparison would be to load up a real-world athlete with 100 lbs. of gear and send them into a swamp to see what their pace is through rough terrain.

>lifting, jumping
Don't Barbarians explicitly get things to 'break' those boundaries? 'Champion' Fighters do.

>>49659099
Any action has an equal yet opposite reaction.
I'd rule the item falling deals that damage both to itself and the ground, or any poor sod under it.

But why the hell doesn't 5e have falling rules?
That's dumb as fuck.

>>49659139
>Any action has an equal yet opposite reaction.
No that's total bullshit for D&D.
There is no equal or opposite reaction for creating a huge fucking wall of rock out of nothing.
Don't you be bringing physics into magic town.

>>49659139
Same reason it doesn't have strict conjuration limit rules. It's stripped down to basics for easy and quick play. DMs are meant to use on the spot rulings to fill in gaps and prevent exploits.

>>49659162
Cause that's magic.
And I'm pretty sure if you summon rock, there's a very confused rock being in the elemental plane of stone missing his zen garden afterwards.
Falling however isn't magic.

>>49659189
But surely that just leads to DMs ruling stuff like, players fall they die.

>>49658338
Because you seem to be most familiar with 3.5 over 5e, i want to put this particular sentence:

>DnD follows a paradigm whereby people who aren't magically enhanced can only do what a normal human could realistically do.

...to an immediate and painfully obvious challenge, using the rules of 3.5, and all of it's extreme caster superiority ways (which you seem to assume are not only in full effect, but also in some kind of optimal-for-you fantasy effect).

DC 80 escape artist check.

DC 80 is entirely physically possible by a human devoid of any levels in magic and with no magical assistance. Said human would be epic level, and given that epic level can be achieved in any class, as any class with no multiclassing, it is entirely possible to a normal mundane ordinary human.

DC 80 is the canonical listed and applicable skill check required to pass through any hole, quote "Smaller than your own head".

This includes through a keyhole, a crack under the door, and up someone's anus.

Yes. a normal, nonmagical human could crawl up your ass in D&D 3.5, which would possibly help them discover where you are pulling these arguments from.

>>49659116
>Don't Barbarians explicitly get things to 'break' those boundaries? 'Champion' Fighters do.
They don't, world record is 29 something ft, Barb jumps 24 tops.

>>49659189
>easy and quick play
>something as simple and common as falling down doesn't have rules

so much for easy play

>>49659265
You really need to replace his reference to magical with Fantastic.

>>49659268
Would rage flying disqualify you from the olympics?

>>49654223
The only brand split occurred when 1e was released. 3e, 4e, and 5e are all continuations of the advanced line that just dropped that word when "regular" Dungeons & Dragons died out.
The reason they don't resemble the newer editions isn't a brand split but the invention of the d20 system. And a surprisingly large number of similarities still exist.

>>49659272
It's incredibly easy. If an elephant actually drops on you, the DM can easily say "the damage you take should be equal to the damage the elephant takes, that seems reasonable" or "you take 2d6 damage". 5e is a return to basics with modern sensibilities. That said, he probably should't be tossing elephants on your head in the first place without good reason.

>>49658639
How are you planning on dropping it on someone, again? in 5e if you please.

>>49659324
But equally he could just rule hefalumps fall you die.

Or, the noble paladin stumbles into a 10ft ditch. And dies from the fall.

>>49659324
easy play to me means I, as the DM don't have to make up rules on the spot for common things.

I guarantee that the worst "professional" RPG designer is still better than me at making shit up.

>>49658830
>>49659071
"At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6." -page 183
Did you even read the fucking book?

>>49659353
>Or, the noble paladin stumbles into a 10ft ditch. And dies from the fall.

If he was damaged enough before hand and had no aid while down? Yeah could happen.

>>49659361
FATAL exists.
You can't be sub FATAL.

Or Sinnabar.
Would you call magic Vendarant Nalalaborong?

>>49659288
I'd prefer to quote them directly, without making any substitutions in their idiocy.

>>49659384
And without falling rules, how do you deem what is "enough"?
Still, it seems there are rules for it in 5e according to >>49659371

>>49659353
Have you ever fallen 10 feet unexpectedly? The chance of breaking something vital or bleeding to death is very real, and you shouldn't have a problem with it killing a level 1 character.

>>49659388
I don't know, apparently he finds 5e to be difficult to DM. You might be giving him too much credit.

>>49659396
But even if you claim the anus goblin isn't "magical", its most assuredly not "mundane". Its fantastic.

>>49659388
Don't forget Atlantasia. That game didn't even have rules for movement at all.

>>49658639
>>49659348
>>49659371

>>49659162
You can't actually be suggesting we don't use real-world physics just because magic exists in the setting. If we followed your advice, people could fly and nobody would even need to use magic. The whole point of magic is that it subverts the usually normal rules.

>>49659418
Surprisingly, any class can become epic level, which is necessary for the DC 80 escape artist check, but it is not a "fantastic", "supernatural" or any other descriptive term relating to it's uniqueness that would suggest it was in any way anything other than mundane.

>>49659408
I'd have a problem with it, especially if a GM could rule it arbitrarily based on if he was feeling grumpy or not regardless of HP, level etc. Still, >>49659371

>>49659424
I'm >>49659348 , and i still want to know how you plan on dropping the thing. in 5e. Please.

>>49659424
Aarakocra can fly even though their wingspan to body mass makes no sense.

>>49659388
even fatal guy might be a better rules designer than me, since he can at least create rules.

In a game, I am afflicted with complete panic if I can't find the rules for a common situation.

>>49659435
>Becoming epic level isn't Fantastic
Becoming higher than say level 5 is fantastic.
In that it is assuredly of or pertaining to fantasy.
Any epic character is most definitely not mundane. They are beyond heroes of myth and legend. Siegfried, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, therse are not Mundane beings. They are Fantastic. In Fantasy settings. And what Epic can do is in the realm of godlike power. That is not mundane.

The only possible reason ypou could argue it IS mundane is if ypounfeel you have some asinine point to prove.

No one will think less of you, or even care, if you admit super human isn't mundane.

>>49659452
trap door with an elephant in a cage on top
lure the adventurers (if you are the DM) or the monsters (if you are the player) under it, watch comedy happen

Or use an anvil like a normal person

>>49659447
I greatly enjoy that you quoted me twice.

>>49659452
Let's pretend for a second I'm the person you were talking to before. What do you mean by "how I plan on dropping that thing"? Do you mean the damage? Because that's been answered. Do you mean physically how? I dunno, same as every edition ever?
"You step on the pressure plate, causing a trap door to open above you and let down a giant beehive."
"The goblin chuckles, tipping the cow into a rolling motion that culminates in a sharp drop on top of your head."
It's really not rocket science.

>>49659494
I'd urge you to read the rules for FATAL and for the World of Sinnabar.

If you don't make D1000 essential to character creation, and your pteradons fly faster than they run, you are already doing better.

>>49656515
>Do it. In real life. Right now.

OH MY GOD THE PATHFINDER GAME DESIGNER IS POSTING ON /tg/

can you please give me a (you)
or am I too late?

>>49659421
If I remember correctly, there's no mechanical difference between ranged weapons and melee weapons either. Or ranged rules.
Meaning that either no weapons are able to attack from range, or all weapons are able to attack from range.

Does anyone have the PDF for that?

>>49659494
That reminds me:
>gm gets put into situation where he doesn't know what the correct roll for this action would be
>is good at improvising, and just makes us roll whatever's closest
>no one in the part has any problem with this
>i love it, because it keeps the pace uå
>there's ONE FUCKING GUY who always demands that all of us go searching through the books until we find the correct rule unless we can talk him out of it
It's so annoying.

>>49659353
No, the thing not specified is how much damage he does to the ditch, not himself.
And he can rule heffalumps in any edition. There's never been an edition without the possibility of exploits from both players and DMs. Just don't be dicks.

>>49659421
Jesus Christ how horrifying...

>>49659611
He'd do the same to the ditch as the ditch did to him. That makes the most sense.

And no, I don't mean he'd break the ditches leg.

File: asfasfasdfasdf.jpg (51KB, 622x476px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 622x476px

>>49659600
>>is good at improvising
>tfw I am not good at improvising but no one else is willing to DM

this is why RPGs should be designed to be idiot proof
sometimes the idiot is the only GM around

>>49659511
I have to agree with that anon. Killing 3 or 4 of anything in 6 seconds requires inhuman physical abilities. So is sneaking through a roomful of people, or climbing most walls without tools. Just because something isn't explicitly magic doesn't mean it's doable in the real world.

>>49659611
>>49659628
FWIW, several editions (2 and 3 at least) did include rules that specify whatever you fall on takes the same damage you do, in supplements if not in the core books.

File: PaladinFallsIntoDitch.png (10KB, 545x367px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 545x367px

>>49659628
>And no, I don't mean he'd break the ditches leg.
y not tho

>>49659634
>DM
>Can't improvise
Git Gud.

>>49659646
Exactly, it's mythical, legendary, heroic, fantastic.

Sometimes people use the shorthand "magical" but it really shouldn't be such a hard task to figure out what is being said.

Also, I believe GURPS rules similarly in terms of falling objects.

>>49659681
That made me laugh far more than it should have.

>>49659681
This sort of stuff always reminds me of The Phantom Tollbooth.

>People still think "My wizard flies while invisible and shoots fireballs at you" is at all possible in 5e

File: scankodt155_07.jpg (673KB, 1324x2048px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1324x2048px

>>49659518
Okay then, we're back to talking about TRAPS, (not the normal 4chan kind, but this kind). There's rules for that kind of shit. Traps deal damage based on their nature and relative challenge.

And, honestly, I was talking to the person from before, who appeared to be hellbent on "summon celestial whale" and dropping it on people.

So: Summary:

>In 5e, you have much less control over what you summon, with the GM being the final adjudicator.
>If you were to conjure a beast or monster, it would appear in an unoccupied space within 10' of wherever you select.
>Said beast or monster is suggested to be appropriate for the location you summon it to.
>So summoning things in the air results in things like air elementals, fey birds, ghost sharks, etc.
>Wanting to summon a thing like a Rhino or elephant would require it was on the ground when you summoned it, not in the air.
>Dropping a heavy object on a target is either an attack action (aiming for a particular person when dropping the anvil) or a Trap (activating a trap door that drops an elephant) or merely an improvised action (dropping a random anvil without aiming it.)
>What you are currently talking about is a trap, there's rules for damage dealt to the cow, the person under the cow, and the means of getting said cow to fall on said person.

Are we done here?

>>49659749
If people acknowledge caster supremacy was severely reduced, they'd have nothing to shitpost about in /5eg/, and we can't have that. So instead of pretending that's still possible, we move the goalposts instead and complain that casters have better out-of-combat utility. When shitting up a thread, creativity is important.

>>49659768
It was just an example of an arbitrary situation where taking damage from a falling object could occur. They might as well have been referring to a bucket balanced on top of a door. Don't be autistic.

>>49659768
Well, no.

Because as far as I can see, no cunt is answering the poor OP who wanted to know about Barbies in 5e.

>>49659768
so how much damage would it be? Out of curiosity. For the anvil and the elephant.

>>49659628
Well, let's say the dirt at the bottom of the ditch takes the same amount of damage as the knight, and is damaged equally:
So, falling 10 feet would inflict 1d6 damage to the Knight, and the, let's say earth? earth bottom of the ditch.
materials (like earth) have a number of hit points per inch. so, taking the maximum 6 HP, you'd leave a 1-or so, inch deep dent in the earth.

>>49659825
1d6 per 10ft fallen. Up to max of 20d6.
But that's not official, that's a best guess based on physics.
>>49659847
Seems pretty reasonable.

OP here, how are axes and spears in 5e? Axes are my favorite FUCK YOU weapon and spears are always cool.

>>49659816
He got like 4 answers, better than could be expected desu.
But just in case OP is still around and hoping to get some useful answers: barbarian is a lot of fun but is now a tank instead of a DPS, especially in high levels. On one hand, resistance to physical damage (and elemental damage, if you're a totem barb (which you should be)). On the other hand, 2-handed weapons lost their 1.5xstr modifier, strength is capped, and rage damage bonus applies equally to 1- and 2-handed weapons, making 2-handers even lamer for barbarians. Add to that the huge effectiveness of shields, and you should basically play like a Viking that runs into melee with a shield and sword/axe and refuses to go down, ever.

>>49659825
From 10'?
Assuming the elephant is also an appropriate challenge for the party (a beast of challenge 4) the party would get to make a reflex save (to avoid the falling elephant) and we want to make this a Deadly trap (Because it's a fucking elephant)... we're looking at a 16-20 DC save and about 4d10 damage (if the elephant lands on you), followed by being confined in a small space with a very angry elephant who just took 1d6 fall damage (from dropping 10')

Of course, if we want the trap to just be a setback, or only moderately dangerous, the save DC decreases significantly, as does the damage on a failed save... again, this is all assuming a party of level 4.

>>49657120
They don't outdamage fighters or paladins, but they are amazing at Shove and Grapple to make up for it.

>>49659877
And before we start getting into
>But an anvil is heavier, and what if it landed spiky bit down?
>What if the elephant landed Butt first and you slid up its colon, also isn't it bigger so....
Maybe D&D, abstract as it is, isn't the system for you.

>>49659923
didn't people spend ages bitching about 4e for having this sort of scaling difficulty/damage?

Why are people okay with it now that's in 5e?

>>49659893
As in all editions since 3e, axes are balanced to be more-or-less equal to swords, while spears are balanced to be either simpler to use or have reach, but not have superior damage. Still totally viable on a barbarian, cleric, or druid, although druids really don't use weapon attacks much anymore.
As a barbarian, a pike is 1 less damage than a greatsword/greataxe but has reach, so that's cool. A spear is 1 less damage than a longsword/battleaxe, but can be thrown if needed (using strength!)
Also, glad you stuck around through the falling damage shitstorm to try and get info. :)

>>49659923
A creature's CR should make no difference to something that isn't part of its normal attack routine. If you're going the variable damage route, an elephant (CR 4) should still do more damage than a githyanki knight (CR 8) when it falls on you, since the CR calculations never took that into consideration anyway.

>>49659973
We're not, it's dumb.

>>49653296
Dex+Con build with no armor and a shield might just be the least likely to die of all 5e. You give up the rage advantage to offense (use a dex weapon), but it is pretty sweet to have boatloads of hp while having a 19AC and damage reduction.

>>49659973
Because this isn't scaling difficulty:

in 4e, opening a flimsy wooden door with a poor lock was "easy" so it was DC 5 for a 1st level player, and DC 30 for a 25th level player, as both were "easy challenges" and most DMs forgot how to scale. I'm being *slightly* facetious, but you understand in concept? 4e made simple things harder as characters advanced in level, so there was always a challenge.

In 5e, if a trap is a Challenge 1, it will always be a challenge 1. If encountered by, say a 15th level character, it will be trivial to pass through. And in this case, the scaling is of intended difficulty for the trap. The 4d10 deadly version I pitched to you is the most extreme form of trap recommended for that level party.

File: crying-empty-quote-sad-young-Favim.com-46100.jpg (38KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x381px

>>49659904
>two-handed weapons are shit
I don't want to play this edition anymore

>>49660032
ah, so people complained because they didn't understand the rules.
>level 1 challenge
4e also had level specific as part of making a challenge
They're always described as "hazard level x" or "trap level x".

So a pit 10ft deep trap would always be the same level, with same reflex attack, and same damage regardless of player level.

>>49659991
I used the creature's challenge rating as a guideline for constructing the trap. It narratively loaned itself well to the "deadly" trap form from the DMG, so I suggested the maximum difficulty and damage from a CR 4 trap, with a follow up of a CR4 encounter resulting from said trap. If we were dropping a CR 8 Gith on them, i assure you, it would be a significantly less dangerous trap, since having to fight a Githyanki is going to be a setback at most.

>>49660088
In some early modules, they were described as "an easy skill challenge" which resulted in a lot of "so i need to beat a DC 30 to climb this wall, or bullshit my way over it with another skill because rules."

>>49659904
Till you get to double the dice on crits, and then tripple it and then cuadruple it
5d12 is better than 5d8

>>49660117
the early mistakes of 4e killed it so hard
so many things that were either erratad or corrected in later books that kept being spouted online even to this day

>>49659904
Something something GWM

File: 1434227625975.png (1MB, 638x958px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 638x958px

>>49659421
>Atlantasia
That game is hilarious.

Let me give you an example:
So, Atlantasia has a bizarre system for time, which works something like this:
1 Combat Turn is 1 Semi-Segment.
10 Semi-Segments is 1 Segment.
20 Segments is 1 Cycle (a day).
360 Cycles is 1 Rebirth (a year).

Which means that there's only 200 combat turns in a day. BUT, the game never specifies the length of a combat turn. So we have no idea what any of these terms mean.
If we presume that 1 Cycle is equal to 1 Earth Day, then each turn of combat is 7 minutes and 12 seconds long. That's right, if you charge into melee, swing and miss, it's going to take over 7 minutes to attack again.

So, let's say that we use GURPS-rules, and that one turn is one second. That sounds much more, reasonable, right?
So, if 1 Semi-Segment is 1 second, then a Cycle is only 3 minutes and 20 seconds. Which means that Rebirth is only 20 hours long. An entire not-year, in 20 hours.
In the world of Atlantasia, a humans grows really fucking old at age 60. 60 Rebirths. Which means that if you're really old, you live until you're 50 days old.

Now, for 40 Cycles every Rebirth, Chaos Dragons fuck which means that reality is unstable, and there's a (30%) chance that someone will vanish, caught by cosmic dragon sex. The dragons also attack people randomly.

In other words, every 20 hours 30% of the population of Atlantasia will disappear, and the others can be killed by cosmic sex dragons. Those who disappear do not return.

>>49660057
They're not shit, it's just that barbarians get so many flat bonuses as to make them less useful than they'd be otherwise. Rolling d12 damage instead of d8 is still a +2 to damage which is respectable if you play a fighter.

>>49660142
>5d12 is better than 5d8
Of course - it deals 44% more damage, which is nice. But you're forgetting to figure in +4 from rage and +5 from strength. Including those, it only deals 32% more damage, which might still be worth it, but has to be weighed carefully against +2 to AC.
(Math, bitch.)

>>49660002
20 AC, actually. 22 at level 20. :)

File: 1468121518278.jpg (22KB, 220x393px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x393px

>>49660178
How was this approved? What was running through the heads of the devs? There is so much I need to know about how this clusterfuck of a system came to be.

>>49657014
You're forgetting stout haflings on that list. +2 dex +1 con advantage against fear and re-roll 1s. You give up a little damage capacity, but become even more survivable and reduce MAD (strength becomes less important and the fear trait reduces some of the negative to a weak will save)

>>49657245
The second you make that attack, which you will probably miss even while invisible because your str/dex mod won't be enough to overcome a well-equipped Fighter's AC, you become visible and are now right in the Fighter's face. Even if you hit, you don't get Sneak Attack damage because you're a Rogue, so you do negligible damage and still have the Fighter right up in your face. You've just murdered yourself, when it'd be easier to just try and spam Fireballs and pray.

>>49660216
From the sounds of it they might be trying to justify narrative timing through heavily tweaked mechanics? If the players don't think about the math, they'll just see knights arriving on horseback after crossing vast desserts coincidentally just as the princess is about to be sacrificed. Evil machinations coming together right in the middle of combat. Fated duels occurring alongside the clashes of great armies as each blow echoes the beats of war. Then, sure enough, they're just bound to happen along the cosmic date when the stars are right and chaos reigns.
At least that's why I'd introduce a time-warped system and try to sneak it under the players' noses.
Obviously when they realize that the golem was bound to be completed by mad the mad mancer behind the door they're fighting to get to when they spend over seven minutes per turn in combat, they might feel cheated.

>>49660282
If you attack while invisible, you get advantage on the attack roll, which lets you make a sneak attack.
Does anybody on this fucking site even read rulebooks before commenting on them?

>>49660320
I think he meant to say you're not a rogue.

>>49660320
A wizard isn't a fucking rogue, you goddamn moron. You don't get sneak attack dice unless you're a rogue.

>>49657122
I had great fun abusing supplemental rules with a Wis/Con build low dex dwarven monk in 3.5. Made him like a pugelistic Friar Tuck.

In 3.5 there were ways around everthing because they published too damn many extra books. It really required a DM good at stat crunching and able to say no to players

File: 1423705882167.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49660216
Short answer: Atlantasia was written by one dude.

>>49660369
>>49660282
>you're a Rogue
Don't blame me for your poor writing skills.

>>49660408
God damn it! if you mention it enough, someone will post that hot mess again.

File: [DESIRE TO KNOW MORE INTENSIFIES].jpg (16KB, 404x341px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 404x341px

>>49660178

I should be sleeping, but I'm glad I'm not.

>>49660514
Open >>49660408 's PDF. Read. Lose sanity by the moment. Attempt to create a character.

>>49659904
Great weapons are amazing if you take the great weapon fighting and GWM

>>49656989
>>49657008
This anon is obviously a skeleton.

>>49660535
True. I haven't played with feats much, which is why I tend to forget about them. But that being the case, you can either play barbarian as an ultra-tank, or as a tanky bruiser. Still not a weaponized DPS machine - paladin and fighter would both do that better.

File: file.png (77KB, 931x323px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 931x323px

>>49660216
It's self-published. Go figure.
The worst is that he apparently played this with people.

Let's say we have a level 1 Human Knight. During character creation, he gets 50 on every d100 and 5 on every d10. Souds fair, right?
That guy has 20% chance to hit someone, even with a weapon he's proficient with.
When you miss, there's a 35% chance you will harm yourself. 10% of those is doing x3 damage against yourself.

So, by the rules, if you're a level 1 Human Knight with a Longsword, every time you attack (which may take over 7 minutes, there's an 8% chance that you will do 3d8+1 damage to yourself, while your health is 2d10.
So, since we agreed to 5 in all d10 rolls this means that:
Every time you swing at someone, there's a 8% chance that you will gravely injure yourself, and a 89% chance that the wound will instantly kill you.

File: file.png (96KB, 913x587px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 913x587px

>>49660514

>>49660408
> On Atlantasia you will NEVER find a half-breed elf (if a female elf was ever raped by another race she would commit suicide).
> There are 7 types of Elf and each will determine what your career will be.
Sides missing, please send help

File: c5354f0b2e31c9474c9caab3c3f9e2d6917233dc_hq.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>49657396
oh, hey, it's the low-level version of pic related

File: 2015-12-15_23-38-46.png (837KB, 699x683px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 699x683px

I play 5e, but mainly at low levels (6 is the highest we went) most fighters I saw shit out damage and even more with Great Weapon Fighting style and Great Weapon Master feat.
Second would come monks, but I heard they fall off at higher levels. Haven't seen many rogues in action but sneak attack seems strong.
Casters have some nasty blasty, control and utility spells, but at the same time some of those require concentration meaning if they get hit = bye bye buffs.
I don't understand why people keep claiming caster supremacy is a thing in this edition, or is it a problem at higher levels?

File: 1399762806690.jpg (104KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 613x533px

>>49660408

This is a very special kind of retarded, like a spawn of DeviantArt that was cast out and happened to land on its head.

>>49660828
The actual complaint nowadays is "casters have more problem-solving tools in the lategame," which is vaguely accurate if you disregard creative use of skills entirely. Martials get more and more varied skills, so it's all right. Except bards get everything. Fuck bards.