/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General

>>50540836
i hope none of them use superiority dice

>they'll all use some variation of sup dice

>>50540836
A functioning warlord class.
A fix for the champion to not be utterly boring?
A mage hunter

File: a629e560570a849654ae3e25ad866311.jpg (28KB, 344x508px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 344x508px

>>50540836
>What are you hoping to get from Unearthed Arcana: Fighter?

A magic-using fighter who can actually use offensive magic without shooting themselves in the foot. Right now Eldritch Knight is best off ditching Intelligence and focusing on just abjuration, booming blade, and Haste whenever they can grab their any-school spell. Doesn't really fit the flavor of a magical-swordsman IMO.

Oh well... I guess we always have Bladelock (ugh) and Paladin for those niches.

What character sheets do you use, /5eg/?

>>50540853
>A functioning warlord class.

almost guaranteed to be a warlord of some type he'll have superiority dice and can only use them for allied damage rolls, give temp health to an ally etc

>fix for champ

not needed and dumb

>mage hunter

basically the monster hunter no? either way how would you do a mage hunter in a way that'd differentiate it from any other fighter taking the mage slayer feat

>>50540836
Battle Dancer

Use Charisma to break bones and teeth

>>50540836
Unarmed
n
a
r
m
e
d
Fighter
i
g
h
t
e
r

>>50540247
Yes, it was supposed to be lawfulevil for that.

Well, a lot of evil characters are sociopaths, or at least they've been through a lot of shit.
They don't necessarily have to be like that and they could still be a bit squeamish or a 'I'm a noble and I've only ever done evil by means of other people, I've never had to kill someone myself until now'. Still, a selfish attitude will generally arise if somebody doesn't care or understand the feelings of others, whereas a good guy is more likely to be nervous about hurting somebody's feelings.


I do sort of want to play an evil character of the type above now, the 'Actually, now that I'm doing it myself, I feel kind of bad for being evil'.

>>50540853
Amusingly, the Bard is a functioning Warlord (Rogue). With variants.
The Champion is Brad Pitt Achilles, meant to run around stabbing the shit out of stuff. I guess by boring you mean doesn't "wait, let me decide which of my abilities I'm gonna use this attack, and roll for the dice effect" constantly.
>Mage Hunter
Stupid idea up there with Monster Hunter. There's already a feat for that.

>>50540882
Just play a refluffed monk you crying little bitchmonkey

File: tgCharacterSheet_v1.5_Paladin.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50540873
dese are the best, class specific and clean

>>50540836
>spear attached to a shield
>OH NO BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A SHIELD AND ALSO USE A WEAPON IN THAT HAND

>>50540882
they need a STR based monk.
Running around armored and unarmed is stupid as fuck.

File: 1475560920807.gif (2MB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x286px

>>50540836
Two-Weapon Fighting with Hand Crossbows.

>>50540884
>'I'm a noble and I've only ever done evil by means of other people, I've never had to kill someone myself until now'. Still, a selfish attitude will generally arise if somebody doesn't care or understand the feelings of others
you could simply play that and Fug Alignment
Then you'd actually be Roleplaying a character.

>>50540905
Fighting without armour or weapons is stupid as fuck as well, and 5e doesn't like stupid as fuck things like gnomes using longbows or +2 strength gnomes I see you there, 'each race can apply its stats to any stat it likes if you want a +2 strength +1 con gnome' man..

>>50540930
You'd still set your alignment to evil-whatever.

It's 5e, your alignment affects hardly anything so there's no need to lie about your alignment.

>>50540901
he clearly can't use the weapon to attack and gain defense from the shield at the same time.
Also; it's just art.

How do you fake being a class to your party but secretly another? Always when we level up everyone looks at each other and announces what they do, any sly tactics?

File: Alignments 2.png (106KB, 712x615px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 712x615px

>>50540930
This, alignments do almost nothing in 5e and it's a good thing. Alignments are fucking retarded and inhibit roleplay more than they help it.

>>50540938
Explain the need to have one then.

>>50540944
Alignments are what the players make of them. I'm sorry you've only ever played with retards, anon.

>>50540939
It implies things that are not supposed to be implied of 5e.

If you let them attack with it without gaining shield benefits, they've just avoided taking an entire action to unequip the shield. Yet, they need the shield out to attack with it.


Honestly they probably just said to an artist 'Hey, draw us a fighting man. We'll pay you. Match the diversity quota while you're at it, let's get some zulu fighting going on.'

>>50540882
Naked
a
k
e
d
Fighter
i
g
h
t
e
r

>>50540942
how would you fake being a Wizard as a Barbarian?
let's assume you are talking about Archetypes?
>>50540942
>Always when we level up everyone looks at each other and announces what they do, any sly tactics?
OK, what the serious fuck are you on about? It's like this post is being translated through 3 languages.

File: you wat.jpg (62KB, 251x560px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 251x560px

>>50540942
Real advice: Don't. You should have no reason to be lying to your party about abilities that could save all your lives. If you're playing in a game where deceiving your fellow players is encouraged, you should just leave and look for another group. DnD is a cooperative game, either get on board with working together, or just quit and don't waste your time in whatever edgelord contest the DM and other players wana shit on eachother with.

>>50540959
As I said "It's just art".

>>50540956
If the players are making alignments into ANYTHING, they're one step closer to playing cardboard cutouts and not real characters.

Why restrict how you're viewing your own character and roleplay when it literally has no effect on anything except making you more one-dimensional?

>>50540942
Wow what an original and cool and meaningful idea anon

you should totally pretend your character is one thing, but is in fact another! your party will never see it coming!

when you reveal it it will be so cool and epic! you should secretly be evil and betray the party at a crucial moment!

I can't believe i've never heard of anyone trying to do this before.

>>50540853
Wouldn't Eldritch Knight work as a mage hunter? Just pick up dispel magic and counter spell bullshit...

>>50540945
It's a quick, two-word summary of a character that hints towards their likely beliefs, which may tie them in with a god and may tie in with their place in a party.

A DM can have a quick look and say 'Are you sure you want to play an evil character?' and either get a good response or quickly flush out the bad characters that serve only to create murderhobo drama.

Yes, you could have an entire list of the things the character believes in ('Slavery is okay!' 'It's every man for himself' 'If you get caught or die, you're weak, it's survival of the fittest', 'family should stick together, because if everybody is out for themselves family have mutual bonds and everybody has a time in their life where they're weak and need somebody for support'), but nobody has time for checking every single thing. Sure, it's not 100% accurate, but it's two fucking words you can easily identify a character by.

Especially for monsters that tend to be less individualistic, you can quickly assume 'Oh, it's lawful and weak, it might be working as part of a larger system' or 'Oh, it's neutral, maybe it'll leave us alone if we leave it alone'. Not that anybody but the DM has the alignment, but it's good for the DM to have too for a quick check if they didn't do their research on the monster's behaviour.

File: I'm glad gelbooru tagged theingredients in my burger for me.png (1MB, 1043x529px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1043x529px

>>50540975
Art is a terrible, terrible thing.
Fuck art.
Except the art I like.

>>50540995
This is a reasonable answer and I will respect it even if I don't completely agree with it.

>>50540945
There is no "need" to have an alignment anymore. They do very little in 5e.

They're still useful to have in some situations though. Like if you want to give the paladin some sword of holy bitchslap that does extra damage to the "bad guys" but without letting him turn mary sue the good girl cleric into salsa on contact. "The sword is abnormally heavy to non-Good aligned characters, and does not grant bonus damage when attacking non-Evil aligned characters" is a lot quicker and easier than making a list of exactly what actions and how much of them puts you on the sword's naughty list and qualifies you for the holy pimp hand.

>>50540992
I'd say abjuration wizard or ancients paladin would work better for that.
EK takes too long to get counterspell, and by that time these others will have features such as 'reduce spell damage by half', which is kind of a big deal if you hate magic.

>>50541009
I guess I just like to group things into simple categories. Some people like to say 'Oh, we have a lawful good and a true neutral and a..'

File: 1426739038728.gif (2MB, 389x292px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 389x292px

>>50540995
>>50541009
>>50541027

you know, you guys are alright

File: 1443858472515.png (527KB, 858x1000px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 858x1000px

>>50541004

File: captain-jack-captain-jack-sparrow-14117613-1242-900.jpg (144KB, 1242x900px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1242x900px

>>50541027
>Like if you want to give the paladin some sword of holy bitchslap that does extra damage to the "bad guys" but without letting him turn mary sue the good girl cleric into salsa on contact.
Why would a Paladin go around stabbing townsfolk and benevolent priests? Why should Paladins alone have weapons with restricted lethality
>>50540995
>A DM can have a quick look and say 'Are you sure you want to play an evil character?
Or he can simply say, "This is a heroic campaign, you can have quirks, but if you plan on playing a psychotic edglord or fuck over party members, reconsider or pack your shit up".
That's even easier.

>>50540872
And yet the archetype existed before booming blade or GFB, and it saw play.
Throw a firebolt and smack a bitch, shock a guy in melee and get in a sword hit. It entirely fills the niche, you just dislike the specific mechanic, which has nothing to do with flavor, and complain about power level.
Your the same kind of faggot who can't/refuses to play a battlemaster with the ally based maneuvers+inspiring leader and/or healer, and then says they want a warlord. Faggots don't and haven't tried to fit into 5e, they want 5e to turn into their game of choice.

>>50541041
Oh, not to mention abjuration wizard gets a feature even better than the bard's for making counterspell checks.

>>50541027
Even that sounds a bit dangerous. That'd be a sword that can only be used by a selfless person to hurt selfish people in 5e. Even if magic items are the DM's realm, it'd be better if it was more akin to 'the sword does extra damage to undead/fiends'.

>>50540995
>Yes, you could have an entire list of the things the character believes in ('Slavery is okay!' 'It's every man for himself' 'If you get caught or die, you're weak, it's survival of the fittest', 'family should stick together, because if everybody is out for themselves family have mutual bonds and everybody has a time in their life where they're weak and need somebody for support'), but nobody has time for checking every single thing.
Why would people feel the need to "check" your character sheet for this sort of thing.

There's this thing some TTRPGamers know as "roleplaying", where traits like these are exhibited in situations where they would apply, and then other players "roleplay" off of that.

It's much simpler to say "Outright harassment or dicking over of other player's characters is considered Bad Form, and you agreed this campaign would be heroic in nature". Then you can play whatever interests you, unless that thing is Hannibal Lector's younger brother who is a Necromancer.

>>50541069
This is 5e. Oaths do not bind you to any particular alignment.
You can take pretty much any oath while being evil, actually.

File: wIPP3qs.jpg (208KB, 1275x1650px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1275x1650px

>>50540873
>>50540893
I use the /tg/ character sheets, but these spell sheets are WAY better for full spell list casters than the more learned caster sheets will ever be.

>>50541110
That makes the sword idea even dumber, if anything.

>>50541101
I agree with you. Faggots don't understand that 5e is all about flavoring. They don't need class bloat like 3.pf.

>>50541122
The paladin happened to be good, in what way does that change a single thing mentioned. If they weren't good, a good-aligned intelligent weapon might take issue.

>>50541135
>They don't need class bloat like 3.pf.
B-but muh Optimuzation!!

Agreed, there's nothing worse than a 3.pf autist who finds themselves trapped with people who simply want to play 5e.

File: Arthaspaladin1.jpg (6KB, 185x185px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 185x185px

>>50541069
>why would a paladin go around stabbing townsfolk

>>50541135
>>50541162
Flavor is one thing. Making a class that's engineered so that the most advantageous thing to do is ignore some of it's most flavorful mechanics is another.

Then again, Eldritch Knights are hardly the worst victims here. 4 Elements Monk, vanilla Ranger, Blade Pact Warlock,Wild Magic Sorcerer and a few others are all a "shot in the foot" to play. I understand 5e isn't as bloaty or mechanics-heavy as Pathfinder, but nobody wants to play a character who's weaker than everyone else when played as intended.

>>50541137
>Now the sword suddenly is intelligent and HAS AN ALIGNMENT
it's like doubling down on dumb.
if the sword is intelligent, it should have motivations and goals, not just go around snarling at Evil People it probably can't detect anyway.

>>50541175
An intelligent weapon will often have a personality, but their personality ultimately stems from something in their creation. They don't generally have life experiences and teachers forming their sense of self, it is entirely intrinsic to their existence. Good aligned swords may have been crafted by celestials, gifted by a good aligned god, or enchanted by a powerful demon hunter. In all likelihood, if any of those were intelligent weapons, they are also good aligned, simply due to their very nature. A good aligned weapon may balk at the slaughter of innocents, as it goes against the very nature of its existence. It may read the intentions of its wielder and choose to accept them or not.

>>50541171
>This other guy is optimized, I wanna be too!

Dex based and particularly Dex based ranged characters are boss, and Wizards as they always have been in Dungeons and Dragons.

Inventing flaky new Classes and Archetypes isn't the answer. And even WotC have tried to apologize for the RAW Ranger and fix it.

Almost all complaints come from Optimizing dipshits worried they are doing 1.8 points of damage less than the Barbarian per round.

>>50541199
>but their personality ultimately stems from something in their creation. They don't generally have life experiences and teachers forming their sense of self, it is entirely intrinsic to their existence.
In your setting.
In my setting, the Intelligent Weapon they've found is a weapon linked to the shade of a dead Barbarian-Smith. A gruff mentor-sort with a fondless for Mingol women.

File: 6e8.jpg (24KB, 960x422px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 960x422px

>>50541069
>Why would a Paladin
Because it's an example and paladins are traditionally the most likely to get the "blade of holy wrath" or whatever from their god to go out and smite the bad guys. Such an artifact, presumably created by a holy creature or sufficiently high-level priest, is likely to resist usage that fundamentally conflicts with its nature. But it could just as easily have been crunk the barbarian who found an enchanted intelligent battleaxe that fell off a truck behind the local walmart. The battleaxe was made in an arcane ritual where it was bathed in the blood of 400 slavic virgins and exists solely to kill good guys. The names and alignments don't matter at all. None of this matters.

The core of the example is that the weapon is designed for a specific task: fighting those its creator is opposed to. This isn't an uncommon scenario, and in this scenario a glance at the alignments of the wielder and the target is the quickest way to eyeball whether or not the weapon is going to resist that use or not. Otherwise you end up back at >>50541027 where the alternative is making a gigantic list of ridiculously specific shit that counts as "evil" for the weapon. And at that point, you obviously are willing to go to great lengths to slow down the game and might as well just take one for the team and go play Pathfinder.

At this point there will be nothing remotely approaching agreement in this discussion. You either see alignment for what it is, a quick at-a-glance descriptor, or you don't and pretend it doesn't exist. It won't affect your game in the least.

>>50541209
Optimization is the guy who plays a cross-classed Sorlock and spams meta-meta on agonizing eldritch blast every turn. Optimization is the guy who plays a Rogue-Paladin to do sneak attack damage with Smite.

Poor game design is the class that has a feature that you wouldn't really want to use in any situation with even half an understanding how the game works. See Blade Pact warlock and how almost every single feature granted by choosing Blade Pact is worse than the things granted by other pacts, and often times is worse than even just using Eldritch Blast which every pact gets for free anyway.

Point is, not every complaint about the game design stems from someone wanting to be an autistic min-maxer. Some of us just want cool options to not be a handicap, that's all.

File: ancient-necromancers_o_195072.jpg (215KB, 460x697px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 460x697px

Necromancer Question:

I'm currently a level 3 Necromancer Wizard, how do I make it so my party wont hate me when I get ~20 minions?

>>50541229
Yes, but even "LG" deities of different pantheons (or even within pantheons) have different ways of dealing out Justice and Punishment or even helping. Not every culture is going to necessarily view those motives or actions as Lawful or Good.

So again, giving the weapon or the Paladin an alignment is silly.

>>50541228
Everything i said was the default of the default. It's not even always true in FR, but its true often enough that it certainly has meaning, just like alignments themselves. You get the generally gist of an example of the the alignment, a vague, stereotypical interpretation of an individual based on the norm.
The Ghearufu, for example, are assumed to have been made, in setting, in the lower planes and is of evil weal. It's just assumed, because thats how it works.

File: A weekynd at St. Bernards.jpg (62KB, 395x363px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 395x363px

>>50541247
Convince them that, rather than forcibly stuffing unwilling souls into bodies, you're speaking to spirits that long to live and fight again, and letting them help you and the party with their works.

>>50541239
>almost every single feature granted by choosing Blade Pact is worse than the things granted by other pacts, and often times is worse than even just using Eldritch Blast which every pact gets for free anyway.
That's an argument for the Game Developers and Individual DM's to give the Blade Warlock a small boost.

It is not an argument for redesigning entire classes or writing new ones. PLAYERS who get involved in this Invariably swing the pendulum too far the other way, and then it becomes an arms race.

>>50541239
>See Blade Pact warlock and how almost every single feature granted by choosing Blade Pact is worse than the things granted by other pacts, and often times is worse than even just using Eldritch Blast which every pact gets for free anyway.
That's players trying to take an archetype, and trying to play like they're a different class. Bladelocks are weaker, which is certainly not intended, but they ARE intended to be Warlocks, first and foremost. Warlocks who can defend themselves and fight when confronted in melee, rather than trying to retreat or have disadvantaged attacks.

File: garden-gnome-baby-costume.png (633KB, 1000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1000x1200px

>>50541265
I'm thinking more like having to roll 20d20 and 20d6 every combat. Is there anyway to expedite this besides buying a fuckton of dice?

>>50541255
The Alignments have no meaning aside from being old training wheels from the 60's for people who'd never heard of Roleplaying Games.

>>50541276
Bogging down fights while you resolve your 20 monkeymen fighting shit is going to make the players and DM hate you. And there's an optional rule for mass attackers and hit resolution in the DM I believe.

It will be amusing when they all get on their horses and ride off while your boys are left shambling.

>>50541276
If you need that many dice results, the best solution is a mass dice rolling app or website, just get it all OK'd beforehand with your DM. Alternatively, your DM might roll a mass number of rolls, and have them prepared as they come up. You say skeleton attacks, he looks at result 1, and it goes on until he runs out.

>>50541281
Alignments are objective and have physical manifestations, they are ingrained in D&D.

>>50541276
Generally turning every fight into Warhammer Fantasy Battle is going to be irritating and force the DM to kill you.
I DM and I have to admit I'd already like to kill you with some Inquisitors or something.

>>50541251
guess i'm gonna have to be the one to break it to you since everyone else in here is eating shit to this bait and hard

>good, evil, law, and chaos are fundamental forces of the multiverse
>there is actual measurable good, evil, law, and chaos energy just like there's measurable light and measurable gravity in the real world
>what you or your culture believe about them literally doesn't matter
>they are set in fucking stone and those are the rules
>these are the rules as sent down from on high by the people who make the fucking rules

>>50541228
>In my setting
no one cares

>>50541276
Man, one cleric could fuck up your day. And good luck bringing those into any real city.

>>50541300
>Alignments are objective and have physical manifestations, they are ingrained in D&D.
Muh Catholicism-based dimensional monsters!
Not an argument.
There are freaky scaly critters on hostile death planes.
Set isn't even Evil in the Egyptian religion, and Satan is some shit cobbled up to persecute Pagan nature worshipers.

>>50541318
I was either going to dress them up in robes n' masks or just have them wait outside of town.

>>50541323
Does anyone have a reversed picture, asking if he has tried playing D&D?

>>50541307
You aren't obligated by Law to use Gary's cosmology when you purchase the game.
And I hate to break this to you, it objectively stopped being measureable (or even really detectable) in Fifth edition.

>>50541338
I've played it since 1981, but thanks.

File: sedan-chair.jpg (46KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x400px

>>50541292
I was thinking I could make a sedan chair, and have the skelly-men carry me at dash speed, being immune to fatigue and all. The rest can sit in a cart.

>>50541330
Oh good, now your infiltrating civilization with your army of objectively evil skeleton creatures.
>>50541339
Ignoring base assumptions and mechanics of the game defeats any point in discussing it. Fiends are objectively evil, and physical manifestations of their alignment. It's how the game is. You can play however you want, but it makes this discussion pointless.
>>50541346
Thus far you've only spoken of your D&D-styled adventures, rather than D&D.

>>50541357
That's because I stopped using alignments in 3e, as they served no genuine purpose aside from making my game cosmology the cookie-cutter of yours.
Multiclassing was once a non-optional rule, now it's optional. Same with a lot of shit like flanking.

Mechanically alignments are cartoonishly simplistic and crutches for roleplaying.
Sorry that you still feel they are an indispensable part of Dungeons and Dragons, clearly the designers think most everything is not.

Your prattling about Muh Pure Game, doesn't move me overmuch.

>>50541357
I prefer "Retainer of Friendly Skelly-Men", but different strokes, I suppose.

>>50540886
>Amusingly, the Bard is a functioning Warlord (Rogue). With variants.

People who keep saying this either never even seen a warlord, or their bar is so fucking low as to be absolutely meaningless.

>I guess by boring you mean doesn't "wait, let me decide which of my abilities I'm gonna use this attack, and roll for the dice effect" constantly.

Or maybe he means getting something other than an ability that triggers 1/20th of a time. Passives are fine, but there's nothing exciting happening in a Champion's turn.

>>50541380
>Your prattling about Muh Pure Game, doesn't move me overmuch.
It has nothing to do with me caring how you or anyone else plays, only that, when discussion is taking place you should assume that the game is being played as is, rather than in a homebrew setting, with homebrew rules, otherwise the discussion itself means nothing to anyone, and can also accomplish nothing, beyond a potentially entertaining story. Which this is not.
However since this is long past D&D, and entirely moved into discussing discussions, and social decorum, i will stop responding here

>>50541357
There's not even a point to having Demons/Demodands/Daemons/Devils.

Why have 4 or more factions of implacable dimensional nasty monsters with similar stats, all plotting the ruination of humanity and shaking their fists at the Gods of "Good" at the same time and warring with each other in a way that's generally meaningless to the races who live a few dimensions away and are "glad they have a hobby I guess?"
>Muh Alignment embodiment
Is a dumb rationale. The endless war between snarling nasty rules-loving Horned Monster Men and snarling nasty rules-hating Horned Monster Men.

>>50541401
>only that, when discussion is taking place you should assume that the game is being played as is
No, you're being stupid, the entire point of the conversation was that Alignment isn't a very good or necessary convention.
I'm suggesting that it's easy to lose and nothing is lost. I don't give a shit what you run at your table.
Not a single one. I'll never sit at it.

Am I then nly one who really likes Zulu fighting man?

>>50541450
He looks about as Zulu as Doctor Dre.
Not even his retarded shield-spear looks Zulu.

>>50541461
Take a deep breath, anon

File: 1420512669299.jpg (37KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 960x960px

>>50541323
>>50541339
>>50541380
>>50541402
if you aren't going to accept "because the designers have designed it this way" then you might want to consider going and making the weekly alignment argument thread. you'll probably get some real discussion from a system and setting-agnostic vantage point and not just a few people repeatedly telling you that you're arguing against a brick wall because that's how the game and setting are designed.

>>50541450
"definitely not zulu" zulu fighting man is pretty dope desu

Give all martials superiority dice. Is this good or bad?

>>50541493
good if was like beta idea
bad if it is like battlemaster

>>50541493
Superiority dice used in various ways by class/archetype, good.
Everyone is a battlemaster, bad.

>>50541450
I really like the Monk iconic. She's super cute.

>>50541516
Please elaborate?

>>50541526
Please elaborate further?

>>50541323
virt?

>>50541583
Depends how deep you wanna go.
Rangers fueling their special attacks/defenses and their special arrows with superiority die would probably be neat. Beastmasters could heal their pets, or grant them a one turn buff. Hunters can Volley or Whirlwind attack, or trigger some sort of AC boost against swarming enemies.
Barbarians could trigger rage effects. Go a bit deeper with totem barbs, let each totem chosen gain an active they can spend die to fuel, as well as a small passive. Give Berserkers -AC for +damage for a turn. Let barbarians in general lengthen their current rage by spending a die, or ignore the next blow unless it deals die+barb level in damage or more.
We can go deeper, let rogues spend a die to gain advantage, monks just have their ki abilities tuned to dice rolls more frequently, paladins can smite.

Does it work with the game like it is now? Probably not, but i think it very well could have been more interesting.

>>50541573
In the first D&D 5e playtest, figthers had per round superiority dice, but no extra attack.
Also you had 7 or so styles.
Every style gave 3 manuvers, plus two basics manouvers for everyone that were a parry and another to do more dmg.

>>50541653
These are pretty good ideas.

>>50541386
Yes because the Battlemaster is perfect Warlord.
The warlord shenanigans where you and your party could take shit ton of basic attacks(looking at you storm of blades) or where you functioned as the current cleric cant happen in 5e.
Rally, Maneuvering Strike, Commanding Strike and the others are perfect translation of 4e powers to 5e action economy and with Inspiring Leader and Martial Adept you can be the ultimate support machine. Problem is it will never be enough for the powergamers

What are some good multiclass combinations for the monk?

>>50541799
Today's Unarmed Fighter UA

>>50541799
Clerics can be decent, but realistically, anything you do will generally weaken you in terms of monkness, monks are probably the most leveled feature dependent class in 5e.

>>50540836
>https://discord.gg/0rRMo7j6WJoQmZ1b
so is the discord server for gaming or for rules and GM-workshopping?

>>50541881
It's for arguing about carbon based pickaxes and casters with nonstandard stat allocation.

>>50541809
keep on dreaming

>>50540872


Dude... Valor Bard

>>50541799
Moon Druid. Unarmoured Defense carries over into beast form.

>>50542007

unless the beast has natural armor

>>50542016
in which case you choose whichever is higher

>>50541993
Or bladesinger

>>50542007
>>50542016
>>50542024
Of course remember you're using the dex of the animal you turn into

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016

i don't wanna get into a fight over this, you do what you wanna do, these are official rulings but you can choose to not follow them if you don't want to use them

Is there anything i should be focusing on or looking out for if i'm making a wizard? I'm fairly new to 5e and thought you could give me some pointers. So far the DM has said "anything is okay as long as it seems fair".
Is multiclassing good or bad in 5e?

I like the sound of that Wizard archetype? the Divine wizard?
How can I be good at knowledge skills?

Thanks in advance

>>50541754
>if you want buffing/enabling others to be a better than just attacking it with your sword, or at least a good option for you, you are a dirty powergamer

>>50542112
>being good at knowledge skills
Expertise from rogue or bard with a high int score.

Simply having a high int score and proficiency in those skills should be fine, however, as most bards/rogues won't have high int and int is by far the rarest stat since it's almost never used.

>multiclassing
Very variable.
For a wizard, I'd suggest multiclassing as little as possible.
However, a one level multiclass into cleric or fighter for better AC is not a bad idea. Just make sure you put your first level in fighter/cleric as you'll get more HP.

>divine wizard
Probably the least liked wizard in terms of design (but not viability), your DM might let you get away with picking it. It's not seriously overpowered from what I know, but some things such as increasing your save DC and the fact you can rip off a load of cleric spells is deemed kind of overpowered, I think.

>>50542136
There are already ways not attacking with your sword is better.
If you use the battlemaster ability to make somebody else make an attack and you choose a rogue, they can sneak attack, for example.

>>50542160
And every time you can not do that (for example, if there's no rogue in your group), you are better off with just hitting it with your sword.

And if you can, then the group is saddled with having not one, but two otherwise useless martials.

File: 14390744_489528567838620_5547835437614505756_n.jpg (43KB, 592x443px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 592x443px

>>50542178
>not just rolling characters blind of what your friends are doing (keeping in mind the DMs restrictions and requests), having fun playing what you want and getting excited when little combos like this come up
why?

>>50542178
Moving squishies out of harms way while boosting your attacks, giving temp hit points, tripping or making enemies afraid, giving them disadvantage on attacking other people or advantage against them, making them drop their weapons. With the only thing lacking is giving precision attacks to allied creatues which can be fixed with giving the battlemaster this option. Man what a useless class without any abilities to help your friends.

File: ebe4786310a2f495ece9ebbfe9a20397.jpg (225KB, 873x1200px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 873x1200px

Guys, I need your advice.
How do I use giants in my campaign? For the love of me I can't think of a good encounter with them. I want to emphasize how, well, huge and immensly strong they are. Not just big humans that throw rocks, but astoundigly powerful and intimidating beings in their own right and downright terrifying when compared to a common human.
Party consists of 4 people of 5-6 levels.

>>50542147
Thanks for the help!
The DM said the Divine Wizard (Is that its actual name? i've forgotten which pdf i found it in.) is ok, and he also gave me a print out of a class called the Scholar, as my characters goal is to research old miracles and magics and restore them to society at large. Would anyone be able to point me in the pdf it came from?

>>50542178
>otherwise useless

You can still do things, and there are still times you'll want somebody else to make an attack for you. Maybe to get a paladin to smite or something.

Of course, if you want to play with maximum tactics and to stomp on everything the DM throws at you, you don't do that in the first place.

You'd just get a paladin and some full casters and maybe a barbarogue and go in no-fun-allowed style, unless you derive fun from trying to break the system's limit in character optimization to screw your DM over you sick fuck.

>>50542262
have you read storm king's thunder? it's giants: the campaign. you should be able to lift an encounter or two from that

>>50542270
Googled it, found a 'scholar' on reddit.
I'm very skeptical about homebrew.

It seems rather non-standard with things like the scholar having no saving throws whatsoever (no, intellect saving throws barely count as having a saving throw at all).
As fun as it sounds, it's probably best to stick to core classes unless you know 5e well enough to identify shit homebrew (i.e., most homebrew). Wizard is a strong class, but probably the most complicated class for somebody starting 5e to play.

>>50542270
https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA%20Non-Divine%20Faithful%20SFG.pdf

i think this is the divine wizard you're talking about

Hey anyone know a decent lake creature. Preferably large or bigger, to have 5 8th level players fight

>>50542262
I was a novice DM playing with novice and low level players, but I gave them an enraged hill giant that was besieging a city gave them some NPC guards to help them.
I encouraged them to go up onto the city walls to defend the gate, two of them jumped down (paladin who proceeded to do less than he was before and wizard who casted enlarge/reduce on himself and scored the final blow with his quarterstaff)
I hope I gave you some ideas, perhaps you can use more giants, have them engage the giant already within the city walls or the likes
the destruction of fortifications and buildings emphasizes the strength and size of a giant

>>50541348
This, my players collectively figured this out and subsequently invented the car crash.

Any ideas or gimmicks for a dungeon-wide puzzle? Working on something akin to a mega-dungeon, where each wing/hall/floor has a specific task or puzzle to complete that spans the whole wing/hall/floor, in order to progress to the final boss type thing.

There are a thousand and one dungeon puzzles and traps, but anything a little more involved / complicated?

>>50542369
Thanks thats the one! so i basically just get a cleric and mush him into a wizards bag? neato

>>50542340
Its really hard for me atm to pin down whats shit/normal/great/too good. Especially when something looks fun. I personally have attempted to hand around woc published stuff i found in the trove, but have just started tonight. Does anyone have a character they think is a shining example of a really good character and one they think is garbage tier.

>>50542449
A 3D 15-puzzle. Each room is a cube that can be moved by a lever inside up, down, north, south, east or west, by the length of its side. Completing the puzzle is necessary for moving to the next dungeon segment, i.e. only a specific room in a specific position has the passage.

>>50542400
Clear water, or murky?
A couple Giant Crocodiles and some lizardmencan have a clear theme, but plays best in less clear water.
A young dragon could have a underwater cave lair.
Some water elementals guard a shrine on the lake floor.
An aboleth has awakened and enthralled some surrounding entities, claiming the lake as its own empire.
With the river dammed, the stranded mer tribe wages war on helpless fishermen.
A death slaad and his entourage have decided the lake shall bring about the death of order... somehow, theyre working on it.
The lake is actually a colossal water weird, how strange.
Blidilploop awakens! Or is that just an old Hag?

File: 14ad53d46c01602c9f1ecabecdaf74eb.jpg (53KB, 564x797px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 564x797px

>>50542292
Oh. Somehow I completely missed that one. Thanks, I'll take a look.
>>50542408
Interesting. I will definitely add something like this. Thank you.

>>50540836
>What are you hoping to get from Unearthed Arcana: Fighter?

One that can use superiority dice like bardic inspiration, adding to checks, saves, attacks, etc. etc. Looking for an epic hero of ages archetype (Hercules, Gilgamesh, etc.)

One that's specifically anti-mage.

Gladiator, Duelist, Dervish

>>50542479
That sounds incredibly cumbersome. How would you:

> Represent that to your players / keep track of the DM version of that visually?
> Make that "fun" or even interesting
> Populate with normal dungeon accoutrement: monsters, treasure, traps, puzzles

File: 1478971500870.jpg (13KB, 540x489px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 540x489px

>scholar
>has an ability to use intellect instead of strength for making an attack with a light weapon / quarterstaff / unarmed strike
>has an ability to use intellect instead of dexterity for initiative
>has an ability to use intellect instead of wisdom for any proficient wisdom check or save

What do they think they are, a fucking psychic who does everything with their brain?

>>50542178
Oh look, more refusing to fluff and insistence on power level.

>>50542468
>garbage tier
A strength-based WoT4E monks who rolled bad stats.
You can't get much worse than that.
>really good character
A charisma-focused human variant paladin with pole arm mastery feat. Or, heck, a hill dwarf wizard with a level dip into cleric. Or a gnome wizard.

How's this as a feat?

Melee training
You have trained in a style to make attacks through unconventional means. Choose an attribute. You can make melee weapon attacks using that attribute to determine your attack modifier. You still use Strength or Dexterity to determine the damage modifier.

You might have a +1 to that attribute in the feat as well, but that might be too much.

>>50541919
that doesnt sound very fun.

Do we usually have gamefinder threads?

>>50542694
CON archers/10

>>50542567
Representing it to the players is not necessary. They can (and usually that's what they do) draw maps of the dungeon.

Keeping track of the DM version can use the same way - maps and coloured tokens.

Fun is a buzzword subjective. It's a puzzle. Figuring out puzzles is fun for some people but boring for others.

Nothing prevents you from populating it with normal dungeon stuff. Monsters live there, and moving rooms can screw up their ecosystem, and you can portray that - freaked out and panicking goblins, enraged owlbears that are separated from their young, and so on. Treasure is a hoard in one of the rooms. Traps separate the rooms so it's possible to make the safest route by moving rooms. Puzzles activate levers.

>>50542706
>melee weapon attacks

>>50542706
It says melee weapon attacks. Or are you tacking this on to the GWM + Sharpshooter + Tavern Brawler melee crossbowyer?

>>50542716
what is GWM+Sharpshooter crossbow

>>50542694
Sounds fine enough. Already have one in my homebrew that allows for Wisdom-based ranged attacks, though, so I might not be a good judge.

>>50542575
Wait, what? Where is that from?

>>50540836
For some reason I always liked the art of this black fighter. Made him an npc in one of campaigns once.

>>50542724
yes

>>50542694
Certain people don't care much about damage modifiers.

>GWM
>Sharpshooter
>Sneak Attack
>GFB/BB

It makes too little sense to fit into 5e and it goes against 5e's principles where the only ways you can normally do this are with quarterstaves, wisdom (druid/cleric) or charisma (bard/warlock). Though, that still gives you the damage.


Hmm. I can't find any particularly broken way to abuse it because rogues still want dex for initiative, stealth and AC (or not AC or stealth if they go heavy/medium armour, but that's a bit of a sacrifice unless it's a barbarogue, and they already need to use strength).

Honestly, it's a bit of an overrestricted feat. You have to take a whole feat for it. If you give it +1 to the stat, it's too powerful. If it's +0, it's too restricted except for some niche cases.

The biggest problem I'd have is that aside from not fitting into 5e's expectations is that it's a feat that literally only just gives you + to hit. That's all it does, + to hit depending on the difference between the stat you chose and strength (Because you wouldn't do it for a finesse weapon, would you?)

>>50542766
Go google it.

Somebody mentioned a scholar homebrew, so I shoved 'dungeons dragons 5e scholar class' or something into the search bar.

>>50542575
Factotum wanker loves his Intelligence

>>50540914
You can do this already, you just can't reload without a hand free. If you're creative you could probably talk your DM into letting you have wrist mounted hand crossbows so you can still reload.

Or you can just use Crossbow expert and a single hand crossbows for the same effect

>>50542836
Thoughts on this? Aforementioned Wisdom-based ranged attacks.
>Shepard Training
Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one divine spell

>You may use your Wisdom modifier in place of Dexterity when attacking with ranged weapons. This affects your to hit rolls as well as damage rolls.
>You learn Vicious Mockery as a cantrip. Wisdom as spellcasting stat.
>When an ally within 30 feet makes a Wisdom save, you may use your reaction to give them advantage on that save. You regain the use of this ability on a long rest.

>>50542885
Two-weapon fighting specifically states it must be a light melee weapon.

>>50542836
>>50542694
Alright, so I thought it through.
The only feasible ways I can think of using this are:
1. Multiclassed, armoured rogue or really, really loves maxing out perception (Con or Wis)
2. 20 Charisma Paladin with PAM that doesn't want to multiclass, likely 15 str for heavy armour or dex-focused (Cha)
3. 20 Charisma Valor Bard with less than 16 dex.
Some things I considered included monk (they need the ASIs and should instead raise dex to 20 as their end goal), bladelock (They use PAM and want that +damage per hit, or else they've sacrificed their damage and thus their only advantage over EBlock), dex barbarian (it's not worth it just for GWM or PAM) and many others.

>>50543000
That would probably be a ranger staple ability, though perhaps maybe optional on a ranged fighter.

>>50543048
Actually, perhaps make that 'valor bard with GFB/BB but not medium armour proficiency from some other source, otherwise they'd have just been a lore bard'
...
So, oddly multiclassed bard, oddly multiclassed rogue or a really late-game charisma paladin, I guess?

>>50543000
Magic stone already exists for ranged shillelagh

Guy from a previous thread who was going to play a monk with 10, 15, 14, 10, 15, 10 stats...don't follow my example, it wasn't a good idea.

>>50543173
> roll for stats

>>50543173
Should've gone UA Ranger.

I'm going to put Shillelagh and GFB on my Lore Bard. Even though I would only melee stuff like once or twice per session. You guys can't stop me.

>>50542694
This lets you attack with a Greatsword using Dex. Is that intended/OP?

>>50541108
>Why would people feel the need to "check" your character sheet for this sort of thing.

He's called the Dungeon Master, and he'd feel the need so as to preemptively build a better world for you.

Actually the average alignment of a party probably tells the DM a lot about the kind of game his players would like to play:

GOOD: We want to be superheroes

NEUTRAL: We want to get paid

EVIL: We want to be assholes

LAWFUL: We'd like to have a clear chain of command and story

NEUTRAL: We could go either way

CHAOTIC: We want to have a sandbox

>and you agreed this campaign would be heroic in nature

I agreed to no such thing. That's why Evil is on my character sheet.

Any good 5e podcasts out there that's NOT Critical Role or Acq. Inc.?

File: Dungeon Master.png (2MB, 774x1032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 774x1032px

Rolled 6, 6, 4, 5, 3, 2, 3, 2, 5, 1, 1, 4, 4, 1, 5, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 3, 6, 2, 3 = 80 (24d6)

>>50543285
Yes. Always. It's the main rule, and it's the most fun.

...hmm...

Let's see what I end up with.

>>50543454
6, 6, 4, 5 = 17
3, 2, 3, 2 = 8
5, 1, 1, 4 = 10
4, 1, 5, 4 = 13
4, 1, 4, 1 = 9
3, 6, 2, 3 = 11

I'm thinking...Rogue.

>>50543477
Monk, go monk

>>50543285
Actually was point buy

>>50543526
Impossible, you cant get that with point buy.

>>50543574
Try adding a +2/+1 race that doesn't improve wis/dex, smartass

Has anyone done a character sheet in the style of the /tg/ class-specific sheets for the UA revised ranger, death cleric, or oathbreaker paladin?

Would it be a good idea to alter monks to have their unarmed defense be 11 or 12 + dex&wis instead of 10?

They're supposed to be frontline combatants, but with such low hit dice the AC of chain mail really doesn't cut it. Doubly so when they have to haha be max dex and wis possible to get to that point.

It would put then above 20 AC at high levels, but I think that's fine, especially since magic armor for them is harder to find.

>>50543426
The Adventure Zone

>>50543770
if you feel they have low AC give your players magic items

So what's the best DnD edition?
Pathfinder, right?

>>50543878
baitibaiylinen

>>50543878
For char options, sure

>>50543807
The Adventure Zone is great if you can accept that they have no idea how the rules work and ignore the rules they do know in favor of storytelling.

>>50543884
Not even bait I just have only played WFRP and want to try DnD some time

>>50543888
And apart from that?

>>50543878
>this bait
Jesus Christ, you are not even trying.

>>50543910
>super tactical combat
dnd 4e
>aight and not totally offensive, and has tons of players
dnd 5e
>BACK IN MY DAY grognardism
ADnD 2e

>>50543878
>3finder best D&D
If you want neck beard money.
Absofuckinglutely.
Otherwise, YMMV.

>>50543409
To be fair, sometimes Chaotic means the player wants to rebel against authority or just have an excuse to be randumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9KxuAWZwiA

> Unearthed Arcana Fighter is STILL not out
REEEEEEEEEEEEE, what's taking so long?

what time do the new UA articles typically drop?

>>50544177
Lately it's at least noon PST. They used to be ready at 9 AM PST about a year ago.

Okay Anons, so here are is my "Net-Fu" idea that I've come up with, some are better or worse than others.

Human with Crossbow Master feat, lets him throw the net in melee with no disadvantage and then point-blank the target with advantage.

Kobolds can throw nets using pack tactics to avoid disadvantage.

Haste is great because you can use the single-bonus attack to throw your net to not fuck up extra-attack combos.

If your GM is a pushover, "improvised melee nets of 1d4 damage no disadvantage snaring."

Eldrich knights can cantrip and throw a net, or if your DM allows it, throw a net and then cantrip. Bonus points if you use Bonfire. Hurl a net over someone then they erupt in a pillar of flame, having disadvantage to avoid the fire. Next turn they HAVE to get out of the net or stay in the fire.

Mastermind rogues using help-another to let someone throw the net without disadvantage, granting the whole party advantage can be good.

A ranger throwing the net then having his beast attack can be effective economy, give him Sharpshooter feat so he can headshot with his heavy crossbow when its not worth using his net.

>>50544222
How long is that from now, PST

>>50544287
3 hours

>>50544287
~3 hours

How strict are you with your players carrying shit?

I don't keep track of weight / carrying capacity unless they're trying to do something absurd (yeah, we take the 10,000 coins and put it in my bag).

But I also can't get the ludicrous image of adventurers doing all their running, jumping, swimming, climbing, fighting with a 60lb rucksack as well.

Not to mention the shit they go through with nothing breaking, falling apart, or getting ruined. It's like the only two options are account for every ounce, or handwave it and do a video game style "inventory" where it's just on their person somehow.

I've been wondering abotu something today: do dwarves farm. It doesn't seem very sustainable having to import all your food. On the otherhand, it's not like most food grows well underground. Or do the dwarves subsist on a pure cave-critters/monsters and mushroom diet?


I personally think that most dwarven settlements have an above ground bit where the dwarves that are bad at crafting/fighting have farms to provide for the other dwarves. Maybe some are shepherds/goatherds.

>>50544361
This is why hill dwarves exist. There's often a clan of hill dwarves right outside a settlement of mountain dwarves and they trade with each other. The clans are distinct due to their different vocations but tight-knit.

>>50543807
Are they audio or audio+video?

>>50544359
My dm isn't strict at all. In fact, the single most common magical item our group can find is the bag of holding, so we usually all have one within the first few sessions.
As long as we don't go full battlefield scavengers, our dm doesn't really care. And if we do, he just doesn't let us sell the stuff, so no point anyway.

>>50544361
>I've been wondering abotu something today: do dwarves farm. It doesn't seem very sustainable having to import all your food. On the otherhand, it's not like most food grows well underground. Or do the dwarves subsist on a pure cave-critters/monsters and mushroom diet?
Depends on the setting. In the FR for example, between the various mushrooms and rothé (not-cows) dwarves and drow are pretty much self-sufficient food wise.

>>50544376
oh I thought hilldwarves live aboveground in hilly areas and traded with humans etc while mountain dwarves barely ever went aboveground

>>50544444
Nice quads. And yeah, hill dwarves also perform that function. They're the bridge that keeps dwarven society functional while the two types specialize in different areas.

>>50544359
I use the OGL 5e sheets in roll20 which do all the encumbrance math for you, so I am strict about it. I like the balance between wanting items and wanting speed. Plus when players do the "I will just drop my backpack when combat starts" thing you can force them to decide between gear and ability to run from something.

>>50543807
>>50543907
This. I have recently been listening to them and I am grinning like a psychopath the entire bus ride.
They are just...FUN!

>>50544361
>Or do the dwarves subsist on a pure cave-critters/monsters and mushroom diet?

Of course they do. As long as there's literally anything edible and a legendary cook, and a source of alcohol, they're bound to be pretty happy with their conditions. Especially if their bedrooms are engraved.

>>50540930
>>50540944
>playing in a setting with an objective morality system
>implying that the magical rules of the universe just fucked off and everything works like the real world because muh shades of grey
>still not comprehending that alignments are a reflection of actions and not a straightjacket that limits how you can act
I'm sorry that you guys are retards who never understood how alignments work and have only ever played with DMs and other players with similar failings.

>>50544378
Audio only.

>>50544163
>/tg/

>>50540836
Can a mounted, controlled mount take reactions? The PHB says that a mounted, controlled mount
>has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.
But does this mean that it can't take reactions (or, for that matter, bonus actions)? I'm asking with regards to the UA revised beastmaster ranger, which allows a companion animal to use a reaction to make an attack on its own when your ranger attacks.

File: Trull.jpg (598KB, 1093x1500px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1093x1500px

Is the best warlock race the half-elf?

>>50544602
If you are a powergamer.

>>50544444
>Fucking quints!!!

>>50544302
>>50544310
Thanks senpais.

>>50540942
This only works if you're playing a class whose abilities closely match the class you're pretending to be or have features that are very subtle and easy to miss unless the party is scrutinizing what you do.

You could, for example, be a Barbarian pretending to be a Fighter. You've got to explain why you're not wearing armor and never mention "going into a Rage" in terms like that, but otherwise they're both two classes that hit people with weapons and that's it. People might wonder why you're never Second Winding or Action Surging, though.

You can also play off a Wizard as a Sorc or vice-versa, but people may wonder why you aren't using your Wizard archetype features.

Do not try to mix a class that casts with one that doesn't. Either way you go with this, you're not casting spells, so the party's going to get suspicious and you're actively harming your chances of success by either giving them the impression you are capable of impressive things but are choosing not to use them, or you are deliberately holding back shit that can save the party's ass for fear of having your class found out.

This scheme honestly works best with multiclassing. You can play a Fighter/Rogue, let everyone know you're a Rogue, but put nearly all of your levels into Fighter Champion or something and pretend like that Extra Attack is really your off-hand. No one's going to count damage die for your rapier vs. a dagger or how many sneak attack die you must have to get a number that big/small.

You're also going to have to hand notes to the DM or agree on a list of coded terms in advance. It works better online when you can whisper them through the client or talk in another out-of-game window.

The point of this charade should also not be to surprise the party, hide your edgy grimdark secret, or to betray them. That's just stupid.

>>50543770
Why? monks have high as fuck survivability even with 14 AC and 10 Con

>>50544602
depends on playstyle, bladelock does not need cha ex so for that str dwarf is among the best

What's the purpose of listening to podcasts when you can actually play yourself?

>>50540989
>Why restrict how you're viewing your own character and roleplay
How does alignment do any of that?

>>50544659
Cant play D&D on a commute

>>50544659
Entertainment?

>>50544659
I'd love to be able to play a game while I'm driving my 1 hour commute or working at the office.

>>50544662
A lot of people get caught up on "my alignment says I can't do that" when the thought process should be "how do I justify that action within my alignment?"

>>50540959
>Zulu
>not Rasta
Pleb, thy taste is shit.

>>50544533
can you make beer from mushrooms?

>>50540942
You mean hide it out of character? What's the point?
I refluff classes all the time (I have used bards to play wizards more often than I've actually used wizards, especially now with 5e and rituals), but I never bothered to hide it from the group. I mean, what do they even care?

>>50544602
Dwarf is better for bladelocks. Yuan-to is strong if allowed. Human is always a solid option.

Really, as long as you have 16 Cha to start though, it doesn't matter.

>>50544687
Eh, it shouldn't really be either of those things.
You should do a thing based on the goals, morality, motivations, ideals, situation, and other actual character things you've established (or want to put into play, or that are created), and then adjust your alignment if your behavior has consistently changed to something else.

But "how do I justify that action within my alignment" can lead to that, but phrased like that I feel like you're still pigeonholing yourself to 2 words and then using that as a basis for your thought.

>>50543770
For the 1001th time, if you feel like you have low stats wear fucking armor and shield

>>50544643
You sure? Because the monk in my group gets knocked out every other fight. And he actually got better Con and AC

>>50544725
That only works in homebrewed settings, in faerun there're stuff like wizard colleges and bard colleges in which they have only wizards and only bards respectively

>>50544687
Then those people are wrong. That's not a problem with alignments, that's a problem with their own random behavior. If anything, an adherence to alignment makes for a more consistent and believable character rather than one whose thoughts and actions shift wildly based on OOC needs or desires.
>that +1 sword would make me more powerful, so lemme just break established character to get it
>i know this guy is evil because I can see all the OOC signs, but my character really should trust him, but that would get us in trouble so fuck him
>it's not inconsistent, i'm just being a DEEP AND COMPLEX INDIVIDUAL WITH VARIED MOTIVATIONS, TRULY THREE-DIMENSIONAL, yeah

File: age_of_empires_3_concept_by_schwartzpedro.jpg (64KB, 600x846px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x846px

>>50544741
Purely RAW monks can't use most of their abilities when wearing armor and shield.

>>50544755
Tell him to spend more ki on dodge, baka.

>>50544739
>Eh, it shouldn't really be either of those things.
You have to start simple before you get people into nuanced RP. What you describe is how I do it, but it's too many steps removed from alignment-fagging to jump all the way to what you suggest.

>>50544512
>quads
Those are quints, anon

>>50544799
Quint Quads.

>>50544741
That idea is dumb as displayed like 2 threads ago as it renders most of your actions at disadvantage or negates benefits outright, is hard to acquire at chargen, and depending on the armor is like +1AC better (padder|leather+shield versus unarmored with +2 dex&wis is like 15 vs 14ac). Fuck off.

>>50544756
That's where refluffing comes from. What's the difference between a bard and an aristocratic and highly educated arcane hobbyist? Does it really matter to the mechanics if your magic comes from your music or from your more or less half-baked studies?

>>50544775
Other way around. Purely RAW, Monks can use the vast majority of their abilities when wearing armor and shield. EVERY feature past level 2 works completely unhindered regardless of shields, weapons, and armor.

Here are the only things wearing armor/shields breaks for Monks:
>Unarmored Movement's bonus movement speed
You do, however, get to use the wall/water-running feature at level 9 that's part of Unarmored Movement.
>Unarmored Defense's AC calculation
>Martial Arts' using Dexterity instead of Strength for AB/Dam with unarmed attacks
>Martial Arts' scaling damage die for unarmed attacks
>Martial Arts' bonus action unarmed attack when you take the Attack action with an unarmed strike / Monk weapon
That's it. That's all wearing armor "turns off".

>>50541799
UA Hunter, Battle master, Druid, Cleric, Rogue and Warlock.

>>50544822
Look at this munchkin he not only wants to have AC to survive melee he also wants to use his features, fuck off and go play a videogame or something

Give me names for fictional magical metals.

>>50544890
It also turns off your ability to do anything with dexterity or strength properly (read: basically everything you do) due to lacking shield and armor proficiencies - unless you're also suggesting multiclassing?

>>50544911
Mithril
Adamantium
Unobtanium

>>50544911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_elements,_materials,_isotopes_and_atomic_particles

>>50544890
You forgot
>Disadvantage on attacks
>If you have a subclass that casts spells you can't cast them on armor
Probably I'm missing more penalties though

>>50544911
>>50544932
Mathril
Addamantium
Multiplicium
Subtractium
Dividorium

>>50544890
>can still deflect missiles (and redirect them if you have a free hand)
>can still jump off cliffs unscathed
>can still extra attack
>can still stunning blow
>can still bypass non-magical physical DR with an unarmed strike (even though the damage will be 1+Str)
>can still use evasion to take half / no damage from reflex
>can still end charm/fright on yourself
>still immune to poison
>can still understand all languages and speak to any language-using creature
>can still have proficiency in all saves and reroll saving throws
>can still ignore your age, food, and drink
>can still turn invisible, gain DR, and astral project
>can still regain ki on initiative
wew

>>50544956
factoril
exponentium
matricil

File: ezpz.jpg (5KB, 300x227px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x227px

What is the appropriate power level for a capstone feature?

>>50544924
Yes, you could multiclass to pick up proficiencies, or multiclass into Monk from something like Fighter or Cleric. You could also play a Hill Dwarf for both armor and weapon profs, an Elf for just weapon profs, or take a feat (hey, Variant Human) to get armor proficiency, or work with your DM to customize a background.

>>50544978
>can still deflect missiles (and redirect them if you have a free hand)
If you're wearing a shield, odds are you're going to be holding a weapon in your other hand unless you're going full shield master shove/grapple lock.

Which, incidentally, sounds pretty cool if you can convince your DM to let you use your shield as your monk weapon.

>>50541167
Well played

>>50544952
I'm not a munchkin so that doesnt' matter to me, I roleplay, you should try it sometimes.

>>50544952
We're not talking about penalties for wearing armor without proficiency, just penalties to Monk features for wearing armor.

>>50545018
Slightly better than something a class gets in the first 3 level that defines it, i.e. Action Surge, Cunning Action, Rage, Divine Smite. It has to be more compelling than those but not so much better it destroys multiclassing.

So what's the average level of adventurers in the forgotten realms?
And at which point are they considered heroes?

>>50544933
>Bureaucratium - Similar to Administratium and variation of the joke. In this version of the joke, Bureaucratium is an element which has a negative half-life, becoming more massive and sluggish as time goes by.
Chuckled heartily.

>>50545081
DMG page 37
>LEVELS 1- 4: LOCAL HEROES
>LEVELS 5-10: HEROES OF THE REALM
>LEVELS 11-16: MASTERS OF THE REALM
>LEVELS 17-20: MASTERS OF THE WORLD

>>50544723
In the real world, no. But you can possibly make it from some kind of moss. And, it's possible to make moonshine from sugar, which can be extracted from mushrooms (very low percentage, though, about 2%) or moss.

But hey, it's fantasy. You can have underground fruit, underground bees to make mead, underground mushrooms that ARE brewable, hell, even animals that produce ethanol when milked that could be dwarves themselves

FIGHTER UA IS OUT

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/fighter

>>50545195
I can't download it. Thanks, obama
also
>Arcane Archer, Knight, Samurai, and Sharpshooter.

Well.
Uh, ok

File: Fuck This Gay Earth.jpg (89KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x360px

>>50545195
>File not found."

>>50545216
Where are the anti-undead shitposters now?

>>50545236
It's a samurai that hunts the undead via oni

>Arcane Archer, Knight, Samurai, and Sharpshooter
>Sharpshooter
Wew they can't even come up with names not already taken

>>50545195
>>50545216
>knight

god i pray it's better than purple dragon knight

>file not found

wotc an hero

I can FEEL that the Sharpshooter will have something to do with superiority dice. Samurai too.

>>50545069
That's a pretty good perspective on it. Thanks.

>>50545275
>implying AA won't just be superiority dice maneuvers refluffed for your arcane shots

>>50545290
I think it would have spell slots. And use spell slots for some near-useless shit like the maneuvers.

Does anyone know of any short, but lots-of-content dungeons? One of my adventures has a lot of espionage and social interactions, so after all that I want to give the players something where they can let loose, show off and break lots of things.

>>50545304
Ranged smite, maybe?

>>50545335
Nah, we can't let fighters have nice things. That would be heresy.

>>50545344
But fighters have nice things, it's monks the ones who can't have nice things or have them but it's all flavour and not much mechanically

>>50545333
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/22/need-an-adventure-one-page-dungeon/

> Fighter UA is so bad that they have to took it out before people see it.

>>50544512
>>50544444
>>50544376
>>50544361
Common misconception. Hill Dwarves are not "surface dwarves" and Mountain Dwarves are not "underground dwarves".

Hill Dwarves = Gold Dwarves
Mountain Dwarves = Shield Dwarves
Both Dwarves still live predominantly underground.

Mountain/Shield Dwarves are, GENERALLY, the isolationists who prefer to sit in their caves and not receive visitors or help anyone. Their isolationism was one of cold practicality (busy dealing with goblin/orc shit all the time, can't help humans), not because they are assholes. They are by far the most numerous, but because of that advantage, they are paradoxically the "friendly surface Dwarves" you are likely to encounter 99%. They are not a monoculture, and with any population, there are those who chafe at one or more of society's expectations; these are called "the Wanderers", and they make up the bulk of adventuring Dwarves, those who live in non-Dwarven settlements, and surface-settling Dwarves.

The majority of Dwarven surface settlements, as well as the few surface KINGDOMS they had (Besilmer/Sumber Hills, notably portrayed in PotA and SKT), have all been Mountain/Shield Dwarf settlements.

So if you meet Dwarves farming on the surface to send food back to their cave-dwelling bros, or trading with humans and elves for goods, or hunting down orcs and shit in far-off lands, or just adventuring for treasure, they are Wanderer Mountain/Shield Dwarves doing it for the benefit of themselves or the "Hidden" Mountain/Shield Dwarves.
The Hill/Gold Dwarves do not enter into this at all.

>>50545369
>>50544361
>>50544376
>>50544444
>>50544512
Hill/Gold Dwarves, on the other hand, are uppity assholes who dig even deeper than Mountain/Shield Dwarves. They started up in the south, have the older kingdoms, are less geographically diverse, and smaller in number (both because they didn't colonize outward like Mountain/Shield and because they had lower birthrates due to their social conventions). The notion of Dwarven stubborness and grudge-holding is ratcheted up to fucking 20 among Hill/Gold Dwarves; these guys can name their ancestors going back 20 generations or more and obsessively document every little detail about their clans' doings, so if you fuck them, it's not only going down in stone and preserved throughout the ages, but Papa Hill/Gold Dwarf is going to tell his kids bedtime stories about what a deceitful prick you (and your whole family/clan, by association) are.

Hill/Gold Dwarves do not "do" surface settlements and they don't like to wander around and talk to other people. Their kingdoms are far older, vaster, more impressive, and rich than anything they could see on the surface, so there's no fucking point. They don't like to adventure, and they are far bigger assholes to outsiders than even the most isolationist Mountain/Shield Dwarf. This is because they are obsessed with clan purity, nobility, stature, rank, wealth, and so on. Hill/Gold Dwarves are fantastically fucking rich, with the average Gold Dwarf teenager having clothes worth more than most human nobles' mansions. They have little need to trade with outside cultures and believe everyone is jealous and out to steal their shit. On top of this, they hold that they are innately superior to everyone else due to pure breeding, so talking with the average human adventurer is like a King holding court with some dirty peasants. Hill/Gold Dwarves don't even take kindly Mountain/Shield Dwarves, who are all uncouth bumpkins also looking to take their wealth.

>>50543770
Magic item: Ironhide bracers +1 to AC.


Or

Monks gain one fighting style at lvl 3 from the following:
Dueling, Mariner and Versatile master (+1 to attack and damage rolls with versatile weapons as well as extra 5ft reach at the cost of bonus action, anyone leaving 5ft range provokes AOO)

>>50545390
Dueling doesn't work with unarmed strikes, read the FAQ

>>50545369
>>50545381
I guess you're assuming FR.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>50545333
This one from the mega worked pretty well for a couple of sessions. No social interaction except with the quest dispenser at the beginning, and everything is fair game for smashing. There's also a giant plesiosaur.

what is the difference thematically between a sorcerer and a wizard?
i know sorcs have a shitload of spellslots but wizards have stronger damage overall, but why?
which do you think is better?

>>50545390
I'd probably go with the latter and give them a few Fighting style options at second level. +2 punch damage and +1 AC and climbing/swimming skill seem fine, though +1 to attack and damage as well as reach just for using a quarter staff seems rather strong.

>>50545436
If you're making up your own setting then you can do whatever you want. But when you ask "how does X act", obviously we're looking for concrete, existing setting detail and not homebrew stuff. This distinction doesn't exist in Eberron or Dark Sun. Greyhawk says Neidar and Klar = Hill/Gold, while Hylar = Mountain/Shield, which is the one official setting where the notion of "hill dwarves live on the surface and hang out with people" is true.

I'm pretty sure more people are doing FR stuff than Dragonlance, though.

>>50545467
>thematically
Sorcerers have innate magical ability.
Wizards develop magical talent through intense study and rote memorization of various incantations and gestures.

>>50545467
Sorcerer is about having innate magic in your bloodline. Thematically

>>50545485
In Eberron the dwarves are hill dwarves by default and the mountain dwarves are almost totally wiped out. The hill dwarves in Eberron are surface-dwelling bankers and merchants.

>>50545467
>what is the difference thematically between a sorcerer and a wizard?

Wizards are the Agents

Sorcerers are the redpills

File: magnus-noren-dwarf-cleric1.jpg (471KB, 1900x2300px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1900x2300px

>SPELL BREAKER
>Starting at 6th level, when you restore hit points to an ally with a spell of 1st level or higher, you can also end one spell of your choice on that creature. The level of the spell you end must be equal to or lower than the level of the spell slot you use to cast the healing spell.
(from Arcana domain, SCAG)

How powerful is that? At first I thought it was a channel divinity but it isn't even. Costs nothing extra.

How would this compare, as an offensive spinoff?
CHANNEL DIVINITY: SPELL PURGE
Starting at 6th level, when a you cast a spell of 1st level or higher that targets one creature and causes the creature to make a saving throw, if it fails the saving throw you can use your Channel Divinity end one spell of your choice on that creature. The level of the spell you end must be equal to or lower than the level of the spell slot you use to cast the healing spell.

I reckon ending spells on enemies is probably more powerful than on your allies. Requiring healing makes it kind of limited, while applying it to damage or debuff spells you'd cast on enemies anyway seems like less of an opportunity cost.

In the same vein, War domain allows you to use your CD to give +10 to an attack roll. How much more powerful would a feature that allowed you to give +10 to a saving throw be?

>>50545467
Wizards magic comes from methodic study of formulas, postulates, etc
Sorcerer magic comes from either their heritage (distant relative could have been a dragon or similar creature), from pacts with such creatures, or from being affected by a powerful magic phenomenon

>>50545467
They have the same amount of spell slots. They have the same amount of damage.

Wizards have to guess what spells would be useful during the day and prepare them in advance.
Sorcerers can shit out whatever spells they need right now.

Wizards have spellbooks which can hold any amount of spells, as long as you have the money to get rare inks to write them.
Sorcerers' minds can hold only so much spells, and they can't learn new ones from books or scrolls.


Wizards are about versatility, sorcerers are about flexibility.


Thematically, wizards actually learn magic through intense study and hard work. Sorcerers are naturally gifted and just learn to use their innate powers.

>>50545434
Monks don't always use armed strike, brah.

>>50545513
>Sorcerers are the redpills
Cucks obsessed with bloodlines who have a false sense of superiority over it all despite being strictly inferior to the other casters they complain about as being impure shitters?

>>50545467
In practical play, the wizard is about versatility and staying-power, and the sorcerer is about having more power in individual rounds.

>>50545195
>http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/2016_Fighter_UA_1205_1.pdf
In case anyone wants to try and guess the filename (if that's the only error), Bard/Barb/Cleric were all "UA_Class.pdf", while Druid was "UA_Druid11272016_CAWS.pdf"

Does the link work for anyone yet?

Why the fuck do people still call monks shit in 5e
Can't decide which school to choose,help me

>>50545467
>sorcs have a shitload of spellslots but wizards have stronger damage overall

That's not even accurate. They basically have the same number of spell slots (the difference being that wizards can recover a few spell slots on a short rest but sorcerers can turn sorcery points into spell slots.) The main mechanical difference is that wizards know way more spells while sorcerers know few spells but have more versatility in casting them through metamagic and converting spell slots. Sorcerers have the potential to do a little more damage, but wizards have the advantage in everything that isn't damage.

>>50545536
Technically, Sorcerers can have more spell slots by simply using Sorcery points to make new ones. It's in place of metamagic, but if they just want to go for volume they do win out there.

>>50545593
Because they want to do massive damage instead of tank, scout, or control.
Play Open Palm or Shadow.

>>50545593
Open Hand is the best mechanically.
Wot4E is the worst.

This is because Stunning Fist is so good, you shouldn't waste your Ki on any other stuff other than Stunning Fist.

>>50545593
Because they are shit. I can only handle so many Naruto-DrunkenMaster-IpMans.

>>50545467
Sorcerers can nova more (can spend sorc points to add in a fire bolt in addition to their fireball/scorching ray, or double a spell that targets one creature), but wizards have way more versatility, since they have more spells known and even more spells PREPARED than sorcs know.

(nova = burst damage)

>>50545593
Open Hand and Long Death are the easiest to play, as one has healing and the other has temporary HP. They're also the schools that go for depth rather than breadth - they're good at one thing rather than half-assing it at a variety of things.

>>50545381
>these guys can name their ancestors going back 20 generations or more

How long is a dwarf generation? This could potentially be like a human tracing his genealogy back to a contemporary of fucking Jesus.

>>50545593
They're not really shit, they just really need high dex and wis to keep up, while other classes have a bit more flexibility in stats.

I personally like Sun Soul as a monk archetype. Being able to hang back and shoot makes them better skirmishes in my eyes.

>>50545467
>>50545598
Anyone know why they didn't just make the sorc use spell points as default, instead of spell slots? Then they could add their sorc points to that.

>>50540853

These.

File: abilitychecks.png (17KB, 553x152px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 553x152px

This is what the man is tweeting about instead of fixing the missing UA.

You know, all those fucking DC 5 checks floating around out there.

>>50545635
Dwarves can live to around 400, so I assume their generations are (very roughly) 50~100 years. 20 generations would easily be over a millennium.

>>50545666
Because spell slots are always the default in D&D except for psionics. But if you want to house rule spell points for sorcs I think it's very reasonable.

>>50545666
Probably to keep everything more samey.

>>50545686
Do you know how I know you've never played a Bard or Rogue?

>>50545686
What is this some hint?
In this case they rolled a 1 and their modifier didn't save them.

>>50540853
>A functioning warlord class.
I can brew one for you ez

(spoilers: take the battlemaster, then replace the maneuvre list with a list of features that affect your allies instead of stuff that improves your own attacks)

>>50545635
~400-450 for Shield, ~425-475 for Gold.

>>50545605
That's not even true because of Arcane Recovery. Metamagic is really all the sorcerer has going for it unless you count synergy with other Charisma classes.

>>50545666
Because they wanted to discourage the practice (ubiquitous among spell point systems) of using the most powerful spell you can cast over and over until you run out of points. People who played psions in 3.5 know what I'm talking about. Hence the diminishing returns on swapping slots for points and the inability to create level 6-9 spell slots with points. This way you CAN convert all your level 1 and 2 slots into fireballs, but you also have an incentive not to.

>>50545727
Let me rephrase.

Sorcerers should be better at sheer volume thanks to that option, but somebody decided Wizards needed 40 billion class feature along with their better spell list.

>>50545722
No, that's life span. Not the same as "generation length." For example, human life span is ~90 years, but a human generation is closer to 20 or 25 (the average age of a parent).

>>50545666
I've tried a sorc with spell points, I think it's very fitting and streamlines a lot of bullshit that comes with converting spell slots to sorcery points and vice versa.

You still have only one "spell slot" per level for spell levels 6-9, so it doesn't really give you anything you couldn't do before.

>>50545758
That would be fixable just by making Sorcerous Restoration a low level but scaling feature.

>>50545771
Dwarves are "adults" at 45. But they don't don't go off and have kids immediately, particularly because they had that whole infertility issue for a long time.

So probably like 100 years.

>>50545732
>Spell Level Point Cost Spell Level Point Cost
1st 2
2nd 3
3rd 5
4th 6
5th 7
6th 9
7th 10
8th 11
9th 13

>FILE NOT FOUND
GIVE ME THE FUCKING KNIGHT PLEASE

>>50545289
Note that the penultimate capstones (at level 18) are usually more compelling than the level 20 capstones.

>>50545801
Do you think the Knight will be a mounted knight, or a leader-of-men Knight?
Or both, even?

>>50545627
You can be goku,aang or el fuerte if you really want to though.

>>50545789
>dwarves are adults at 45
>elves are adults at 60

All non-human races are confirmed mentally deficient.

They just have to wear fucking diapers for 10 years or more.

>>50545689

right, so tracing genealogy back over a millennium. The society in D&D is supposed to be the equivalent of, what? 14th century, maybe, since they have some primitive firearms? How long have people been writing down history in FR?

>>50545802
>the penultimate capstones (at level 18) are usually more compelling than the level 20 capstones
Probably by design, for multiclassing.

>>50545813
Considering PDK wanted to be bopth and is total dogshit...

NEW THREAD

>>50545844
>>50545844
>>50545844

>>50545822

in the 5E book it says elves are adults at 100. But now that we're on the subject, this raises a good point. Elves not only live super long, but only need to sleep 4 hours due to the Trance racial. How are they not better than everyone at everything? Imagine what humans could get done if you cut their daily sleep time in half without sacrificing anything. Elves have that ON TOP OF extra long lives.

>>50545758
>>50545784
5th level - 1 sp/short rest
10th - 2
15th - 3
20th - 4

But now you need a new capstone feature.

>>50545857
You're about 6 pages early

>>50545610
>monk
>tanking or scouting
top kek

>>50545871
>a Dex-and-Wis-based no-armor class with huge move speed and Dodge / Dash as a bonus action can't tank or scout

>>50543878
5e

>>50545861
Maybe their capstone could be some sort of feature that lets them cast a first or second level spell as much as they want, representing how specialized they are with it.

After all, Sorcerers tens to be specialists while Wizards are more generalist, and being able to endlessly use Burning Hands or Scorching should work great for a fire sorcerer

>>50545890
No, they can't tank, they can't attract aggro and their AC and HPs are as good as rogue with the diference that rogues can dash/disengage forever without hindering their damage.

As for scouting you don't have any feature that makes you scout better that anyone with Wis

>>50545195
>file not found

>>50545069
>>50545802
>>50545829
So how does this sound: I have a homebrew class that uses a ki-like resource (1/level, regen on short rest). I'm thinking of a capstone that gives them 1 point at the start of every turn when they have none left. The previous feature, at 15th level, is proficiency in wisdom saves.
Sound reasonable?


>>50545824
Keep in mind they operate on fantasy tech progress - i.e. technology progresses at like 1/10th its realistic rate.

>>50545635
My grandmother traced an ancestor of mine to being born 6 AD. Never doubt the power of old women with time on their hands

>>50546153
Let me doubt it

>>50541247
>>50541276
Okay, the easiest, simplest and less player-enraging method, but it might still cause your DM to sperg, you have 20 undead right? How many party members are there? Lets say five. Give each player control over 4 of the undead, they act immediately after that characters turn. Easy and quick and stops you having one massive turn and everyone else gets "Okay, I do my turn, then the skeletons attack with their bows.".

Another method we used is to replace the Animate and Create undead spells with this version, it still allows you to undead horde, but only for a relatively short period of time and it costs concentration.

Conjure Undead
Level 3 Necromancy Spell.
Verbal, Somatic.
60ft Range, 1 action to cast.
Concentration up to 1 hour.

You weave necromantic potential to bring forth creatures of undeath to fight on your behalf.

You have 2CR worth of necromantic energy to conjure and may summon any combination of Skeletons, Zombies, Minotaur Skeletons, or Ogre Zombies.

Higher level spell slots add 1CR worth of undead creatures.

A necromancer with the "Undead Thralls" trait instead gains an additional 1CR of necromantic energy to expend, and has advantage on concentration saves to maintain this spell instead of the usual bonuses.