/5eg/ Fifth Edition General

Is this the second 4e thread today

>have you tried 4e
yes, not bad, didnt love it either
prefer 5e

File: melted-2.jpg (87KB, 623x415px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 623x415px

>4e

dualwieldadin dexadin, yes?

or dualwieldadin charadin.

>>50619847
How many buttons on my mouse should I have to play 4e?

File: mouse.jpg (23KB, 733x350px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 733x350px

>>50619905
at least this many

How much damage would throwing a torch at a troll do?

>>50619847
Probably as many as you need playing 5e. I know I filled up my macros on roll 20 with fifth edition.

>>50619934
1d4.

>>50619934
Is it a diamond torch?

>>50619887
>saves
Upping your charisma would up not only your dex save, but ALL your saves.
>AC
Not if you wear medium armour. You will only get no stealth disadvantage but the same AC as wearing light armour with +5 AC as half-plate with +2 AC.
>shenanigans, swag, flavour
I'll give you that.
>accuracy
Yeah, you'll get to hit more. Most of your damage comes from crit divine smites, and you won't be making any more of them if you up your dexterity.
You will hit more often (And thus do more damage) and do more damage (And thus do more damage), but you might as well go for strength if that's your aim.

The only time I might accept 20 dex paladin being a good idea over charisma-with-some-dex paladin is if you really need that sneak bonus (Say, you're going around solo a lot or everyone insists on stealthing everywhere).

>Improved Divine Smite
>By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite.
Am I too drunk to read this right? So, add 1d8 radiant on an attack. Then, if you use a smite, you add another 1d8 radiant on top of? That's just so fucking weirdly phrased

>>50619943
>REEEEEEEE IMPROVISED ACTIONS SUCK

>>50619856
>Glamour is about unearthly beauty that attracts people to you in exotic almost inhuman ways
But how would I explain the fey connection?

>>50619910
>But the mechanics sadly are not as good.
It's not like my group is highly optimized (Monk, Fighter and Ranger) so I don't think this will be a huge problem, but could you give suggestions for improvement?

Some days ago, there was a comment about speaking in some other language to create a giant mega word (like german can). This was used to abuse the Command spell (I think), as it still counted as "one word" but it was in fact mostly a full sentence.

A word was brought up to describe the type of language this was, and, IIRC, that "common" was not that language? It was something like "diclunitive" or similar. What word was that? I need to know, please.

File: High Level.png (33KB, 280x273px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 280x273px

Prestige classes when

>>50619974
Runepriest?

>>50619934
1d4+Str bludgeoning, 1 point of fire damage.

>>50619974
They've come and gone, didn't stick, never coming back

>>50619847
>Have you tried 4th edition?, edition

Played it a couple of times, really disliked it for most of the reasons most people did.

>>50619965
Replace instances of "Fae" with "Ancient Mayan Snekvoodoo."

>>50619954
Its just there to cap out the extra damage at 5d8

>>50619954
There are two interpretations right now.

You add 1d8 to any attack. If you smite, the damage is instead added to your smite, which brings you closer to the damage cap on smites.

Alternatively, it gets added to the smite, but didn't contribute to the cap.

The only difference is the max damage you can do while smiting.

>>50619954
You always add that improved smite 1d8, and then if you smite you indeed add that damage on top of it.

So for a first level smite (which is 2d8), you add 1d8+2d8.

File: xmas.png (195KB, 651x668px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 651x668px

>>50619987
>>50619989
Here's hoping for another attempt

>>50619974
Never. The UA that tried to reintroduce them was critically panned.

>>50619847
>Have you tried 4th edition?, edition

everyone I know who has played it, HATED IT

>>50619967
Yeah but who understands german in DnD

>>50619847
Played it the entire time it was on shelves. Loved it. Never understood why people couldn't play it like any other D&D. Campaigns were exactly the same.

Who wrote SCAG (and in particular the section on the arcana domain)?

>>50620008
>Replace instances of "Fae" with "Ancient Mayan Snekvoodoo."
I might try that, but my DM is really strict with subclasses' flavor

>>50620053
A gay man.

>>50620039
De-obfuscation of mechanics frighten and confuse people.

>>50619965
I'm not sure about this one, but I'm kinda bummed that this feature is useless on so many monsters.
>Venomous blade deals normal damage if target has resistance, deals ½ damage if target has inmunity

Everyone has suggested this
>Venomous words takes only 1 minute

This may be slightly OP? It's really situational anyway
>Mantle of Whispers works on targets that are alive, and you have studied or talked with for a short time.

What's wrong with 4e? Legitimately curious.

>>50620017
why exactly? genuinely curious. i liked them in 3.5 but idk if we need them in 5e.

one argument i guess would be to get higher level abilities from other classes without having to invest in the lower levels. not necessarily the exact same abilities, but something similar for example if you wanted (say) hide in plain sight but didnt want to go 10 levels into ranger.

>>50620039
Caster players didn't appreciate losing superiority. 5e bright it back, but hid it.

>>50620065
>Venomous blade deals normal damage if target has resistance, deals ½ damage if target has inmunity
This I can convince my DM easily

>Venomous words takes only 1 minute
This not so much

Also, I think mantle is alright the way it is

>>50620080
The actual problem? Feat taxes, mainly. Lots of almost mandatory feats.

The fake problem? It used a different literary style and visual motif.

>>50620080
Basically when it was released it was kind of a mess. Monster math was way off, and skill challenges as presented were a confusing mess rather than the highly useful dm tool they actually are.

Add in the fact that it eliminated some sacred cows, and it built up a bad enough reputation in the first few months to completely taint the market.

It's actually pretty good after the revisions.

>>50620112
Oh god, remember when people were bitching for days about gnomes not being in the first PHB? Gnomes? Really?

>>50620080

Common complaints (or at least mine):

>Combat was tactical but could take fucking ages to resolve

>Due to the standard at-will, encounter, daily power set, every class felt very similar to every other one. This class does the same damage as that class, but it moves enemies instead of allies and targets a different save!

>Casters felt bland. Because everyone was designed the same casters lost a lot of their uniqueness and fun. Feather fall, for example, was a 1/day power. Now that's what I call exciting.

>Magic items were also boring. Almost all of them were x/day effects.

>Kept 3.5s fascination with endless feats, except these were even less interesting. Basically countless variants of 'you get +1 to [roll] if condition Y is met'.

>While the combat system was good for tactical play, felt like a lot of the social side of the game was sacrificed since most powers were made for combat.

But maybe that all changed, I played relatively early in its lifecycle, and a little bit around when the PHB 2 came out.

>>50620130
People fucking love gnome wizards for some reason.

>>50620080
It was a huge departure from previous editions mechanically, and its core content also had a pretty odd set of choices (like not including bards or gnomes, but including warlocks, dragonborn, and tieflings).

It also did a number on the flavor of a lot of beloved settings, including FR, Dark Sun, and Eberron (especially FR).

Alright fa/tg/uys, how do we fix Mystic Theurge?

>>50620058
Ancient Alluring Jungle Spirits and Ancient Alluring Forest Spirits are pretty much the same thing.

>>50620108
>>50620112
We must be playing with the revisions then, because our group is having a great time. We're even roleplaying with 4e, which is goddamn unexpected I know.

>>50620130
I didn't know people could be this genuinely autistic.

>>50620143
Eberron and Dark Sun were basically unchanged. FR was the only hit.

>>50620144
Remove the Sorcerer

Make Eldritch Theurge a Cleric archetype that gets Metamagic

>>50620080
Power creep (You can end up rolling up to +50 modifiers) and most abilities are purely designed for combat without much thought for non-combat interactions. Also, while stats were run better (overall fairer, multiple stats could increase a defence) there still wasn't a significant reason to up more than two or maybe three stats ever, I think. No real thought in that, and your characters don't really feel like they're super con-powered or str-powered.

Honestly, that's about it with my beef with 4e. Lots of other cool things about it.

>>50620150
Yeah, it's great. As a 5e dm, I take regular inspiration from the 4e dmgs, which are way more helpful than the 5e one. I really like skill challenges.

>>50620139
Look, it gets said every time it comes up, but I'm going to say it again. The At-will, Encounter, and Daily set up that all classes share had very little to do with how the classes played. It was the class features that you got at level one that drastically changed how you played from one class to another.

>>50620189
>there still wasn't a significant reason to up more than two or maybe three stats ever, I think.
Now, in fairness, that's still true.

>>50620215
Yes. It's always been rather like that.

It'd be nicer in a system where each stat will benefit you in a way that's relevant and requires a little more thought but maybe not too much (This stat gives you +Crit, this stat gives you +attack speed, this a stat gives you +damage.. Except adapted for DnD, and more interesting, such as 'this will give you more powerful spells but since you didn't up the other stat you have less spell slots and also because you didn't up this other stat the spells are very inaccurate')... But that dream is still a long way off.

>>50620252
Yeah, making every class MAD is not the way to go.

>>50620200

Sure but the general structure of the powers meant that most classes still felt like archetypes to each other, rather than totally different playstyles at least to me. Still, I think the at-will maneuver stuff for martials would be something I'd enjoy getting in 5E. That much I did like.

>>50620139
>Due to the standard at-will, encounter, daily power set, every class felt very similar to every other one. This class does the same damage as that class, but it moves enemies instead of allies and targets a different save!

Not at all. A friend is playing a class that has no at-wills, my at-wills and encounter powers are relatively shit compared to my other team members.
My other friends are playing classes that play completely different to each other.
We deliberately wanted to fulfil nearly all the party roles.

>>50620298
I suppose that's your own experience, but I can't say it's an accurate representation of the game's mechanics.

Still, I would also like martials to have more round-to-round tricks that aren't dependent on a short rest.

>>50620267
I wouldn't say that.

Multiple Ability Dependent just means that their abilities depend on multiple abilities.

If it was Multiple Ability Reliant (Monks are definitely this) and they NEED every stat, that's only a problem.

Instead, the idea is that simply each stat improves a different aspect of the class and creates a new way to play the class.

In a way, 5e subtley made an attempt at this with every stat having a save throw.

Up strength? You've just upped your save throw. You're now harder to push around. This is a combat benefit. You've gained athletics, which is both a combat and out of combat benefit. However, that's all you get really right now.

And, as you know, int saves are practically useless.

The idea is that you can play just fine with upping only one stat, but that would be a gimmick build.
You can distruibute evenly and play normally, whereas right now that's a dumb thing to do.
You could mix and match a lot, much like you can on some games.

However, it's quite hard to balance that and often people might insist on 'optimal builds', so you'd have to be careful to make it relative/subjective (This build is best if you're in a dynamic environment! This is best if your team lacks defence! This is best if you're fighting high AC targets!') rather than objective what the best build is.

So let's say I fucked up and gave my party / allowed then to buy many magic items, particularly a few that increase AC (ring of protection, bracers of defense). How do I fix this shit now?

>>50620298
Imo every class needs a few unique at will type features. Or short refresh features like the new druid with a teleport that refreshes every 1d4 rounds.

So, what's wrong with 5e?

>>50620398
Well, you could say "guys I messed up and those items make it hard for me to create encounters that don't feel lame" OR
Have monsters use abilities that trigger saves to avoid them. IE, don't target AC as much.

>>50620398
Rust monster

>>50620406
It's too simple for its own good.

>>50620139
>>50620298
Did you actually play? Or is just based off a vacuum analysis?

>>50620406
A bit too simple, which can get stale after a while.

Also, all the classes are really low powered, and feel like playing asthmatics, with how often you need to rest.

>>50620430
Getting into the game easier isn't a bad thing. Especially when all the classes more or less play on equal footing and there's no plethora of trap options.

>>50620406
the DMG yells weird angry sexual things at me when I'm alone with it.

>>50620398
Extra deadly encounters that loot the players instead of outright kill them.

If they have a lot of magical shit, even more reason for xorns and such to come after them.

Don't do it in one encounter, but put in a lot of extra deadly encounters that could potentially result in loss of items. They might be sad, but eh. Magic items are too often seen as direct upgrades that can never be lost and should never be removed ever.

>>50620458
I completely agree, that ease of access is an important goal.

I think the best RPG would be simple to learn, hard to master. 5e is the first, not the second.

>>50620406
It puts an impetus on the players and DM to use basic reasoning skills instead of spelling everything out for them in precisely worded rulings. That results in a lot of autists sperging out over how different features interact because some use precises language and others use more day-to-day wordings. It's how you end up with shit like Bardic Horsecasting or Netfighting.

That and a very slow content release schedule, even just for published adventures.

>>50620345
>I suppose that's your own experience, but I can't say it's an accurate representation of the game's mechanics.

Probably not as I said, I didn't have a ton of experience with it as I didn't like it. Tried a fighter, holy avenger, and rogue and didn't love any of them that much and the rest of what I saw wasn't exactly enticing me to grind through and find what I liked.

>>50620439

I actually played. I didn't do a campaign that went from 1-30 or anything like that but I probably played around 2 dozen sessions throughout its life. A handful at the start, and another handful when the PHB 2 came out.

>simple to learn, hard to master

have you heard of our lord and savior GURPS?
I'm kidding Probably

>>50620458
I should elaborate: In an effort to keep things simple, some things were lumped together that shouldn't have been.

Superiority Dice and Ki, for example, should not recharge at the same rate as Warlock Spells. However, because we only have short or long rests, these quick-use simple features have to have the same delay as a higher level spell.

>>50620447
See >>50620458

You do need to go into 5e with a different mindset compared to the previous editions. It's a lot more grounded. Hopefully they can produce an epic supplement for high end play.

>>50620472
Which RPGs do fulfil both criteria?

>>50620472
Eh, I feel like having mastery can be a detriment, but it is good to have more stuff available. I do like that they haven't been going crazy with splatbooks, but I could see how it's been too slow for some people.

Light domain cleric or life domain wizard?

>>50620472
>simple to learn, hard to master
The concept of "mastery" having any difficulty (or having any significant gains) really shouldn't be the focus of an RPG. That's how you get ivory tower design.

And in the end, all of the best combinations would end up in an online database somewhere, anyway. RPGs are games of chance and system mastery involves increasing your chances of success--the methods for doing that are easily quantified.

>>50620537
Nature cleric. You're welcome

I agree that 5e can do with a lot more options, be it archetypes or monsters or settings.
However, the long schedule and now release of playtest materials allows them to tighten the mechanical design of the system. The limited number of designers is unknown as a good or bad idea. Good in there's no needless waffling but bad because they could do with different ideas.

The system should absolutely not cater to system mastery. They rightly threw that out when they moved away from the earlier editions. System mastery is the bad way of designing things.

>>50620540
This.

To be fair, I think the reason some people complain about 5e is there's way too few options at the moment (and a lot of those are rather mediocre). Variety is interesting.

>>50620574
Why nature?

>>50620425
>Have monsters use abilities that trigger saves to avoid them
I'm planning on doing that BUT the most recent addition to the party is a paladin with 18 Charisma (everyone's level 8)

>>50620469
I just don't know how to do that believably without it showing that I'm especifically targetting their items.
>So this enemy will now go to the unconscious wizard and loot him instead of attacking the other people who are still a threat

>>50620540
Builds are only part of the equation. What I'm more interested in are complex decision trees in the moment to moment play of the game.

To put it into the context of a 5e discussion, it is very rare to have more than one way to use your reaction. In fact, I'd go so far as to say magical backline classes should almost always save it for counterspell, if available, and if they don't have counterspell, they don't really have a use for it. Hellish rebuke, maybe?

Non magical classes mostly use reactions for opportunity attacks. So there isn't really a choice again.

But a melee Gish complicates things for the player. Because they have two very good options, counterspelling and opportunity attacking. So the thought process of the Gish player is more complicated, and the Gish is more engaged.

I want more of that, for nearly all types of classes, in my RPGs. I'll grant that there should be classes which don't take much strategic thinking. But they shouldn't be the default design.

So when I say there should be more mastery elements to a game, it is referring to complicated decision trees in actual play mostly, and only a little towards build optimization.

>>50620682
objectively strongest domain

>>50620401
Fuck rolling to bookeep a number of rounds tho

>>50620406
Wizard too stronk compared to sorc
Wot4E a bit weak
Champion a bit weak
Barb berserker's core feature a bit too punitive
Bladelock too weak

I'd like to see more backgrounds, just for inspiration

>>50620712
Why?

>>50620715
Maybe just a set round bookkeeping? Or a feature that refreshes organically, like the wild magic tides of chaos? That dm player interaction has always been fun for me.

>>50620752
you get to be captain planet

>>50620698
Looting the character and then running is a much better idea than trying to fight all the other characetrs when that would gaurantee death.

I was thinking more like creatures that don't necessarily want to kill everyone in the party, but rather just want their stuff, and would actually feel kind of bad for killing them or have no reason to actually kill them.

Or, the entire party has to be ressurected by something and loses items in the process.

A xorn or rust monster or something like that can damage items if players don't play tactically.

Some monsters can temporarily deactivate magical items. Beholders do that. Normally it'll just reactivate again afterwards, but a particularly strong spell might set the party on a quest to reactivate their items.

>>50620710
This is going to be impossible though.

>>50620756
>you get to be captain planet
You can do that as a druid tho

>>50620779
Why do you think that?

>>50620781
But druids are homosexual captain planet.

>>50620805
everything is homosexual this edition tho

>>50620832
Not nature clerics, tho

>>50620844
>Not nature clerics, tho
You are right, they are furries

>>50620406
Too many levels feel pointless, empty, and without any choice for what you get. It's sort of like leveling up a pokemon with how many feel "empty", which is fine in a system where you get 100 levels but sucks in one where you have 20 and likely don't make it past 11. 4/5 level ups are going to give you a proficiency or additional choice of a class feature where you already took the 2 most useful ones, and now you're picking one you probably won't even use. The few useful ones feel like abilities they should have at level 3, but were held off to give you something to work towards.

This isn't remedied by additional class options, such as the unearthed arcana ones, because those features are gained so few and far between, and half of them (like in the case of fighter UA) are constrained to be a skill proficiency or something because that's how weak the PHB class options are. So you're restricted into making boring options by the way the original system was designed.

This is mainly a problem with martials, because casters get a whole plethora of new options every 2 levels. Their odd levels can be devoid of anything else and it still works fine, though a -little- boring if they don't get access to new spells via their class options. I think the cleric/druid/warlock are the best designed casters, wizards/sorcerers/bards could use a little love, and martial types need their boring levels revamped into stuff that better defines and empowers their characters

Note that I love this system, I just think it works a lot better if you throw the current balance out the window.

>>50620170
So, the Arcane Domain for Cleric?

File: whuuuuuu.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>50620488
>Bardic Horsecasting or Netfighting
wait what

File: BtS_2_2.png (571KB, 825x825px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 825x825px

>>50620406
the problem is too many in combat class abilities and no enough abilities that have to do with the other two pillars, even though wizards insists that the three pillars are all equally important.
ergo martials < casters this edition even though they sort of tried to change that.
imo.
and other specific things anons mentioned.
that said i think 5e is pretty good, memes aside even.

>>50619889
I kinda had more fun with 4e than I'm having with 5e desu

>>50621027
You summed up what I was saying pretty well. Level 6 frenzy barbarian gets "immune to frighten or charm while raging"
casters, while already having higher saves against those, can choose spells to prevent status conditions OR a plethora of other options at 5. Meanwhile, without feats or similar choices, martials have to hope whatever few things they can be good at come up in the game. Casters can tailor what abilities they have for what they expect to deal with.

>>50620488
I can't feel the crunch, and the fluff is virtually non-existent at the moment. I'm sincerely hoping that they will work on that going forward, but with each new thing that comes out it seems less and less likley that they're going to do anything to correct those issues in any meaningful way.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man. I could give some concrete examples of why I feel this way, but I would most likley just be preaching to the choir at this point.

How good is College of Glamour for Bards? Is it worth giving up Stinging Words and extra spells for a dedicated support/healing Bard?

>>50621106
are you >>50620966?
if so, what do you do to throw the current balance out the window.

>>50621268
It's the second-best college in the game right now, behind Lore.

>ITT: we critisize 5e for lacking some of the things for which we critisized 3e

>>50621347
>browses /tg/
>expects non-autistic behavior
Wew lad.

>>50621347
excuse me this thread is about 4e

>>50621106
To be fair, if you have a good DM then they will be doing what they can to engage both casters and martials equally. I.E. They will throw challenges that only the casters can quoff as well as challenges that only martials can quoff, provided that one doesn't completley overshadow the other in EVERY area, which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment.

Mind you, casters do seem to be just better than martials are. I'm not trying to excuse or justify that. I'm just pointing out that whether or not something comes up in the game that engages any particular characters strengths and weaknesses specifically is entirely up to the DM, provided they remember that character exists in the first place.

>>50621347
Does that make those criticisms unjustified?

Not trying to be a pedant, but legitimatley curious as someone who is unfamiliar with 3e.

>>50621347
People are schizophrenic in what they want. How is this new?

>>50619847
I have tried it. I can see how great it is from a DM's perspective, but from a players perspective it felt gimicky.

>>50621431
I just want the difficulty of 2e and the options of 3.5e and the combat of 4e all with the simplicity of 5e
IS THAT REALLY SO MUCH TO ASK

>>50621422
His comment was poorly worded. He is saying that the things we criticize 5e for not having are the same things we criticized 3.5 for having.

>>50621449
>combat of 4e

... Ew... Why? If you are a DM maybe, but for a player it was super dumb.

>>50621524
4e combat is pretty fun though.

>>50621524
Are you kidding me? It was super fucking engaging

>>50621449
How can it be this hard!

>>50618369 #
Understandable, I wasn't implying having it work exactly the same anyway. Haven't meant that at all honestly, but I'll get to that in a bit. As far as liquid night goes, that's kinda up to the creativity of the user in a way.

Using the vial as a splash weapon to mark an invisible creature in the dark a la faerie fire, using it to mark the directions you've gone in an underground cavern or some such, obvious charlatan background uses of selling the "magic ink" that can do (insert here), etc

>>50619988
Alternately, 1+str fire damage.

>>50621407
That's a valid point, but it would be better if the game didn't require a "good DM" to run well.

>>50621273
I don't have specific examples, but I would simply design the class options to have more flavorful/useful things at those levels that aren't so great, without trying to keep them balanced against the current power of fighters or barbarians or whatever.

Maybe expand on the maneuver dice idea and expand it over all martials (I'm partial to a mock spell system of dice that refresh on short rests) and/or add more feats that benefit martials. I think it's clear how important feats are to martials over casters by how GWM/PAM/etc are pretty much default to many martial classes' builds. I'd probably halve the power of stuff like GWM but give martials a feat every even level (not sure what I'd change to fighters since both these options encroach on their territory).

A lot of these options would be exploration or social-based, so while casters have "Charm Person" martials could have "Intimidate Person", they'd get Enhance Ability for the cost of a die but only on themselves, and only for physical stats. Something along those lines.

This is all speculatory so a lot would probably change by the end of things, and an attempt would be made to not just copy what spellcasters have and ALSO give it to martials. That's just what I can come up with in ~15 minutes time.

>>50621665
Something more like this.

Torch specifically says 1 damage, and allowing 1d4 instead is like allowing netfighting when nets normally do 0 damage.

Should still be worth it against a troll, perhaps, or the DM might give a situational bonus, or you can use the torch to light something larger.

>>50620141
Human Fighter, Elf Ranger, Dwarf Cleric, Halfling Rogue, Gnome Wizard.

They are kinda like the iconic race + class combos to some people.

>>50621747
Do you remember the book of weeaboo fightan magic? THAT fixed martials in 3.5.

Its a real shame they didnt bring that into 5e.

i want to make a character that smells their own farts. whats the best race/class combo for this?

>>50621829
elf wild magic sorc. easy.

>>50621747
>A lot of these options would be exploration or social-based, so while casters have "Charm Person" martials could have "Intimidate Person", they'd get Enhance Ability for the cost of a die but only on themselves, and only for physical stats. Something along those lines.
i think it helps to have a group that is open to this too. like it does exist, but its hard for people when its not a specific ability in the books they can point to like charm person. i mean i know its a specific skill, but still.

>>50621829
high elf caster of any stripe really

>>50621829
Elf blafesinger

File: Martial Powers.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50621747

Why is Wizards so obsessed with throwing out modules? Their release schedule is slow as is- are they just that popular?

I personally never run modules, so it's felt like there's been almost zero supplemental content.

>>50621813
Didn't actually play 3.5 that much, but I'll look at it.

>>50621858
Well, shit. This seems like a good start, it just needs more + a limit on how many they can know, rather than just knowing all of these things.

>>50621789
I actually advocate that because dealing all fire damage is typically better when it matters that you deal fire damage. Basically when you're fighting enemies that are resistant to BPS and/or vulnerable to fire.

>>50621899
No clue, and looking at them they're woefully worse than the actual published books. They're playable, but the fact that they only took a week to make kinda shows.

>>50621813

God I really hope we get sword sages and such eventually. Diamond mind was the shit.

>>50621806
>Just made a human fighter and thought I was being innovative for some reason
I'm fucking dumb

Also what class do dovahkiin play as usually? Sorcerer for wtf2dragons?

>>50621106
>can choose spells to prevent status conditions OR a plethora of other options at 5
I think this complaint really requires ignoring the limits of spells known, spells prepared, and spell slots per day. And after level 5, the caster is getting only one more spell slot per level. The spellcasting classes are more modular, but the option to have anything doesn't translate into actually having everything. It usually means you have the choice to build a shitty spellcaster by taking the wrong spells.

Is there a feat to allow a player to take a second background?

Im about to start a game as a 3rd level variant human, and would be happy to spend the feat on a 2nd background to properly flesh out the character concept.

>>50622031
Why would you need a second background to "properly" flesh out your character concept? Too few languages, take Linguist. Too few skills, take Skilled.

>>50622031
There is not a feat for that

Also, you don't need to actually have two backgrounds to roleplay your character having those backgrounds. If you're trying to get both solely for their effects, that seems really power gamey and you probably shouldn't do it. You could talk to the DM about it, however, so they can tell you no themselves.

>>50622031
Just ask your DM if you can customize your background? The only thing that's set in stone is the amount of skills and shit you get from the backgrounds, and all those Ideals and Personality Traits are just suggestions.

>>50622020
Yeah, and then the next level you can trash that spell when you realize it's not going to be useful. So?

>>50622119
Not if you're a wizard
Also, if you're a Sorcerer or Warlock, if the spell is useful then you've just wasted a known spell for the entire level you've had it.

Going to be playing in a game alongside some newbies. Other guy DMing has some experience, though he does plan on things being a bit gritty and difficult. For example, long term injuries for getting knocked down in fights, and some enemies using healing magic to revive downed comrades if we don't finish or separate them.

My question is more about what to play both to avoid those penalties as well as support the new players. My current thinking was a Human Barbarian with Inspiring Leader. Pump Strength and Cha, put some points into Con and Dex, wear Medium armor, use a shield. Generally just be a nicely armored slab of flesh that can put out decent damage, while giving the other players a bit of extra HP to help bolster them and prevent casualties. Then go Totem Wolf at level 3 for even more teamwork.

>>50622138
useful -> *useless

>>50619934
1d4+Str Bludgeoning, 1 Fire
You need sustained contact or forceful insertion to do serious damage. Melee that troll with the torch. Alternatively, coat the fucker in something flammable first and then throw a torch.

Point is, a torch doesn't really set shit on fire just by bonking into it for a quarter of a second. That troll could be made out of tissue paper and it might not even catch from a torch bouncing off it.

>>50622119
So you don't compare extra attack to the entire level 3 spell list. You compare it to the one or two level 3 spells the character can actually cast.

What are your thoughts on the UA Warforged? Good? Bad?

>>50622216
feel a little weak

>>50622216
Boring and a bad representation of warforged. Keith Baker (creator of Eberron) has his own version for 5e on his blog.

>>50622216
It's fine mechanically, but too simple. I hope that their next or printed take on it applies some of the old 3.5e augmentations they could get in the form of subraces.

>>50622142
Rather than going with Cha and Inspiring Leader, I'd rather focus on your strengths and pick something like Sentinel if you need to protect your allies.

>>50622235
I'll go give that one a look then.

>>50621620
>>50621620
That said, taking away spells just because you think no one would pick them is kinda dumb. Also, the purpose for the extra "mystery" feature in each path? Points spent on a spell? I can't exactly give a decent critique without knowing how it all works. I really think a lot of these need to be re-evaluated though. You pretty much took a first level mystery and made it into black candle, but took away what black candle actually did and threw it out the window. Just as an example.

>>50619974
Just gestalt something you massive dorkweasel.

>>50621806
>Gnome wizard
>iconic
What? Gandalf, Elminster, Merlin, Vecna, THULSA DOOM?

These are all big wizard names. Like, I can't think of a gnome character off the top of my head, let alone a gnome wizard.

>>50622300
I think youre referring to dusk and dawn, correct?

I had kept dusk and dawn in early iterations, but it struck a lot of sore spots with various people that darkness would essentially be equivalent to a 1st level spell ability so it had to go. Also, i didnt actually change anything about black candle.. unless my memory fails me, im pretty sure it remained exactly the same. Having spells take up concentration is a big thing for power balance in 5e. and having multiple abilities that do the same thing is kinda... pointless. Why take dusk and dawn if black candle effectively does the same thing? (granted, dusk and dawn created magical darkness that cant be pierced through darkvision)

'Mysteries' are now similar to the mystics psychic focus. Its not a straight port or parallel to the original class but keeps the spirit of the idea. Paths are broken into disciplines as per the mystic as well.

Youre right about liquid night. It doesnt make sense to remove it just because nobody would pick it. Much better to leave it for anybody that is willing to take it as a fundamental. Ill write it back in for the next iteration of the class.

>>50622061
>>50622068
The two are scribe and haunted. Playing a fighter who has turned vampire hunter.

Scribe being his job before the vampires killed everyone and haunted being the reason he started to learn how to fight and why he adventures.

I guess they both aren't required.

I was looking at the Revenant deal from the Gothic Heroes UA again and it kind of seems like humans get fucked over by the subrace thing. They get two ability scores (that they can put anywhere, granted) and that's it. Dwarves, for example, get two Con, Darkvision, Resilience, and Combat Training (though they also have decreased speed). The biggest thing with this is that Dwarves can get three Con, which allows them to get 18 at level 1. Additionally, Elves get two Dex, Darkvision, Perception, and Fey Ancestry.

What's the best way to make this a bit more fair? Would giving humans an extra Skill proficiency or a third ability score work (it's not unheard of for certain races to get +4, after all)?

Or would it just be better to be an Elf Revenant and say that you're actually a human?

>>50622622
>Or would it just be better to be an Elf Revenant and say that you're actually a human?
DMs in the past have let me swap races around if it's background relevant, ie: a Human GOOlock using Half-Elf traits justified as their body being slightly mutated.

If it's just for character flavor that's one thing, if you're doing it as an attempt to cheese it's another, and at least in my mind doing it just because the Human one is ass doesn't count as cheese since you could just as easily pick an elf instead and be better mechanically but have to retool their background.

>>50621503
In what ways?

>>50621576
>>50621581
This

>>50621747
>That's a valid point, but it would be better if the game didn't require a "good DM" to run well.

Oh, totally. I'm not trying to excuse or justify the disparity, just noting that it can still be compensated for in most situations by a competent DM.

--

On a completley unrelated note. What do you guys think about how races are balanced in 5e? I'm of the mind that they're a little boring and samey in the crunch, but I guess I can understand the reasoning behind it insofar as you don't want to dissuade people from playing a race they find interesting just because the statlines don't line up perfectly with the thing you want to do.

How would you feel about an individual taking the time to add features and such to all the different races in a campaign to give them a bit more functional difference? This would include re-balancing all the racial traits that are in play now to make sure that everything is more or less on the level when everything is said and done, of course, though it would probably be a slight power up for races in general.

>>50622701
Yeah. My idea for the background was that the Revenant would be a ranger from a collapsed civilization and be old as fuck. All of the traits for elves are easily justified as "You're a ranger/undead," so I figured it might work decently.

I still think it's worth fixing human just for the sake of fixing it. Giving it a Skill proficiency of the player's choice seems like the tamest solution that keeps it still kind of underpowered. Better underpowered than overpowered, though.

>>50622622
I was looking that over and I feel like a Revenant could be a lot of fun to play as a turbo edgy cheesemeister and they're a perfect fit for a Vengeance Paladin, or use with Oathbreaker to have a PC Death Knight.

>>50622713
Start by just replacing Darkvision with something else on every race except Dwarves. It would make the other races more unique and Dwarves would also become more unique by being the only race with it

File: Reaper.png (105KB, 272x349px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 272x349px

>>50622768
What's edgy about a Revenant, anon? :^)

>>50622713
The main thing I'd say is that more races could use more Ribbon and fluff features to give more personality. Things like weapon or tool proficiencies or niche effects on certain skills.

>>50622776
Would reducing dark vision to low light vision and granting an additional set skill proficiency suffice?

>>50622835
Also, what about optional feats? The feat list in 5e is pretty fucking underwhelming so far, granting each race 3-5 different race specific feats would go a very long way to rectify that.

>>50622713
I don't really like the "this race gets that stat" way to differentiate them, all the other (more minor?) things they get are more interesting. Or at least I think most people are looking at the +stats too much when picking a race. I think a simple +1 would be enough, instead of the usual +2. I guess you'd need to do something with Humans if you tampered with that though.

I agree that Darkvision should be a little bit less common too.

File: SoulCalibur Revenant.jpg (271KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 768x1024px

>>50622817
Yeah that's what I mean, someone who's over the top full-on Ham-with-razorblades Edgy. It seems like it could be fun to play if you don't take yourself too seriously OOC and make sure the other players don't think you belong in a Hot Topic.

>>50622856
The problem with feats in 5e is mostly that you don't want to get them until around level 12, because it's more important to cap out your primary stat, in most cases. This leaves Variant Humans as the main users of feats. The only way to rectify this is to make the racial feats good enough to be worth sacrificing an ASI, which might not be good for balance. Alternatively, letting every player get a feat at level 1 and balancing combat accordingly.

>>50622856
I'd suggest against race specific feats as a whole, but I'm sure there are some cases where it could work.

I probably wouldn't go for more than one per race though. The biggest one I think could benefit is Dragonborn.

>>50622886
I have a player that's like that in the game I'm DMing. He's a Tiefling Blood Hunter that's played up for kicks. It was played in a wonky manner, though, where he loses any sense of edge at all times because the player tries to undermine it whenever he can (usually by portraying him as a wimp or what have you). It works in its own way, but I think that Reaper is a more entertaining example of it, not that this player isn't entertaining.

Being so edgy you loop back around to being cool and humorous is totally a thing, though, and it's pretty rad. Just listen to shit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE1ScwL4Jmo

>>50622868
Ok, so you mean focusing more on the little granted features instead of just what the base stat line modifications are then, right? I suppose that would go a long way to making sure that any changes you make don't end up forcing any race into one particular roll, or even reversing that effect in general as it stands now.

Humans are humans, they would probably have to be balanced last to make sure they remain the generalist race.

>>50622924
Do you think you could go a little way to explain why you're generally against race specific feats? Just curious.

I'm looking to play the ultimate utility man, absolute skillmonkey. So far I have variant human with skilled, thief 3 conj wizard 2 to have litarlly any tool for any job, as well as a fuck ton of proficiencies. I'm thinking now of going warlock 3 for extra utility in the form of detect magic, a familiar and possibly Eldritch blast to allow me to use all slots for utility. How does Multi class work with warlock?
Wiz 2 war3, what slots/spells would I have? Should I just keep levelling wizard?

>>50622977
Right. It's hard to figure out any decent ideas for them, but I've always loved features like Dwarven Resilience and Halfling's Lucky.

>>50623037
Well, in my experience, they tend to be the sort of thing that's either weak, strong, or basically just used for things that aren't exactly racially specific.

If they're too weak, then nobody bothers to take them outside of role playing reasons. If they're too strong, then you get people trying to bend things and justify why they can take it on something else. Or its something weird like a feat for a dwarves fighting style or one that makes elves into sea elves. The former could really be learned by anyone, or at least anyone short, and the latter could probably be for all elves and half elves.

It's a lot of work and extra space for not a lot of benefit.

A better idea would be to make 'Racial Power' feats that aren't specific to any one race, but instead just enhance things of many races. That could be improving cantrips or offering more uses of spells or abilites, giving advantage or half proficiency to certain skills, or extras for any racial weapons. Basically, rather than give everyone a feat for racial extras, make a few specific feats that let a player say 'hey, I want my race to mean more' and have that be true by simply amplifying the racial stuff they have.

>>50623103

If you want to be the MOST skill monkey ever you're missing out not going bard. You want to go Bard 3/Rogue 1 at least. Two sets of expertise and Jack of All Trades means you're the most skillful person alive. Triple MC is way too much - if you want a familiar, just keep going rogue and take Arcane Trickster.

File: not a murderer I promise.jpg (184KB, 1280x900px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1280x900px

>>50622940
Yeah I was thinking a Vengeance Paladin who's out to MURDER (a) GOD because reasons, Dwarf Revenant would fit perfectly as a slow moving murder tank (though I'd ask the DM to let me play them as a Human using the Dwarf statblock), and I'd base the appearance/mannerisms off good ol' Creighton of Mirrah for a good "edgy" baseline and adjust the Ham levels depending on the tone of the campaign.

File: 1481319567636.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Holy shit, saw this last thread and I'm dying.
>Santa Warlock Patron
>Hanukkah Paladin Oath
>Black Friday Barbarian
>Lumberjack Fighter
>New Years Cleric
>Reindeer Rider Ranger
>Jack Frost Rogue
>Christmas Party Monk
>(Three) Wise Men Wizard
>Angelic Sorcerer
>Christmas Decoration Tinsel-Slinging Bard
>Solstice Druid
On one hand, I'm salty that someone managed to make these all fantastic as seasonal jokes and great things in general (like drunken fist monk or pegasus rider ranger) and I have yet to even finish a homebrew archetype to my satisfaction. On the other, I'm ecstatic because these are amazing.

>>50622508
Nah, Dusk and Dawn created an area of dim light (bright area darker, dark area brighter), whereas Black Candle functioned as either Light or as Darkness

>>50623141
I prefer rogue 3 wiz 2, for minor conjuration. I can get familiar easy as wiz, so I guess warlock isnt necessary I just figured at will detect magic might be worth 2-3 Otherwise just rogue 3 wiz 17

File: Creighton7.jpg (140KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 894x894px

>>50623145
Fine taste, m8.

>>50622508
https://www.dropbox com/s/bidme02isvn073k/Shadow%20Magic%20-%20The%20Shadowcaster.pdf?dl=0

File: 200_s.gif (42KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x200px

>>50623148
Barbarian: Path of Savings
For some folk, commoner and warrior alike, rage is a means
to an end -- that end being mediocre deals on inessential
items.

>>50623132
Well, we know the stuff exists. The easiest thing to do would be to look back to earlier editions where this stuff did exist, then take the best of it, adapt it to 5e, then slip it in and have some people playtest it to see how it rolls.

>>50623140
So would you be advocating adding more feats without race restrictions that anyone can take, but that would allow individuals with specific races to accentuate their base traits? If that's the case I think I get it, but I imagine that it would be rather tricky to work properly without having specific written exceptions for certain things.

An example would be Charger if you're trying to play Minotaur as detailed in UA Waterborne Adventures. If you want to charge people a lot, then you're going to want to have the Charger feat, but if you're already a Minotaur the feat is really painful to take becuase it only offers a marginal improvment over what you're already granted since you kind of already have half the stuff it grants you. However, if you DON'T take it because of that, then you end up playing a bull man who gets completley emasculated when the halfling takes Charger and shows him up completley.

So my group and I just wrapped up a story arc in the campaign we're playing in.

Playing an Arrakocra Divination Wizard. Level 4.

Recently
>Had a fever dream about a Arrakocra Patron diety killing my character after being mind fucked by a beholder
>Half-Beholder-half Arrakocra mutant thing tries to resurrect a Giant Bird God thing, succeeds, blood starts raining from the sky, Gandalf-type (High level wizard NPC) teleports us out before giant bird god thing kills us all.

Not sure the direction to take my character right now. I feel like these 2 moments, being an Arrakocra are pretty important to him. His mother was a Cleric of the Arrakocra Patron diety. My wizard isn't a pious fellow, but I think there needs to be a reaction to this.

Should I multiclass? Maybe into cleric as I search for a diety to protect me from this crazy bird god beholder shit. Or maybe into Ranger and ask my DM to take something like Celestial as my favored enemy.

Additionally, being a Wizard, i get my butt kicked anytime an enemy decides to focus on me, and it happens alot, most combats I am reduced to <5 hp, dropped to 0 multiple times now. So maybe some direction related to that.

Been getting ass kicked, encountering scary god monster things. Just want some advice on which direction to go in.

Additionally we just hit level 4, so maybe I should take a feat or ASI related to all this? We're also "inbetween adventures" so I can spend an extended period of time training a skill or something.

Reading the Moon Druid's shit. So if the Druid's HP is 20, and the Wild Shape's form is 40, enemies have to punch through both HP pools?

File: Capture.png (480KB, 648x332px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 648x332px

Would you let a player make an Oni who joins the party for easy meals/a more convincing disguise?

>>50623148
>Literal Magi Wizard tradition
Sign me the fuck up, famalam.

>>50623415
yea and you can just shapeshift when it reduces the wild shape to 0. So you effectively would have 100 HP in that situation.

>>50623415
Correctemundo, muchacho

>>50623445
>>50623449
Sweet mother of fuck.

>>50623318
It would be difficult to get specifics, but there is a lot you could do to cover some basic shared traits. For example, giving a hefty bonus to the damage of natural weapons granted by a race would be good. A +3 to some of those makes them very appealing options.

You could have similar benefits with any damaging cantrips and weapons, and possibly allow the use of non-damaging cantrips as a bonus action.

Spells being twice per rest instead of once would be another area things could be improved.

Granted, the biggest issue I see with this is that not all races would benefit equally. You'd probably want all these features to be in one place, but for some thing like the Minotaur, you'd want an alternative benefit to something as strong as extra spells.

Essentially, the idea is hat you find common features and phrasing that many races share, and word benefits to improve as many of them as you can with broad strokes.

>>50623419
nope

>>50623419
>letting someone play a CR 7 monster in a party

>>50623463
That being said, a transformed druid still gets a permadeath from Disintegrate.

>>50623463
It balances with the fact that basically everything will hit them, as most animals forms have around 12 AC.

>>50623477
The party is starting at level 15.

>>50623494
Holy shit
Well, in that case it could work out. It has enough innate spells to pass itself off as a Sorcerer or something. Just be careful if you were planning on adding class abilities or something on top of that, since it's already pretty stacked.

>>50623525
Yeah it's just gonna be a two or three day short mini-campaign so there probably won't be much leveling up. Seems like it could be fun.

Is this any good?
Psionic handbook.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2bXgsHg7PtJNEdpNHBVRDVOXzA/view
Artificier.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzVjU-85P6RJSVlYR3Z2WXluSzQ/view
Kalashtar.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2hifhs/eberron_homebrew_kalashtar/
Thinking of using these for eberron.

>>50623360
I'll just ask again, any suggestions?

Does Goodberies "nourishment" encompasses water too?

>>50623715
Nope, nourishment is just food

>>50623657
Nope

>>50623148
This is fucking amazing.

>>50623360
>Gandalf-type (High level wizard NPC) teleports us out before giant bird god thing kills us all.

Oh boy

>>50623148
Holy shit I love this

Anyone have a good 5e holiday one-off? I'll DM the fuck out of this

>>50623148
Hmmmmm. I know what quest I'm handing out next.

>St Nick has tasked the Party with delivering coal to Straud in Ravenloft

>>50623360
At least try to get to level 5 before multiclassing, level 3 spells are really nice. Having low level spells like Shield and Mage Armor helps if you get focused too, and something like Misty Step so you can teleport away.

You don't really need to be a cleric to get more religious, you could just roleplay that.

>>50623872
I would play this so hard.

You've been charged to find out if the denizens of Barovia have been naughty or nice. Those who are nice gets gifts, those who have been naughty get death.

At what level is a 5e character as powerful as a level 1 4e character? What about a 5th level character or an 11th level character?

>>50624055
This is a bad question

>>50623997
I like this. More!

i might have to let some fucking idiot into my campaign who just does not understand how to roleplay well. i've made it clear to him that this is roleplaying centric and not a hack-and-slash. how do i demonstrate to him what good roleplaying looks like?

>>50624167
Show him an episode of Critical Role

I've got a guy in my group who insists 5e Paladins are broken. Is there any merit to what he's saying?

>>50624204
No

>>50624204
Sure lot of the classes are really strong in what they do and Palla is one of them

>>50624204
Paladins are strong. Nothing in 5e is broken.

>>50624204

No, that guy is dumb. Paladins are strong but they're nowhere near being broken.

>>50624204
They have good burst damage and getting people up with one point of lay on hands is goofy IMO

but they aren't the best class by any stretch of the imagination

>>50624212
There are some broken shit in 5e

>>50624219
Example?

>>50623715
Berries are juicy.

>>50624273
Agonizing blast

>>50624304
I thought you said broken

>>50624328
Yea sure a cantrip that does 2d10+10+2d6 at level 5 is not broken. Its better than second level spells...

>>50624428
It's not broken because the only class that gets it relies solely upon it. It's about equal to a Fighter of the same level.

>>50624428
First off, that relies on having 20 Charisma at level 5, so you're exaggerating a bit.
Secondly, you need to spend an Invocation to get the bonus damage in the first place. Your core class features are meant to be strong.
Lastly, where is the 2d6 coming from?

>>50624451
>Not worth getting 2 levels of warlock for it, especially with OP shit like undyng light letting you add your spellcasting mod to all fire and radiant dmg making green flame blade OP as fuck.

Every bard, sorc, Palla, and warlock shuld have it... That makes it broken

>>50624474
Hex obv

If a player wanted to have their pureblood character have the Shapechanger and/or Bite alternate traits, would that be considered too broken for a pc?

>>50624474
The 2d6 comes from the spell Hex.

And the problem is mainly that its worth it to multiclass for it if you are a cha heavy character every time. Also A hole class is defined by one cantrip wich is shitty

>>50624428
Heavens to Murgatroyd, that's d2 stronger than a Ranger with a longbow! but without the +2 AB from Archery Style

How could Wizards possibly allowed a class slightly stronger than the PHB Ranger to exist?

>>50624475
>having to multiclass and delay your main class level progression to get a feature makes that feature broken

>>50624487
So let me get this straight...
You're combining a main class ability, a limited and valuable class resource, choosing a specific race and using your ASI to maximize one ability score, stacking all of this on top of another spell that requires concentration, AND assuming both attack rolls from the blast hit, and you're surprised that it does damage slightly ahead of the curve?

>>50624487
>This Warloxk can trip is way better than a second level spell!
>Just let me cast this first level spell to buff it first!

>>50624502
>>50624487
Hex only deals 1d6 I thought.

>>50619847

Do you think a Tempest Cleric would work okay with Dex, or is it a waste to not go Strength and utilize the heavy armor proficiencies?

Basically I want to grab Spell Sniper and use a whip to Booming Blade from 10 feet away. With a few levels it would be pretty brutal.

>>50624535

You get two beams for EB at level 5, each one triggers hex.

>>50624535
Scales with spell slot level. Warlocks cast at max spell level always.

>>50624535
Per hit. That 2d10+10+2d6 is actually 1d10+4+1d6 twice with two attack rolls. So, you know, anyone with Hex / Hunter's Mark, a heavy acrossbow, and Crossbow Expert.

>>50624563
Yeah triggering hex twice didn't pop into my mind for some reason.

just to clarify, i can take traits from multiple animals as a Totem Warrior Barbarian, yes?

>>50624593
Yes, you can pick different ones. You can go Bear, Wolf, Hawk and call it a dragon totem if you want.

>>50624609
dope. going bear, wolf, and elk.

File: Great_Forest_Spirit.jpg (91KB, 900x677px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 900x677px

>>50624637
>Great Forest Spirit totem
Deer God!

>>50624637
Fuck yeah, bowling pin those fuckers

>>50624545
>Spell Sniper and use a whip to Booming Blade from 10 feet away

You dont make an attack roll with BB you make an attack roll with the weapon, thus BB does not get an increased range from spell sniper.

Also even if it did work, and it doesn't, that's a pretty lame, meta and cheesy thing that would end up just annoying your GM and nothing else.

Can someone just confirm for me that you can make 2 attacks as a sorc if you quicken Flaming Blade?

File: Jan_Matejko,_Stańczyk.jpg (629KB, 2500x1870px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 2500x1870px

>tfw the weather cancels your D&D game

>>50624528
Also the bow user could have sharpshooter

Warlock isn't even very good at ranged damage. They're just pretty shit desu and should be a 1-3 dip at best

>>50624712
Yes. The description says "melee spell attack", not "melee weapon attack", so Quickened Spell would work.

>>50624532
>having to multiclass and delay your main class level progression to get a feature makes that feature broken

Yes actually. If it's required for to do you to play the game properly or even just keep up with everyone else, then it's breaking the design of the game which is predicated on characters having multiple valid choices in character advancement.

>>50624731
Cool, then I think I will be using quicken GFB on my shitty half elf palla 2 sorc X char :)

>>50624724
Literally the only benefit is that you're getting relatively good combat ability with only 2 levels in a class. It scale a with whatever else you do, and having the extra Warloxk slots is nice, but it's nothing that amazing.

It's cheesey, especially for a charisma class but not broken.

>>50624712
That seems pretty murky to me

GFB and BB require the user to make an attack. They are both riders; you don't actually make attack rolls for them, you make the attack roll with your weapon.

Unless it's been clarified in an Errata I'd say no. Quicken allows you to cast a 1 action spell as a bonus action; it doesn't say anything for giving an additional attack, and BB and GFB require an attack to be made so that they can be cast

>>50624687

It absolutely works. Spell Sniper doesn't specify what kind of attack it requires, if i remember right. It's not that cheesy at all either, it just makes it useable with a reach weapon. Remember that it costs an ASI/feat. It's not really meta, lame, or cheesy imo.

Jeremy Crawford also agrees with this interpretation (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/10/does-spell-sniper-feat-grant-10-ft-range-to-touch-spells/).

>>50624738
>required to play the game properly
Are you fucking serious?
This is bait, right?
Or are you just that retarded?

>>50624720
Where do you live? What kind of weather?

I only have to deal with real life ruining my game nights.

>>50624757
He's talking about the spell Flame Blade, not GFB or BB.

>>50624738
>Required

What? It isn't required at all. There isn't a Charisma based class in the game that becomes useless if it can't multi class for eldritch blast.

>>50624757

>an attack to be made

you can absolutely quicken GFB and BB. You take the "cast a spell" action when you use them, you don't use the "attack" action. That's why EKs don't get their extra attacks if they decide to use GFB.

>>50624785

>>50624771

>>50624761
Probably the latter. To be fair, I wasn't saying that agonizing blast is listed in that category, since spells in 5e skeeve me out and I haven't really looked at them much because of it.

I was simply saying that if a specific ability is required for you to play the game properly or keep up with everyone else, then it's breaking the design of the game because that design is predicated on characters having multiple valid options in character advancement.

Is that statment wrong?

>>50624798

I know what the original poster was talking about, but the guy I am responding too doesn't think you can quicken GFB/BB, which is wrong.

>>50624762
Iowa
Snow coming tomorrow and I'm too stupid to learn Roll20 by tomorrow night

>>50624814
That statement isn't wrong, but nothing remotely close to that exists in D&D 5e.

So you can Quicken and Twin GFB. And lets add to that the warlock undying light lvl 1 for added cha on all those fire attacks. I think My Palla 2 Lock 1 Sorc X will be janky as fuck but fun :) Use all the spellpoints!

>>50624535
Eldritch Blast produces multiple blasts which each benefit from hex if they all hit the same hexed target

>>50624832

>quicken

yes

>twin

iffy with GFB, okay with BB.

>>50624839
it does not target twise tho...

>>50624832
>Twin GFB
u wot

>>50624892

GFB will target the creature you're hitting and if you proc the secondary damage will target two creatures IIRC.

>>50624823
>Iowa
Well there's your first mistake.

Then again, I'd kill for some snow right now.

>>50624914
No thats not how targeting works, that is why it is written to not be a target in the spell.

"The target of a spell must be within the spells range"
But you can hit the second creature even if he is not in GFB range thus he is not a target.

>>50624934

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/663510873449762816

>>50624760
When we start getting into "but X said!", digging into various online non official sources to find info to back up your claim, we've already passed into the lame, cheese, meta zone.

It is pretty lame and meta and cheesy. You are making some dumb combo of things that don't really work, and have to be scotch tapped together in order to justify it as rules legal. That's very meta.

It will be obnoxious, I've played with a guy who did the "drac sorc swashbuckler booming blade" bullshit. Imagine the amount of times his nasally voice reminded or corrected the GM on "uh achthually he takes wan dee eight damage if he moves", then imagine him passive aggresively arguing with the GM about how "the enemy doesnt know he'll take damage when he moves so he should move to chase me!"

Now imagine that for literally every encounter, every attack he makes because there is 0 reason to not BB every attack.

To your GM, you will be this guy. The one dude in the party doing a bunch of bullshit just to get off some more damage, the guy who makes it so the combat becomes even more stationary and dull and repetitive than it already is, and eventually the guy who makes the gm just slap ranged weapons on every enemy because he's sick of the cheese.

You will be this guy, because you want an additional d8 damage

>>50620190
Not to mention that with the 4E DMG you could actually build monsters from the ground up with some semblance of reason, order, and balance. As opposed to the absolute clusterfuck that is the same rules in 5E.

>>50624958
>digging into various online non official sources
Nigga do you know who Jeremy Crawford is? His Twitter statements are literally official rulings.

>>50624955

He is wrong, it does not target 2 creatures if it did you culd only ever hit creatures within 5 feat of you with both effects. He may have inteded that to be the case but that is not what is does...

>>50624970
A miserable pile of secrets.

>>50619974
kys

>>50624827
That's fine, I'm glad. I was just making a general statment.

And you can keep your filthy pagan 5e witchcraft to yourselves

>>50624979
You don't seem to understand how this works. What Crawford says are the rules, are the rules. The only thing that can change that is your DM stating "no, I'll allow this to work."

>>50624958

>getting into, 'but X said'

X is literally the guy who makes the fucking game. He is the one who makes official rulings

>scotch taped together

if by scotch taped together you mean, 'played as written'

>it will be obnoxious

for who? I doubt the other players will mind

>dumb anecdotal evidence that doesn't mean shit

>there is 0 reason not to BB every attack

true but I'm a full caster who's actions might be going to more important things like healing or reusing Call Lightning. You don't have to BB every round and you probably shouldn't. Not to mention it's flavorful as fuck, since a Tempest Cleric worships the weather.

>>50624993
Eh, no? What is written in the books are the rules, thats "how this works" and that is how its allways worked.

>>50625041
Welcome to the modern age motherfucker, where games are never a finished product and developers can continue to change rulings and implement new ones outside of what was published. Crawford is the Rules Developer for D&D at Wizards of the Coast. What he says are the rules. If your DM goes counter to that, that's fine, but that is houseruling.

>>50625041
I'm actually liable to agree here. The dude may make the rules, but it's not official until it's errata'd in.

You can have someone clarify what a book was intended to mean, but the rules say what the rules say and those are up to the interpretation of each individual DM. Whether or not the DM want's to agree with the guy in how the rules should be interpreted is totally up to them.

>>50625122
That's the point where you start getting into RAW vs RAI. As a DM, I always prefer RAI, because that tends to be less exploitable.

>>50625162
I mean ofc your DM decides, but having some dude who makes reactioneary jugements on twitter and treating it as the bible seems silly.

For the Sorcerer, is there a reason to pick Wild Magic? That table looks pretty entertaining, but how often does it really factor in considering you have to get that 1?

>>50625217
>some dude who makes reactionary judgments on twitter
You REALLY don't understand who Jeremy Crawford is, do you?

>>50625217

Sure, but using it to tell somebody they can't sacrifice a feat/asi to get Booming Blade and use it with their whip seems totally silly too.

Especially when it aligns with what the books say and what the designers intend.

>>50625041
>>50625122
But he wasn't saying it was RAW wrong, he was saying it was cheesy and meta. Then when he was told it was RAI, he stuck his fingers so far in his ears they touched.

>>50625223
>completely ignores Tides of Chaos

>>50625230
>what the designers intend.
Sage Advice is literally what the designers intend.

>>50625223
Wild Magic is even more of a meme in 5e than it used to be. Just pick Storm instead.

>>50625235
>"DM, can I roll for my Tides of Chao-"
>"No, I'm tired of you cheesing for advantage."

>>50625253
Having a shit DM doesn't mean Wild Sorcerer is bad.

>>50625253
>Tides of Chaos is cheesing

>>50625262

He's not talking shit about Wild sorcs he's talking shit about some doofus in the thread we should probably just start ignoring.

>>50625265
No, but asking the DM to roll a wild surge just so you can have it back is metagaming.

Is it bad that I want a celestial/divine style of cleric?

File: why.jpg (69KB, 638x959px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 638x959px

>>50625284
FUCK
I MEANT WARLOCK

>>50625279
Anon, as a Wild Sorcerer you don't want to surge so you get Tides of Chaos back. You use Tides of Chaos so you can surge! That's literally the point of the feature.

>>50625279
>using your class features is metagaming

>>50625296
This.

>>50625294
undying light and wanderer... There are litealy 2 official ones.

>>50625294

too late, capped

shame forever

>>50625223
It's there for the type of people that play Gnome Sorcerers for the giggles.

The Wild Magic Sorcerer in our party actually killed three characters, including himself, in the second session, because he got a random thunderbolt that did enough to instant gib all three. Our DM had to wave it.

>>50625332
>Our DM had to wave it.

Pussy

>>50625284
>Divine cleric
Go play your special snowflake characters in Pathfinder ya weeb

>>50625336
Killing more than half the party because of RNG would have been great, if only for the lesson. But I get the distinct feeling the other two besides me that would have gotten wrecked wouldn't have been as happy with it.

>>50621296
>>50621268
I dont know if I should be a glamour bard, on one hand I can rp a trap idol charming my way through people (cause I can disguse self from being a fey lock too) but lore give me more spells

>>50625332
>level 1
>sewer system fighting rats and the like
>Wild Magic Surge
>explosion of Necrotic energy
>max damage
>Sorc and Fighter all that remain

5e equivalent of Psyker levels of shit.

File: alart.jpg (99KB, 568x745px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 568x745px

>>50625284
>>50625294

>>50625332
>>50625357

My party's been a pain in the ass in combat, they keep steamrolling stuff that should be deadly because of good init and rolls. Now I'm thinking the best way to instill some combat difficulty is give them an npc wild magic sorcerer...

>>50625332
>>50625357
>random thunderbolt
>explosion of Necrotic energy
Were you guys using homebrewed wild surges? The only thing with necrotic I see there can only do 10 damage max, which is hardly enough to instantly kill even 1st level characters. Maybe knock out, but they can still be stabilized.

>>50625390
Give him (or the party) a Wand of Wonder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzpgAQpcp8o

>>50625367
>>50625315
I KNOW
>>50625345
FORGIVE MY DEGENERACY
>>50625311
Well, please pardon my retardation, then. I'm not too familiar with anything outside the handbook and the like, and the idea just sounds great to me.

Do I get to fling radiant damage around like there's no tomorrow with those?

>>50625390
Fucking them over with somebody that's supposed to be their ally might not be the answer. It's more acceptable if it's a party member and even THEN it's still pretty annoying to have it happen to you.

You know you can just improvise, right? Make enemies a bit tougher during the fight, fudge stuff for drama, etc.? Or have fights with horizontal difficulty, like they have to solve something during the fight. I had that with a fight where the party had to crush a very obvious nercomantic relic or an enemy would keep constantly rising from the dead (with less and less AC and HP each time as he began to fall apart and decay).

>>50619847
>Have you tried 4th edition?, edition

Yes, I unfortunately DMed it. It was basically "everyone is a refluffed caster" the game. My players at the time however, WoW playing vidya obsessed autistics, loved it.

>>50625417
>>random thunderbolt
He got the 65-66 roll which, looking at it now, specifies that he gets to choose.

So either he didn't read it properly or wanted to be a real asshole, and just blew himself up as cover. There were no enemies alive, so maybe he thought he had to pick all allies and didn't know what 'up to' meant.

>>50625433
Undying light gets to add cha mod to any fire or radiant dmg from a spell. And they get sacred flame and burning hands and shit + if you play Volo aasimar you get even more good times :)

Is it a faux pas to write some brief outlines of people your character knows when building them?

>>50625525
Depends on the DM, but generally no. As a DM I fully support that, since it makes my job easier by getting your character more ingrained in the story. Just don't go overboard or expected them to be super-important in the campaign itself.

>>50625546
I changed character in between adventures. The party is moving into a new city and I wrote my new PC as an establish person in that city. None of the outline I made have anything to do with the GM's plot, so it should be fine.

>>50625525
>>50625546
As said, it's fine until you start insisting that you know people that show up or start trying to introduce characters without giving your DM any warning, or any of that.

It's a good thing to note people the character might know.

How big of a difference in combat makes having 14AC vs 17AC? Im wondering about Mage Armor spell.

>>50626324
Big

>>50626357
Black

>>50626376
Turtles.

>>50626376
autright cucks

Dual-wielding light armored dex paladin y/n?

File: close-up-photo-of-a-big-turtle-on-the-beach-hd-turtles-wallpapers.jpg (332KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1600x1000px

>>50626357
>>50626376
>>50626389
>heard you was talkin shit like i wouldn't find out

>>50624744
Uh... Green Flame Blade uses a melee weapon attack,not a melee spell attack. You asked about Flaming Blade which I assume the person took as you asking about Flame Blade. Completely different spell mate.

>>50625525
I think that every player should do this.
Its easy to get invested in a game when your player's characters are part of the world: know important people, own a house or have a family.
A lot DM dont know how to handle that, but if:
The figther is a town guard and the driking buddy of the captain cos his father and the captain were comrades in the last war.
The cleric owns a little church and its given money by the village which he uses to help orphans, poor and sick people.
The wizard is the apprentice of the Baron's counselor (also a wizard).
And the rogue owns the brothel, but in reality is one of the baron informants.

You end having players with motivations, duties and influence.
Influence its not bad, it gives the players a sense of reponsability.
>>50626309
If someone tells in his backstory that he knows the king, sure you have to tone it down but dont cut it. Instead make the player a petty noble lost of grace and prestige, but still a noble that can play the "i want to speak with the king" card in a dramatical moment.

>>50626443
Sadly no

What minions would a Chain Devil have? I can only think of Hell Hounds, but would like more variety.

>>50626470
why

new thread when?

>>50626515
Cos you dont have a style that support dual wield.
Cos you have armor proficientcy
Cos that way you have less AC and paladin is AC dependant (paladins have a lot of concentration spells)

I would suggest polearm style

Does Alter Self spell include being able to change your sex? Description doesnt list such thing, but it would make sense if you could use it like this.

>>50626536
Defense style for +1 AC, I have 16 AC with a chain shirt and when I get a breastplate, 17 AC

Polearms are for minmaxing nerds

>>50626515
like, at the very least scrap the light armor. go heavy armor, or medium if you want to stealth. dual wielding is alright, not optimal but not terribad either.

>>50626443
>>50626569
Yeah actually medium I should've said >>50626568

>>50626568
>>50626576

at that point you may as well get a shield and the shield feat with a decent dex youll be able to succeed most dex saves for no damage. that way youll have 19ac. losing the extra attack is made up by being ble to shove for free which is arguably better and cooler.

>>50626447
Underrated post.

>>50626582
Yeah but maybe I wanna bait 20s

>>50626629
then play a rogue.

ded