/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General

Here's those HTML tools again, now hosted. They can still be downloaded as single files for offline use.

https://5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/

I plan on working on spells and character option versions soon.

File: garlic doggo.jpg (184KB, 768x820px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 768x820px

>>50753206
>Added CR filter
nice.
>Filtering by CR 1 shows everything with a CR of 1, 1/, and 10+
ree.

>>50753185
One of my players wants to play a PC who uses grafts to improve himself and fight better. Kinda like a mix of Alex Mercer and the Frankenstein monster..
What is the best way to handle this in 5e?

>>50753206
>https://5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/

Question because I'm a retard, how do I use this offline? It opens up a word document for me when I open the bestiary.

>>50753235
Do you want homebrew, suggestions for a build that could be flavored as grafts, things to refluff..?

>>50753245
When you've got it downloaded, just open it in your web browser instead.

>>50753234
Yeah, I'll work on it. Search shit is not my forte.

>>50753256
All you got.

>>50753284
It'd probably be an easy fix to make it count a space as a letter, so if you search "CR 1_", where "_" is an empty space, it'd only show things with exactly CR 1, while if you left it "CR 1" with no space it'd still show things with CR 1/2 and all that.

At least I think that's how it works, I'm not a fancy computer learned man.

Pros and cons of spell points vs normal rules?

File: Capture.png (65KB, 333x118px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 333x118px

Would it be fair to assume that an Oathbreaker in the PC Party would have their Aura of Hate only on creatures they choose, or is it intentional that it could fuck them over?

Would you let a PC Oathbreaker use a modified version, such as-

"Aura of Hate"
Starting at 7th level, you and friendly creatures within 10 feet
of you gain a bonus to melee weapon damage rolls equal to your
Charisma modifier (minimum of +1). A creature can
benefit from this feature from only one paladin at a time.
At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.

Like this it functions the same as other Paladin auras, but might be too strong. I feel like since the Oathbreaker is in the DMG it wasn't designed to be used by players as much so they worded it a bit poorly.

>>50753381
>Up to +5 on every melee attack
Seems waay too strong. Could be better if it was Proficiency/2 and mayb applied to damage too, but I'm not sure.

>>50753381
i think its just not really written with normal pcs in mind

>>50753474
>>50753528
Yeah it'd probably have to be changed for a PC character.

Kinda hoping the Pally UA has a PC Oathbreaker with some changes to it, but it'd probably be for the best if it wasn't since I wouldn't want it to take the place of something actually new.

Going to play a utility/support/RP heavy spells wizard that doesn't have much in the way of damaging spells. Might grab a single damaging 1st level spell but beyond that I doubt I'll grab much else. What are some must haves and what are some trap spells that I should avoid? First time playing a caster in 5e.

What interesting use of timestop did your party come up with ?

>>50753234
Aight, it should be fixed now, moved it to using a library that actually is meant to do that stuff instead of some hacked-together regex. You can find CR 1 and 2 (without any 1Xs or 2Xs) by putting a space after them.

File: YOU DID IT.png (235KB, 417x578px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 417x578px

>>50753694
Good shit anon, this will be useful.

>>50753694
Only other thing I can think to add would be the ability to also filter by type, as of now you can't search "CR 1 Beast" or "CR 1 Type:Beast".

Help were having a break now but i havent thought of the rest of the story. Were in a plagued town and i know how to resplove this but i dont knoe where to take the story next. My pcs are still lvl 1, 2 encouters and only 3 hours and we're looking to play 4 hours more

>>50753584
What school? This would help decisions

>>50753584
You can google "wizard spells 5e guide" and find at least as good advice as you will here

It's pretty easy to tell which noncombat spells are good though

Why the fuck is cunning action worded so weirdly? Is it actually an extra action you can use to make a Hide/Dash/disengage or does it just let you use those as a bonus action? It literally says " this action CAN ONLY be used for a dash,disengage, or hide action." That's worded like it's similar to a haste that can only be used for those actions instead of using up your bonus action like I thought it was.
What I want to know is can you attack with 2 weapons then disengage?

>>50753584
Make sure you grab one ranged damage cantrip just in case. You can save your spell slots for utility if you can still hit shit with cantrips when you don't have the right spell for the situation. Minor Illusion is a cantrip that you might also use effectively in combat.

For spells of lvl1+:

Sleep
Grease
Fog Cloud (C)
Charm Person
Arcane Lock (you can just nope out of a room and lock the monsters in there)
Enlarge/Reduce (C)
Gust of Wind (C)

(C) = concentration. Be very aware of which of your spells require concentration, particularly as a utility caster, because you can only have one concentration spell active at a time.

As for defensive options, shocking grasp + shield is my favoured combo. In case someone gets in your face, you can just shield their attack, then zap them and move away without eating an opportunity attack.

>>50753931
No you can't do that, it uses up your bonus action for that turn

>>50753931
It's worded that way because you don't *always* have a bonus action, and Cunning Action gives you one with which you can hide, dash, or disengage.

So yes, it lets you use those as a bonus action, functionally.

>>50753931
No. You only get one bonus action per turn. But the bonus action from cunning action can only be used for specific things.

>>50753941
That's how I thought it works, it's just worded really badly. Like, why can't it just say you can use those as a bonus action instead of saying "you have a bonus action that can only do these things" when you can use it for other things, such as a second attack, as well?

>>50753973
Because "bonus action" is a painfully awkward term to use in a game that requires tight language, and they didn't think through it at all

>>50754014
I realise now that haste says "additional action" so it is worded differently, but they could have simplified cunning action by saying "You can hide, Dash or disengage as a bonus action"

>>50754014
I guess they just wanted to avoid minor/major/lesser/greater action terminology from older games

I don't really know what a better alternative. But it's kind of weird they also use the term hit dice for two different things, and still talk about spell slots even though you no longer slot spells into them

Does anyone have tips for a new gm? Im a fair few sessions in, we've gone from 1-5 so far (all new), and while everyone's been having fun I just want to be a great dm. Homebrew setting, a lot is made up as I go along, I haven't had the time to flesh out massive sections but nobody has noticed yet. My pcs don't roleplay a huge amount, through I basically just take most of what they say as in character and have npcs react to their discussion and stuff. I just would like to know general tips you wish you knew when you started gming.

>>50753973
Because while everyone *technically* has a bonus action existing in the rules ether, they can't access it unless they have a specific ability/conditional to tap it i.e. cunning action, using an offhand melee weapon, or a bonus action casted spell.

File: iW0Y0Wo.jpg (527KB, 2452x974px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 2452x974px

Is Matthew Mercer's Gunslinger archetype for fighters shit? How does it compare to crossbows or other ranged weapons?

>>50754157
It's shit because gunpowder in fantasy settings is gay final fantasy shit

But mechanically it seems acceptable

>>50754094
Honestly the only thing I wish I had done is play one of the published adventures to get an idea of how things are meant to be set up. The starter set adventure (lost mines of phandelver) has some good tips for new DMs and I'm enjoying DMing it more than anything I've made myself. It might not be as useful if you're the type to make up stuff as you go, but I still recommend giving it a look when you find a stopping point for this campaign.

Conversely, my only other advice is try not to get bored of campaigns too quickly. Nothing stagnates a group more than starting a new game every few sessions, to the point where they don't even expect their characters to last very long.

Is "raised by flumphs" an acceptable background for a Mystic?

>>50753381
I'd probably limit the bonus to undead under the Oathbreaker's control and Fiends that are either under the Oathbreaker's control or control the Oathbreaker somehow.

File: 1295400560490.jpg (32KB, 405x387px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 405x387px

>playing a Wizard
>enemies all bunch up close to our melee people
>everyone is like "oh boy here comes the fireball on us"
>fighter disengages out of melee range
>paladin literally uses his action to drag the monk out of the fight and willingly takes an attack of opportunity to do so
>suddenly it's my turn and everyone has already decided I absolutely must use fireball on the bunched up enemies
Why do they bully me like this?
I didn't want to use fireball, doing 20-30 damage to them would not be of much help in that situation, I'd much prefer to have used Hypnotic Pattern to put them all to sleep and dramatically reduce their damage output on us
But at that point I was basically forced to just do a fireball

>>50754232
Be more assertive. No one wants to hook up with some pushover loser.

File: Landsknechts_01.jpg (294KB, 1525x1075px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1525x1075px

>>50754157
The scattergun, "bad news", and hand mortar seem decent, I'm not sure if there's much of a point to the other guns when crossbows exist though.

>>50754182
>gunpowder in fantasy settings is gay final fantasy shit

Ah yes, a shining example of the average DnD player.

>>50754232
How about don't do a fireball next time and tell them to wait for your character's signal in future

>>50754232
Should have just busted out a cantrip and asked what the hell they were moving away for.

If you cast upside down, does Leomund's Tiny Hut not have a roof, instead of no "floor"?

>>50754232
>why do they bully me
Because bullying you is apparently a good way of getting you to do what they want. Put your dog damn foot down.

>>50754246
I don't care that gunpowder existed in real history simultaneous with knights, smugcunt. Guns are boring, I don't want to deal with them in my games about swords, bows and spells. I want Excalibur, Conan, Lord of the Rings, not Kitchen Sink.

>>50753206
How come Succubi have Thunderous Stomp?
Is that what they use on foot fetishists?

Some questions regarding grapple rules:
>You Auto succeed a grapple if the one trying to grappl you is smaller than you, right? What about attacks that Auto grapple ie Kuo toa whips? Can they grapple you, you just succeed automatically if you try and break it?
> What if you Wild shape while grappled? Would that break it if you went up a size?

>>50754269
Leomund's Tiny Hut makes a dome of force above you, i.e. upwards from you relative to the ground. If you're lying down or doing a headstand it still makes a dome of force over you.
>but what if I'm on a plane with no gravity and there's no up or down
Then you have bigger things to worry about than which direction your Tiny Hut is pointing.

>>50754232
Why even have that garbage spell prepared at all? Don't put it on your daily list if spells.

>>50754343
It's okay if you want to roll around in your generic fantasy shit plebanon, it doesn't affect me.

>>50754383
>>You Auto succeed a grapple if the one trying to grappl you is smaller than you, right?
Why do you think that's the case?

>>50754374
Ball breaking.

>>50753355
Cons:
It's a straight buff to casters, which might be a problem as casters are already really good. Warlocks and Sorcerers don't benefit from it much (it's basically stealing the Sorc's thing of having flexible spell slots) and they are arguably the weakest casters already so that doesn't help either.
Pros:
It feels better since you have more control of your resources and most likely won't be wasting as many slots per day.
It's easier to keep track of once you learn the system (if you know the point costs it's just about subtracting that from a relatively low score, no complex maths, while slots force you to keep track of up to 9 different numbers).

Personally I allow sorcerers to use it, fits with their whole "made of magic" shtick and doesn't cause any large imbalances.

File: Screenshot_2016-12-18-23-15-04.png (1MB, 1600x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x2560px

>>50754413
That line about Auto succeeding? I think it might be 2 sizes above. Regardless, what about changing size mid grapple?

>>50754383
There are no rules that let you 'auto-succeed' grappling, it's just not even possible in the first place for a creature to grapple another creature more than one size larger than it. Attacks that automatically grapple always specify the largest size of creature they work on - the Kuo Toa pincer staff, for example, specifically says 'If the target is Medium or smaller [etc.]'

If you change to a larger size category than a creature grappling you would be allowed to grapple, then the grapple ends immediately - e.g. if you were a human (Medium) being grappled by a goblin (Small) and then you wildshaped into a brown bear (Large) you would immediately stop being grappled. Likewise, if you were a bear (Large) grappling an elephant (Huge) and your wildshape ended turning you back into a human (Medium) your grapple would immediately end.

>>50754440
The third line of Grappler is a holdover from the old grappling rules and doesn't do anything any more. It was errata'd out later.

It also means that Grappler goes from 'terrible' tier to 'never take this' tier.

Yo is this dumb idea?

I want to introduce "cath-a-breath rest". 10 to 15 minutes of rest that serves as short rest but adds one exhaustion level

File: kawaji.png (799KB, 780x780px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 780x780px

DMfag here.

If one of my Sorcerer players used Catapult on a flaming log, like one from a burn pile, should I convert any damage to fire damage or potentially add fire damage?

>>50754441
Must of missed that part, my bad, Thanks

>>50754454
Add one point of fire damage and possibly make the enemy suffer 1d6 fire damage if he ends his turn in the same tile as the flaming log.

Getting brushed with a flame for a split second isn't going to catch him on fire or anything, but prolonged exposure to a flaming log at his feet might.

>>50754452
Yeah I wanted to take grappler but I had to change it so that it was worth anything at all. I added in a trip move using another grapple check to knock a grappled creature prone and a throw move to hurl enemies 10ft away and deal damage if they fail a dexterity check. Also allows them to add their proficiency bonus to all grapple/pin/trip/throw checks.

>>50754454
Unless contact is maintained, passing through a flame near instantly is fairly harmless. Try putting out a lighter with your finger, if you just tap it down, you won't even notice.

>>50754454
Getting hit by a big flaming chunk of wood is only different to getting hit by a big non-flaming chunk of wood if it stays near you long enough to start burning you. I'd have the Catapult spell itself do its regular bludgeoning damage, and then probably steal the effects of another spell for what happens next - if I felt like the log would maybe break apart into embers or else cause more fire, I'd make it effectively cast Create Bonfire in the space of the creature it hit, lasting for the full duration no concentration required. If I thought it would be in one piece, just slightly on fire, all I'd have it do is set fire to other flammable things in the area - which could then later function as 'created bonfires'.

>>50754214
Are you all too overwhelmed by my amazing idea to respond?

My players are newcomers who only know the really classic DnD monsters, so whenever they encounter a new one I just give a description and then get them to roll Nature (or Arcana or Religion or History) checks to see if they can ID it.

What kind of DC do you guys think the checks should have for different monsters? Post examples please.

>>50754214
I like it.

File: rebeer.jpg (57KB, 919x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 919x720px

>>50754554
When I DM, it really ranges.

Cockatrices are common in my world, so identifying those? Not much at all, might even just straight up tell them what they are as their characters would just know.

A Banshee? Rarely do people come back from them to tell, so like a 17 Nature DC.

A Firenewt? They aren't common, but they certainly aren't mythical beings. 12~ Nature DC.

>>50754452
I disagree, I think being able to pin a creature and thereby permanently remove it from combat until a time of your choosing, with no further opportunities for escape, is really sort of OP.

>>50754571
Except you're not just removing IT from combat, you're removing YOU from combat, and a PC is always worth more than a single enemy unless it's a boss, and good fucking luck grappling anything remotely bosslike

>>50754554
It's incredibly subjective and based entirely on your setting, your character's background and what kind of experiences they've had before. Plus it's not just a matter of ID or not ID, you can get them to roll a check and then pick and choose exactly how much they know based on how high their roll is.

For example, say they encounter a flumph. You'd want to take into account how much time they've spent in the Underdark, how familiar they are with aberrations, how common flumphs are in the setting, and so on and so on. Off the top of my head I'd suggest a DC of 10 just to look at the thing and say "Oh right, that's a flumph." Roll a little lower and maybe they're just able to recognise that it's an aberration. Less than five, say, and they can't grok anything about it at all.

Now say they roll above that 10. Maybe a 12 would tell them that flumphs are inherently good, because if you know what a flumph is you're also fairly likely to know that about them, what with the overall rarity of good aberrations. Roll a 15 and the character knows that flumphs are telepathic creatures, who can shroud their thoughts from others but are nonetheless vulnerable to psychic damage. Roll a 20 and you can basically read out the thing's whole stat block.

That's how I run it, anyway.

>>50754571
Why pin, when you can use the shove action instead, which has the added bonus of not restraining you?

>>50754583
It's not that unlikely, it's just two consecutive ability checks. Three if they try to escape. And if you succeed on a boss, it's an auto-victory. Throw in variants like that altered Grappler feat that that guy just posted and it's a downright viable strategic approach, or a fairly robust choice for a last ditch attempt.

File: kanowhat.png (171KB, 361x458px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 361x458px

>>50754616
What do you think... shove... does?

File: herf.jpg (53KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x480px

>>50754569
>>50754609
Thanks for the tips.

>>50754640
Pin, as per the grappler feat option, restrains both the pinner and the one being pinned. This is objectively worse than the shove action while grappling.

>>50754663
The shove action just pushes a creature away or knocks them prone. The outcome, and the situations that you would use them in, are entirely different.

>>50754494
I might borrow this for my monk, I like the idea of having some aikido techs as well as the usual punching everything.

>>50754686
And because grappling reduces their speed to zero, they can't get up from being prone unless they break the grapple. Meanwhile, you still have a hand free to attack them (with advantage) and can freely drag them around up to half your speed each turn, while also being no easier to hit by other enemies.

>>50754686
>The outcome, and the situations that you would use them in, are entirely different.
Grapple and pin outcome
>speed is 0, attacks against target have adv, disadv on dex saves
>pinner is also suffering all this becoming immobile and easy to hit
Grapple and shove prone outcome
>speed is 0, 5ft attacks against target have adv
>the pinner is not suffering from any of this, and can move the target around

Why would you ever EVER PIN?!

>>50754711
Ah I see, shoving while keeping them grappled.

They can still roll to break free every turn. I can imagine using that but depending on the situation it would often still be better to pin them and totally remove them from combat, even at the expense of doing the same to yourself. Imagine your party of five was up against two or three relatively powerful humanoids, by pinning one to take it out of the equation you're drastically shifting the odds of the battle.

File: festivedaiya.png (157KB, 385x415px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 385x415px

>>50754747
What if you need to apprehend an enemy for interrogation after combat?

>>50754754
>They can still roll to break free every turn
There's nothing stopping them from doing this while pinned as well.

Hi all, cleric player here. I'm a life cleric who became active after a near-death experience in my dwarven mine. I've just started to get 3rd-level spells, and spirit guardians is an absolute hoot. But what would the appropriate forms be for an NG dwarfy life cleric to an underground god of health and safety please? Neither angelic nor fey creatures really seem to fit. Advice would be much appreciated :)

tl;dr what's the patronus of a NG dorf mine god.

File: hughlaurie.jpg (13KB, 360x283px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 360x283px

>>50754747
Because one you can break out of and one you... can't?

All this talk about what is "objectively better" between two options that can be selected at will based on the circumstances really makes me worry that more people than not in these threads actually take optimisation and DPR wankery as their approach to combat while gaming, and not just as fuel for balance discussion and thought experiments.

Combat in DnD shouldn't be a matter of doing whatever it takes to get the highest numbers you can. It should be open, free-flowing and variable. It should be as much about roleplaying as exploration and social scenes are. Sacricing your character's movement and making them vulnerable to remove a threat from a battle shouldn't be something that is totally incomprehensible to you guys.

>>50754747
For the forceful sex assaults

>>50754697
Yeah that's what I use it for too. As another tip, I allow monks to use their dex modifier instead of str for athletics checks for the purpose of grappling and grapple-based moves (just makes sense to me, aikido and judo and such are as much about dexterity as strength)

Also I don't want to get drawn into the current pin discussion but I also amend it so that pinned opponents have disadvantage on their checks to break free. Otherwise pinning doesn't really seem worthwhile.

>>50754786
Probably the form of will-o-wisp looking things or something carrying lanterns

>>50754786
Tommyknocker

>>50754788
You seem to be misunderstanding - a pinned enemy just has to break your grapple and then they stop being pinned. Given that it takes you two actions worth of grappling checks, can be broken out of just as easily as a regular grapple and does literally nothing that them being prone doesn't do anyway, AND you suffer the same effects. Which means that, ironically, they can attack you as normal because their disadvantage on attack rolls is negated by them getting advantage on attack rolls against you! And all this requiring a feat. So in this instance there's no meaningful choice to make except purposefully gimping yourself, because pinning is just objectively worse than the alternatives.

>>50754788
>Because one you can break out of and one you... can't?
You can break out of both.
The restrain on pin lasts as long as the grapple does.
Restrain does not stop a creature from taking actions.
An action you can take is breaking a grapple.

File: joshu.png (77KB, 180x153px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 180x153px

>DMing
>party of 5 fighting a Banshee
>Orc Monk, Human Fighter, Half-Orc Paladin, Tiefling Cleric, Dragonborn Sorcerer
>Monk is holding off cultists as they swarm in to protect
>other 4 are dealing with the Banshee
>all within 5-10ft of her except the Monk who is at least 70ft
>they get her really low but they are all extremely worn down
>she's at roughly 14 HP
>in a last ditch effort the Banshee goes for her Wail
>3 of them fail the check and drop to 0 instantly
>other one is feared and can only watch in horror
>his turn comes around and all he can do is ready a dodge
>suddenly, right before the Banshee can deal the final blow
>menacing Orc Monk runs up behind her
>startles the Banshee
>uses his Ki points, sets up 4 unarmed strikes
>3 out of 4 fucking crit
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFjE5A4UAJI&t=30s

File: Once.Upon.a.Time.in.the.West.1968.720p.BluRay.x264.YIFY.mp4_snapshot_02.29.02_[2016.04.14_20.18.45].jpg (68KB, 1280x544px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x544px

WILD WEST settings:
Yes / No?

>>50753235
say "no".

>>50755012
How does he move 70ft and then make four attacks?

>>50755181
Mobile.

>>50755227
And apparently also being level 18+? Why the fuck is he fighting a banshee?

>>50755227
>>50755238
Unless, of course, you neglected to mention Step of the Wind.

>>50755243
Step of the wind is a bonus action.

>>50755028
Yes.

>>50755028
I'd say 'no' on the grounds that firearms really don't work well.

Otherwise, perhaps yes.

>>50754343
If Dishonored has taught me anything, it's that you can still have a cool fantasy setting with technology being present.

Dishonored isn't really a setting where magic appears with any sort of reliability, so that might be an issue worth thinking about. Guns tend to be reliable. Magic doesn't tend to be reliable in settings with guns and vice versa; in RPGs with a "Wizard" class, guns tend to be similarly the domain of a specific type of person, rather than being something that everyone who has the time to practice with weapons makes use of.

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about guns in DnD specifically. We're used to the debatably-realistic ideas that arrows aren't instantly deadly and that a swashbuckling swordfight doesn't necessarily end in a few seconds, so HP mechanics work well with these weapons. I don't think people are quite as willing to accept that from firearms.

I think Firearms work better in games which aren't built around HP escalation. Shadowrun does fine with them.

>>50755273
Pistols and Muskets are functionally crossbows with slightly more damage and moderately-to-significantly less range. I don't think they'll be much of a problem. Worse case, everyone will want to use them, and you'll get more than the usual amount of ranged fighters and rangers. Which really isn't a bad thing for the setting.

>>50755028
I say go for it, Anon!

>>50754343
Lord of the Rings has gunpowder, ya dork. Goblins are even stated to have developed explosives. Saruman's army USES explosives.

>>50755306
I see your point about guns in D&D. I think they'd work better under one of two conditions:
1. Everyone accepts that hit points are not meat points. A "successful hit" can mean you dodge but twist your ankle.
2. You mostly fight monsters or beasts, where our preconceived notions allow them to keep fighting with a bullet in them.

>>50755312
But then everybody will play the indians. Probably. Bows and arrows style.
Sharpshooter would work but fighters wouldn't have a feat to attack with a bonus action. Also, the pistols and muskets seem to work just the same on people with armour as without armour, and are oddly incredibly accurate if you have a high attack. Then, the real issue is that the reloads would set it back way behind bows and arrows / crossbows.
You could probably make a feat or two for gun-users.

>>50755306
I don't know, with HP escalation it works just like an action movie.
>the main characters shoot all the bad guys straight away
>the main characters are shot, but most of the shots land around them but eventually they reach a point where they start to get hit
The whole 'HP can be seen as luck points' thing. But, yes, people might be less ready to accept that bullets may be non-lethal with the chances of headshots and you can't really say 'you take damage but the bullet never actually hit you'.

>>50754788
>Combat in DnD shouldn't be a matter of doing whatever it takes to get the highest numbers you can. It should be open, free-flowing and variable. It should be as much about roleplaying as exploration and social scenes are.

I hate these sorts of arguments.

If your character wants to win a fight to the death (it'd be odd if they didn't), and you don't pick the best option available to your character, you're either a bad roleplayer or you're roleplaying someone with a supremely odd code of honour.

If a game makes a given option objectively better in enough situations that it makes the combat less varied, then that's a flaw in the game. The player then has to choose between playing the game for fun, which is what you're talking about, or playing it effectively and taking their character's situation seriously.

Don't talk about effective choices in combat as if they're bad roleplaying. The alternative, varying your tactics for the sake of variety, is bad roleplaying. It's not bad from the perspective of everyone at the table having fun, but it is bad roleplaying.

You're not on the side of this argument that you think you are.

>>50755357
In a typical D&D game, there's about one ranged weapons user. That player will be the one who plays the Indian.
Guns function the same as crossbows, and will probably replace them completely with slightly higher damage (especially pistols over hand crossbows). I think it's not unreasonable to convert Crossbow Expert to apply to firearms. Then your fighters might be proper gunslingers with several pistols so they can shoot with both hands. Awesome.
And of course, paladins will still use heavy armor and melee weapons (still awesome).
The main problem is that glass cannon characters become less viable, specifically wizards. But,
1. That's okay, they can take it, and
2. Sacrificing the viability of one class is acceptable for a fun change in setting.

>>50755375
Word. Numbers and effective choices are an abstraction. Learn to describe your actions in an interesting way, and vary them when the environment demands it.

>>50755480
Well, I guess it's fine. 1d10 pistols are just +1 over 1d8 light crossbows and 1d12 muskets are just +1 over heavy crossbows for damage. It'd be pretty weird to have a crossbow master musketeer who fires their musket several times a round, but I guess you can fluff it up as them having some weird browning-like early machinegun.

It'd barely unbalance everything, maybe just give fighter a +1 to damage. It's all fair.

The only problem there would be that guns mechanically aren't really very much different than crossbows at all, but eh. It's kind of like refluffs.

>>50754453
>Yo is this dumb idea?
Yes. They aren't *doing* anything to tire them out. Maybe give them a once per day 5 minute short rest each.

>>50755526
I would make Firearms Expert only ignore the loading property on a pistol, but either way you don't really have to explain it if you don't want to. It's not like crossbows (barring hand crossbows) can be realistically reloaded and fired in 6 seconds, while walking, so we're not really stretching the imagination a whole lot more than the base game.
Since the wild west is post-renaissance, you could always make the pistols Reload (6) and bypass the issue altogether with speedloaders.

So, when does 5th Ed get Tome of Battle?

>>50754183

I can confirm your last point. Our DM keeps doing weak, poor ideas for each of the campaigns and our other players are annoyed

>>50755640
Right after Tome of Magic.

So why should I run 5E over 4E?

>>50755838
Because you're less interested in tactical mini battles and more interested in easily adjudicating unexpected situations and actions as they come up.

And you hate rangers.

>>50754343
>Conan

Conan had an autochthonic robot man, a high-powered Tesla wand, and space aliens. And I'm talking strictly about the original Howard stuff, not later additions.

Y'all need to start remembering something: the hard divide between science fiction and fantasy that exists today, didn't really exist before about the 1950s. They were the same genre, and it wouldn't have even occurred to Howard that it was "weird" to put a working Tesla gun in "Red Nails" or an honest-to-god alien from Pluto in "The Tower of the Elephant"; the same as how the more scientifically-grounded, modern-day-set Doc Savage didn't mind putting in magic.

>>50755860
>and more interested in easily adjudicating unexpected situations and actions as they come up.

But 4E handles that really easily.

>>50755871
>modern-day-set Doc Savage

*By which I mean then-modern day of the 1930s.

>>50755885
Not compared to 5e. Unless you've DM'd both you're gonna have to take my word for it.
Unless you're trying to troll the thread, of course, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt so far.

>>50755885
And so does 5e, which means that you should just play whatever you like.

For what it's worth, the main draw I personally have to 5e is that, for the first time, when I roll up a thief character, I actually feel like a THIEF, rather than simply a dungeon-delving backstabber who moonlights in larceny. There's no one thing, just a confluence of abilities coming together in such a way as to all lend themselves towards the ineffable nature of thiefdom. This didn't happen in 2e, 3e, or 4e.

Good morning, friend anons.
Question: How well does the new Kensai Monk compare to, say, Open Hand 17/Battlemaster 3 multiclass?

>>50755910
I'm >>50755885 but not >>50755838

GM'd 4th, playing in 5th.

My 2 cents, 4th is really easy to handle things in, as the non-combat stuff is deliberately light.

Could you unpack your post a bit more, from the GM's perspective?

>>50755916
Haven't seen a Rogue in 5th yet - can you explain?

>it wouldn't have even occurred to Howard that it was "weird"
Considering that half the pulp mags had "strange" or "weird" in the title, it probably did occur to him that it was weird. But that was the point.

File: smile dog.gif (310KB, 172x192px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 172x192px

>>50755948
Forgot pic

A thread or two ago people were talking about how much better the playtest was. What was better, and why is it gone?

>>50755916
Allocating percentage chances to climbing walls and picking locks didn't feel like a thief to you?
I mean, it was a shit mechanic, but it was thiefly.

>>50755964
Well, the fact that you have to bring up non-combat stuff being light is telling. In 5e it doesn't have to be because of the Basic Mechanic.
It goes like this:
Player: I want to attempt [action].
DM: [action] uses [ability score].
Player: I have proficiency in [tool, skill, or weapon]. Does it apply?
DM: [yes/no]
Player: rolls [ability score/ability score + proficiency modifier].
Depending on favorable/unfavorable circumstance, the DM may grant advantage/impose disadvantage on the roll.

In practice, this process is glossed over entirely in obvious situations (like swinging a sword, or picking a lock). But it can be used to model a wide variety of situations.
Let's say the player wants to try something unexpected and unexpectable, like surfing to the other side of a stormy river on his shield.
Player: I want to surf the river on my shield.
DM:.......okay, that would be a dexterity check.
Player: can I use my proficiency in athletics?
DM (after significant thought): no, but you can use your acrobatics, because balance will be important.
Player: OK, cool. I'll do it.
DM: Also you have disadvantage, because you're wearing full plate and carrying all of your gear. And I'm setting the DC appropriately high.
Player: [drowns]

In 4e, you'd have to not only figure out whether to use an ability check or a skill check (a strange dichotomy that no longer exists), but in addition to setting a DC you'd also have to decide on a numerical bonus/penalty based on circumstance. The end result MIGHT be more realistic (debatable), but it definitely requires more effort on part of the DM.

>>50756012
TL;DR before this gets heated:
Martials were more interesting and grognards didn't like it.
You can either agree or disagree with this assertion but that's all you're going to get and we shouldn't start another flame war over it.

>>50755910
>>50755916

Yeah, lets not have an edition war thread, but I think both 5e and 4e are good games. 4e fleshes out combat into being fun as fuck, but it takes WAY too long. 5e combat is often really repetitive, but leaves more creative white space to fill. Both games leave everything past combat pretty rules light, which gives you plenty of freedom if you're creative enough.

>>50755964
>Haven't seen a Rogue in 5th yet - can you explain?

Didn't I just call it ineffable? Well, whatever, best guess, it's combining all these abilities:

- Thieves' cant
- Cunning Action/Fast Hands
- Second-Story Work
- Expertise placed in thieves' tools, stealth, and sleight of hand

Basically all of these together combine to make my character feel like an actual thief-acrobat. Thieves' Cant may be a purely fluff language, for example, but it adds to the "feel" of being a thief.

As well my son, Cunning Action makin' the tea-leaf all wagony paints a perfect picture of a tea-leaf scrammin' from the fuzz, aye? Add in a bit a' the Second-Story Work and things be Desperate Dan. Scamperin' up a length a' coil full tilt an nickin' the purse of some strawberry seals the deal.

>>50756025
>Allocating percentage chances to climbing walls and picking locks didn't feel like a thief to you?

I mean, sort of? But percentages aren't the sort of things I want to deal with when I'm a thief, at least not in that context. If I'm dealing with percentages, I want it to be that I'm making sure I'm getting my cut of the loot.

>>50756025
>In 4e, you'd have to not only figure out whether to use an ability check or a skill check

I can't ever remember using an ability check in 4e. You sure that was a thing?

>but in addition to setting a DC you'd also have to decide on a numerical bonus/penalty based on circumstance

This is 3rd edition's shtick, in 4e, as far as I have seen, you don't have situational modifiers for skill rolls. At least, I never seen any used. The "worst" is having a skill/power that gives a bonus for certain applications of a skill, but those are discrete.

/5eg/ can I get some feedback on my wilderness encounter table.
I'm working on a hexcrawl campaign inspired by the West Marches and I'm trying to come up with random tables to fill out the world as my players explore it.
My design philosophy is the map is divided into regions and each region has a level range and a type of creature associated with it (i.e. the forest to the northwest is infested with goblins)
Its still a WIP but heres what I have so far:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL2e9bFUXztmrl87uvcrllbr7zrRrlzpN2688im-NQA/edit?usp=sharing

>>50756025
well your description of 5E makes it sound pretty fucking light too, so...

4th - raw stat vs skills I don't remember ever being an issue, although it's been a while. But deciding the bonus/penalty seems no more work than deciding a DC.

I think the telling thing is
>DM (after significant thought)
because I can (or could) decide on and spit out all that info in a couple of seconds within a couple of sessions of running 4th. So I guess to me it just wouldn't make much of a difference, and it's a GM issue rather than a system issue.

>>50756038
Where could I find some of the playtest stuff to see if it's worth adding back in?

>>50756043
> 5e combat is often really repetitive

This seems related to the above, lol

>>50756049
Oh, rather pointedly note that none of those abilities are Sneak Attack. I do like me some Sneak Attack, but the fact that the 5e Rogue is centered around other abilities is what makes it feel more distinct as a class.

Like, as great as Sneak Attack is, the class really seems to revolve more around Cunning Action, at least in practice (or at least in my practice). And that's the trick: a thief CAN find himself in combat, but he shouldn't BE a combat class. Most previous editions have revolved around giving the Thief more to do with Sneak Attack, but my personal philosophy has always been that if you're a thief, and you're making an attack roll against a creature, then you've probably fucked up somewhere.

>>50756072
>>50756081
>Pretty fucking light
Yes, but in a more usable way, from a DM's perspective. I've DM'd both for years, loved both, but that's the advantage 5e has. Again, if you haven't DM'd 5e, I ask you to trust me unless someone else tells you otherwise.

>Ability checks vs skill checks
Ability checks were used for any attempt not covered by a skill. Lifting a large rock is a strength check in any edition.

>Bonus/penalty, DC
Sure, it's not a ton of work, but it's more than JUST setting a DC. And in 4e, DCs had to scale with level or become meaningless. 5e avoids this.

>After significant thought
It was only significant in this case because I purposely presented the most retarded situation I could think of. In practice, it's typically easy to make a snap decision on whether or not a proficiency applies to a situation.

>>50756094
Interestingly, I had an entirely opposite experience. Basically, because of SA, and the way SA works, anything I could do in combat that wasn't attacking (with SA) fell to the wayside, since it was comparatively less and less useful as the character became higher leveled. By the same token, cunning action's best use was to get advantage by hiding (except for that one time I had to use it to kite a big dumb ogre that crit two party members into being knocked out).

Sure, I could steal stuff, sure I could climb/sneak, but combat was pretty damn boring and rote.

Newfag here, no one in my group has played D&D before. Should I use one of the pre-built campaigns or would it be alright to make up my own one?

>>50756128
I'd recommend pre-built

>>50756072
>Ability check or skill check
Yeah, there was a difference, due to skills expecting +5 from proficiency that raw ability checks would never get. On the other hand, the difference only showed up in the table

>>but in addition to setting a DC you'd also have to decide on a numerical bonus/penalty based on circumstance

The rather comprehensive table that told you what DC would be easy, moderate, or hard based on what level of challenge you were looking for and whether that challenge was a skill check or an ability check. Assuming you're using a homebrew version of the table or the proper one of the many errata'd versions of that table, anyway. So all you had to do was decide how difficult the task should be and if that wasn't precise enough, then you could give that a +2 or -2 to fine tune it.

5E no longer distinguishes between skill checks and ability checks and with bounded accuracy, the table with values changing for every few levels is now one guideline with values applicable at every level. It's definitely easier than 4e to some degree, but it's not like 4E's was hard.

>>50756128
If your group has played other RPGs before and you have an experienced DM do whatever, but otherwise pre-built is probably better for easing people in

>>50756118
>just believe me lol

nice counterargument fuckboy

>>50756128
It's all right to make up your own. But from what I hear, it's easier and possibly educational to start with Lost Mines of Phandelver.

>>50756140
Like I said - 4e wasn't super hard. 5e just does it in a smoother way. It doesn't even necessarily make play faster, but it's less mentally taxing for the DM because there are fewer moving parts. And anyone who's DMd a 6-hour session knows you need to conserve those resources.

>>50756128

Start with pre-built, Lost Mines of Phandelver is a good one to get started with.

>>50756120
Really? Becasue I have gotten ALL the mileage from:

- Move
- Attack (possibly SA)
- Sleight of Hand to steal something from whoever I attacked (Fast Hands)
- Following turn, attack (possibly SA), then Disengage and Dash, possibly while going "nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!" and running with whatever I stole held up above my head.

>>50756161
What do you want me to say? I have experience, they don't, and they're asking a question. If I haven't explained it satisfactorily after a couple of attempts, they have to either trust my judgment or ask someone else, as I also suggested.
If you're only here to swear like a 12-year-old and be edgy on 4chins, don't bother replying.

>>50756118
>Yes, but in a more usable way, from a DM's perspective. I've DM'd both for years, loved both, but that's the advantage 5e has. Again, if you haven't DM'd 5e, I ask you to trust me unless someone else tells you otherwise.

I still can't see as it makes any real difference, sorry. My experience as a GM for 3.5, 4th, a bunch of other systems, and a 5E player is telling me it's pretty much the same in terms of GM workload/usability.

>>50756162
>because there are fewer moving parts
That is a really great description for a lot of 5E's changes.

This is just making me want a 4th/5th hybrid.

>>50756138
>>50756155
>>50756162
>>50756166
Thanks! I'll check it out.

>>50756187
Process in 3-4:
1. Decide whether any skill applies
2. If not, decide which ability applies
3. Set DC, scaling with level despite the unrealism
4. Set modifiers

Process in 5e:
1. Pick ability score
1b. Approve/disapprove player proficiency suggestion
2. Set DC (ignoring level entirely)
3. Set advantage/disadvantage (a non-numerical step)

>>50756204
We all do. :/

>>50756204
> This is just making me want a 4th/5th hybrid.

I've been wanting that for years now.

>>50756204
Some day anon. Maybe the hacks currently working for wizards will get fired and 6th will deliver

>>50756232
>>50756228
>>50756218
three people in /5eg/ agreeing on something?

Heading down to the apocalypse bunker boys, it's been fun.

>>50755838
>4e
More balanced.
Tactical combat with minimal input from DM.
Rules light outside of combat.
There's a clear divide between combat ability and outside-combat ability, oddly. They all do really weird things such as 'teleport this far, then attack, then make an ally attack', and this lends almost no out of combat use other than 'I want to use this ability to teleport'.
More customization in terms of magic items.
>5e
Less balanced, but still balanced. Generally, casters tend to have more utility.
Tactical combat is completely possible, but requires the DM to make fights interesting by appropriately constructing combat (nothing that wouldn't make sense, though) and the players to put thought into their actions.
Rules light outside combat.
Abilities have a clearer, more general use, mostly with regards to casters. Unlike my experience of playing a high-level caster in 4e, you get abilities that let you affect people's minds or fabricate items or force people to tell the truth. I think I never got to see all the possible extra rituals, but I'm not sure any of those rituals would have the same sort of impacts.
Magic items are supposed to be rare, showing up where the DM decides. Many DMs end up giving out magic items which unbalances and power bloats the party. Lower magic focus, I'd say, but can be played high-magic.
Oddly harder to master the rules, I think, always finding new weird exceptions/trivias such as 'melee weapon attacks don't always use weapons'.

>>50756179

How is this useful? You can't steal anything that the enemy is actually holding, and you'd be able to rob them once you defeat them anyway.

Possibly, if he has a consumable he really wants to use but hadn't yet and isn't in his hand I guess. Not something that happens often in my experience.

>>50756232
>tfw Cook and Mearls will never die

>>50756253
>You can't steal anything that the enemy is actually holding

I tend to open combat this way. High dexterity means that I move first, so there's pretty good odds that I will, for example, literally steal the guy's sword from his sheath before he has a chance to draw it.

>>50756249
Thanks, this is a great outline of differences.

My problem is being frustrated with how long 4th could take, but not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water. Compounding it, I've gotten very mixed feedback on 5th - some people I know who liked 4th like 5th even better, and some people who hated 4th don't like 5E much better, and everything in between.

>>50753235
re fluffed warlock

>>50756012
>>50756038
>Martials were more interesting and grognards didn't like it.
what? thats not what the problem was. the problem was past level 3 or whatever you were rolling a million dice for your one attack a turn. it was rocket tag, with some flexibility to combat that was never as important as hitting someone with a rocket.
and i love the playtest.
but they took it another direction, yes, in part because of grognards.

>>50756305
Where can I find the playtest stuff purely out of historical curiosity?

>>50756283
From a dm perspective, 5e seems to be good if your players avoid picking martials their first time.

Martials are super fucking boring after three sessions or so if you aren't creative, and they really take an experienced roleplayer to play in an engaging and entertaining way.

Meanwhile, casters are pretty easy to play in an entertaining and engaging way because spells are great improvisation prompts.

Either way though, I feel like 5e lacks some depth, which can hurt is king term entertainment value. I know I'm getting bored of it 2 years in.

>>50756283
I'd say 5e is good if you want a campaign that has less of a combat focus, and 4e if there's more of a combat focus, so I can understand some variation.

>>50756330
Iirc it's in the mega.

>>50756305
I didn't say the grognards were WRONG.

>>50756346
I had a party consisting of an EK, a barbarian, a monk, and a cleric who only used spells for problem-solving like once a session. It was a great game and everybody loved their character.

>>50756376
>I didn't say the grognards were WRONG.
lol fair enough
i wish they hadn't won on some things though. i didn't need 5e to redo the wheel again like 4e did, in fact, i think going from 4e to another unprecedented dnd might have been bad. but i wish they had kept certain things from the playtest, like how weird the warlock and sorcerer were (for all of like one packet) and how strong the monk felt.
anyway no point discussing it i suppose.

>>50756376
The grognards were definitely wrong.

Anyways, give me some more information about your party:

Was it their first time, or were they experienced roleplayers?
How long did that party last?

>>50756218
That's true, but it doesn't describe the actual thought that has to go into a good skill process.

For a good process, you also have to decide if a check is appropriate, what success means, what failure means, if there's extra degrees of success or failure like near-success or near-failure, then set the DC and decide if advantage or disadvantage applies. I think a lot more brainpower goes into the non-numerical aspects. Which is to the benefit of systems which require less brainpower to handle the numbers.

>>50756249
>force people to tell the truth.
Technically, Zone of Truth forces people to not tell lies. Subtle but important distinction, mainly that they still don't have to tell you anything at all.

>>50756436

>Implying most parties won't simply resort to torturing uncooperative enemies at the drop of a hat.

My monk doesnt know about the birds and the bees. She only knows that men and women get together and make babies but doesnt know how its done. How do I roleplay this?

>>50756454
I was about to comment on the ineffectiveness of torture, and how it usually results in more false info than true info.

But then I remembered the zone of truth and have finally figured out the purpose of that spell beyond court testimony.

Torture chambers.

>>50756415
Two of the players (EK and barb) had considerable experience. EK was the de-facto leader of the party and barb was really just there to hit things and drink mead, but could roleplay like a beast when the circumstances were right.
Cleric and monk were first-timers. The cleric became a beloved character with a well-developed family background that actually almost made us cry when he threw his compass into the river (long story). The monk was absolute shite at first but learned quickly and became a contributing member of the party that didn't drag the game down and provided some good roleplaying (and out-of-combat utility, if you're into that sort of thing).
The game lasted for two years. The cleric was there for much or most of it, and the monk for about eight months.

>>50756420
I suppose I agree. But that still tips it somewhat in 5e's favor, because it lets the DM concentrate on whether a check is appropriate, what success/failure mean, etc.
Advantage and disadvantage are rarely hard. Unless there are obvious extraordinary circumstance, you shouldn't even think about them.

>>50756537
Then I ask you to reread the post you first responded to:
>>50756346


What you just described is pretty much in line with it.

Experienced roleplayers played the martials, and the inexperienced martial was at first stumped.

File: kanyeunimpressed.gif (499KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x400px

>>50756049
>tea-leaf scrammin' from the fuzz, aye?
>tea-leaf
>scrammin'
>from the fuzz
>aye?

That's an impressive amount of dialectical butchery for seven words.

>>50756012
There were things, in the playtest, that shouldn't even have been written down.
The Arcane Archer feat is the most egregious example, with great flavor, and much more fun than the overly watered down version we have gotten last month, but it fucks up the action economy in simple, easily fixable ways, that make it extremely overpowered.

The real issue is that there could be something in between the crazy ass playtest, and the blandness of the rules we're getting now.

>>50753235
Fluffed up sorcerer or the homebrewed engineer.

>>50756596
You aren't actually making it any easier for me to choose between 4th and 5th : /

>>50756634
just pick whatever people around you play, thats my advice

>>50756634

Personally, I really like 5E. Give it a try. If it's unsatisfying, try out 4.

>>50756634
For a change, we weren't trying to! And that's a vast improvement from the usual trolls vs circlejerk that happens when people ask this question. Maybe it's because people in California aren't posting yet.
Look, if you really want advice, look for a 5e game for the sole reason that it's easier to make characters and start playing. If you don't like it, you can always try 4e.

>>50756634
>>50756708
And if you like 3.PF, definitely try 5e first, because 5e is to 3.PF as Christianity is to Judaism - same basic principle, but with a simple presentation and 80% of the rules thrown out.

File: 1320778265718.jpg (9KB, 200x227px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x227px

>tfw the group consisting of friends broke apart and you are now faced for the first time with either no play or the whole process of finding a new group of players you can actually stand

Just got home from a session, my group makes me hate DMing. I used to love it. Playing with 2 "seasoned" players, that DM for other groups, and 3 new players and the worst part is it's the seasoned players that are ruining the fun. Just not wanting to go on quests with the rest of the party, not playing their alignments, playing every encounter like it is a MMO DPS race, letting them play in a open world where they can go anywhere and then complain about being railroaded when they get given a quest, wanting to race through every session, ignoring the world/lore/story and then complaining that there is nothing for them to do, unless they find one random paserby and wants to know everything about them. One of them will insight every single answer an NPC gives or thinks a high roll can accomplish anything, including knowing ancient magic and items that haven't been seen for thousands of years.

That's my rant, just don't make your DMs hate the game.

File: rsz_1rsz_steampunk-cowboy-12-1_3891.jpg (110KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 350x335px

>>50755028
>>50755273
The problem with applying DnD rules to a western is that in Westerns 'fights' are immediately resolved in the blink of an eye of whoever draws their weapon first. I've tried various ways to recapture that 'feel' in DnD but it can't really be done well.

So if you're happy having every firefight be a protracted slogfest instead of how it goes in Western movies then its fine. Every character being ranged would also be boring. I'd recommend inventing some world-building pretext to justify anachronistic swords and stuff otherwise combat would be pretty bland.

>>50756884
Western movies often feature duels like this, but it's not how all fights happen. Very often there ARE prolonged firefights, especially if you're attacked by Indians with cover available or there's a battle between two factions in a town.

>>50755028
>>50756884
idk if this has been done for 5e yet but i feel like you could get close to capturing it somehow by heavily leaning on speed factor (dmg p. 270), and making a few different (kinds?) of guns that have different speed factors (and maybe make drawing a weapon an important speed factor action), i.e. revolver is fast, machine gun is slow but can attack multiple targets/times/whatever. but also somehow have them become really personal and you would need to write a lot more character abilities that interact with that (quick draw, hammer fanning, etc).
and then of course have a lot of damage, which is going to make it so that you need to make your pcs figure out non combat ways of solving things, or how to get the drop on people. or just be sure they'll win a duel.
but theres a named fallacy about that that gets thrown around here about combat being dangerous. forget what its called.

>>50756976
Sounds like you'd want a completely different system for this sort of gameplay, with things like more dodging options.

Sounds kinda dark heresy-ish.

>>50757036
yeah i think it just depends on what you want. idk why someone asked about wild west in 5e, but if you were going to do it, thats what i would try to hack together.

>>50754453
I would say allow them to do this as an action, taxing themselves to the extreme right now, in order to gain the benefits of a rest. However, being able to recharge on short-rest stuff mid fight would clearly be broken, so you'd have to up the challenge, and you'd be punishing players who rely more on long rests.

Has anyone considered adapting 5e for the Discworld setting? Fiddle the races around a little and I feel like it could work well.

>>50754453
i would say yes because of what >>50755540 said and exhaustion just isn't worth taking on if you can help it.
maybe let them do once per day quick short rest, where they need to spend 2 hd to heal 1 hd or something.

>>50756634
If you want it to be an easy choice:
>4e is best with a tactical map, doesn't really work without
>5e flows quite well with Theather of the Mind
For all their differences, that's the thing that no amount of good DMing can change.
Do you usually play with or without a map and miniatures?

>>50755948
From what I can tell, one gives you maneuvers but you can't use all your fancy fighter weapons as monk weapons. The other doesn't have maneuvers but you get three more weapons that you can use as monk weapons.

>>50757084
I don't think you should run games in Discworld. The setting doesn't lend itself to mechanics or game balance; it's an EXTREMELY narrative-driven world.

>>50757502
To be fair, 5e also works well with a grid. It's just not necessary.

File: 317cloudgiant.jpg (289KB, 738x1345px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 738x1345px

What Item rarity should this be?

"Properties: While wearing this cloak, you have advantage on saves against natural and magical Acid, Cold, Disease, Fire, Lightning, Poison and Thunder.
You remain comfortable in temperatures ranging from 150°F to -50°F, or -100° if dressed heavily."

And should it require attunement? I'm leaning towards no.

>>50755375
>''I was born and raised as a competent swordsman, I love swords. I start the game with a 1d6 longsword my father gave me. Life is good.''
>loot the battered battleaxe from a bandit's corpse five minutes later -- player sees that it does 1d8 damage (which is an abstraction in and of itself, and not something inherently knowable to the PC).
>''fuck this I'm going to use that battleaxe because I feel that it may hurt the enemy more.''

Picking the best option mechanically, objectively, is not the same as picking the most *suitable* option, subjectively. Your claim that everyone always does what is best for them, is simply not true, nor can you always know what is ''the best''.

In your eyes, I assume the BBEG underestimating the PCs is ''bad role-playing'' as well, since it's obviously not in his self-interest when it comes to surviving a fight to the death, right?

>>50757539
>Longsword
>1d6
Pick one and only one.

>>50757529
this doesnt quite make sense
>you have advantage on saves against natural and magical Acid, Cold, Disease, Fire, Lightning, Poison and Thunder.
>rarity? attunement?
just depends heavily on your campagin. rarity doesn't matter unless you have a magic item shop, in which case it still doesn't matter. are you asking to put it on dms guild?
and the weather effects just really depend on the campaign in terms of power.

>>50757581
Nah, it was just for my own private campaign. I'll just list it as Rare without Attunement for purposes of my own.

>>50756708
>Maybe it's because people in California aren't posting yet.
Hey. I'm in California. But I work graveyard shift. So goodnight.

>>50757529
It should absolutely require attunement, because it's Boots of Hinterland on crack. And it's on enough crack that it should be at least rare, and possibly very rare if it confers damage resistance (not clear from your wording).

>>50757527
>5e also works well with a grid
Aye, that be true, but which rpg works WORSE with a grid? 5e is just about the same, with a (proper and to-scale) map and miniatures, or with a sketch looking like an old map, with no space for minis.

4e still has the advantage because it has the best D&D comic, and it's possible to make 'interesting' combat encounters, like in the comic, happen.
Ofc, 5e still doesn't have a comic, it might edge the old favorite out, but it would be quite a feat!

>>50757529
>>50757601
That's a lot of saves the wearer will then make, but if you're DM knock yourself out I guess.

>>50757635
It clearly does not confer damage resistance, as you can easily read from my wording.

The Boots confer damage resistance to cold and ignore difficult terrain. I agree they should be rare.

>>50757539
The whole point of not escalating magic items is that you DO stay with your father's sword, because out-of-character you picked that sword for its mechanical benefit and in-character you never have a reason to switch.

>>50757615
Graveyard shift people are chill as fuck. Have a good night, anon.

>>50757645
When I DMd 5e, I occasionally did away with the playmat and we just moved the minis around the table, using cups and dice boxes as terrain features. It was hella fun.

>>50757550
Even ignoring the fact that the dmg of the longsword is completely irrelevant to the point he is making, it is well within the realm of plausibility that a rusted family heirloom longsword would do 1d6 instead of 1d8. Take your autism goggles off mate

>>50756838
Find a new game anon. lifes too short to have it spoiled by those fucks.

>>50757651
Yes, that's the clear intention, to allow them to make a lot of elemental saves, while not providing Full Magic Resistance as per items like the Spellshield or the Robes of the Archmagi or Scarab or whatever.

File: DE-RULER[1].jpg (71KB, 870x900px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 870x900px

>>50757645
Does anyone use rulers and free movement? I was thinking about a nice compass the other day.

Grids aren't doing it for you either, admit it

>>50757688
hex is refreshing. but yeah, youre mostly right.

>>50757529
>While wearing this cloak, you have advantage on saves against natural and magical Acid, Cold, Disease, Fire, Lightning, Poison and Thunder.

What does this mean? You don't say what kind of lightning, fire, etc. Any damage? including spells and natural attacks? Just natural attacks? As written it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Definitely requires attunement and is rare though.

>>50757668
If that was the intention, then yes, we can both agree they should be rare. But I'd argue that an item that provides a continuous bodily effect like weather immunity should still require attunement, based on browsing through existing items.

>>50757683
If that was the case the player wouldn't have picked it in the first place because nobody roleplays THAT hard.

>>50757688
4e would feel less gamey then.

>>50757683
>Even ignoring the fact that the dmg of the longsword is completely irrelevant to the point he is making
But it's not. One handed weapons intended for use with a shield do 1d8 across the board, sometimes with a d10 versatile.

More damaging weapons have drawbacks like requiring both hands.

So honestly that sort of situation doesn't come up.
>it is well within the realm of plausibility that a rusted family heirloom longsword
Then it's a damaged old antique that deserves to be hung on a mantle, not defending your life in the wilderness.

So my transmutation wizard just bumped up to level 5 and I'm debating what 3rd level spells to get. Was thinking counterspell (not my favorite, but its indispensable) and haste.

>>50757601
for sure. rare sounds reasonable.

>>50757708
>What does this mean?
It means whenever you are subjected to a hazard or magical effect with that descriptor, and are entitled to a saving throw, you get to roll twice and take the better result.
I don't feel it's that complicated.

>>50757711
He could have picked the sword up, then Ship of Theseused the blade with a new, improved, possibly magical, blade.

>>50757789
and yes that includes attacks, such as a burning oil traps and electric eels and what have you.

whats the most iconic fictional character for each class?

barbarian and ranger are easy, but what about everything else?

>>50757700
Pic related just seems perfect. Much preferred ruler to grid when we tried, though hex does sound reasonable- I've just set up a map with hex for for sailing once, made more sense than grid

>>50757819
check out the bonegrinder from curse of strahd.

Old witches in a coven using an abandoned mill to grind chilcdrens bones to dust for tasty - and cursed - confections.

>>50757819
https://www.patreon.com/posts/6876260

Image is over the size limit, enjoy.

File: compass-9173249[1].jpg (73KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 957x1300px

>>50757844
Sorry, this was pic related. Compass with little ruler built in, anyone know the proper name for them by the way?

>>50757840
Kanye West - Bard

>>50757844
my biggest complain when busting out the rulers is how much it slows down gameplay because of 'that guy' trying to be too tactical and shit. Usually a WH40k player.

File: steampunk-mercenary1.jpg (48KB, 347x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 347x480px

Does anybody have any good rules for a special-ammunition-based character? Matt Mercer's gunslinger seems a bit lackluster. I'm envisaging a steampunk type character that can load different cartridges or types of grenades into his gun/crossbow for different effects. I was thinking some weird combination of battlemaster fighter and eldritch knight, but I really don't want to be that guy that homebrews an OP class.

Suggestions or resources would be appreciated.

>>50757867
>dont wanna be that guy that homebrews an OP class

then dont. homebrew a balanced class. something like a mix of an arcane archer and an alchemist of sorts. Using bombs with different payloads to achieve different effects. tanglefoot bags, alchemist fires, knockdown bolts, ect.

>>50757789
>I don't feel it's that complicated.

It's confusing because 5E uses very precise wording and your wording was unclear since you didn't include the word damage. I assumed that's what you meant but in that case it was unclear what kind of damage source it applied to. Of course it's not complicated when you know what you meant to say, but I only have words on a screen.

That said, if it applies to any saving throw that involves elemental damage.. I'd probably make it very rare as its a pseudo-spell resistance. Doesn't work against all magic but it does work on lots of things spell resistance doesn't.

File: ruined-tower.jpg (3MB, 2428x1796px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2428x1796px

I haven't been playing D&D much, despite decades of RPing so I'd love some help.

I need a (couple) decent "Abandoned Tower" style adventure/module/map to work with and pull inspiration from for a little bit of a side "quest" for my group.

Any edition or red headed step child of D&D works. I just want some inspiration the stats and mechanics I'll rework myself.

Thanks for the help.

>>50757845
>>50757862
Thank you for the suggestions.

File: JayJay.png (290KB, 464x2163px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 464x2163px

Help with a CR calc?

>>50757900
It isn't necessarily damage, as diseases and some poisons (and even some rare elemental effects) inflict Conditions.

And unlike Spell Resistance, it offers no protection against Radiant/Necrotic/Force or a large number of enchantment/transmutation/ect spell effects.

>>50757999
The grammar/spelling Nazis better not find you in your attic.

>>50758056
I copied some of the class features from a scan of the PHB, please spare me

>>50757789
While wearing this cloak, you have advantage on saves against effects and spells that deal Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Poison and Thunder damage and against diseases.
There, fixed. Although now you have the problem of the cape doing nothing against attacks that deal elemental damage and don't require saves. Maybe just damage resistance across the board?

>>50757999
>The jay jay can take 1 legendary action...

>>50758089
It not offering Damage Resistance is intentional, as I don't intend it to be as powerful as a Very Rare item.
It's supposed to be an item enchanted mainly to protect against environmental hazards and not direct attacks, by fluff.

>>50758036

It isn't necessarily damage, as diseases and some poisons (and even some rare elemental effects) inflict Conditions.

An excellent point and another reason you should have at least a sentence detailing what it DOES protect you from. Such as "...damage. This can include spells, inflicted conditions, traps, natural hazards, and the natural attacks of creatures such as dragons."

>And unlike Spell Resistance, it offers no protection against Radiant/Necrotic/Force or a large number of enchantment/transmutation/ect spell effects.

Yes, which is why I said that it's more limited than spell resistance when it comes to magic. It does, however, protect you against things like traps (magical or otherwise), the breath weapon of a dragon, environmental hazards, and so on.

File: 1319902157183.jpg (27KB, 448x318px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 448x318px

>>50757999
>the following benelils
cr of 20, i do say.

>>50758127
Shit, i forgot to make him a unique dude.

>>50758175
I want to know more about scentences.

File: archerfemale (153).jpg (51KB, 520x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 520x600px

>>50758164
>"Properties: While wearing this cloak, you have advantage on your saving throws against the effects of natural and magical Acid, Cold, Disease, Fire/Heat, Lightning, Poison and Thunder.
>You remain comfortable in temperatures ranging from 150°F to -50°F, or -100° if dressed heavily."
Better?

>>50758263
There's no such thing as an 'effect of Cold' or any other of those things. They are 'damage types' as per PHB p. 196.

>>50758263
>>50758299
Yeah. There is also the effects of hot and cold weather, but not acid weather.

Just how cliche is the "Prisoner turns out to be royalty" plotline?

Reintroducing some cucks to DnD on Saturday, and am looking for the most capeshit idea to lure them in.

>>50758263
>>50758299

What is an 'effect of Cold' according to your made-up definition that doesn't exist in DnD 5th edition? How is anyone supposed to know this?
For example the spell Sleet Storm doesn't deal cold damage but requires people in a 40-ft cylinder to make a dex save or fall prone. Your cloak does nothing against that because it's not a 'Cold' effect.

>>50757529
>>50757708
>>50757789
>>50757900
>>50758036
>>50758164
>>50758263
>>50758299
>>50758299
>"You have resistance against acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison and thunder damage.
>Additionally, you have advantage on saving throws against poison and diseases, and you don't suffer the effects of extreme heat or extreme cold."

There. Resistance for damage, advantage against effects.

If you get advantage on saving throws, it's either those against certain effects (breath weapons, frightening presence, disease), or ones using a certain ability.

File: 1480300663126.jpg (45KB, 420x564px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 420x564px

What if, when I'm GM-ing CoS, I have Strahd's demon horse use his etherealness ability to allow Strahd to pass through walls into a residence - is this okay without an invitation? How about if he doesn't enter the real plane, but stays ethereal to spy? Could even hang out just "outside" the border to listen in to the conversation inside, right?
He's found the PCs, but he's unsure what their plans are, so he's trying to find out where they're taking Ireena. If his minions can't recover her from indoors, and he can't use the charm->won't you invite me in? Trick (PCs have learnt from last time), I'm trying to think of ways he would keep on top of their activities. >>50758464

>>50758464
Quite, but your players will expect the prisoner to be somehow plot important in some way, so it doesn't matter.

File: Yuanti (214).jpg (38KB, 564x482px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 564x482px

>>50758507
>"You have advantage on saves against acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison and thunder damage.
>Additionally, you have advantage on saving throws against poison and diseases, and you don't suffer the effects of extreme heat or extreme cold."

I want it to offer a warding effect that improves your chances against Firestorms, Dragon Breath and the like.
I do not intend for it to reduce damage from sticking your hands into lava.

>>50758566
NOPE. nigga needs to be let in, thats cheating.

>>50758464
Didn't mean to link >>50758566

But seeing as I did, I'd say that even though it's cliché, it's totally fine to throw into d&d. As long as you're having fun, and it's not supposed to be a secret your players won't guess, it'll be fine!

>>50757999
Eh, CR 3 maybe.

Enemies designed using player rules are all glass cannons, generally, and he's pretty useless once he's out of spells.

>>50758583
>>50758637

With how I'm developing the story, and their lack of experience in roleplaying, I highly doubt they will find the character to be significant.

They all convene in a tavern after sailing with a trading guild for a few months, and some rando drops a bag of shit in front of them. Invitations, access passes, fine clothes, and notably a Kris with an unknown vial of liquid.

Assuming they make it in time, this would lead them to a party in the upper crust which inevitably leads to a cult sacrifice, which neither the players or NPCs know the prisoner to be a royal family member and rightful heir to the throne.

My hope is to lead them into a path where they stab the prisoner with the Kris coated in the liquid, but I doubt they will even make the 4 day trek to the city and be on time.

If I'm not obvious about the prisoners significance, would they feel burned at the thought of it once its revealed?

So I have a player whos character has a curiosity for the cursed and collects cursed items. I never quite felt that the whole cursed item as a trap, as it harkens back to old editions, in item form is that fun. So instead I have items, though cursed and need something extra to release their bound on an attunement, have negative qualities along side the positive.

Now it also happens that items which are cursed usually have some sort of entity bound to them that tries to manipulate of afflic their wearer but that don't always have to remain a negative.

Any way here's two examples and what do you think of them?

Ring of Gnawing Hunger.

A thick heavy rough dull grey iron band, scruffed up and worn, the inside of the ring seems to have been continuously chewed at.

Properties: Cursed, Hunger, Parasite, Sustenance, Thoughness.

Cursed: Once attuned it can't be removed (that is from the attunement slot).

Hunger. The attuned needs to eat twice as much as normal, or risk fatigue twice as fast and twice as gard from starvation.

Parasite. The attuned halves all healing from all sources (spells, potions, hit dice).

Sustenance. Consuming a full meal restores a Hit Dice (halved per Parasite) of health to the attuned.

Thoughness. The attuned Constitution score is increased by 2 while attuned to the ring, to a maximum of 20.

The idea being that there's a sturdy demon of hunger and gluttony bound with in it. It will also try to influence the character, mainly to eat things that the character generally would not eat (heart of an enemy, rotten food, a sweet smelling child).

That's one.

>>50758795
>Cont.

Second one.

Laughing in the Face of Danger.

A metal theaters mask, its facial expression contorted in a mad mocking laughter.

Properties: Cursed, Fearless, Impulsive, Quickened.

Cursed: Once attuned it can't be removed (that is from the attunement slot).

Fearless. The attuned is immune to being frightened.

Impulsive. The attuned gains advantaged on their initiative rolls and a disadvantage on their wisdom checks and saves, also their passive perception is lowered by 5.

Quickened. The attuned Dexterity score increases by 2 while attuned to the mask, to a maximum of 20, and their on foot traveling speed increases by 10 feet.

The idea here is that a very carefree, adventurous and higly capricious (chaotic) Fey has been locked with in the item and lend sit nature to the wearer also influencing them to enjoy life like it would (which might be highly dangerous).

There, what do you think?

>>50758780
Hold on for a sec.
The players will find a cult, doing human sacrifices, while investigating the nobles of the court, with the news of the heir missing buzzing around...
and you expect them to do the deed themselves, because someone was grooming them to join the cult?
If they let the cultist scapegoat them so easily, they are asking for some sort of gulag-based (or maybe afterlife-based) adventure.

>>50756884
The solution is to make guns as lethal (that is: not very) as _____bows are considered in regular D&D.

Oh, you got shot. Well, that's just 10 damage, you can keep fighting.

>>50757672
How do you know that? I wanted a dude who fought with swords, not battleaxes, even if battleaxes offer statistically higher damage.

I think it's more *suitable* for the *character* I want to portray, optimization is a determent if it impedes the vision I try to create for my character.

>>50753381
Oathbreaker paladin/necromancer synergy detected

>>50753185
Does anyone feel like the 5e modrons are trying too hard to be minions from Despicable Me?

It's awfully unfortunate.

>>50759136
I was unaware they've chained significantly from past editions.

>>50759122
Yeah, but it's still quite hard to play the zombie horde master without any angry mob going after you, or other social issues, it's an Antagonist class.
And as an enemy... who cares, the DM could just increase the damage the zombies do, if they aren't strong enough to fight the party.

Relatively inexperienced GM here (I have about 10 sessions under my belt now)

I might want to make a part of my next session where the party gets to a heavily guarded building, but they can actually stealth through it if they are careful and avoid combat altogether. However, I want this to be a tad more than 'roll a stealth check' and such. (FYI there are no rogues and one wears heavy armor)

Like, I want the guards to patrol the area, so most of them walk a certain set route and they leave openings that the party can exploit. How would I go about this? Just let them roll for initiative and then have them take turns?

>>50758964
No.

They intercept invitations to a echelon gala. Their purpose there is initiates of the cult, leading to receiving a lions share of the wealth of the capital.

The demagogues of the city are all part of the cult, and require their members to sacrifice a member of the city as a means of pruning the population.

The prisoners are grabbed at random based on their job and status. The royal prisoner happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The idea is that the parcel was meant for another group of travelers, and it is intended for them to intentionally "kill" the prisoner.

The mission is perhaps too high stakes for a first, but I like the idea of giving them a jolt into a story they weren't a part of until someone mistook them for the hero.

>>50753206
Okay, now you just need to add the base price on items, and the damage on weapons. It will be awesome once that is in.

File: dnd kobold in a davy crockett cap 3.png (85KB, 420x437px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 420x437px

>>50753185
Any Adventurer's League fans here?

Anyone got the Iron Baron Epic PDF?

File: tarot_card__knight_of_staff_by_zionenciel.jpg (156KB, 622x877px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 622x877px

>>50753185
Can an eldritch knight attune to any of the staves that say 'attunement by wizard'?
What staffs can EKs even use, if any?

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Permanency_(5e_Spell)
Is this an okay spell to include in a setting? I'm real wary about DnD wiki shit but this seems so cost prohibitive that no PC could use it but it would mean my shit has an in universe explanation for why some shit works like it does other than "I say so".

>>50759197
Usually the guy with an army of undead runs the good people out of town, not the other way around. That's why they're always hiring adventurers and your party doesn't roll up to the local tavern and hear, "Oh, you guys shoulda been here two weeks ago. We finally armed ourselves with pitchforks and torches and stormed the evil necromancer's cave. The sheriff found a +1 longsword, and I've got an amulet of proof against disease and poison!"

File: images.jpg (8KB, 232x209px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 232x209px

I'm making a character for a future campaign and would like some help deciding on which archetype to take. He is gonna be a mountain dwarf rogue, he is going to wear medium armor and wield a rapier and leave his offhand empty to throw daggers with or to switch to some form of long ranged combat. I was originally going to go thief so he could also use his bonus action to throw down / use caltrops, ball bearings, and poitions and flasks of varying sorts. However, recently it dawned on me that swashbuckler might work better since he will be dipping into melee to attack quite frequently. I could also let him dual wield since swashbuckler can dip out of melee without a disengage action. What is /tg/'s thoughts on which would work better?

>>50759269
Ha ha, why would you think Eldritch Knights would get to do anything interesting.

>>50759278
necromancer npc =/= necromancer pc

retard

So what happens to a petitioner after a long time in the various outer planes, I hear they get absorbed into the plane eventually?

>>50759285
Brigand imo.

Basically the jocks of the rogue world.

>>50759302
Yeah, necromancer NPCs are shittier feature- and spell-wise but for their inflated HP totals.

>>50759270
"I say so" is a good enough explanation if you back it up with exposition. Maybe a specific lengthy and costly ritual is the reason why the high cleric seems to be able to speak any language. Or a monthly sacrifice to some Archdevil is why the BBEG has True seeing up all the time.

Magic is what you make of it, when you're in charge of the setting. Not all spells need to come from spell slots.

>>50759269
No, because an eldrich knight is still a fighter and not a wizard. They can attuned to any staff that only specifies attunment by a spellcaster without specifying any classes, or staffs that have no attunment requirements at all.

>>50759285
Thief if you want to rapier (and possibly hand crossobw), swashbuckler if you want to dual wield. Battlemaster fighter is also a possibility, as is reworked ranger

>>50759372
Well that leads to a bigger question: Should all magic in a setting be vancian/abide by the same rules or should there be weird shit that's not the normal.

>>50759428
You should do what's fun and be nice to the EK in your party because he's already playing a shitty archetype in a not-as-fun-as-it-could-be class.

>>50759270
>>50759372
Yeah, it seems like if a PC wanted to make one of their spells permanent, they'd need to take initiative on it and maybe undertake a quest and use a lot of downtime to create an enchanted item.

>>50758931
Speed =/= Dexterity.
Speed is more like the haste spell. Dexterity is about balance and doing things carefully. In fact, if anything, this item might be decreasing dexterity.

Impulsiveness =/= anti-wisdom.
It makes sense it affects the ability to resist charms, but it doesn't make too much sense that it'd make it harder to perceive things. Since wisdom is a highly instinctual thing, you'd expect it to be affecting intellect rather than wisdom as they don't take the time to think.

Those are just about the wording, though. Mechanically, it's fine. I like these things with downsides, so you don't have to change the mechanics. Honestly, I'm just being pedantic about the wording, too.

>>50758795
And, yeah. That's pretty cool.

>>50759443
What's wrong with eldritch knight? I haven't followed the discussion on it.
>>50759462
Could always remove some of the cost in gold and replace it with a rare ingredient that's specific to the spell getting made permanent. Like a permanent Zone of Truth would require a feather from an angel's wing.

>>50759245
I joined the AL community in my area almost two years ago and I love it. Both the community and the adventures are quite fun and wonderful to be a part of. I actually plan to DM and AL campaign sometime next year, and will be DMing some expeditions within the first two weeks of January.

>>50759508
I'd be more of a fan of there being no specific formula to follow. If you want a permanent effect as a PC, you're going to have to quest for it. Step one is even finding out that you need an angel feather.

hey /tg/ i need help balancing a cantrip.

a 1d4 penalty to the next attack targeting you or an ally within 30ft, costs conecntration and a... reaction? bonus action? action? concentration already seems like a big penalty, but thats kind of the point.

or should i reduce the penalty to 1d2 and have it require no concentration? seems way too good without concentration imo...

File: 176241.png (1MB, 900x1164px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x1164px

so what do you guys think about third party books for 5th ed?

I bought this one out of curiosity (plus it was like 5 bucks), and I can't believe this shit actually got a physical print.

>obvious typos left in
>clearly overpowered feats
>feats that were copy/pasted directly from the PHB, just with wording changes that seem mostly unintentional

but it looks like the developer TPK games has a huge catalog of support for 5th edition, how do they get away with this shit?

Is anyone else a bit sad it's not optimal for rogues to use daggers? It's either rapier or double shortswords.

Can y'all help me understand how to build better encounters? For me, a good encounter is one where the players make a lot of hits, but it takes a while to take down the enemies, and the enemies make less hits but the hits can be devastating. I've been running like this for years with this group but now my players are complaining that my encounters are too dangerous and take too long. I've been having fun playing this way, so I don't wanna change it drastically, but I want to compromise.

Right now I'm trying to build some troll encounters, but there will only be two level 7 players. I'm not really sure how I should do it now. Losing confidence after one of my players threw a bitch fit over being scared of an enemy I merely hinted at existing.

>>50759653
>150 feats
>one five zero
Jesus christ, I can already tell it's shit

WotC themselves haven't released even a dozen additional feats, how could these clowns make up a hundred? Is this the shovelware of tabletop?

>>50759615
It doesn't seem to be amazing enough to worry about concentration. Personally I'd rework it to impose the penalty on a targeted creature's attack, not a targeted ally. Set the duration for one full round, or until discharged. Alternetively, you could set the cast action to be a reaction to an attack within 30ft, and just have it impose the penalty on that attack.

At the standard cantrip power-up levels, have it effect one more target.

>>50759324
Oh definitely he is a brigand / strong arm type rogue. He is a good sneak but he is stronger than he is dexterous.

>>50759653
>how do they get away with this shit?
because people like you buy their products

File: Thug Rogue Homebrew v0.2.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50759285
>>50759324
>>50759730
What's a brigand?

>>50759494
Impulsive people are less perceptive. High sensetive (more perceptive people) are less impulsive. I see your point though and will take it into consideration.

Speed and Dexterity was summed up into "Quickness" to reflect the impulsive nature and abilities of the creature bound to the item (inspired by Quicklings of ADoM).

Maybe I should just add a "Mobility" instead and make difficult terrain more easy to handle? Good point. I'll take it into consideration as well.

>>50759508
People get into Eldritch Knight looking for "a proper gish". They hear "Fighter who casts magic" and think of a guy who can swing a sword and hurl fireballs just as well, or they think back to 3E where EKs were a 9/10th spellcasting PrC with Full BAB that really only needed one martial level.

In 5E, everyone is "Full BAB" and EKs are mere 1/3rd spellcasting progression. They are even slower than Paladins and Rangers, who are 1/2. In fact, a Paladin (or a Cleric ffs) makes a better "melee and magic" gish by default than the EK. Compounding this, the EK is incredibly limited in spell selection, having to focus on nukes and self-protections. It's not a class that gets to solve weird exploration puzzles with its arcane mastery or a blaster who incinerates an army of goblins, but a Fighter who blows all of his resources to take less damage. It's a tank archetype, not a magic archetype.

And all the really cool stuff you think you will eventually do with an EK is just never going to come up because games don't get that far. You will be stuck with two, MAYBE three level 2 spells for the last half of your campaign the group falls apart, and all you're going to do with them is concentrate on Blur.

This is compoundied by the Negative Fun Zone that is the Fighter class. Since you're an EK, you can't be a Battlemaster, which is the only official archetype that lets you do something remotely interesting more than once in a blue moon. Anything else you can think of doing to spice up your combat or usefulness to the group outside of that is equally doable by literally anyone else; Fighters aren't special. The class' defining feature, additional Extra Attacks, comes in at 11 and 20. Those are still way past msot groups, meaning you again spend all of your time being no better in a slugfest than the Barbarian, the Monk, the Paladin, whoever. Other classes get your Fighting Styles, so Fighter as it is exists only to grant proficiencies and Action Surge.

>>50759661
If the rogue never finds a magic short sword or rapier, only daggers.. Though I do agree with you.

>>50759718
Thats what i thought, but a lot of people said 1d4 to AC (basically) is too good for a cantrip, so i added the concentration requirement.

Imposing the penalty to attack would work though. Reaction penalty of 1d4 to an attack is also fitting, good thing youre only limited to 1 reaction per turn.

ah yeah, i had forgotten about the power increase at 5th, 11th, ect. Good call.

>>50759685
Long encounters are usually boring for players. You as the DM are acting and doing stuff every turn, while each player is probably only doing one or two things a round, then doing nothing for however long it takes for their turn to roll around again.

If you want big, hard-hitting, singular enemies, play around with giving them fight stages, or limb hp or something. Let the players see their attacks having an effect on the creature, otherwise it's just a slogfest until its HP reaches zero.

You can also try playing with generators online. Set it to low-medium difficulty, see what the generator shits out, then make an encounter around those monsters, however many there are. Let the players have it easy sometimes.

>>50759814
I think you underestimate the utility provided by 2 then 3 cantrips. Going Booming or Green Flame is a waste on a Fighter subclass.

I do agree on the fact that Weapon Bond shouldn't be a thing, though. They coulda gone for something a lot better.

As it is, when you compare Arcane Trickster to Eldritch Knight, it's kinda sad.

>>50759832
How about a stabber feat?
>add ability modifier to off-hand attacks with daggers (if you don't already do so)
>when you sneak attack with a dagger, roll one additional sneak attack damage die
>once per turn when you reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a dagger, you can immediately make a ranged attack by throwing dagger you're holding

Gonna run my players through Tucker's kobolds next session. Any tips?

>>50759269
If your GM agrees.

At what level should a fighter/barb be able to smash through stone with his sword? Monks can run on water at 9 so i'm thinking about somewhere between 8 and 11.

>>50759863
Sounds like a great and much needed incentive.

>>50759768
Brigand :
a member of a gang that ambushes and robs people in forests and mountains.

>>50759393
Good point. I'll probably stick to thief and carry around several traps and flasks / potions to add utility and flavor to my combat style. Plus I like the though of a single rapier with an open off hand for this character as well.

>>50759661
>When you reach Level Whatever, the damage die of any weapon with the Finesse or Light property (that does not also have the Reach property) wielded in your main hand increases to 1d8
hot homebrew just for you, homie
fixes everything

>>50759904
Never

Rock > Scissor

Djinni, Dao, Efretti and Marid as a Four-Generals BBEG fight.

Legendary Resistance 4, shared between them.
Legendary Actions 4, shared between them.

What actions can I give them aside from "One of them makes an attack."

>>50759973
What about with a club then?

>>50759994
hammer anon

You hammer stone

>>50759904
5. It's an Action so now you're replacing two Attacks and is suitably high to avoid dip-for-wallbusting shenanigans, but low enough to actually be used before the game explodes.

File: dragon_cave_2_by_willroberts04-d7w2qkm.jpg (4MB, 5000x2813px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5000x2813px

>>50759870
Try to make encounters varied. You want your players to sigh and say "ugh, more kobolds", but you don't want them bored to death by yet another time-consuming, mind-numbing combat.

Keep things moving. If you see your session isn't going as fast or as flamboyantly as you'd expect, throw them a dragon. Take one of the right type and appropriate CR, roleplay it correctly, and crush them hard.

The last time I ran some kind of "Tuckers", my players managed to escape pyromaniacs kobolds and arrived in their mushroom storage cave. For some reason they decided to have a short rest near the elevator-like shaft, and I let them.

They were in for quite a surprise when they decided to move. The cave was surrounded by archer kobolds on countless ledges around it, and I sent them a modified young green dragon. 2 characters fell in combat, and then I sent the dragon head first on a pillar, bringing 3 of them down. The only PC left, a fighter, managed to finish it before I got to gnaw on its comrades' corpses.

It was pretty cool.

>>50759539
Right on.

I started DMing AL almost as an active of defiance. I would go to cons and get frustrated playing at all these subpar organized play sessions. It really bummed me out to think that new players were having the rpg experience ruined for them by playing with a bad GM.

Of course I don't claim to be some incredible dungeon master, but I am at least proficient and very open to creativity from the players. And preparing nice maps and miniatures helps a bit too.

>>50759998
Yeah, and you don't walk on water but a level 9 monk can. By level 12 at the very latest a fighter or barb should be able to crush rock with their bare hands.
>>50760001
This is fine. They can only do it so many times any ways before they risk the dungeon/building collapsing on them.

>>50759775
Dexterity is a bit of a god-stat in that pretty much everyone has use for it, and it would be much more generally useful than a situational 'you ignore difficult terrain'. Oh, if you mean changing +10ft speed to 'ignore difficult terrain', tat wouldn't be a bad idea.

If anything, impulsiveness would keep passive perception the same (perception without really trying) yet hurt active perception (doesn't feel like analyzing the surroundings). It's a bit hard to tell for sure, but I'd say anti-wisdom is more 'naivety'. The difference being that the impulsive one says 'I know going into a dark cave is bad, but I'm doing it anyway.' and the naive one says 'It's a dark cave. What's the problem?'. So, the impulsive one recognizes danger and can act accordingly when they see rusty metal on the floor that looks like part of a trap, while the naive one might brush it off as just a mess on the floor. Naive would fail to spot it, impulsive would spot it but will be faster to ignore it if they decide it's probably not going to spring.

Either way I don't think any player is going to look at your book and get into an arguement about what that stuffmeans.

>>50759979
Elements if you want to be typical.

Four Horsemen if you want to be edgy.

If they are very bonded in their actions. Have them instinctively prepare spells and attacks to combine them on top of their allies.

Make that shit look like the Evil Harlem Globetrotters.

>>50759979
>Swap places
>Spellish effects based on their element
>terrain messing

And if you don't have a Ginyu force attack, I'm disappointed.

>>50760032
Monks have ki, a supernatural resource akin to mana

Barbarians just have roid rage

File: 1481866749993.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50759245
Here you go

>>50760051
>Ginyu
Have a biscuit
>>50760064
Barbarians suddenly have swords, spears, and maces do less to them if they have a bear fang amulet on their person. The majority of D&D settings are heroic fantasy where magic is naturally prevalent. Barbarians can smash large rocks with their bare hands about the same time monks can start running on water.

>>50760098
>Excellent barbarians
>No bonus to strength

>>50759270
If a player did get hold of it, they'd start using it to permanently enlarge all the players and to permanently cast 'foresight' on everyone. And, obviously, the cost doesn't make sense as who would spend 1000gp putting up a 'friends' cantrip? The cost would vary on what it is.

I'd rather just say that, as others have said, it's possible to make many spells permanent through dedication. Say, casting 'wall of force' in some ritual way over and over again in the same location to make it appear in a dungeon.

Allow players to make spells permanent if they cast it over and over again on the same place. As for if it's on a person instead? Well, as somebody has said, that's what magical items are created for.

>>50759979
Other monster legendary actions, but flavored differently, or adjusted slightly.

Dragon Wing attack -> Efretti "Burst": Something like, "You see the Efretti's flames flare up and outward, sending waves of unbearable heat and fire in a fierce, wide arc. Roll Dex or (Damage + Stunned)"

>>50759979
But the various genies hate each other.

>>50759718
also, its basically bless as a cantrip OP OP

>>50760158
Well, not "Stunned" but like, "Interrupted". You get it.

File: House Seed.jpg (651KB, 1500x1300px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1500x1300px

At what point, if ever, should this be thrown at players to give them a proper home?

>>50760045
That's what I was going for with the having shared legendary resistances and actions, just not sure what effects I can use to better utilize them both solo and as a group.

Obviously having one of them make an attack for an action works, helps slide in some extra hits and when only one is left, having a Dao smash you twice for 4d6+6 each, then pump out another 4 swings weaved between player turns is pretty brutal.

Maybe a "Swicheroo" ability, any Genie may swap places with another genie for 2 legendary actions. Can be used to help protect low health Genies by moving them out of melee, or setting up combat.

Dao knocks them flat prone with his legendary action one turn, then next players turn, they shift places, putting the Djinni next to the prone guy, who then takes his turn and swings thrice with advantage.

>>50760032
Obviously you don't just let them bust through any fucking wall they want. When it's thematically appropriate and they're just blowing through a plain brick wall or a thin section of a castle wall "in disrepair", you tell 'em to go nuts.

Spell have restrictions about types of material, distance, duration, etc., and you can work something like that into "wall breaking" for martials without having to put everything down in hard rules.

If you don't want your martial blowing up this wall and cheesing through the dungeon, you spread out the rooms so that's not possible, or they find this wall they thought went straight to the other side is actually backed by loose earth or natural stone. And when they want to chisel their way out of some place you may have set up to be a solid wall but you think it'd be cool if they did, hey, surprise crawlspace, or they've found a still-open portion of the natural cave this place was built into, or there's a structural weakness in this wall that crappy builders / a vengeful Dwarven mason left.

When you get into DMing with the mindset that you're telling a story with your party rather than trying to beat them or have them beat your dungeon/challenges, it's easy to see where you can enable Kool-Aid Manning for the sake returning D&D to its Conan-y roots.

>>50760023
That it does. I got lucky with my first long term group. The DM is good with roleplay and making things creative, is awesome with maps and has lots of miniatures. I've been trying to build up my collection since I joined AL but it's far from where I want it to be.

Speaking of DMing AL, I do have one question. When setting up expeditions, what's the best way to make sure things run smoothly and quickly without cutting out too much roleplay / player creativity / railroading? I know from expedition to expedition there will be certain things I could cut out for the sake of time but some general "cover all" tips would be nice too.

>>50760167
how about

as an action, the next attack targeting target ally has disadvantage.

Boom. done.