/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General: nobody else makes the fucking

>>50768828
Paladin UA is today. What are your expectations? We already have a fey paladin and anti undead paladin in core, so I'm really on the edge of my chair.

File: DnD_ADVL.png (18KB, 432x222px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 432x222px

So I normally play D&D Adventurer's League at a store but I can't make it for the next few sessions and the next time I can play is somewhere halfway in January. Should I try to find an online game somewhere? I've only played in real life before and I'm not sure playing online would work for me. What are your experiences with fifth edition one shots and short campaigns online?


Additionally, what is the most fun race/class/background combo to play at level one? If I'm going to do a short one-shot I want to do more than just hit something with my sword real good.

What kinda math crunch would need to be done to switch d20s to 3d6s?

>>50768896
Do you mean simulate a d20 roll using d6s ?

If you were to allow archetype-multiclassing (eg multiclass Dragon/Wild Mage Sorcerer), would you require players to start the class over the second time. Or would you allow them to start at the point of the new archetype.

>>50768912
Essentially, yeah. 3d6 results in a lot more stable results, but it does cut off the extremes. I suppose it'd mostly be a new crit system, everything else would be relatively unaffected.

>>50768891
Bardladin and paladin of magic like the swords of great one or grey guards or inquisitor type class

>>50768896
I read this question at least twice a month and I still don't understand why someone would want to do that.

But technically the average is the same. So you can just put critical miss on 3, and critical hit on 18, and you should be good. I guess Champions and Halflings got a bit better.

>>50768920
At the start of the feature unless they're getting double charges of their class features or something stupid

>>50768892
Try it, it's not like you lose anything.
I have never played online, though I plan to as soon as my schedule allows. But as always, the right group makes all the differente in the world: make sure you know where you're getting into.

At level one, all classes are complete crap, it's at level three when the fun truly starts. I'd say forget about mechanics and try to have the most fun by roleplaying.

While flying can you drop your altitude for free?

Let's say a dragon flies 100 feet above the ground, on his turn he stops flying which sends him falling, when he is 10 feet above the ground he start to fly again and should still have all his movement left.

Anyone get the Priestess class on DM's Guild that was promoted in the last issue of Dragon+?

>>50768951
Cool, that's what I was hoping you'd say

>>50768955
Falling takes time., his turn would be over before he falls 100 feet.

Without getting into unnecessarily complications with physics, I would say you could do the vertical equivalent of a 5-foot step downwards in a turn without spending movement.

>>50768962
>(1 in 20 becomes a 1 in 18 chance)
That's not how that works anon. It would be 6*6*6 chance, 1 in 218. 10 times less likely.

>>50768959
>Dragon+

Is this worth reading?

>>50768998
You are... right.
That's enough posting for me today, will delete the bad math post.

File: Spined Devil.jpg (91KB, 500x398px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x398px

Anyone got a good top view digital token of pic related?

>>50768943
3d6 has a different probability curve than 1d20. On the weird un-intuitive level of probability, 3d6 kinda rounds out your results.

Mostly it's nice because you don't run into extreme lows (though, unfortuately, extreme highs) nearly as much over the campaign as a whole.

>>50768929
>Essentially yes
Sounds like no given the rest of your post, maybe simulate was not the right word.

3d6 has the same average as 1d20, so you're good for all damage rolls

So either stick to d20 for attack rolls and ability checks and saves or
You'd need to adapt DC and AC accordingly. Use anydice.com to see the chance to succeed a given DC with 3d6.

Also modifiers would be stronger than they are now : with d20 and +0 mod you have 15% chance to roll 18, with 3d6 it is 1/216 to roll 18.

Any point in multiclassing as a Lore Bard 3?

I was thinking UA Ranger or Arcane archer but I don't see it being mechanically viable at all

>>50768943

I hear its actually a pretty popular substitute in countries without a big established market for RPGs which makes D6s easy to get while D20 made solely for Tabletop are much more rare

>>50768997
Buddy in 6 seconds of free fall you can already cover almost 580 feet.
3 seconds make it 144 feet, so the dragon has to fall for slightly less than that.

How do you guys rule on casters who stand in their own AoE. Are they subject to the spell's effects?

>>50769030

Your a Lore Bard what do you want to DO that a Ranger or AA would add to your character that isnt there already? Your also Lore not Valor so straight out basic combat seems out of sorts here

>>50768997
But you fall 147.6 feet in mere 3 seconds. The dragon would still have more than enough time to do other things in his turn. He should have at least half his movement left after falling for 150 feet.

>>50769058
Yes. That's not really a controversial point I believe.

>>50769058
only if they can choose the targets that are affected/unaffected via spell text or class ability

>>50769004
Depends on the issue, most of each issue is self fellating adds for the various D&D products and vidya. Early issues had exclusive content like stats for the demon bbeg from sword coast legends, but now each issue promotes some content from the DM's guild.

I've been thinking of putting some of my homebrew stuff on the DM's Guild, but I'm not entirely sure how it works. Like, they only take Forogtten Realms material, while all of my homebrew classes are "setting-agnostic" (i.e. I've made no reference to any particular setting). I don't really know FR realms lore in much detail (beyond playing Baldur's gate and NWN), so altering it all to be in line with FR lore might be hard, especially when my homebrew tends to be on the "weird" side. Also, should I remove any illustrations I've just found around the internet and therefore don't own myself? What's the policy for taking monsters WotC owns but hasn't updated to 5th edition and making rules for them?

>>50769066
>>50769056
I guess I misunderstood- I thought he was asking about going from flight to falling, not starting his turn in free fall.

>>50769087
u goin 2 jail dud

>>50768828

The only Paladin sub-classes I could think of would be something like a Dragonslaver or maybe something with a Raveloft/Castlevaniaish Inquisitor vibe

>>50769072
That's what I thought, but our bard keeps making an issue about Sleep, saying it's impossible for him to fall under the effect because he's the one casting it.

Weighing my options on my build from last time. I'm thinking of investing in Tanking instead. Is AC worth investing in?

I was thinking of boosting my Dex to 20 at level 4, having Riposte and Parry from Battlemaster, Getting Studded armor and a shield and Basically petitioning my DM to respec my fighting style from Archery to Defense so I'll have 20 AC in total.

I was thinking snatching Defensive Duelist at 6, Tough at 8 and then focusing on my Con from there. What do you guys think?

>>50769134
Maybe you misunderstood and he has Fey Ancestry (elves, half-elf) ?
If not, he's mistaken. There is no such rule in 5e.

>>50769134
he's right though. you have to choose the targets for the sleep spell. unless he tries to put himself to sleep it wont affect him

>>50769145
ACTUALLY i think i misread it, my bad.

let someone who isn't retarded verify

>>50769140
I think it's a common thing nowadays to have a heavily specialised character, probably inherited from video games.

I also think Battlemaster has so much potential, it's a shame to go for Riposte & Parry just to accomplish what an Eldritch Knight could do.

But yeah. AC is worth investing in. Just don't throw a fit when your DM decides to never attack you, or when you take a shitload of AoE damage every combat.

>>50768828
>Leefield gimpsuit edition

>>50769145
You choose the point of origin of the AoE, and then each monster (starting with the lowest HP) has to roll.

If he asks "can I cast Sleep in a way that only the enemies are subjected to it ?" then the DM can take a decision. Otherwise, per the rules, if he's in the AoE, he's subjected to the spell.

>>50769140

i'd still go with duelist weapon style personally, your ac will be plenty high even without defense style and then you can actually do some damage. you also have to think about how you'll make sure enemies concentrate on you.

I'm trying to make my own setting for my own campaign, and i'm trying to come up with a pantheon. It's pretty generic, but nobody seems to mind. So far, I have 2 major gods, the 2 polar god and goddess of Night and Day, Light and Dark, Life and Death essentially. Minor gods include a smith god of war, a god of knowledge, and a goddess of storms and water. So far I have at least one covering for each domain, but it feels lackluster. What else should I add?

>>50769208
look at ancient pantheons for inspiration. what would the everyday person pray for? and who would answer their prayers?

>>50769208
How and how much do the gods interact with mortals?
Is it a Greek-like pantheon, constantly fucking people and things up, possibly in bull form, more like the Lightwalkers, that left humanity behind but with some rituals worshippers can tap into their power anyway, or what?
What rules/morality do they impose on their worshippers?

>>50769208
If you're not going for anything original, why not just take the FR pantheon, shorten it and give the remaining gods other names.

Or just make 1 for each cleric domain.

File: 1385153356423.jpg (206KB, 730x1056px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 730x1056px

How did you guys convince your groups to finally jump ship from Pathfinder and move on into 5e?

>>50769241
I am the DM and they trusted my call. After one session, nobody really cared going back to 3.5/pathfinder.

My players aren't as into the hobby as I am, mind you.

Why do you need to convince them, though? Are they particularly adamant they don't want the change, or are you personally fed up with Pathfinder?

>>50769241
I said, "I'm running 5th ed."

If a creature has Legendary Resistance, can it choose to fail against it? Or must it always pass?

>>50769241
We didn't. We took one look at 5e and immediately realized that it was not just bounded accuracy, but also bounded campaigns. Same issue with 4e. You can go this arbitrary distance far....and no further, start over.

Fuck that shit.

>>50769241
Ask them if they want to math or want to have fun.

>>50769241

everyone i know is the type to just play the latest edition no matter what it is

>>50769345
>Legendary Resistance (3/Day). If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

What is it that you do not understand here, Anon?

>>50769351
And it's bounded martials in PF.

And you just took looks at 5e and 4e, if you actually tried playing them like a normal person then you'd stop spazzing out.

>>50769359
Well ok then. Cheers.
That wording could go well for a tragic villain.

>>50768891
Dragon paladin

Does anyone here have any experience with D&D Adventurers League? I'm new in my area and I want to play in a game in person, and my FLGS hosts it on Wednesdays. How much different is it from playing in a home game?

>>50769361
He's probably just baiting, you know. I'd much rather have a slow /5eg/ than yet another moronic thread.

>>50769375
Why can't everyone have fun y'know?

>>50769208
I recommend this: http://inkwellideas.com/worldbuilding/worldbuilding-religion-design/
Religion exists to ease people's minds and to explain the inexplainable. In fantasy the gods are real, but humans will still have mostly the same goals for worshipping them, so keep that in mind.

Is it weird that I'm a staunch atheist irl but really like the D&D gods?

>>50769370
It still depends a lot on the GM and other players in the group you get. Some GMs are shit because it's voluntary and unpaid, and there are bad players because it's the easiest way to play 5e so it's where you find the most casuals and people that want to do what they do in Critical Role etc. It's also unstable and you won't necessarily have the same group from session to session.

One of the things I really liked about 4th was how Fighters and Paladins and other Defenders really *felt* like they were on the front lines slugging it out and toughing through huge wounds. Do any classes in 5th have the same feel?

>>50769421
In D&D they are guaranteed real which is nice and easy, everyone wants (good) gods to exist so it's also nice because of that.

File: 1482146601923.png (7KB, 259x249px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x249px

>>50769432

>>50769429
If that feel came from the defender punishment mechanics, no way.
The best you can do is planning around the Sentinel feat, but it won't be the same 'I'mma brick wall, you can't pass' feeling.

>>50769449
Partly the punishment, partly moving enemies and inflicting effects and all the other stuff powers let you do, and partly all the powers and features that let the classes shrug things off in various ways.

>>50769429
Maybe the new Knigh or sentinel+PAM+tunnel fighter battlemaster is probably the closest you're going to get.

>>50769208
Take the list of backgrounds, and decide on a primary and secondary god for each. They don't have to all be different, the primary god for monks could be the secondary for a ton of others, but you get the idea.

>>50769066
>>50769056
Controlled flight vs. Freefall. There's going to be some cost to pulling out of a dead drop, in either movement or falling damage.

What would you add to 5e to make it great?
We have too goddamn many armchair designers.

>>50769481
To better something, you need to identify flaws and shortcomings.

I have yet to see a consensus on these.

Have you?

>>50769208

A thing to note about polytheistic religions:

They usually didn't START that way. Many times, a people had a singular cult, like a patron of the tribe that expanded from a single, mystic aspect(blacksmithing) to accomodate more over time to reflect the people's beliefs.

Polytheism occurs at an advanced stage where these people have lived with each other long enough to develop advanced myths reconciling their different patrons with each other.

Don't be afraid to tack on strange, seemingly contradictory aspects to otherwise typical gods.

Dualistic life/death gods might be considered a married couple in one region, siblings in another, a singular being in another region.

A god of knowledge might also be a god of healing, or a god of trickery.

A goddess of storms and water might be a secondary war god, or a god of merchants.

A god of war that is also a blacksmith is pretty distinct, too. Think about how they worship. Do soldiers treat their weapons differently? What must be done with the weapons and armor of the fallen? Do followers prefer to build walls and siege rather than slug it out? If so, is it also a god of FARMING?

>>50769467
>>50769468
Battlemaster has the manoeuvres which allow them to trip and taunt, trigger attacks from allies, give everyone temporary HP and so on. Moving enemies is very limited, shrugging things off will mostly be relying on AC and HP (bear barbarian is the tankiest so you could look at that, but it's otherwise quite boring and you don't have any special actions or anything).

>>50769493
People seem to like expressing their opinions all the time, is this just verbal/written diarrhea.

> just reach level 7
> campaign is put on hiatus due to holiday
> postpone to February due to other players schedule

It...it's going to be okay right anons? My campaign won't breakapart right?

>>50769493

I think there's a consensus that 5e's combat lacks punchiness. That is to say that in 4e, everyone got to feel like they were contributing significantly, unless they were constantly whiffing(which was sadly too common).

Now that the whiffing problem is over though, a lot of the swingy, satisfying things to do in combat are gone, and are sort of the exclusive domain of casters.

Fighter types don't get the kind of satisfying aggro management mechanics they got in 4e, and while they are pretty good at pouring out multiattacks, they have to specialize to do exotic shit. Battlemaster is it, really. Although Paladin gets a little stuff due to smites.


So basically, I think the game is too hyperfocused on delivering 4 balanced combat encounters a day. You get the ability to deal even damage and punishment to all PCs, but they are going to shred enemies, even if they are significantly more powerful, unless they are massively outleveled. If you don't throw out four distinct waves, some combatants hog all the spotlight, and some don't do much. Individual combats aren't very exciting.

The lack of tactical depth really kills the ability for doing less combats a day.

>>50769467
All that fiddly stuff is more of a 4e's thing, especially the forced movement.

>>50769493
They cut out way too much of the 4th edition heritage, so just add that back in from the playtest.

File: Nautical Compendium.compressed.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50769108
Like, would something like this be passable for DM's Guild? I feel my "let's do monsters and class variants based on Cthulhu Mythos" compendiums would probably not be fine, since they're obviously in Forgotten Realms.

>>50769536
5e combat is lighter than 4e, if you're running normal plain encounters ofc it's going to compare badly to the old edition.
You have to put in waves, traps, object interactions, or it won't feel right. Killing things dead is easy, repetitive, and particularly boring, this time.

>>50769481
>>50769493
I'd say the system is too focused on combat to be able to handle other things satisfyingly. Skills are quite weak, almost no features explicitly affect anything but combat (even things like Fast Hands just makes an action into a bonus action). This leaves spells as the only thing in the mechanics that can do things out of combat, leading to the good old caster supremacy. When it claims to be as much about interaction and exploration as combat, this is ridiculous, and even if I don't value those things too high and am fine with very combat-heavy campaigns, I think it's a shame it's so obsessed with the mechanical combat benefit that it almost never bothers giving any other benefits. This one is not easily fixed though, there's no single thing to add to fix the problem.

Combat is fairly boring for martials, I'm sure the 3.PF faggots are happy but at least in my opinion once you are experienced with the system spellcasters will just be more fun. Give back maneuvers to all martials and it's better, especially Champion is strictly a noob magnet that is strictly worse at everything than battlemaster if you can tackle the complexity. I have yet to play 4e but from what I have read, the martials are a lot more interesting and have more options there. Combat is also quite slow while also being too simple to be worth that slowness (more tactical combat might be even slower but that is a trade-off at least), but it's hard to tell without having played the games that supposedly do the crunchy, tactical combat well (Fantasy Craft and 4e).

Dump stats are a thing, Intelligence and Strength are just bad stats while Dexterity is the god stat. It's not imbalanced, but it makes for boring optimized characters - wizards will never have good strength and will always have decent con and dex. It's fine when a class is MAD, like I don't expect monks taking high int to be good, but it makes a lot of classes more MAD as well which isn't great (Pally needs 5/6 stats).

>>50769565
>probably not be fine, since they're obviously in Forgotten Realms.
Far Realm covers all that shit, and Lovecraft is public domain.

>>50769241
But I like Pathfinder as well as 5e.

4e was a lot of fun too

>>50769565
>"let's do monsters and class variants based on Cthulhu Mythos"
PLEASE POST

>>50769589

Skills are so weak that the book pretends they don't exist, in most chapters.

I often have to hunt down the skills list in the damn PHB because the game wants to try its damnedest to just pretend everything is an attribute test.

>Only played two sessions before, been super stoked for more
>For emotional and later technological reasons our DM has been unable to host for two weeks and yesterday just kind of didn't say anything and didn't do it.
Why me

File: Disciples of the Outer Gods.compressed.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50769609
This is the more complete one, and what I'd consider my "best" homebrew.
I'd like to put it up to the DM's guild so people might actually see it (I do have it on my own megaupload, but nobody's going to find that unless I link it), but as you can see it's for the most part based on actual Cthulhu mythos entities, which would make it hard to stick into FR (I know far realms are a thing, but that's essentially not-Cthulhu knockoffs, rather than the real thing).

>>50769565
Looks better than 90% of the shit my players show me from DM's guild asking if they can play.

As for legality i have no clue but put it up there anyway

File: Invocations of the Outer Gods.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50769645
Here's the other one, which is pretty much an expansion to the first one. I think it's kind of unpolished, though, and probably should add more stuff. Mostly spells, but coming up with spells that are at least sort of balanced is hard.

>>50769662
>>50769645
>>50769565
good shit, only given a quick glance through them but they're really cool looking

>>50769662
>>50769645
>>50769565
These are fucking awesome. Good job.

>>50769530
I've resumed campaigns after a year of hiatus, no problem. Just believe in yourself, Anon

Perkins' favourite faction is the zhents. His favourite monsters are Yuan-ti. Snakes snakes sneks.

Yuan-ti run the Zhentarim.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>50769685
>>50769701
If I put them up, I'd at veyr least have to remove the cover art from the Lovecraftian stuff, because it's just some fan-art I found online.

I also made this...thing, which I think is fun but pretty weird, and some minor stuff I wouldn't consider putting up on DM's guild, due to being too short (like I did a druid variant that's basically a dwaf-themed druid with earth- and stone-related powers, but it's like half a page), based on non-public domain property (like a class based on Warcraft death knights; I could probably edid that slightly to make it a generic "evil necro-knight" class, though), or just generally unsuited for publishing.

>>50768891
Inquisitor and holy archer feel like sure things. Wouldn't be surprised to see an Oath of the Elements though.

>>50768896
Bell curve of 3d6 breaks the entire fucking system, what the hell has to be wrong with someone to even propose this? Encounter building and how an encounter plays out gets skewed possibly to the point of being irreparable, some builds end up flat out not working as a result, AC would have to be revised as would just about every DC, and mods+proficiency would probably need a reworking as well.

I get it man, haha d20 sux!!!! Yeah we've seen the thread a million goddamn times by now and it is a flawed system, but you can't just throw a new fucking dice with a different curve into a game and expect it to run anywhere near as fluid as it does already.

3d6 faggots need to fuck off and play a system where it's the standard and everything is built around it rather than try to tackle the problems of a system with a solution that breaks more than it fixes.

Paladin UA expectations?

I expect mearls will forget that paladins already have lay on hands and give them an archetype with a health pool type ability.

>>50769826
I could see a Channel Divinity that lets you drain your Lay on Hands to distribute between people around you.

File: 1426818685779.jpg (201KB, 733x900px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 733x900px

>>50769310
A little bit of Column A, little of Column B.
One of the players in our group is a particularly bad power gamer, and PF is no longer fun with them. However he's too integral to the group to kick out, and he's a great role player. He just...keeps making Batman.

That and I really am intrigued by 5e. They own a decent chunk of PF books and don't want to reinvest, and I think a lot of it on their end is inertia. 3rd was their first, and always find other systems lacking.

>>50769370
It's a lot of fun but as the other anon said it depends a lot on your group and your DM. Just try it a few times and see if you like it.

Let them know you're coming though. We've had to turn people away at my store because all tables were full.

>>50769826
A ranged smite option.
It probably won't happen, if it was in the cards it would be already a thing for the Mystic Psionic Weapon.

File: [Help] 3.PF compared to 5e.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50769843
I'd talk to them to find out if there's anything with 5e they would like, like if some of them keep forgetting rules and don't get along well with the complexity, the streamlining 5e does could be a selling point.

>>50769530
It helps if you still talk to your players about it/build hype.

>>50769826
Can't have enough fey and anti-undead. Oath of the ancient isn't fey enough!

>>50769004
There's a lot of ads but the lore sections are cool, i like it, plus it's free.

>>50769493
In my session's one of the characters said "well i would've picked a different stat for dexterity if i knew it would be this important" and honestly i couldn't disagree.

My predictions for Paladin UA:

- Ranged Oath. It wouldn't take too much to implement.
- Arcane Oath. Rune-magic or something.
- Trickery-like Oath. Hopefully a decent one for once.

>>50769004
The edition or two before a new product release can contain cool previews, but other than that is not really a big deal.

>>50769429
>really *felt* like they were on the front lines slugging it out and toughing through huge wounds
I mean, I haven't played the previous editions, but Barbarian sounds pretty much like that. I played a 7th level bear totem barb in a one shot, and at the end the DM was amazed how nobody died, saying how in most games he ran people were rolling death saves all the time.

>>50768896
basically all of it, because a 20% chance to hit becomes less than 5% even if you are generous(turning 20 19 18 17 to hit into 18 17 16 or 15 to hit), fucking up difficulties in a massive way.

my educated guess is that 1d10+ 1d12 could be playable if you keep an eye open for monsters with extremely low/high DC/AC.

there is no point in changing the d20 because the system has been built so that it doesn't have high variance with it(basically you have anything from 30% to 75% to hit anytime you encounter).
the only cool point i see is that with multiple dices the dis/advantage rules lose their main flaw and become even cooler.

>>50769208
basically spend the day reading about the egyptian pantheon.

>>50769493
>>50769481
dex no longer increase initiative.
finds something else for it.

>>50770223
Bring back 4e stat pairs instead.

>>50768943

>But technically the average is the same. So you can just put critical miss on 3, and critical hit on 18, and you should be good. I guess Champions and Halflings got a bit better.

Probability curve is completely different for 3d6 vs. 1d20. 1d20 offers a flat 5% for any given number - it's very swingy and just as easy to roll high as roll low. 3d6's bell curve means most rolls fall in the center, so your performance is much more consistent, and static bonuses are amplified in effect. If you were to put a crit on 18 in 3d6, it only happens less than 0.5% of the time, vs. 5% on a d20.

>>50770242
>tfw you no more can be too intelligent to fall in a pit trap

>>50769241
We ditched 3.5 long ago, so it's twin brother wasn't a system that appealed to us in the first place nor did we ever play it. 5e brought us back to D&D.

File: FB_IMG_1481977524475.jpg (112KB, 764x551px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 764x551px

>>50770286
>Too intelligent for traps

>>50769530
If nobody else, you gotta be committed to bringing it back, anon. in my first roll20 campaign, the DM said he needed a break for some weeks, then after a while just up and vanished, we couldn't reach him and he wouldn't respond on skype. A little over 2 months passed while we waited for him, then I took the initiative and called everyone else, proposing we find a new DM. So yeah.

What is the best way to play adventurers league online? I'm looking for some one shots an d not an entire campaign.

>>50770400

Just run online.

>>50769493
The overwhelming consensus is that 5e combat is too simple.

Note: I am not saying that simplicity is always bad. I am not saying that 4e or 3.5e levels of complexity are better. I am only saying that 5e went way past a good level of simplicity and crashed straight into "Fisher Price's: Baby's First Role-playing" levels of simplicity.

Multi-classing aside,
How does /5eg feel about an Int based warlock instead of charisma?

>>50770564
>The overwhelming consensus is that 5e combat is too simple.
That's a fucking understatement.

I could probably just preroll the fighter, barbarian, and moon druid's attack rolls and tell them not to bother showing up.

>>50770594
High Int characters are too smart to make pacts with aliens and elder gods

>>50770597
Moon druids have ample amount of control and healing spells if they feel like using those/saving up animal form for later in the encounter.

>>50770600
Or they're smart enough to know the benefits outweigh the negatives

>>50770600
The argument could be made that a high Int character would be good at researching the rules and limits of the pact.

>>50770623
Trusting that some unholy superbeing doesn't decide to strip your powers on a whim of it's alien mind? Not very smart

>>50770630
Same could be said for clerics with temperamental gods.
Fey and devils are well known to hold contracts faithfully. For the fey it's a supernaturally powerful deal. They would not be able to break their terms of the pact on a whim.

>>50770659
>Same could be said for clerics with temperamental gods.

Which is why Clerics aren't Int-based either

>>50768891
2-3 Oaths. One of them will be passable tier, and the others will be feces.

>>50770600
A high-int, low-wis character might.

Wasn't there some sort of official website where people could upload fan-created 5e content?

Whatever happened to that?

>>50768891
One of the oaths will be marking, like how barb/fighter got marks.

>>50770594
Int makes more sense to me. A high Intelligence individual with a low Wisdom score could be an overly ambitious, megalomaniacal person. And who else is to make pacts with superbeings?

Intelligence makes much more sense to me. The only problem is that Warlocks are already a bit weak, and Intelligence is a bit worse than Charisma (for skills mainly, but also for saving throws). So you'd have to compensate for that. I already have a few tricks to make warlocks a bit better that I'll apply to my campaign if need be (so far the warlock's been pretty happy, since as very often with /tg/, most things people complain about aren't a real problem).

>>50770597
>>50770564
I disagree.

I play a barbarian and do about 90% party damage. I also do the most creative shit in the party by a mile. A bad player is going to be boring regardless of class. Believe me, I experience it every single week. Caster's just have the illusion of more utility. A good player can easily circumvent that, at least to a degree that I think it would be acceptable. I'm not implying that martials at their core are as versatile, but that a good player can easily close the gap.

Tl;Dr get better players.

>>50770659

I once made a Fey based one shot where every one played elves, firbolgs, gnomes and shit, sent on a suicide squad-esque mission by Mab, queen of Air and Darkness.

When the Wood Elf ranger decided to renege on the deal, I had him dropped from level 7 to 3

Breaking your word should be a serious deal to a fey, because they *are* their word

>>50770695
>very often with /tg/, most things people complain about aren't a real problem
yes

>>50770451
Play online what? I'm looking for online AL so I can play the characters I play online at my store as well and vice versa.

>>50770701

>Caster's just have the illusion of more utility. A good player can easily circumvent that, at least to a degree that I think it would be acceptable. I'm not implying that martials at their core are as versatile, but that a good player can easily close the gap.

Mind you, a caster player can be creative too and has more tools to BE creative with.

>>50770701
I'm the most creative person at my table AND I'm a utility wizard. Get @me brah

>>50770701
"Get better players" is a classic sign of someone defending an ivory tower.

>>50770718
>>50770720
Totally agree. But I don't think it's fair to say "martials shouldn't show up because all they can do is say 'roll 2 hit roll4 damage lol!'"

I really, really wish I'd ever met a good player that rolled a caster. I'm just going to hold out hope that they actually exist.

I will cede that I rely heavily on magical items to have extreme utility.

Has anyone tried gestalt in 5e? How'd it go?

>>50770695
Making a pact with the fey feels like it would benefit a smart character who fully comprehends the deal and reads between the lines, vs a character who tries or persuade or intimidate a fey into making a pact in their favor.

>>50770765
Without BAB and Save progression, you're just doubling class features. It's ok but not the same

File: kirathumb.png (188KB, 338x373px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 338x373px

>>50770720
>our Dragonborn Sorcerer has the stats of a god damn Barbarian
>just picks utility spells all the time

>>50768891
Enlightened paladin aka sacred fist aka monk with armor, smites and paladin spells

>>50768891
HORSE PALADIN

HEALER PALADIN

GOLDEN SERVANT OF BAHAMUT WHO TURNS INTO DRAGONS AND BREATHES HOLY FURY PALADIN

>>50770765
We're trying that with my group. We're only level two so far, but it's a fun ride. We got a Wizard Sorcerer, a Rogue Sorcerer and a Monk Druid. Needless to say, it's very high powered, but so is the opposition.

File: falconer.jpg (30KB, 564x797px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 564x797px

>>50770765
I just starded a scenario where everyone's pretty much a 3rd level something while having the class features from 3 levels in another class.

So we have hitpoints and statblocks (proficiency bonus etc.) of a 3rd level, but feature-wise we are, for instance, Fighter3/Ranger3, Fighter3/Rogue3, and so on and so forth.

To be honest... I don't like it.
I feel like our DM isn't that good with rules in the first place, so some things feel wrong or weird (for instance i have +11 to hit with my bow). I can't expect from him balanced encounters. I can't expect from him combats that feel meaningful. I can't expect from him that our choices really matter.
Our first session was last saturday and it went well, but I'm not sure it's going to go the distance.

However, I think getsalt can work. It has to be done intelligently, and sometimes it'll run the risk of digging the gap between casters and martials. There's also the big enigma of dealing with spell slots.

Ffor instance, our DM just didn't bother and gave us a basic addition. I'm Eldritch Knight / Beastmaster and that gives me 6 1st-level spells. It's pretty cool since Ranger spells are awful, but still, I'm not sure that's reasonable.

I'd like some opinions on this encounter/location and I better ask before the UA drops. Party composition is:
>Fighter, paladin, moon druid, abjurer, diviner (all 8th level) and revised ranger (level 5)
They're on their way to the main quest, on a big road, and this particular section is near an abandoned castle where a portal to the Nine Hells was open a while back. The devils that came through and took control of the castle used to keep to themselves and only worry about their plots and schemes, but a week ago they became more active, attacking travelers and bathing the surrounding area in fire and negative energy. No one knows this yet because no one survived to tell tale of it.

The party has just fought a bunch of skeletons and a flameskull, then holed up in a Rope Trick to short rest. They'll have to deal with the flameskull again, but that shouldn't take too long. When they get back on their way, they'll start to hear howls and metallic clanks around then, eventually getting surrounded by a bunch of hell hounds. The hounds all have 15-foot long chains on their collars. After they kill most of them, their owner, a Chain Devil, will arrive with a couple more. The devil will animate the chains of the dead hounds and attack.

How can I make this more interesting? Is it already good enough as it is? Any cool creature or gimmick I should add?

>>50770899
>different levels
disgusting

>>50770894
How is it working exactly for level distribution, spell slots and all that? Is that just Wizard1/Sorcerer1 and you go to Wizard2/Sorcerer2, or do you choose one on level ups..? To what class do you tie hit points? Do you treat it as multiclass or do you just have "free" levels in another class?
Thanks!

>>50770899
So they just finished a fight against skeletons, they still have to kill a flameskull, you want to throw them a bunch of hell hounds... and then after that a Chain Devil ?

Oofa. That's combat heavy.

>>50770895
>but still, I'm not sure that's reasonable.
But that's gestalt. You add features. You don't play gestalt to be reasonable.
It just seems that 1) you have a bad GM 2) you expected a lower power game

+11 with your bow with proficiency, +5 dexterity and +4 with two archer style fightning is "normal" if you do a high power gestalt campaign.
Your GM just have to put you against strong opposition.
But if you're already not liking it the first session saying you don't think he can make your chocies matters, the problem lie with you or the GM, not gestalt.

>>50770899
Can the party do something with the dog's chains? Maybe spiking them down, so the dogs can only move in a limited range? It would pretty much fuck with the Chain Devil, that woud have to lose actions freeing the chains afterwards, maybe he could grapple and throw the characters to the spiked-down chains instead.

>>50770785
well, you do get to double-dip save proficiencies

>>50770948
Even with Gestalt you can't pick the same fighting style twice. Gestalt makes you OP horizontally, not vertically.

>>50770946
Every level, we gain a level in each class. So it's a free level in another class essentialy. We don't have a "primary" class. We all agreed to not multiclass, except for RP heavy reason, and even then we prefer boon reward or pure RP reward (like having a pact with a archfey you helped give you some RP advantage or boon, but not a level in warlock)

We take the higher HD, of course, we add the proficiency (so some of us have a LOT of skills) and we picke the saving throw we prefer at level one.

For features, we have the feature of both class. If we gain the same feature, if possible we double it, so you gain twice the numerical bonus, if not, well, we just get the feature (like a monk/rogue that gain evasion twice)

So for spellcasters, we gain the spellslots of both classes and the spells of both classes.

>>50770993
We prefered not to do that because it was a bit too powerful.

>>50771010
Well, I wasn't sure when I typed that because we never saw something like that yet so we don't have a ruling on it with my group.

Note that we never played gestalt in 3.5 before, so we're not familiar with the rules for this variant.

>>50770936
I don't normally do that, but the ranger player is totally brand new to 5e and RPG in general and I didn't want to overwhelm him. Instead I had him start at 3rd level then brought him to 5th at the end of the session.

>>50770946
I guess. 5e is balanced around having many encounters per day, isn't it? I do run a combat heavy game, but all the players are aware of that and don't seem to mind it. I'd love suggestions on how to expand the exploration side of things on this, give the ranger some spotlight.

>>50770950
For sure they can! I'm hoping they do, at least. Maybe the tavern brawler fighter decides to grab a chain and swing a hound at another hound, that'd be great.

>>50770948
I was talking specifically about spell slots for "reasonability". Just adding them doesn't seem reasonable, and will further the gap between casters and martials.

It wasn't presented as a "getsalt" game in the first place, and I'm fairly convinced that our DM isn't that great. It's still enjoyable, but I don't like his style of getsalt.

What I'm saying is: it's probably doable in a smart way, but my experience wasn't that great due to multiple things our DM did, or did not do.

>>50770854
Sacred Fists don't wear armor. At least nothing above light armor.

>>50768891
Defender of Civilization wilderness paladin (since rangers don't really do that anymore)
Seeker of Holy Artifacts paladin (a la Knights of the Round Table)
Antimage Paladin

>>50771048
>Just adding them doesn't seem reasonable, and will further the gap between casters and martials.
That's gestalt for sure, even in the 3.5 variant. You add spell slots.
I wouldn't say it further the gap, because the fighter can now counterspell your ass and throw his very own simulacrum at you.
If everyone take a spellcaster class, it actually reduce the gap. If someone only take martial classes.. Yeah.

The UA feats seem pretty cool. I especially like the spear one since they tend to be pretty underused. What class benefits from it most? I'd assume fighter, maybe Monk?

>>50771038
I would seriously not add proficiency together. As I said before, gestalt characters should have broad power, not the numerical values of characters of much higher level.
I'm not basing any of this on 3.5 specifics, just the general concept of gestalt and general thought to balance (lol). Fighting Style specifically says you can't choose the same one twice, but with gestalt you can start off with Archery and Defense, for example, which would be rad.

>>50771079
The problem is that in 5e spell slots are already added when multiclassing, except vertically, and can be shared across classes. But just gaining them from both independently should still work, yeah.

>>50771107
>I would seriously not add proficiency together.
You misunderstood.
We don't add the proficiency modifier. We add the skill proficiency. So instead of having two skill in wich you are proficient, you have now four.

For the spellslots we prefer to do independently because if you use the multiclassing rules you end up with the exact same number of spellslot. That's not what we wanted.

>>50771101
Monk no doubt, starting with a d10+3 and then d4+3 for level 1 damage is pretty cash. The bonus action ready is also pretty good if you can predict what your enemies are going to do. Now it gets to the point thought that you wish you had a fighting style to go with it, but that's how it goes.

>>50771156
And if you do a good martial multi, you're adding together features into one attack action. You can still only fast one leveled spell per turn

>>50771186
>action surging wizard is heard laughing in the distance

>>50771156
Oh! Okay, that is much more reasonable. For both skills and spells.

>>50771186
Yeah, gestalting two casters honestly doesn't give you all that much, unless one of them is warlock, but even then it's just pretty neat.
Gestalt is all about the martial/caster (fighter/cleric would be awesome with Divine Strike) or well-comboing martial/martial (rogue/ranger, figther/paladin).

>>50771201
Forget wizard, action-surging warlock.
Hex->EB->EB->luls.

>>50771216
You could mix in sorc for action surge+quickened EB.

>>50771250
Gestalt doesn't typically allow multiclassing. Or at least it shouldn't. But warlock/sorcerer for hella slots+refreshing slots+2 EBs per turn with quicken would be great. You'd even get twinned EB at low levels.

Both of my groups that meet weekly are taking a break until February because of the holidays and exams. I'm already itching to continue the campaigns and it's not even January yet.

>>50771216
>fighter-sorcerer-warlock-[Insert Thing That Gives You An Extra Turn Here (Such as thief)] with warcaster
>up to 24 eldritch blasts in one round, up to 240ft pushback
The problems are
A) You need to get two reaction attacks, one before the turn and one during/after the turn
B) Haste/Ambuscade don't allow cantrip casting. Thief would work, but they're level fucking 17 to get that ability.

>>50771285
Warlock+most casters get some gamebreaking tools.

Warlock+necromancer sounds particularly dangerous.

>>50771317
>Warlock+necromancer sounds particularly dangerous.
Why? I don't see it.

>>50771301
>>50771216
Sorry,
>28 eldritch blasts (I forgot the extra turn's bonus action which could be used for a quickened EB)
Or
>32 eldritch blasts
If you can somehow get two action surges, but that again requires 17 levels of fighter or suddenly getting a short rest while fighting.

>>50771327

something something, necrotic damage I'm guessing

>>50768891
>Healing Paladin similar to Tranquility monk
>Something weirdly specific that nobody expected
>Port of something nobody wanted from a previous edition instead of the thing everyone wanted from a previous edition

How do you feel about a player having/being something weird and snowflakey, but using a regular stat block for it?

For example, say a player was playing the child of a human and some bizarre fey creature--but on paper, used half-elf as their race?

>>50771301
>>50771332
No gestalt multiclassing usually. Definitely not when I'm DMing because shit's whack enough already. I purposely kept my scenario grounded in an obvious and not-too-gamey situation.

>>50771327
I mean, it SOUNDS dangerous...

>>50771340
But Grim Harvest works better with Necromancy school, not necrotic damage.

>>50771327
Infinite skeletons. Necromancer usually needs days to get the skele-ball rolling, but warlock-necromancer can just spend refreshing slots on it.

>>50770682
Oath of Vengeance is already a marking oath.

>>50771359
Then they're the only one of their kind and sages everywhere want to study them and mobs everywhere want to kidnap them.
GTFO with your special status. Make your character unique with personality and background, like everyone else.

>>50771358
But anon, Tranquility monk basically just got Lay On Hands.
>Port of something nobody wanted from a previous edition
Knight of the Silver Chalice
>instead of the thing everyone wanted from a previous edition
Justicar

Sorcerer/Warlock/Barbarian were created for the sole purpose of multiclassing, clearly.
>>50771285
>anything that doesn't allow multiclassing
>anything that doesn't allow fun
But why?

File: IMG_0305.jpg (172KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 640x1136px

Can someone explain CR for me? I'm a new DM planning to run STK in a couple weeks

I'm having my players start in Triboar at 5 because the intro adventure seemed dumb, but that starting encounter seems ridiculous

>5 orogs
>6 mounted orcs
>12 goddamned magmins
>oh and 2 fire giants (although they won't really be in combat)

If I understand the way it works ATM, and I'm probably wrong, but the 5 orogs alone would put the encounter to a CR of 10 which seems high for a group of players.

I guess what I'm looking for is clarification for when I make my own encounters for the players to run into. Can someone give me some tips?

>>50771385
Fuck. I never thought of that.

>>50771359

I heavily encourage it.


I had a living marble statue who was once a nun that got petrified by her mother superior to save her from a raid of a horde barbarian demon rapists from super hell. Sadly, they killed the superior, and left her to be self aware in stone for a hundred years until her latent madness finally let her commune with a great old one, who emparted her with service in exchange for and eldritchian type mobility


But on paper she was just a Tough human (or maybe resilient Con, I forget)

It was pretty metal, I loved it

so Oath of Treachery and Conquest

>>50771407
http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder

take my big tip

>>50771385

run me through that one. I have a player who wants really hard to do just that.

>>50771407
To put it simply, a "CR 1" enemy is a "Medium" encounter for a "Party of 4 level 1s".

A CR 2 enemy is a medium encounter for a party of 4 level 2s. So on and so on.

A CR 1/4 enemy is a medium encounter for a single level 1 PC.

Therefore, in your case, at level 5, a medium encounter for your player characters would be a CR 5 monster if there are 4 of them.

>>50771402
Gestalt is already mixing features from two classes while leveling up simultaneously. If you multiclass, do you have to pick a new gestalt? Or do you separate the classes and advance in only one of them?
All these questions are pretty easy to answer, I suppose, but you're already powerful enough without further munchkinry.

>>50771427
I prefer the opposite, because I don't like one player to be supa-special while everyone else is normal things. But I don't mind an elf being raised by dwarves that loses elven weapon familiarity and gains the dwarf version instead.

>>50771402
>>50771445
I would add that multiclassing as a gestalt character feels very cheesy.

Tfw trying to access the UA page but getting 403'd

I see Wizards is still good at blueballing me.

>>50771438
Seems handy, thanks

>>50771444
Yes but in my case specifically my players are going to be up against almost two dozen enemies. How does that work? Is it additive or is it simply not matter because the creatures are all of a lower CR?

>>50771445
Huh. Were there rules on this somewhere?
That sounds ridiculous if you let people do whatever.
For example, any cha caster can do it with paladin for the sole purpose of swapping a level 6 feature with paladin's level 6.

Multiclassing should probably stay as it is now.

>>50771437
>so Oath of Treachery

As someone playing a reluctant paladin of Loki, I'd rather apreciate that one

>>50771459
Gestalt already feels cheesy on its own, might as well let people multiclass too.
I haven't tried it yet in 5e, but in 3.5 it was more of a 'go crazy' mode than a normal game, it was supposed to be cheesy as fuck.

>>50771470
I believe that the chapter give every player another npc to fight for Triboar (should help a little).

If you find it that they need balance, just put some extra guards on their side.

>>50770899
bump

>>50771442
Warlocks only have a few slots but they refresh every short rest, and animate dead isn't on the list. Necromancer Wizard has a lot of spell slots and the animate spell, but their spell slots only recharge on a long rest, so functionally you're not going to be using it much.

In a Gestalt, a Warlockomancer can just expend its spell slots to create undead, take a short rest and rinse and repeat several times in a day to create more skellingtons and maintain control over the other ones.

>>50771520
Yeah I guess that's true. I wasn't really clear but I didn't want to hand out NPC's to the players (most are fairly new) and it just feels wonky honestly. Maybe scale the numbers down to compensate for the lack of NPC's?

>>50771549

Ah. "In gestalt"

Alrighty. thx

>>50771445

eh. I splice my monsters and npcs all the time, I see your point but I figure I might as well let the players do the same

>>50768891
Anointed Knight - rubs oil all over himself / equipment to gain passive shit
Deadgrim - gains the features of Undead so as to better be immune to their bullshit
Champion of Gwynharwyf - Barbarian Rage
Avenger / Slayer of Domiel - MAXXIMUM EDGE ASSASSIN PALADIN

>>50771572
Control the npcs yourself.(Something that i would do, even if i had experienced players)

But if you want a fast encounter with just the players... then yeah, by all means, keep some of the enemies and npcs far from them (offscreen) and focus only on some enemies.

>The floor here is set with a beautiful tile mosaic showing a knight in plate armor wielding a glowing sword against a chimera.
Anyone got a similar piece of art?

>>50771479
Gestalt was never meant as a standard feature. It was an optional rule for high-powered games. It is specifically there so you can play a paladin/sorcerer with full casting, d10 hit points, and everything based on charisma.
I don't remember if the rules (in 3.5) said anything about multiclassing, but I believe it's widely accepted to be a bit redundant and cheesy.

>>50771605
Annointed Knight wouldn't really work because too much passive shit isn't 5e's style. Deadgrim would be fun in a Gray Warden kind of way. And oh man, OATH OF FURY.

File: fasterectionswitch.jpg (921KB, 2160x3840px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 2160x3840px

>>50771618
>beautiful tile mosaic

>>50768891
>Unarmed paladin
>Inquisitor paladin
>Arcane paladin

>>50771618
Fucking magical realm freak. >>>/d/

We should really start speculating on the next class's UA (sorcerer?) earlier next week, so WotC can get some not-shitty ideas by lurking.

>>50771673
There's nothing that can be done to fix Sorcerer via archetypes while keeping parity with the others, because the problems with Sorcerer lie in the base class.

>>50771646
>>50768891
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/paladin-sacred-oaths

Oath of Treachery and Oath of Conquest

>>50771673
I think all the subclass UA stuff is already done, they just release it once a week instead of all at once.

>>50771673
I've always liked the idea of a sorcerer that can't use meta magic on his own spells, but can use it on other people's.

>>50769481
Give superiority dice and maneouvers to all martials.

Make the number od SD depend on Str, Con or Dex mod, recovered on long rest.

Battlemaster then gets extra SD and better SD.

>>50771673
Fey Sorcerer
Battlemaster Sorcerer
Undead Sorcerer
Genie Sorcerer

>>50769134
>>50769145
>>50769177
>Creatures within 20 feet of a point you choose within range are affected in ascending order of their current hit points (ignoring unconscious creatures). Starting with the creature that has the lowest current hit points, each creature affected by this spell falls unconscious

I remembered it as you choosing the targets too - but nope, you only choose the point. The creatures affected are chosen in ascending order of HP. So the bard better hope he's not at 1 HP, because if he is he's probably going first.

>>50771686
>Oath
>Treachery

This is some sort of hipster paladin. My oath is so treacherous I don't even follow it.

>>50771686
It's like they took all the bad ideas we had and none of the good ones.

>>50771692
Can we stop having the "how to fix 5e" "give every martial superiority" conversation in every single thread? We get it, that's what you want. Cool, do it. Not everybody wants maneuvers on their barbarian.

>>50771673
The fixed Favored Soul is pretty much ok, tho.
If WotC wanted to make more archetypes, something with like the bard's Secrets would be the only feature needed, everything else can be ribbons.

>>50771702
>Can we stop having the "how to fix 5e" "give every martial superiority" conversation in every single thread?
no

>>50771673
Isn't the next class UA going to be Ranger?

>>50771702
So don't use them. I will never understand the argument that classes shouldn't have options because people don't want to use them.

You can always choose not to use an option that you have. You can never choose to use an option that you don't have.

Therefore, giving every class options serves more players than taking options from every class.

>>50771705
I agree. Give WotC ideas for ribbonful archetypes!
>Elsa
>Pyromancer
>I'm not original but I really liked Frozen

>>50771716
There have been speculations that they won't do it because the entire ranger class is UA right now. Not sure though

>>50771692
>recovered on long rest
disgusting

>>50769530
My two campaigns are also on hiatus until late January.

Shall we get a roll20 game going post-xmas?

>>50771733
"Don't use the main feature of your class"
Or maybe that's exactly what archetypes are for, ya dingbat. Fighters who don't want superiority pick champion, those who do pick BM. Everybody's happy.
You shouldn't be trying to alter the base classes when you can just add a tactical barbarian archetype.

>>50771069
Except you're wrong, mithral breastplate ;^)

>>50771735
Even if that's so, rogue comes after that.

>>50771701
Is this bait? Page still won't load for me

>>50771753
If every class had superiority dice, it wouldn't be the main feature of the classes now would it.

Rage is the main feature of the barbarian class, and that wouldn't change.

>>50771765
403's for me.

For some reason, the link to the new UA isn't working for me. Could someone post it to the thread?

>>50771686
Oh for fucks sake

Really great """""paladin""""" oaths wotc you fucking hacks

>>50771760
OK, so my native language doesn't use Latin script and also I'm an idiot. You win.
ROGUE ARCHETYPES PLS

>>50771779
Archetypes should alter the way the class is played in some fundamental way. Adding maneuvers majorly changes how the class behaves in combat.
Seriously, though, I have nothing against options. But that's exactly what archetypes are for.

>>50771794
>>50771797
It isn't up yet. You got baited.

I'm looking for Designers & Dragons, does anyone have it?

File: wotcbeingwotc.png (2MB, 2160x1142px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2160x1142px

>>50771794
>>50771811
It's not bait, it's just WOTC being fucking WOTC.
I expect nothing good from this UA.

>>50771803
The better solution would be to make options the rule, and simpleton archetypes like berserker and champion the exception.

So every class gets options, but every class had a containment archetype for people like you that enjoy megabloks more than Legos. These containment classes would sacrifice options for now direct passive power.

>>50771811
Every week they leak the names before they leak the substance because they are incompetent.

>>50771833
Maneuvers ARE options, you retard. There's no such thing as "simpleton" archetypes. Any feature you put on the base class applies to any archetype. If something should be optional, that's LITERALLY, and I do mean LITERALLY, the time to use archetypes.

>>50771832
Not seeing this on my page at all

>>50771849
How do you not get what I'm saying you moron:

maneuvers should be given to every martial class and taken away from the containment classes so people like to can enjoy themselves without having to think at all. This would be far better than the current situation where every martial is basically "shut your brain off because otherwise you'll be bored" the class.

>>50771867
Scroll down senpai

File: ArgumentAutomaticallyWon.jpg (80KB, 500x517px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x517px

>>50771877
Well, I see that you're not going to be moved despite being as wrong as is possible to be, so here's a smug anime girl. Have a nice day.

>>50771889
>I can't understand a critic of the design of the game, so here's a smug anime girl

>>50771889
Not him, but you're essentially arguing that all spells should be part of caster class' archetypes because they are options. That's retarded.

>>50771916
critique*

Well I thought we could get by a whole thread without needing repetition, but here goes.

Daily reminder that if someone posts a snug anime girl, that is a sign of their concession in the argument by universal Chan law. However, if you respond further to the snug anime, and feed them a (you), they win, and you lose the argument.

>>50769645
>giving warlock healing spells
>advantage on death saves... at 1st level
nope nope nope nope
and giving the druid the same shit

>subtle spells... for free
Yeah let's make the sorcerer even less unique

Cleric and bard paths are really cool though.

>Starting at 2nd level, you have advantage on your Arcana checks,
> as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about aberrations.
The grammar used here would mean that you have advantage on all Arcana checks, since the "about aberrations" only relates to clause after the comma.

>>50771673
Class rework on sorcerrer.

Gets a 1d8 Hp die now.
Proficiency with simple weapons and either Arcana or Perception skills.

A rework on sorcerous origins.

Draconic:
Lvl 1 gains magic finesse claws (1d6 either Dex or Str) and bonus action attack with them ( i like the meelee bruiser caster they were in playtests).

Lvl 18 fear effect is replaced with dragonbreath.

Storm sorc gets:

At lvl 1 2 extra cantrips (shocking grasp, booming blade, gust etc.) and 10 extra movement speed each time they cast a spell.

Lvl 6 gains thundering resistance and ranged attacks against the storm sorc are made with disadvantage.

Lvl 14 Gains 60ft flight speed and resistance to lightning.

Lvl 18 should be some massive pushback attack or AOE.

>>50771918
You have critic, crticism and critical yet you still have critique.
Fucking roasbeefs

>>50771918
No, HE is arguing that because some people want spells on their fighters, all fighters should have spells despite the fact that EK exists exactly for these people.

File: smuganimegirl.jpg (55KB, 900x810px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x810px

>>50771924

>>50771735
Ideally, the ribbons should be a bunch of 'choose one of those' options, so every Sorc ends up slightly different, based on how the player sees the character.

>Oath of Treachery
Is this just a loophole to get the DM to let you play Oathbreaker?

>whaddya mean I can't play Oathbreaker
>fine, i'll take this archetype and swear to lie
>oh shit if i lie i'm keeping my oath, so it's not a lie, so i broke it
>guess i'll have to be a spooky undead-using paladin now, Greg :D :D :D

>>50771959
Congratulations, you are now qualified to be a Wizards "'"designer'"".

>>50771954
Bigger! SMUGGER!

>about to run a level 20 oneshot for Christmas
>plot is basically "Santa is BBEG because he put you on the naughty list"
>say they can pick one artifact for the group to share, along with following character creation for high magic at level 20
>ask players to send what they're playing
>Oathbreaker, Necromancer, Undying Tomelock, Long Death Monk, Grave Cleric, and Death Cleric
>they all want the artifact to be the wand of orcus
>all of the character backstories are filled with bone puns

Should I be scared?

>>50771944
Or that martial combat is extremly limited and mindless compared to a lot of modern games with lots of actions for martial combat.
And here, we're still with "launch a d20 to see if you hit" and "if you want to make something special, roleplay it, even if it has no influence on the actual combat!"

>>50771944
He's arguing that the only thing that makes the class fun and interesting is martial die so they never should have been removed from the playtest to begin with. They should be a default feature of Fighters (and other martial classes) and the archetypes should find some other way of adding on top of that.

>if you want spells on a fighter just play EK ahyuck
Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the EK rules before you embarrass yourself further. They're shit. It's a tanking class, not a spellcasting gish.

>>50771930
>Deals more damage than monk at 1st level
>ClawS
So you give them two attacks with 1d6? this is absurd, make one 1d4.

File: spooky.jpg (64KB, 500x296px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x296px

>>50771972
You should be spooked

>>50771976
>all martials use the same resource, Martial Dice, restored on a short rest
>all caster use the same resource, Spell Slots, restored on a long rest
It would be more elegant, potentially more fun, but more modular too, and that's not in the design of this edition.

btw, I think it would rock
>the Warlock is just a Martial that uses the Dice to fuel spells

>>50771959
There's a difference I think.

Oathbreaker is when you betray the tenants of your oath in a way that is basically spiting your God. An Oathbreaker has broken their oath and now doesn't really follow one, and the powers they gained from their Oath are now twisted.

Oath of Treachery won't likely require anyone to break an oath, because the oath is presumably to some Trickster god (like Loki) who wants the Paladin to commit treacherous acts at her/his behest. You're not betraying your oath or your god, you're betraying other son your God's behalf.

>>50771972
Just remember that Santa has an army of elves that all know Fabricate, and elves are technically Fey, which are way scarier than any kind of skellington.

You're going to run a tower defense game where giant wooden mallets and swinging logs and spike traps pop out of everywhere and obliterate the party's undead minions non-stop.

PALADINS WHEN!!!!1

>>50771959
Fuck the page still 403s for me! Anybody can post the PDF here? Unless it's also 403 for them

>>50771665
????

>>50771998
Okay keep it at 1d4 and no bonus action but let them gain one extra attack with claws when they gain their archetype feature (at 6, 14 and 18).

>>50772016
Paladins don't swear to Gods anymore. They are empowered by their Oath alone. It's some Axiomatic Plane / Truenaming-level shit that slurps power out of the universe by conviction alone, which isn't that weird when you consider just about every other form of power in D&D operates on consensus reality (aka "if enough people believe it, it's true"; see Tchazzar)

File: linus.gif (2MB, 330x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x252px

>>50768896
People trying to replace d20 with 3d6 are clearly fucking morons with no clue about statistics. It won't make a difference because there are no degrees of success in D&D (apart from crit/fails). It's still binary, and you still only have x% chance to succeed and (100-x)% chance to fail, no matter what the distribution of rolls is.

If you want training to be more significant then just fucking increase proficiency boni across the board.

If you don't want the fat wizard to succeed in lifting a heavy gate then DON'T FUCKING LET HIM ROLL ON IT.

If you want outcomes to be less swingy and weight them more in the middle, then roll 3d20 or 5d20 and pick the middle number. You won't have to fucking change target numbers.

Or just go play an actual dice pool system you cunt.

>>50772048
I honestly keep forgetting this. But the basic principal is still the same.

>>50772041
...you mean 4 attacks? are you crazy?
You basically are making a better unarmed unarmored class than monk...by far because you have full caster progression.

>>50771618
This is a blue board

>>50772050
>People trying to replace d20 with 3d6 are clearly fucking morons with no clue about statistics. It won't make a difference because there are no degrees of success in D&D (apart from crit/fails).

This post is so moronic and full of statistical b8 that I'm only going to comment on this one part. DnD should have degrees of success and failure, with the possibility of failure with a benefit and success with a cost coded into the rules.

>>50772050
>roll 3d20

This.

If you want a check that isn't 'spur of the moment' and requires skill such as crafting an item, make the player roll the check three times and they must succeed a certain number of rolls (Possibly all 3).
That way, crafting a weapon just turned from 'pure luck' to far more stat dependent.

>>50772050
>If you don't want the fat wizard to succeed in lifting a heavy gate then DON'T FUCKING LET HIM ROLL ON IT.
BACK IN MY DAY, adventures were full of lines like
>a character with at least X Strength can open the gate
>a character with at least X Dexterity can dodge the trap if they pass a DC Y check
>a character with at least X Intelligence would recognize the runes as
specifically to avoid the issue of the hulking Barbarian who can literally throw the Wizard THROUGH another Wizard being unable to move a bookshelf, while the Wizard (who can barely carry his own sleeping bag and walking stick) shoves it aside effortlessly because HA HA 20 IS A PRETTY LARGE RANGE

As all the fucksticks in these threads are keen to remind us, physical stats lead to concrete increases in power which can be measured. Every two points of Dex makes you 5% more dodge-y against swords and fireballs. Every two points of Con makes you more resilient against poison and lets you take another stab to the gut. And most importantly, every two points of Strength lets you JUMP ANOTHER FOOT or CARRY AN EXTRA WHATEVER POUNDS. If we've already defined that Str = this pushing/lifting/whatever capacity, then you should not be asking for rolls on attempts to do things which are achievable. They are either strong enough to move a thing or they are not. And if they're not, and it's a matter of summoning enough adrenaline-fueled hulk out power through the d20, then no spindly-armed Wizard is going to manage it unless they have 8 Intelligence and 18 Strength, which is entirely viable

>>50772103
But he's right. D&D doesn't have degrees of success other than critical hits. You either hit or miss, you don't graze them

>>50772041
>Better AC because 13+Dex and spells than monks
>Better attack because 4 attacks without spending resource and haste than monks
>Better battlefield control, striker, everything because spells than monks

File: sensiblechuckle.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>50771645
>>50771665
>>50772095

>>50772126
I agree he is right about that one thing he said among all the other crap.

I'm trying to spin it into a productive discussion rather than a dozen different Pele debating statistics they don't understand.

>>50772092
>>50772133

That's kinda the point, the last UA left me thirsty.
Also fighter with tavern-brawler already gets all this.

File: Sorc Flame Origin Homebrew 0.09.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50771673
Flamesorc
Earthsorc
Feysorc
Giantsorc
Illithisorc

File: lemme tell you about archers.jpg (187KB, 1280x546px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1280x546px

>Oath of Conquest
>I WILL END ALL WAR AND SUFFERING BY WAGING WAR ON EVERYONE, KILLING THE BUTTHEADS AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES, THEN UNITING THE WORLD IN PEACEFUL HARMONY UNDER MY ABSOLUTE RULE
this is like 20% of anime / fantasy / sci-fi / vidya BBEG plots

>>50772183
Fighter with travern brawler doesn't get his 4th attack till 20th level, your sorcerer gets it at 18th.
Fighter with tavern brawler isn't a fullcaster so he still is a combatant and you may argue monk brings other stuff to the battlefield thanks to their subclasses (though battlemaster tavern brawler fighter is pretty close to Open Hand for the most part of the game), and people is already complaing about it outclassing monk hard at unarmed combat.

>>50771833
>"At 3rd level when you choose this archetype, you lose the Battle Superiority feature of the class."
That's a fucking stupid mechanic.

>>50772224
Not as stupid as all the martial classes being boring fucks

>but anon just be creative with them
Nigger, I can be creative with any class. Anything "creative" you want to do as a Rogue/Barb/Fighter I can do as a Ranger/Wizard/Paladin/Warlock/Bard, AND have magical bullshit to pull out of my ass to aid all of that. That's the problem. We're getting back to the old Euler diagram posts of earlier this year.

>>50772224
>But gain this feature instead.

File: Eldritch_Claws.png (21KB, 1358x296px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1358x296px

>>50771930
>magic finesse claws

>>50772316
Pact of the Kitty Cat

All of this goddamn waiting...
I just want my damn templar paladin

>>50772331
>he thinks we're going to get anything from other settings
>like Templar, Sha'ir, or Inheritor

>>50771918
>Not him, but you're essentially arguing that all spells should be part of caster class' archetypes because they are options.
I wasn't in this discussion up until now, but he's actually arguing that you can't give the Spellcasting feature to a class and then remove it from one archetype, 'cause THAT'S retarded.

>>50772353
Oath of Conquering sounds suspiciously like a Templar, my man

>>50772383
sounds like anime to me

>>50772353
>>50772383
>b-b-b-but mommy how do I refluff

>>50772410
Are you gonna say "just refluff" and then be one of those faggots who goes "no, refluffing a longsword as a spear or a monk as albert einstein is wrong"?

>>50772355
Why not? Spellcasting would be fairly easy to do: people who choose a spellcasting class, but pick the Fisher Price archetype in it simply stop progressing in spells at level 3, or whenever they pick it. They'd be stuck with level 2 spells at most, which is hardly any options to paralyze their feeble ickle minds with.

With superiority dice, you could stop the progression when they pick it, or rearrange the class progression so archetypes are picked immediately.

>>50772410
>implying refluffing fixes the mechanical benefits

>>50772454
That's more easily done with multiple tracks, and a point system that lets you choose which tracks to go down as you level.
Not on a classed system like 5e.

At least we can all agree that all martials should have martial die. I mean, it's in the name.

Otherwise playing martials makes you want to die.

>>50772533
wtf

>>50772495
It's easily done in 5es system. If you can't see how easy it is, I can understand why you would enjoy champion fighters.

File: rogue.jpg (52KB, 428x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 428x600px

Has anybody in here ever run an assassination sequence in their games?

One of my players is on a mission to murder a civil worker and he seems quite determined to do so. What kind of complications can I add to make it much harder for him to accomplish this? It makes sense in-setting for this civil worker to be guarded to a certain extent but I've been outwitted before as a DM. Mostly I just want this to be a challenge for him to accomplish in the first place, particularly so the other characters might also find ways to help the assassin out.

How can I create complications for a simple assassination order?

File: Liesbeth being burnt.jpg (197KB, 650x768px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 650x768px

Hey I'm the guy who posted about implementing low magic mechanics in the last thread. I didn't get much feed back but I've come up with a new mechanic if anyone is interested.
So far, I've mentioned that I've extended the length of rests. Short rests are now 6-8 hours while long rests are now roughly 24 hours (consisting of a full sleep and relaxing day) This is to mage spellcasters really think about using those spell slots.

I've come up with another new mechanic though.

From my notes I will read to them at the beginning of the next session.

>The second new mechanic will make spell casting more dangerous. Everytime you cast a spell, you will have to roll a d20 to ‘harness the magical energies’. If you roll a one, you will have to make a wisdom saving throw or you’ll lose control of the magic and kill yourself. If you roll between a 2 and 5, you either hurt yourself, one of your allies, or the spell misfires in some way at the DMs discretion. If you roll a 6 to 15 nothing happens and you harness the spell successfully. If you roll a 16 to 19 you do an extra d6 of damage. If you roll a 20 you were fantastic at harnessing the magical energies and do double damage.

What do you think? Do you think this does a good job or curbing crazy magical ability or just hurt the players. I think it forces them to begin thinking more strategically about how they use their spell slots.

Also don't just tell me that if I want to do low magic to use something other than 5e. I've heard it before and I appreciate it but I like a lot of the aspects of 5e and am honestly enjoying finding ways to implement aspects of the fluff of my setting through mechanics.

New paladins when?

>>50771445
>because I don't like one player to be supa-special while everyone else is normal things.

I prefer that. To me, it just seems to work well. Builds a story that I think is more accessible.

The all Elven party that pics up a human barbarian later on, that sort of thing. I prefer that over the six character party where everyone is a half this and half other combination with 'original' origins that are extra special.

I guess it is sort of like when everyone is extra special nobody is actually special at all. That is how I see it anyhow.

To each his own of course, I realize I'm probably not in the majority opinion on this.

>>50772543
No need to get personal. I could rework 5e into a track system easily, and it would feel much better - to ME.
For many, the class system is a sacred cow, something they are used to and maybe even like, and that's part of why the Rule of Cool:Legend system didn't take.

What looks like the best option, that would calm our brains and work exactly as intended, is the least popular. As usual.

>>50772545
Assassinating people is easy.
It's getting away without being caught that's the hard part.

If all you want to do is just kill a guy, you can rent a house on the other side of the street from his or park a carriage there and shoot him when he comes home / goes to work. You could walk up to him in a crowd or on the street and just stab him in the gut. You could arrange for a meeting at his office, shake hands, then blow him the fuck away.

>>50769584
Yeah, it seems the only way to make it interesting is to drop a couple 'gimmicks' each fight like buffing structures or actual enemy tactics.

>>50772584
http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf
now

File: 1398043443801.png (48KB, 233x262px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 233x262px

>>50772576
>roll 1 on a d20 and fail your wis saving throw
>you die

Why would ANYONE want to play a spellcaster in your game? Actually, why would anyone want to play with you if you think this is a viable ruling to add?

>>50772576
Bad idea. Just hurts the players. the rest stuff is fine, rolling to kill yourself is stupid.

>>50772604
....nice

>>50772584
NOW
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/paladin-sacred-oaths
http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf

>>50772620
Wait, so do we have TWO Oathbreaker Oaths?
Was that really necessary?

Winter Break

Wizards of the Coast is closed for its winter break from December 26 through January 2. Our next Unearthed Arcana installment will be on Monday, January 9, 2017.

>>50772576
>curbing crazy magical ability
This is easy. Remove bullshit spells or end the game before it hits 5th/6th level spells.
>curbing crazy magical ability in a roundabout way
Let the non-magic characters do crazy things so magic isn't crazy relative to that
>think more strategically
"There is a 5% chance that I will die any time I use my class feature" does not encourage strategy, there is no strategy behind a random roll of the die.

Fuck you for making me actually sympathize with casters. Holy shit. All of this is garbage and needs to be thrown out. You make us caster supremacist whiners look bad. Is this a false flag?

>>50772643
>we close the day AFTER Christmas
>conveniently also the first Monday after it
what the fuck

>>50772614
>>50772615
I wanted to make the threat seem real but you've made me realize that it's a little harsh, you're right. Maybe if they roll between 2 and 5 they hit a friend or misfire while with a 1 they just hurt themself instead of killing themselves. In my mind you had to get really unlucky to kill yourself (roll a 1 and then also fail the save) but at the same time there is the possibility. I appreciate the feedback. I think I'll put it to my players. They will probably say no, but maybe they'll want the danger.

I thought that having the possible danger would be balanced with the potential of doing up to double damage but fair enough.

File: jaan-van-eeden-4.jpg (388KB, 900x1088px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 900x1088px

>>50772545
So I think you have to start by going through the civil worker's day-to-day obligations. What's the first thing he does when he wakes up? What's the first thing he does when he's off to work? Where? With whom? Is this guy a workaholic? Is he a decadent? Does he enjoy art? Is he an amateur thespian?

Make up some kind of schedule. Depending on what timeframe you're working here, maybe you'll need a full work week. For each thing he needs be done, he'll need to be somewhere, to do something, with some people.

Then, onto the complications. What makes it easy for an assassin to go after a target is repetition. If you break the pattern, you complicate things. Maybe he's not coming out this day. Maybe he's coming out, and halfway to work he gets himself ran over by a noble's carriage. Maybe everything is fine, but his mistress makes a fuss - or gets the poisoned plate. Maybe everything is going according to plan, but the assassin himself is discovered - or, if you're not worried going for classics, his employers are sending an assassin to get rid of him once the deed is done.

Endless possibilities. You'll have to be a little bit more specific if you want more from us. And you'll probably need to post at some other time because right now this thread is going to go nuts for the Paladins UA.

>>50772639
Could be LE, could be LG. Could even be a worshipper of Kord.

>>50772664
Dude don't even bring it up to your players. Your that guy readings are off the charts right now.

>>50772620
I was hoping for more options than two. These won't see play in the games I run but I do understand they fill a nitch that other people probably saw a need for.

>>50772667
>Could be LE, could be LG
>has no attachments to anything but themselves
>lawful
I'm assuming that you're talking about the OLD Oathbreaker thing, here, because if you're talking about the new one this doesn't make any sense.

This has got to be the weakest out of the ones we've seen so far. I hate everything about it.

>>50772589
It wouldn't be too hard. Just have every class archetype start at level 1. This would keep things within 5es current system with only a small change on a class by class basis.

How many magic rings is one allowed to wear at once?

>>50772596
I'm trying to make combats more like those in the Fell's Five comics, the system is perfect for THAT.
It's gimmicky, and I have to either slow down the recovery (a night of rest = short rest, back to safety = long rest), or throw in some 'easy' combats that the players will ohko, just to take away some resources.
When it works properly, and doesn't feel too much like a railroad, it's quite satisfying. It's important to talk ooc with the players, to develop the lore with them, so that they'll know what to expect in-game.
It feels a lot more like collaborative writing than it was DMing the old editions.

>>50772650
My reasoning is to try to make the setting feel more dangerous and try to further the themes of horror in the campaign without gutting the caster classes. Like I said in the previous thread, I've been playing in the setting for a while and most of the time we end by level 6 but this campaign is looking like it will last a while.

>>50772687
The archdevil Bel, warlord of Avernus, counts
many of these paladins—called hell knights—as
his most ardent supporters. Hell knights cover
their armor with trophies taken from fallen
enemies, a grim warning to any who dare oppose
them and the decrees of their lords.

devils are the lawful ones rite

>>50772694
Only limited by attunement

>Armor of Agathys
>Spiritual Weapon
>Guided Strike
>Aura combos with Conquering Strike
>IMMUNE to charm
>Resistence from all damage without that "except magical weapons" bullshit, extra attack and MORE CRITS. What a capstone
Oath of Conquest is pretty good, I'm sold

File: 1352907809652.png (339KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 720x540px

>>50772664
Instead of trying to nerf spellcasters, have you considered buffing martials? Seriously, what you're trying to do right now is take two donuts, one with sprinkles and one that's plain. You then shit on the sprinkled one, and expect people to want to eat it for the sprinkles. It is a bad idea, and with dumb execution.

>>50772620
>Conquering's Channel Divinities are literally just Battlemaster maneuvers
BATTLEMASTER PALADIN CONFIRMED

>>50772604
>>50772620
Meh

>that level 20 paladin feature
Holy fuck
>creatures must make a save or become mind controlled for their next action every single time they damage you on their turn
>invisible regardless of attacks
>+20 damage to all attack rolls (considering PAM paladin and the ability to cast haste on yourself, up to 100 damage a round).. If you have advantage, which is really easy considering you're fucking invisible

Yes, it's a level 20 ability and paladin level 20 abiltiies are strong but holy fuck what are they smoking?