/5eg/ D&D 5th Edition General

>"Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can’t attack a target beyond the long range."

You are correct, user. His ruling doesn't seem to make sense... when wouldn't you have disadvantage? Between the normal and long range?

>"You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."

Dissonant Whispers makes them use their reaction to move away, so yes, you do get an opportunity attack.

Meant to respond to

Yeah, he was saying they had to be between 80 and 320 ft for it to be normal and I asked him when that would ever happen. He shrugged and said "outside?"

I guess I'll talk with him later outside of the game but it was such a weird ruling to me. Like how would that make sense to not be able to hit a target when you're closer (though not so close to be in melee range). They also ruled that if you shot behind another PC and missed then you have to hit the PC in the way.

Actually that makes perfect sense because it is harder to hit something up close rather than far away. See the 21 feet rule. So actually, your DM was objectively correct and was calling out the unrealistic rules of D&D.

> Yeah, he was saying they had to be between 80 and 320 ft for it to be normal and I asked him when that would ever happen. He shrugged and said "outside?"

Haha you got rekt there man.

Your DM is right though. At closer ranges, lateral movement counts more, so it can actually be more difficult to hit a target. Especially in melee range. Also crossbow bolts don't reach their intended velocity until around 80 feet (please look up the physics concept of impulse if you're going to disagree with me, I am not going to explain this to the uneducated) so I also think he'd be fair in adding a -4 damage penalty to crossbows against targets closer than 80 feet.

When are they going to add more classes?

>applying "realism" to martial classes while casters disintegrate shit and conjure shit out of thin air
>fair

The seem to use more lightning and poison

Only new class they're for-sure adding is the Mystic to cover psionics. There's been two playtests for it so far through Unearthed Arcana. There's no proper measure of when the official release will be.

Is it going to be basically an INT sorcerer or how will it differ?

Yep.

Because casters have an excuse for breaking reality (magic).

Martials, on the other hand, do not, and thus must obey the laws of reality.

If you can't handle that truth I suggest you play a weeaboo game like FantasyCraft, D&D isn't for you.

So no scout? No duskblade? No spellthief?

I know 3.5 had way too many classes but I'd love to see some of them brought back. And I'd love to see spellthief viable.

Sure I could homebrew but that won't be official, I want more official content.

I mean D&D breaks those laws of reality in damage calculation for the damn things, so maybe D&D isn't for you?

How does D&D damage break the laws of reality?

This is why I don't get the hatred for weeaboo fightan magic.

DND is not a realistic or simulationist game. Heck, it's already pretty weeaboo fightan tier with it's 1.33 attacks per second with buster blades. So what's wrong with martials having magic type options to put them on the same level as casters utility wise?

hitpoints are by default reality breaking, since they're an abstraction of health morphed into plot armor.

Holy shit, please don't talk until you've actually tried to shoot something.

Wait, scratch that. Please never go within 10 feet of anything more deadly than a small piece of string.

They're more likely to show up as subclasses, which are easier to design (and usually end up better than depending on full class progressions or shit like prestige classes).

Duskblade and hexblade probably aren't going to show up because there simply isn't the touch spell support for them. Just play a fluffed Eldritch Knight.

Scout has shown in the "Kits of Old" UA as a fighter subtype and is basically a nonmagical ranger replacement.

Spellthief is... well, covered by the arcane trickster rogue's subclass cap.

>dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/psionics-and-mystic-–-take-two

Google, Google, is your friend

> 1.33 attacks per second

How fat and out of shape are you that you can't swing a sword more than once per second?

> So what's wrong with martials having magic type options to put them on the same level as casters utility wise?

Because martials do not use magic. They can carry magic weapons but by definition they do not use magic. Even rangers and pallys are pretty shitty because of the magic they use.

You just said the damage calculations for the ranged weapons were not fitting with reality when you disagreed who postulated that the ranged damage calculations were fine as written. Are you drinking drain cleaner you goof?

I've shot loads of animals, it's harder to shoot a squirrel from 21 feet than a deer from 100. So actually I am correct, and crossbows should have a penalty to hit at close ranges.

>How fat and out of shape are you that you can't swing a sword more than once per second?

What about a deer from 21 feet and a deer from 100 feet with a crossbow

>Even rangers and pallys are pretty shitty because of the magic they use.

D&D may not be the game for you, mang. Check out Riddle of Steel, maybe?

No, hit points are an abstraction of skill. Try beating a master fencer in combat and you'll see what I mean. Hit points are necessary to preserve the bounded accuracy you guys all go on about.

Admittedly GURPS is better. But hit points work and keep combat flowing more smoothly. It also gives D&D appeal to pleb casual gamers who wouldn't be able to understand a system like GURPS. So D&D appeals to a larger part of the IQ bell curve (the lower part) which makes it a more popular game.

>It's easier to hit a large target that is unaware of you than it is to hit a small target that is aware of you

Stop the fucking presses, we need an errata for this rule set.

The deer at 21 feet would be harder to hit because relative to your perspective it would be moving faster.

>So D&D appeals to a larger part of the IQ bell curve (the lower part) which makes it a more popular game.

No, the chipmunk was not aware of me but the deer was, however it was harder to hit because of lateral motion, which is amplified by closer proximity.

>No, hit points are an abstraction of skill. Try beating a master fencer in combat and you'll see what I mean. Hit points are necessary to preserve the bounded accuracy you guys all go on about.

this lacks meaning. Elaborate. Nobody is going to go and try to beat a master fencer in combat to better understand your posts user.

>DM wants us to get character ideas ready for his campaign during the summer.
>Everyone tells him their classes at the same time.
>4 fighters and a wizard.
>Me and another fighter are playing religious knights of differing faiths.
>We both don't like wizards.
I think I'm liking where this is going.

Yeah but at 100 feet wouldn't you have to take into account wind resistance, the time it takes for the bolt to land and the fact that you need to precisely time the shot? Seems a lot easier to shoot it from 21 feet.

You can survive having the moon dropped on you.

Let me check the DMG for how much damage it actually is, but a Fighter or Barb could easily survive it without "magic".

Neat story. When your players want to use the D&D rules to simulate shooting chipmunks in the woods with rifles, you should probably house-rule that.

Well I usually play GURPS but there is a simplicity to D&D 5e that made it attractive to me. I'm not saying D&D is a stupid game, merely that it appeals to a lower class of gamer because of its popularity and because of its simpler, more straightforward strategies.

Because a real life fencer would have an AC of 40 or so. It is simply impossible to land a blow on him. But in D&D that would be too frustrating so you are allowed to wear down his "hit points" to represent his luck.

It's perfectly legitimate and is even fairly realistic. Sure the dragons aren't but that's another issue. Also there is no reason why a game can't be realistic in some aspects and unrealistic in others. Crossbow inaccuracy is very important because otherwise crossbows are overpowered otherwise.

> wind resistance
> at 100 feet

Please come back when you learn something about shooting.

Yeah please do. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the rules for D&D having a moon dropped on you are retarded given that in 3.5 you only took 1d6 from having a 200 pound anvil dropped on your head from 20 feet, so they probably ripped the rules straight from that.

Eitherway, I would not use those rules. A moon dropped on you? Instant death. I'm sick of this "characters can become gods" bullshit, it's completely unrealistic and rarely happened in anything except Greek myths which are old and boring anyway. D&D should be about more enjoyable and realistic adventures that people actually identify with.

Yeah, the DMG suggests 24d10 for being "crushed in the jaws of a moon-sized monster".

24d10 averages out to 132 damage; a level 10 barbarian could easily take that.

>a lower class of gamer

Normie plebs ruin everything. Truly enlightened gentlesirs have the intellect to comprehend the complexities of medieval armed combat.

What do I do when players question every other thing enemies do? Nearly had someone blow up at me when an orc charged 60 feet to attack his ranger. Spill the beans and tell them how and why it happened right then, hold off on explaining until later, or tell them to suck it up?

Well then the DMG is fucking retarded. Being crushed in the jaws of a moonsize monster would deal millions of points of damage. That'd be enough to crush a small asteroid. If I remember my calculations, the earth has about 1e21 hp in the 3.5 rules. Not this 80,000 bullshit from that 3rd party book with the neutronium golem. So an asteroid would have AT LEAST a million hit points. Thus the DMG is wrong and the developers just wanted to come up with "le ebin cosmic damage" thinking no one would cal them on their bullshit.

They should have known better.

>a level 10 barbarian could easily take that.

A barbarian that got lucky rolls would barely survive it, you mean.

>Because martials do not use magic.

This might be the wrong edition for you, or maybe the wrong game. Have you actually read the players handbook? Every single class can cast spells (thats right, even barbarian. Reread it, I'll wait.) Its always one of their archetypes.

...

>martials must obey the laws of reality
But they can't jump more than 20 feet. Gotcha.

I don't think it's much metagaming to let the players know the Orc used his bonus action to dash and charge. They just have to understand that creatures don't play by the same rules than PCs.

Otherwise combat would get bogged down while a DM has to choose among a plethora of options for each monster. And the PCs would be seriously fucked, there's nothing more dangerous than a character with class levels.

My best 5E game so far was three Fighters, a Barb, and a Ranger whose only spells were Hunter's Mark and Silence.

Good fucking times.

>1d12+4
>average of 11 hp / level
>110 HP at level 10
>being angry and a furry lets you tank the moon, so you only take half damage
>110 - 132 / 2 = 44 health remaining

Average damage of 24d10: 132

Level 10 Barbarian, taking only averages, +3 con mod: 15+90 (105)
While raging, make that 210 effective HP due to resistance.

A barbarian could, indeed, survive that on average. For one round, at least.

Use your words.

"This enemy has an ability that you might not be familiar with. I could tell you all of the abilities that the enemies have, but I think that might make the game less enjoyable for you. Would you like me to explain all of their abilities to you?"

Don't be confrontational, just offer to give them exactly what they want while telling them why you think it's a bad idea to give it to them. If they still want to press on, show them the stat block in full. Your jobs as the DM is to facilitate their fun, and if they prefer to play their games with the gamefaqs walkthrough open, then either give it to them or find players who don't think that way.

Well then they are not martials. Therefore your argument is invalid, and your complaint is simply that some casters are not as powerful as others.

The Strength score bit for long jumps is just what they can do reliably. The description for Athletics outright says that it can be called for when you try to jump an unusually long distance.

So basically, someone with 20 Strength could jump 20 feet with a running start every time, but if they wanted to go beyond that, the chance of failure comes into play and so does Athletics.

Very few real humans can jump that far. And you're pissed your level 1 fighter can't do it? Give me a break.

>show them the stat block in full.

That's outright cheating.

This is some really, really stale trolling.

The only demonstration I've seen of real life fencers versus a bunch of people making untrained attacks resulted in the fencers losing. IIRC, it was 3 fencers versus 100 untrained people. Everyone had balloons that had to be popped to be considered a kill, but contact was extremely limited.

Even in a situation completely divorced from reality (no tackling, punching, or ganging up on the fencers), the 100 people eventually won.

In an actual fight between untrained commoners and a master fencer, I imagine it would take far less to take them down, because fencing as a sport is divorced from reality as well.

tl;dr
Your 40 AC remark is stupid.

>D&D should be about more enjoyable and realistic adventures that people actually identify with.

D&D has been a game of superhero murder hobos since its inception. If you want a more grounded game, there are literally hundreds of other RPGs that will do that for you. May I suggest Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Harnmaster, Burning Wheel, GURPS, or RuneQuest?

A monster that big is obviously going to be magical.

Barbarians don't care if the damage is from a magical source.

Bear barbs don't even care about the damage type.

Yes, I agree, that's why I wrote it. If your players ask to cheat, give it to them. Let them disappoint themselves with their hollow victory, and learn first-hand that a little mystery makes the game more fun.

>level 1 fighter with 20 strength

Why? Because I am calling out your entitled whining as the bullshit it is?

Don't like the class? Don't play it. But your whining accomplishes nothing except power creep which would ruin D&D. Martials are power enough for their intended role. Can't deal with it? Play a wizard. No one's stopping you, but apparently no one is stopping you from complaining about every single class that doesn't live up to your expectations of it being exactly the same and doing the exact same thing, because you are pissed your fighter cannot fly or turn invisible. You wanted that? You should've played a wizard.

You have no right to complain, and you didn't back in AD&D and 3.5, either.

That won me over. Good idea.

That would be fucking awesome, though.
>The moon falls on top of you
>However, utter annihilation is held off by this raging barbarian, apparently trying to stop the moon on its tracks and, for at least a moment, succeeding!

And people say martials aren't awesome...

It would be very stupid that monsters with the same resistances lose them against magical weapons while the barbarian doesn't.

>superhero murder hobos

Heh. Try reading OD&D again, kiddo. If that's the tone you think they were going for, you are clearly deluded.

> If you want a more grounded game, there are literally hundreds of other RPGs that will do that for you. May I suggest Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Harnmaster, Burning Wheel, GURPS, or RuneQuest?

No, because all of those games are poorly made and are D&D rip-offs. Except for GURPS, which as I said is excellent.

D&D is not about superheroes, that's what Mutants and Masterminds is. And since superheroes are bland and unengaging, and D&D stories can be engaging... well, I think that's proof enough, dont you?

But anyway, D&D has no excuse for blatant unrealism just because it contains magic.

>D&D has no excuse for blatant unrealism just because it contains magic.
Heh. Try reading OD&D again, kiddo.

Well, actually, people say martials aren't magical. But that's clearly some magical shit.

Nobody in this thread is arguing for powering up the martial classes. It's just one butthurt neckbeard arguing for—well, I don't really know what you're arguing for. D&D should be less magical than it is?

I don't know what it is you hope to accomplish here. Are you trying to convince us all that we should houserule our games to be more realistic? Are you hoping that WotC's developers are reading this thread, preparing 6th edition, just waiting for your wisdom to guide them in the right direction?

No, just because someone posts this exact argument with this exact style every two weeks or so. It's just getting old.

There's monsters that don't lose their resistances against magical weapons, though.

Sorry, meant to write "And people say martials aren't interesting or fun"

>Except for GURPS, which as I said is excellent.

Then play it, for Christ's sake, and leave the rest of us out of your little crusade.

...Which is why the rules already give you disadvantage for making RWAs on a target within 5 feet of you.

The range rules in the PHB state that you attack normally up to the weapon's optimum range and with Disadvantage between the weapon's optimum and maximum range. You cannot make the attack beyond the weapon's maximum range.

As long as the DM is consistent, whatever, but it's a house rule, and is still correct.

>There's monsters that don't lose their resistances against magical weapons

Like what?

Demilich.

Generally, they aren't.

"I hit it with my sword" only lasts so long user.

Is that the only one?

No, that is some shit brought about by hit points inflation, and a DMG writer who does not understand that a moon falling on you would deal MILLIONS of damage.

That is not magic. That is a mistake.

>every two weeks
More like every other day!

Which exact part? OD&D was fairly lethal and realistic.

Well maybe you should listen to them instead of dismissing them because they bring up an uncomfortable truth.

>ONLY WIZARDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING

>You have no right to complain
Actually yeah he does. Get over yourself kid. He also has a right to cum in your mom's fat pussy.

How about you take your faggot wizard fetish somewhere else? Maybe Reddit?

I don't see why there should be monsters like that: If you're just going to make half the party do half damage to it, why not just double its health and give it vulnerabilities instead? It's less work.

Does anyone have any experience using an Ipad to display maps for your group? We aren't using minis or anything, it's all still theater of the mind, but it really helps to be able to use the Curse of Strahd maps during sessions as a visual aid.

Is the best way to just use the picture by itself and just zoom in? Are there more efficient ways to do it?

>...Which is why the rules already give you disadvantage for making RWAs on a target within 5 feet of you.

Yes but it should be within 25 feet.

> You cannot make the attack beyond the weapon's maximum range.

Also bullshit. Crossbows could regularly hit targets past 1000 yards.

>Heh. Try reading OD&D again, kiddo.

Nigger, 8th level Fighting-Men are literally called "Superhero" in OD&D.

1. Veteran
2. Warrior
3. Swordsman
4. Hero
5. Swashbuckler
6. Myrmidon
7. Champion
8. Superhero
9. Lord

> angry sperging from butthurt martial player

Play a wizard and shut up. If you give fighters spells they are basically wizards anyway so it comes to the same thing.

Stop trying to ruin D&D with your stupid ideas of how the game should be balanced.

> MUH REEEELIZM
Read the goddamn book. Your tummyfeels about what rules do and don't make sense mean literally nothing.

>what is roleplaying during combat
>what is describing your actions in varied ways
>what is reveling in the blood of your foes

> superhero is mentioned in the rules
> therefore the game is about superheroes

So D&D is a horror game because it mentions horror somewhere?

Also, your logic means that only fighters are superheroes. The other classes, including rogue, aren't.

That name is in there because gygax couldn't think of 10 names for the levels. There's a reason he stopped at 10 because he ran out of ideas. He was also a fucking moron who didn't understand how to design games, that's why D&D has been BTFO by almost every game that's come since.