/5eg/ Fifth Edition General

but user, they get bonuses to skills and either evasion or uncanny dodge. Their pseudo sneak attack ability will be limited to once per short rest but will probably scale to allow it up to 3 times per short rest at level 14 while the ephemeral weapon remains the same.

Hell I could even change the wording a bit so that the weapon needs to be powered up before you roll the attack to avoid crit hit shenanigans.

As for things I'd be willing to give up, that reduced sneak attack is one of the things I've already toned down, the original had sudden strike with regular rogue SA progression usable whenever you would normally proc SA. The ephemeral weapon was usable up to 10 times a day.

Magic initiate feat

I'm having great fun tweaking them in a stupidly-excessive rules hack that I'm putting together. Features include:

>several classes removed (only cleric, fighter, rogue, warlock, wizard remain)
>hit points and proficiencies rejiggered
>several subclasses removed
>several subclasses added
>two patrons removed, one patron added
>warlocks are the only class that gets bottomless cantrips
>warlock cantrips scale by warlock level,not class level
>several direct-damage cantrips added to warlock spell list
>several invocations added to augment non-EB cantrips
>means by which wizards obtain spells modified heavily
>several things stolen from wotc adventure path nonsense
>several things stolen from old editions and OSR faggotry

I have no idea when I'll actually stop meddling with it. Maybe in time for my current campaign to wrap up, so I can use it in my next. Who knows? Not me.

Right, and that comes down to the player. It's totally possible to roleplay any class in an interesting way. Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks just come preequipped with the best roleplay devices that make things easier.

>classes historically reliant on deities are more interesting in an edition where they aren't reliant on deities and settings where members of any class can be highly religious or engage in pacts with noncorporeal space entities

Be careful not to hurt your neck with all that fedora-tipping.

>someone mentioned gods
>FEDORA!
You can quit at any time.

For my Feywild session i plan to have the players swap character sheets at some point. I don't know for how long, probably for one RP encounter and one fight.

Thoughts?

Are you going to share a sample of this brew so we can take a look at it, or are you just going to bring it up for no reason?

>Feywild session
Bad idea.
>swaping sheets
Worse idea.

It's not mentioning gods, it's getting strident about how clerics and paladins don't, by RAW, need to have any relationship to religion. Pump your brakes, edgelord; we all get that you're too cool for mom to drag to church anymore.

I never said they were more interesting than their historical counterparts. user. I said that those classes were easier to make interesting than their contemporary counterparts user. You should read things twice in the future to make sure you're not imagining implications.

Your terrible reading comprehension being pointed out, I will say that clerics, paladins, and warlocks are still easier to roleplay than the other classes, if only because all of the classes require you to pick something to devote your character to, while the other classes do not. That choice helps the DM and the player tell interesting tales together.

It was a direct response to a question about having fun with warlocks. Tweaking the warlock class has been a fun part of working on my 5e hack.

I'm not happy with the results yet, not even to the "solicit specific feedback" stage, so I'm not inclined to post it just yet. Heck, I'm not even done with the crunch on augmenting Chill Touch and Ray of Frost yet, much less naming the damned things.

I'm sure this kind of gurgling is the best you can come up when asked for an opinion so i thank you for your input as insignificant it might be. You're doing your best and thats all i can hope for :-) bless your little heart user :-)

>strident
Do you have They Live glasses that let you see hidden text that no one else can?

Screw you guys who say Ranger is shit

>Sharpshooter feat
>+3 dex
>Hunters mark
>Archery fighting style
>Hail of thorns
>Colossus slayer
>Longbow

You are looking at a +2 bonus to attack and a minimum of 17 points of damage. Also Hunters mark can be transferred upon death of target so you can keep your chain going.

Isn't the cleric fluff full of references to your deity?

I never saw Warlock 1, but Warlock 2 had a profound influence on my fetishes.

I do play a lot of Warlocks now though, but I'm not sure if that's related.

And how do you intend to concentrate on both Hail of Thorns and Hunter's Mark at once?

Also, Colossus Slayer is one of the weaker options.

Yes. And there's nothing really hard in RAW about needing a deity, it's just heavily implied. It was explicitly not necessary in one of the Next betas, but that wording got removed.

Paladin's move to being irreligious is actually a weirder shift. Old editions and settings had Clerics that didn't technically worship Gods, but Paladins were "chosen champions" even more important and cool than Clerics for quite a while, and with all sorts of restrictions that even Clerics didn't have to put up with (though Clerics had their own that Paladins didn't). But that's gone completely now, because alignment-restricted classes are dumb and having multiple classes for different alignment shades of the same thing is even dumber (Paladin, Blackguard, Mehguard).

How were you getting Hunter's Mark in the previous version?

What needs to be changed?

You accidentally included Beast Master Ranger.

from paladin lvl 3 oath spells

???

I think 3.5 (probably other editions too) had a blurb about non-deity aligned clerics, and I'm sure some settings might, but I don't think what you're describing is RAW

Ranger hate is less about them being underpowered and more about them being boring.

For the Rowdy Roddy Piper reference, I hereby retract all criticism of you.

That said, paraphrasing somebody in greentext is commonly interpreted as sardonic. Strident probably wasn't the right word to use. Even in a tumblr-friendly deity-free setting, being an adventuring warrior dedicated to Secular Humanism is still a more ready supply of plot hooks that being some jabroni that randomly picked up a sword or spellbook and decided to take up the murderhobo lifestyle.

"As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you
want your character to embody, Appendix B includes
lists of many of the gods of the multiverse, Check with
your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."

Sounds fairly explicit to me. On the other hand, I'm not seeing anything saying that you can be a cleric without a deity.

I see two major problems. First it describes a cha spellcaster, then uses int for casting. Second it expects me to read 13 pages when the necromancer class already exists as a wizard archetype

I didn't make that pdf. some other user was posting it weeks ago.

I don't know anything about 5e rangers, don't care to either.

fuck I wish I wasn't playing 5e, but I told my group I'd give it a shot.

Not him, but if you're going to get upset like that you probably shouldn't ask for people's thoughts on Veeky Forums.
That comment wasn't even particularly bad, just unhelpful. That type of post is best ignored. Responding to it like that, trying so desperately to be insulting, so clearly lashing out, just makes you seem upset.

I wish I wasn't playing 5e either, but my group doesn't even want to try experimenting.

The possibility of godless clerics goes waaaay back in D&D, it's just quite common to associate clerics with gods. It's possible to have a non-religious cleric in the same way it's possible to have a fighter that doesn't get into fights. The name of the class has certain connotations that will reasonably lead people to make and use characters in a certain way, probably the best way, but it's not entirely mandatory.

Pic related, from the BECMI red box.

While that is a completely legitimate point, it isn't RAW for 5e

Asking for opinions on Veeky Forums does not deprive me of the right to shitpost as well, though.
> :^)

It just seemed like the guy had something to say, i was merely trying to bait it out of him.

Also,

>"Check with
your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
>"None"

Now what?

I know this is weird but do anyone know how to bypass zone of truth.

I asked because my chara became a lawyer for a thief (I am doing this so this will attract the attention to the thief guild for our thief)and I found out that the court has the zone of truth when you stand in court
and the jury has an anti-charm rune around them during the trial

the accused is basically charged with stealing when it was a 2 man job and he was just there to pick up the goods... but he got caught

how should i play this out? I mean we plan to charm the jury prior to the case but I need to make a strong case before than so it is somewhat convincing

Just do what real lawyers do.

Drown the jury in pedantry and technicalities.

Not that user, but by 5e RAW, you basically can't be a cleric. You can be a Paladin. Just not a Cleric.

care to give example
I dont know much about this

I have no Ranger hate. I have WotC hate for leaving them lackluster in comparison to other classes. They're special because they focus on damage output from ranged attacks. Except Fighters can do it better, and sooner. They're special because they have limited spells to compliment their damage output. Except Paladins have this as well, and less limited. They're special because something something nature, except Druids exist.

I WISH Ranger was decent. I love Rangers. I'm playing a Ranger. But the class is just fucking there.

Disagree with this, though. Shift a few abilities around, make their magic capacity on par with Paladin OR give them a cantrip or two, and give them a scaling bonus to ranged attack/damage that eventually outshines the Fighter's access to thee Archery Fighting style and you're on track to a worthwhile class.

Oh, and finally get rid of Favored Enemy. Seriously, fuck Favored Enemy.

Glibness spell. Maybe you could get a scroll from a wizard after adjourning the trial somehow.

It was a joke Beast Master Ranger is the buttmonkey of 5e

>Ranger hate stems from people finding it boring
>"Hurr durr I disagree because if you completely disregard the rules of the game and change shit all around it could actually be good."

What a fucking idiot

Ask your DM how he plans on making Clerics work then.

what would you want the ranger to be able to do, powers wise? or would you prefer making the ranger a fighter subclass where it gets a few druid/rogue powers?

Yesterday I drove through a road that said "No thru traffic" because of construction.

>I wasn't intending on driving through, I was going to visit a friend. It just so happened that I realized once I got there I didn't actually have any friends, so I decided to leave a different way than from where I came.
>I technically wasn't driving either, a friend was. So therefore i couldn't be charged with improper driving in the first place

It might not be the best example, but it is an example which in itself is another example

Also, you can use mutually exclusive claims as a defense. For example, if someone sues you because your dog bit them, you can defend yourself in court with both
>my dog was tied up in its kennel
>I don't own a dog
They're both valid defenses, even if common sense would make the jury suspicious why you would choose those two defenses together.

Alright, which of you is this?

So Rangers get to be Fighters, Paladins, and Druids all at the same time?

>the most important question to consider
Doesn't exactly say "this is necessary" or "you must" or "the most important question to consider and definitively answer".

>Unearthed Arcana

Well, they start with three cantrips but you include a recommended list of four.

The whole "spending THP" thing is really weird and gets weirder with the "convert a resource to THP, and THEN spend that TPH" angle.

This class just generally seems to be all over the place. The 20th level feature hinges on creatures being frightened of you, but none of the other class features involve fear. Is the class about producing undead servants? Team support? Having a massive spell list? Skill monkey-ing? Pure damage output? It seems very unfocused.

All in all it comes off as very top-down design. You had an idea and thought about it in fluff terms without really considering what you wanted the class to do mechanically.

"I'm a non-binary quint-gendered disabled vegan spacefur hipparchist that's someone who believes the government should be run by whoever owns the most horses FYI" doesn't even chart on the list of People To Watch Out For On Roll20.

What's the history behind Warlock as a class in and outside of D&D?

I ask because 5e is the first edition of D&D I've really been interested in and when I saw Warlock I thought of three things: male witches who are basically just creepy wizards, Warlock from Dota whose ult summons a familiar, and Red Mages from Final Fantasy because their Artifact armor in XI is called Warlock's attire.

Then I saw the three pacts and wondered if they weren't all connected through some sort of lore I wasn't aware of (I imagine D&D lore since two of those are heavily inspired by it, but maybe there's more to it).

is unearthed arcana frowned on? They seem like shit articles to me, but all of 5e seems like shit, so who am I to judge.

What a useless and stupid post. Those were my general suggestions to take a mechanically lackluster class that's supposed to have the flavor of "dedicated archer", and make it more mechanically viable.

That's come up too. I'd be okay with that, but I'd rather preserve them as a class.

Are they getting Superiority Dice, Second Wind, Wild Shape and Divine Smite? Of course not. Giving them a small pool of cantrips would make their magic capability more useful. If that ends up. More important than that though would be something specific to favor archery, as that's supposed to be the class' specialty.

You never have a right to shitpost. And no, I don't believe you were trying to "bait" opinions out of them, I think you were just petty and upset.
Do better, user.

>If that ends up.
Evidently I can't use the backspace key on my keyboard either.

Warlocks arose in 3.5e as a forever-caster class, basically Sorcerers on crack. All their shit was unlimited and they were "force of will" Cha-based casters who got their magic through having a special bloodline rather than studying anything (again, like Sorcs).

They are specifically "born, not made", and the overwhelming majority of them have some kind of fiendish lineage to blame for their powers, whether that be a great grandma who got knocked up by a demon lord or a father who bargained with a devil for some shit but had to sign over their first child.

5E Warlocks are pretty different from that first imagining.

Are you sub-literate?

>"Durrrr shut up ur stupid"
Thanks mate.

>Paladin's move to being irreligious is actually a weirder shift. Old editions and settings had Clerics that didn't technically worship Gods, but Paladins were "chosen champions" even more important and cool than Clerics for quite a while, and with all sorts of restrictions that even Clerics didn't have to put up with (though Clerics had their own that Paladins didn't).

Godless paladins were established at least as early as 2e in The Complete Paladin's Handbook. I don't think 1e is explicit about it one way or the other.

Warlocks were introduced in 3.5e. They were basically fluffed like sorcerers. I think that (like sorcerers) they were more a vehicle for testing out non-Vancian spellcasting systems, not so much a lore thing.

Most of the fluff for the 5e warlock comes from 4e, which really fleshed them out.

Wow, user, your mastery of greentext is impressing us all so much.

They first became a core class in 4e when they were included in the first PHB as an Arcane Striker. That provided a lot of the fluff side of the 5e warlock--they've made a pact with a powerful entity who gives them power. As the old saying goes: "Wizards get good grades by studying hard. Sorcerers get good grades by being naturally talented. Warlocks get good grades by giving the dean a blowjob after school."

Crunch-wise, they focused mainly on single-target shutdowns. Their damage wasn't quite as high as other strikers, but their powers usually carried powerful control effects. They also weren't especially mobile by striker standards, though they did get concealment whenever they moved, which was pretty handy. They had a good selection of skills and utility powers that reinforced that.

Forgot to answer the first part of this directly, but as I've said, archery would be their specialty. Assuming for now that I wouldn't touch their spellcasting ability, I'd just flat out give them the benefits of the Archery fighting style right at level one instead of Favored Enemy/Natural Explorer. At level 6, they can pick a second style in place of their enhancements for Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer

Why don't you stop being so childish and upset someone even barely disagreed with you and respond to anything that's being discussed? If you have any suggestions on how to balance the Ranger class or make it less "boring", let's hear it.

>Archer should be the only option for rangers
And now I hate your opinion.
How about scouting, tracking, survival skills, with the capacity to be good in combat in various ways.
With some nature related magic to add utility.

They still don't really get anything that makes them any better in melee, is all I'm saying.

I'm left wondering if a warlock template isn't a better way to go about this seeing as how they seem fairly similar to Warlocks anyways. Don't make it a new Warlock patron or anything (though, that idea might work too) but they're similar in tone and in invocations too; why not use a warlock similar spellcasting progression template as a base?

>flat ban on multiclassing

Why? I can understand some restrictions if you've got some faggot rollplayers that just want to minmax, but otherwise it's fine.

>deendeefags confirmed for pleb-tier movie taste

>LOL GUISE RANGER MEANS ONLY BOW CUZ RANGE(R) AMIRITE

How about you go fuck off and kill yourself.

>Archer should be the only option for rangers
Woah whoah, slow down there. Breathe. I never said they shouldn't be able to do those as well. Literally the only thing I said was "give them Archery and let them pick another style later" aside from "take away Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer".
>scouting, tracking and survival skills
Assuming here you're lamenting the loss of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer. I'll defend removing those any day. Tieing the mechanical utility of the Ranger's ability to track enemies and maneuvre around terrain to specific enemy types and terrain types is a bad idea. Favored Enemy is a sacred cow fluff mechanic with little effect and Natural Explorer could be a decent later-level ability if you expand it to all terrain types.
>good in combat in various ways
I'm honestly confused here. Did you miss where I flat-out gave them a second fighting style at level 6?
>nature-related magic
Again, I have no idea why you think I'd limit that. If anything I want to expend that. Not to something as powerful as the Druid's nature-related magic, but again, really not seeing how you think I'm putting that aspect of the class under fire.

What the fuck is going on with the reading comprehension in this thread?

Is it time for Western D&D?

Can I use Channel Divinity to Turn Shitposters?

is it wrong for me to think of her as "Vicky Dicky"?

First being better in some terrain is not a bad thing.
While I agree that the new incarnation of favored enemy is lack luster, the favored terrain rule giving significant benefits in the area you are supposed to focus in is good. It already includes rules that you add more terrain types as you level.

Second, having archery be the auto choice that is added onto still means that archery must be the speciality of the class. Because you are always an archer. Are an archer before you are anything else.
So whenaking a ranger I'd have to be a ranged fighter primarily, unless I feel like fighting against my class.

If you think the archer path should be better, argue for it being buffed. Not automatic

You're just embarrassing yourself.

How about you go suck my halberd-bill-glaive-guisarme.

Not sure where else to ask this, hopefully someone here can help me out.

A few threads back one user posted a PDF to an old D&D TSR module called, "Against the Cult of the Reptile God," which was aimed at 1st to 3rd level characters.

I gave it a read-through and liked a fair bit of it and wanted to convert it to 5th edition, but the PDF is missing some of the maps. Specifically, the maps for the two inns in the town and the dungeon for where the "reptile god" resides. My google-fu has failed me, so if someone can direct me to where the maps can be found I'd greatly appreciate it (and share the conversion on here once I finish it).

So, I am about to run PotA next week, and I am a little scared of the sandbox. I just know the party is going to end up somewhere they shouldn't be. and these guys I am running this for are all randoms off the internet, so its not like they would be cool with me nudging them away from certain areas or too forgiving of a TPK like a group of friends would.

So what is the best way to handle this? should I set up walls around areas I dont want them to be? I was thinking about making easy and hard versions of every keep and temple, then they can go through them in any order and still not be caught in boiling water, or met with low level trash they just have to mop up.

Or is just letting it be an open sandbox with the team possibly getting in over their heads part of the experience?

What did you do if you ever ran PotA?

Multiclassing is inherently twinky because they put mechanics over flavor, when the thing that separated an RPG from a war game is that the flavor is meant to be equal or even more important than the mechanics. People say they do it for character/story reasons, but you know that's just an excuse. It's bullshit 99% of the time. I think it should totally be allowed, so long as a campaign actually has the character doing things that'd lead them down that path, but planning to multiclass ahead of time because of "muh build" is a sign of a shitty player. What, you're a sort-of skilled paladin, amateur ranger who serves Cthulhu on the weekend? Yeah, that's cool, and hey: "coincidentally" you one-shot the BBEG, that's cool, too, right?

Didn't realize that version didn't have the maps. That was just the only version I had that was small enough to upload on Veeky Forums (it was also a freebie from WotC afaik).
Here's where you can find one with the proper maps included:
mega:#F!9k0mnRDA!4izJiGrCIFeoHBlbskROwg!wg1xGDqC

And that link came out a bit weird, use this one if the other one is being silly:
mega.nz/#F!9k0mnRDA!4izJiGrCIFeoHBlbskROwg

ADnD -> 1e -> Modules -> N series

I already tried that, it doesnt work well at all. they are supposed to get a fuckton of low level spell uses, not a few strong ones. I also took the invocations from the warlock because the 3.5 version of the class was granted a lot of bonus feats and invocations seemed like the best way to plug that gap.

the unseen weapon feature is meant to give it a taste of melee prowess, not convert them into a martial archetype. If anything, its meant to be more gish in nature, though its combat capabilities are still limited, like you had said.

I lowered the damage from the smite from 2d4+2 to 2d4, half necrotic half cold. Is that more fitting in power level?

oh, and restricted it to 3 times per long rest.

>Favored Enemy/Terrain
Well I'm less against FT than I am against FE. I hear you here to some degree, but I'm not sold on it. Official sources even point out the limiting nature of tieing mechanical benefits to such conditional factors as what enemies you happen to face or what environments you happen to be in, specifically in regards to the FE feature.

Instead of FT as written, I'd reverse the terrain types and the benefits; rather than choosing one type of terrain to receive all of those benefits for, I'd instead make those benefits universal across all terrain, but have the players choose which benefits to receive. This way they are equally valuable wherever the progression of a campaign may take its players.

>Archery
Honestly, I'd argue that Archery being the default combat choice for the class called "Ranger" is a pretty reasonable supposition to make. No other class is designed around long-range weapons, and that's a unique specialization that I think you could pretty easily assume of someone building a Ranger.

>buffed, not automatic
There's no "archer path". There's a fighting style that Fighters have access to before Rangers, that carries benefits specific to long-range combat. Expanding that fighting style still wouldn't address the fact that players looking to specialize in archery are more incentivized to go Fighter than Ranger, and that is a serious failing of this edition of this class.

Here have some more that I found yesterday.

Well that was underwhelming.

Honestly, these are pretty boring, and if they're not, they're likely just trolling.

>FT
That makes very little sense.
Why would you not just be better in the terrain you most familiar with?

>Archery wouldn't fix fighter being better
It would if you made it an option with equal or better buffs to the fighter choosing archery buffs

>Limiting the explorer type to just being the ranged class.
>Having ranged weapons be the focus for an entire class and not a specialization one or more classes.
All of my why. You just pointed out there isn't a melee only class.
Something that narrow should not be a class.

No worries, this one has the maps, so I can continue working on the conversion.

>I'd argue that Archery being the default combat choice for the class called "Ranger" is a pretty reasonable supposition to make
It's ranger as in the verb--to range, to travel or wander far.