/5eg/ Fifth Edition General

Or three levels of Warlock for EVEN MORE CANTRIPS.

Party members turning a guy into a hammer is isn't a problem. A guy turning himself into a hammer is a problem.

The best kind of party. A group of 4 primary damage dealers is too easy to kill.

Is suptg any good for 5e games, or is the friend of mine that called it a SJW hellhole with no games telling the truth?

>suptg
The archive site? What?

Back before 5e was officially released Bard could hit around 17-18 cantrips. Don't know if anything has changed since to prevent that number.

It has an IRC.

irc in 2016 sounds like cancer.

From the last thread

>Warlock Invocation
>Blade of Might (other names possible)
>Requires: Pact of the blade, level 12/15
>When you cast a spell, you may make an attack as a bonus action.

Essentially it's a clone of the Valor Bard 15 feature.
Another option would be to copy the E Knight version, make it cantrips only, and reduce required level to 5/7/9, whichever seems more fitting.
It just feels like the other major gish options can do this, so it feels proper that Bladelock gets it.
I also wanna make extra invocations for the other two pact boons as well, toss in a few new spells for each of the other classes, and toss it up for DM's Guild

I basically did the things you suggested, cutting the gold on all of them by at least half and converting ep to sp.

All the weapons and armor in town got changed to normal. I really wish 5e did Masterwork weapons cause I'd use that for a couple of the weapons in town (the mayor's weapon for example), but a silvered weapon might work.

So far I've just been working on conversions in the town itself and formatting it to look better. I'll get to the nitty gritty of it soon (ie., the Golden Bough Inn, the Temple, and the end dungeon) soon enough.

Make masterworks a thing then user.
They add a +1 to hit, act as magical for the sake of overriding resistances, and are silvered as well.

How? Do you prefer tumblr or something?

Oh, also, it needs to use your pact weapon to do the bonus attack.

3 level dip in warlock for pact of the tome, 3 cantrips.
4 bard cantrips known.
2 warlock cantrips known
4 cantrips from magical secrets
3 cantrips from magic initiate
2 more cantrips if you count the invocations that give you first level spells all the time (disguise self and silent image can both be at will)

I've seen this floating around:

Whenever you take the attack action with your pact weapon, you may use a bonus action to cast Hex before it, without using any spell slots or components.

I made a few for the others as well. Pact of the Chain got new familiars.

Pact of the tome got spell mastery type invocations. Something like this:

Level 18 Pact of the Tome: Choose 1 first level spell from the warlock spell list. You may cast that spell without using a spell slot.

The hex one seems excessive.
I rather just want bladelock to be reasonably on par with E Knight and V Bard as far as attack economy goes.

The hex one feels unneeded. By the time you'd be able to get that invocation, Hex already lasts 8+ hours, you'd get spell slots back before it times out.

And then Cantrips from Race (Elf is what I remember, but now there's Merfolk and the like)

Yeah, that's still sounding right. The Warlock dip wasn't necessary, but its probably an easier way to get even more cantrips.

text messages, phone calls, facebook, snapchat, skype

maybe you've avoided them recently

The warlock dip gets you 1 more cantrip than taking bard to level 20 does. It's 3 from pact of the tome, or 2 from the last magical secrets.

The hex spell is useful, and almost always up. Adding this as a fifth level spell would give the bladelock some utility as a debuffing type gish, which hasn't been done yet. Considering that hex is almost always up anyways, this just makes using it easier. It isn't so much as power increase as a utility and versatility increase. I'd probably put this invocation at level 5 or something.

My definition of a balanced system is that a power gap can't form to the point that a fair encounter can't happen. i.e. There's nothing I can throw at the DeathWeaver that won't end up killing the WordSmith even though they're the same level and in the same party.

So with 5e having so many fucking ability buffs compared to previous editions, can someone explain to me why the FUCK we also need racial bonuses and no penalties? Is this some sort of "penalties to ability scores is le racist" shit?

There is literally no excuse for this shit. Orcs make worse wizards because they have lower intelligence. Elves make worse melee fighters because they have lower constitution. That doesn't mean you can't play one. Hell depending on the class it doesn't even matter. I know a guy who had a 16 and an 18 for his stats and wanted to play an elf so he just switched Con and Dex and had the same fucking numbers as if he played a human.

All the different races piss me off, too. Hill dwarfs and mountain dwarfs.... who gives a fuck?? And drow as a goddamn CORE RACE? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

One of my friends wants me to play 5e and after the shitstorm of hell I went through DMing 4th edition for these fucks I'm not sure I want to play this game. It encourages you to play tranny characters and drow. Is this Special Snowflake: The Game??

Please tell me they at least removed kender....

Fuck off faggot.

>another retarded faggot who just found out about corellon

>whines an assload

>"Please tell me they at least removed kender...."
You didn't even read the book, did you? Shit bait/10.

(You)/10

...

Because 5e is balanced around bounded accuracy. And one of the ways to enforce this is by people having - at most - a +3 to any stat at level 1 after racial modifiers (outside of rolling stats and hitting a 16+ on the dice roll). This encourages players to spend their first two ASI's on getting to 20 in their primary stat and then look at the rest of the ASIs as either ways to get feats or bump up their secondary stat (or Constitution for more HP/level).

Also keep in mind most games don't get past level 10, which is part of the reason why high-level games tend to fall apart past level 14, simply because it's hard to balance a fight when the party starts getting access to world-breaking spells.

>(outside of rolling stats and hitting a 16+ on the dice roll).

Which isn't even that fucking hard. I could easily run into the ability cap by level 4, and be right up against it at level 1. Did these dumb-asses even think the system through before they dumped it on the general population? Everyone loved it, but they would have loved ANY game that didn't suck complete ass after the mess that was 4th edition.

I don't care about Corellon. There have been veiled references to this shit for years, I mean look at the Book of Vile Darkness. The issue now is that right in the PHB is a goddamn rule they can point to and whine about "fursecution" when you won't let them play a trans-nigger shaman pluto-kin, because the book fucking basically encourages you to go outside "traditional gender roles" or whatever. Guess what, faggots, there are two, maybe three genders. I am not dealing with this in-between shit. I am so mad at Wizards for sinking to the level of White Wolf. I don't even hate gays; what I hate is a game that encourages LTBQG people to be annoying to the point where I want to hate them.

>Mialee
Fuck off, Virt. No one cares. Not even you.

I haven't been paying attention to WotC for a while; did we just not get a UA this month?

>The issue now is that right in the PHB is a goddamn rule they can point to and whine about "fursecution" when you won't let them play a trans-nigger shaman pluto-kin, because the book fucking basically encourages you to go outside "traditional gender roles" or whatever.
Then don't let those guys play, hardass. What part of "Fuck off faggot" do you not get, aspie?

Delayed until next monday because (((Mearls))) is a massive kike.

"I don't play roleplaying games but shitpost and concern troll on Veeky Forums": the starter kit: the Post

You didn't even fail to mention the kender meme.

Someone posts basically the same post every damn thread.

It's been delayed til next week or the week after because holidays. And it's going to be a DMs Guild spotlight anyway.

It's been pushed back a lot this month.

The fuck happened with Mearls? I spend like 4 months playing another system and suddenly this guy is a pariah.

I'm running a Western themed campaign and one of my players wanted to be a cowboy so I let him use Matt Mercer's gunslinger homebrew. Now another player wants to be a gunslinger too but the first player says that you shouldn't have more than one of the same archtype in the party and that he picked it first so the other guy should have to pick something else.
Is this at all reasonable or is he just being a child who doesn't want to share his toys?

People other than gunslingers can use guns, to be fair.

Having two gunslingers would be a bit silly, but if you've got a party of more than four players, it's probably fine to have.

Child who doesn't want to share his toys.

You shouldn't have let him use Mercer's homebrew in the first place though.

What part of "I can post here if I want to" do you not get, aspie? Maybe you should try refuting my points.

This precious little paragraph is getting all these bastards out of the woodwork to come in and try to play gay faggot characters. D&D already attracts the hipster progressive crowd. Why give them a literal rule to lawyer as excuse for them to be annoying? And then *I* look like the bad guy for being "intolerant" when I just want to play a goddamn game.

>because (((Mearls))) is a massive kike.

He always was, though.

> using shit created by an actor paid to shill D&D on his podcast with a bunch of ex-camwhores

You deserve what you get. Let them both play a gunslinger, you introduced the class, it's your turn to deal with the consequences.You have no excuse otherwise.

I'm not the one complaining it's the player who brought up the homebrew in the first place that's complaining that he doesn't want anyone else using it.

>Balance edition: what do you think a balanced game looks like.
Anything made by a group of friends who know what one another want to be good at, avoid stepping on one another's toes and help one another each fit into the niche they want to fit into.

Sidenote, what classes/archetypes/etc would you think best suit these guys back when they were all in their prime?

Is the homebrew particularly bad? The campaign hasn't started yet so I could just tell everyone to just use PHB classes with guns if it's a shitty homebrew.

Monster Hunter Fighter (Gothic UA, not the homebrew shit), Oath of Crown paladin, Hunter Ranger, Champion Fighter

>"I can post here if I want to"
>I can play a trans pluto shaman-kin whatever the fuck if I want to.

In this scenario, both of the above statements rely on the same logic, the belief that because they are allowed to do something, they should. The proper response is to say that the character does not fit in with the intended setting (or topic, in the case of your unruly posting.) Or, if they are especially volatile, a 'fuck off' would suffice.

So, in short, your conversation is annoying, and doesn't fit in with whatever the hell it is we talk about in /5eg/. Fuck off. Also, just tell the furries that you are the DM, intolerant or not, and in this game, trans-shaman pluto-kin don't exist, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, but they would have to have been reading through the game to begin with to find the one page that brings it up, so they're not coming out of the woodwork just because of that little bit. It's perfectly easy for a GM to just say, "That doesn't work in my setting," and there won't be any androgynous or cross dressing characters. And if there are, there are going to definitely be in-character consequences and judgement by the people they interact with. And how would they be annoying by doing it? As long as they're not shoving that detail down everyone's throats, in which case it's just a poorly developed character. It's just a single detail about (likely) a single character in a role-playing game, and you're gonna let it piss you off?

You're not just coming off as the bad guy because you're making a big deal about the gender stuff. Now you're making it seem like a bad thing that the game is being played by more people. If you don't want to play with a bunch of hipsters or trans, just don't play with a bunch of hipsters or trans.

Wouldn't Ciaran just be an Assassin?
Wouldn't Artorias be a Beastmaster?

The homebrew isn't actually that bad. It's really just a really specific Fighter archetype that has some cues taken from Paizo's Gunslinger (Grit ect.). It's alright.

But I think more the problem is that you wanted to run a Western game without really thinking about the system. It might be better to use another like Deadlands where you can have magic and all the D&D goodies (like priests healing ect.), and multiple people being able to use guns without qualms about tripping over each other's toes.

It's not *bad.* It's a 3.pf port, though, and even though it doesn't completely succumb to the usual challenges there, it still shows.

This is entirely subjective, but I personally think the Gunslinger fails to clear its own orbit thematically. At the end of the day it's a fighter/rogue hybrid slaved to a particular set of equipment choices with some crafting thrown in.

Honestly the two players are being so whiny I'm just gonna go back on my word and not allow the gunslinger archetype.
Also I'd love to play Deadlands but I've already talked to my group and none of them are willing to learn another system.

What's the most interesting way to shake up the standard Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric party? What interesting teamwork combinations can you build? Any way to invert each of their expected party roles?

>I've already talked to my group and none of them are willing to learn another system.
well... good luck user

Ranged battlemaster, Swashbuckler, Bladesinger, Arcana Cleric

I'm almost positive none of them read the PHB past the sections on character creation so when I brought up the prospect of more reading I got dirty looks and radio silence.

Honestly it's a kid who doesn't want to share his toys.

Keep in mind too that the gunslinger class is basically just a ranged physical DPS class with a couple extra "fighter maneuvers" that give up a bit of consistent damage (in the form of jammed/misfired guns) for larger damage die.

just outright ban them.

youll end up with something like paladin, druid, monk, and sorcerer/warlock

Sorry if this isn't the place (I figure this isn't the thread, but I don't think the question deserves its own), but what board do LARP posts go on?

Sometimes LARP threads show up on this board.

Imbalance doesn't exist what so ever in any role playing game because simply it's not a competitive tactical game where balance is a factor at all especially as the DM can just adjudicate any issue fairly themselves.

Yeah he's just being a child. I ended up deciding against gunslingers because guns would be too good at low levels and I'd rather they be something the players can acquire along the adventure and he immediately said that by that logic I shouldn't allow magic either.

hes ARRtarded. just gm rule 0 that shit and tell him to find a new game if he doesnt like it. then if he stays, give him a gun later to tease him.

Guns are fun if you give them to good players mid campaign. Otherwise, keep them away.

Ciaran is an Assassin Rogue no doubt
Artorias is a Oath of the Crown Paladin, let's just say he got a custom feat that allowed him to get a celestial animal companion
Ornstein is a Battle Master Fighter
Gogh would either be a Champion Fighter or Hunter Fighter but everything devoted to maxing out his sick bow skills, maybe even a custom feat that lets him use Wisdom or something or at least lets him ignore being blind.

>Wouldn't Artorias be a Beastmaster?
Anyone can spend a few gold for a pup and teach it to fight, though. Arty's schtick is going into the sinking pits of fuckery, making strange pacts and gaining the power to chase the Abyss back into its black recesses to kill whatever dares crawl out.

He's probably got a couple Warlock levels and then mainly runs either Fighter or Paladin I reckon.

The Fighter is the dexy ranged character, the rogue the frontliner, the wizard an armored support, and the cleric the ranged blaster? That's pretty much as novel as it gets I suppose, short of turning the rogue into the healer and the fighter into the buff support.

>Now you're making it seem like a bad thing that the game is being played by more people.

That is a bad thing though. It's only not a bad thing if you are a WotC shill. And i'm talking a literal shill. Please explain why more people in the hobby is a good thing.

More content is made if there's a market for it. That is at least partially good

Pact of the Blade
>While wielding your pact weapon, you may cast spells with a ranged attack roll as a melee spell attack, using your pact weapon as a focus

How does this sound? As far as I can see, the main problem with Blade Pact is that its features don't synergise with the rest of the Warlock's kit and there's no reason to actually use melee attacks when you have EB+Hex. Taking all the Blade invocations eats into your options and you still end up lackluster and MAD, and if the options buffed your melee enough to be worth it they'd be stepping on other classes' turf. Meanwhile, EB is accepted as pretty balanced - so why not just be able to spam EB in melee? In terms of balance versus the other Pacts, this is like adding a conditional third of a feat (Crossbow Expert, but can only target enemies in melee range) to what is already about a third of a feat, compared with Tome Pact (one and 3/4 feats, Ritual Caster + Magic Initiate) and Chain (probably about a feat's worth of familiar improvements).

This would also open up the Blade invocations to do more interesting things - lifesteal would be a Warlock-appropriate way to offset the class' natural squishiness without just giving them better armour, some mobility options like blinking around on hit might be cool. There's also a choice between having a shield in the off-hand for additional survivability or a focus/component pouch for ranged attack options. The main downside would be that the actual weapon you choose would be irrelevant and purely fluff, but a magical fiend-infused dagger dealing the same hits as a magical field-infused greatsword isn't totally unacceptable right?

Opinions?

>Please explain why more people in the hobby is a good thing.

Don't choke on your biscotti

This and the fact that as more people give it a try and enjoy it, the more acceptable it's going to be. The public image of playing D&D has already gone from a bunch of social outcasts hidden away in some foul smelling basement to a bunch of people getting together (in person or just online) and working together to tell a story. Which sounds like a more appealing generalization?

Plus, the more people play, the more the people playing get a chance to actually socialize, make new friends, and get better at communicating their thoughts. In D&D, it could be communicating a plan for breaking into the castle of the BBEG. IRL, it can be communicating with someone at work without coming off as creepy.

So anyone else hates playin as a bard and comming into a music room? Every mansion, every mansion, every palace, even some taverns have music halls, this place is supposed to be like, your fucking sanctuary, your place of power, but its always just a useless fucking room
The DM never prepares anything special for the one place where you're special. Kinda sucks

The specialness doesn't come from the instruments, it comes from the bard playing it. You're the one using it to channel the magic.

What do you want waiting for you? Another bard just waiting specifically to challenge you to a musical duel? Some weird instrument you won't even know how to play, making it useless to you?

If you want to show off or be useful or advance something in your character, talk to the DM instead of complaining about them online.

What do you expect? You could have a performance check for spare change in a tavern, but the DM isn't going to give you wild magic surges or whatever just because you're in a room where a lot of people emptied spit valves

I've got a dilemma with the game I'm in and I'd love to hear your input.

I've been with my current group for over a year now, we've had some good times and bad times but it's been fun every step of the way.

But now our DM has kinda railroaded us into the 'Curse of Strahd' pre-written adventure, but from the first couple sessions it's clear that this module is going to be very slow going for us (15 plus sessions to get through the main story at this rate), I'm not enjoying the way the DM is putting the adventure across, every NPC is smug, speaks slowly and everyone says the same thing to us.

I don't want to tell the DM about my feelings because he'll 100% start to treat me differently knowing I'm not enjoying the adventure or his roleplaying, but I don't know how much more of this module I can stomach.

What do.

idk, atop of my head

>The ghosts of the haunted mansion come back to listen to the music. On a really good check/ RP , they leave a clue

>Playing the right song triggers a secret room

>The acoustics of the room empower your enchantments. Advantage on range / checks for musical actions / rituals / potency of healing spells

>the resonance of past songs has left the air charged with power. Ritual casting takes half the time

I thought this game was supposed to use your imagination

>I don't want to tell the DM about my feelings because he'll 100% start to treat me differently knowing I'm not enjoying the adventure or his roleplaying
That's what you want. You want him to treat you differently by changing how he's running the adventure.

Either tell him you have a problem with it, put up with it, or excuse yourself from the game.

> Every castle and tavern is haunted, full of secrets, and enchanted.

>I don't want to tell the DM about my feelings because he'll 100% start to treat me differently
What do you mean by that? Would simply saying "i'm not really feeling this setting's atmosphere" be a bad idea?
You could also power through it. It's a pretty good campaign. If it feels slow, it might also be you and your comrades' fault. Try to start conversations and debates within the group. Start the session with a plan previously agreed upon. Lead them if they need a leader.

>UNRELATED, BUT
One of my players want to play a Beast Master. I've came up with this quick fix for the class, tell me how many cocks I've sucked pretty please.
homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rkbNUlnBw

Quicker fix:
3rd level changes) beasts health = 5*Ranger level, passively make the beast's save it's vanilla save +your proficiency bonus

7th level) the vanilla feature (it's really good) + the no damage on successful saving throws

11th level) player and beast get 3 attacks between them, the ranger and beast must attack once each, and the third can go to either. Also the beast's attacks become magical.

15th level) The beast can also share hunter's mark

It's not a job, it's a hobby that garners no monetary profit, so I don't have to put up with an autistic "savant's" cumcrust belly because I don't need his services. Who fucking cares if he's "good" at a pointless zero-profit game. I want to play a game with the people who are most fun to play with, dumbass. If I have more fun playing flag football with my grandma then I'll pick her over 22 year old Touchdown McJockson.

And WotC shills are people who buy and endorse their pyramid scheme extortion incomplete puzzle collector game called Magic: The Gathering that almost literally takes candy from babies. But whatever, it's their money.

>Please give me special treatment

Does not address the fact that you're not fighting besides your beast until level5.
Does not suffice to fix the survivability issues. If your companion isnt proficient in Dex Save, it's fucked.

Vanilla 7th lvl feature is super strong, yes. That's why i got rid of it, it's too good if the companion gets his turn.

Ranger
>make class focus on battlefield control, mobility, utility
>pick between Archery and Dual Wielding at 1st
>Archetypes at 3rd are solo, one stronger companion, many weaker companions
>replace FE, FT with 'specialties' = warlock invocations based on enemy/terrain types, change on a long rest or something

Class has Ranger flavour, actually plays differently than a suboptimal Fighter that's been cut in half
Someone else fill in the details

Why would they turn critical role into a cringe fest ?

>many weaker companions

sweet jesus, no. that's the last thing the game needs, another douchey nature druid summoning a million pixies or a necormancer with his "epic undead army" that takes 30 minute turns.

The best thing about this edition is how comparatively fast combat is. Anyone who recommends slowing it down is high as a kite.