/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General: Cheeseburger Edition

Posting over in this thread.
I'm using a magic trinket won in a lottery as motivation for the party to solve a time-sensitive situation in order to pick up said winning before it is forfeited.
I'm looking for ideas for what it could be. Something for level 3 characters.
>Prize in a lottery from Morgrave University in Sharn, so the item should have little value or use in academia
>Item is a relic retrieved from Xen'Drik being lottoed as a better fundraiser than auctioning it
>Could be considered to be of little worth due to an ability that is too obscure to be of use, like +5 to checks to find mundane rocks or bark, or have an unknown ability that could be reactivated by installing a dragonshard in the item's empty center
>Should be shiny enough to motivate their action

My party should be entering a marsh soon. I'm under the impression travelling there with horses should be more or less impossible, since a description of the place says "The ground is what passes for dry in the mere: even “solid ground” is soggy, with water very near the surface." Am I correct to assume a horse might start sinking into the ground or break an ankle or something of the sort?

Yeah, I like the 5e role allocation design decisions of how each class generally fits in a party.
Encourages class diversity a whole lot more than in previous editions, which is more fun I think. Got different people doing different things rather than multiple people doing the same thing.

They play alright. They're considered the weakest of the full casters (not due to damage output but due to spells known limiting their utility) but they're also the only class that gets metamagic shenanigans, which gives them extra flexibility when it comes to casting the spells they know.

They're fine.

shallow draft boats are what you want to use in most marshes.

They're pretty good, not the best, but useful. Easy to make interesting given their backstories are automatically weird and mysterious, and casting isn't super special or anything. You also have the opportunity to make them the talky one if that's your thing. Just about any combat focused class is viable in this edition.

Yeah, look up the battle of Agincourt. Player characters should get penalties to movement at the very least, and swamps are a good way to give your PCs annoying diseases. I'd recommend introducing a village where some locals offer to guide them through in exchange for money, which can circumvent a lot of hassle. If they don't take them up on their offer then punish them.

They're fine. If you at least liked the old metamagic stuff sorcerers are the only ones who can do that now, and it's a lot of fun. Maximzed fireball is always a good time.

It's likely that not ALL the ground is impassable - after all, it's not like soggy ground means a human will sink into it. Neither will a horse. It will, however, make travel much slower and harder for both the people and the horses unless they're on relatively firm trails.

It locates giants. Practicallly worthless (not to mention powerless) outside of Xendrik. Outside of that, it looks fucking swank, the money goes to a good cause, and having won the lottery is prestige in itself.

However, I'd just fiat that your players spent a pool of money granted to them by superiors in their midst so as to rub elbows with high society. this adds an extra plot hook of not fucking up a job your boss assigned to you.

The more I get into DnD the more I wish multi-classing was better. Especially how the feats/ability score increases are not tied to player level like proficiency.

I was planning out a psychic cavalier and it'd be dipping into Warlock(3), Paladin(5) and then the rest in Cavalier Fighter which would mess my progression up, especially if I went from level one. Though this is also an issue of find steed being a lv2 Paladin only(naturally)spell.

I feel like there must of been some better way to have multiclass work when right now its better to just homebrew a few things(like Warlock Chain pact giving a single steed)than actually multiclass since outside of one rogue level it seems really iffy.

Unless I'm wrong and multi-classing can be used very well.

>The more I get into DnD the more I wish multi-classing was better.
5e multiclassing only exists because the wails of Munchkins would rise to the heavens.

With the archetypes, there's absolutely no cause to multiclass besides trying to mechanically twink some broken amount of burst damage out of your "character".
I say "character", because the people who build such garbage inevitably put 99% of their thought into their combo mechanics rather than playing anything that is entertaining around the table.
/end rant.

I guess I just find it strange that sorcerers are the good metamagic users now. What Origins do you guys like? I heard there was a stormborn origin, which fits my character idea, how is it?

>Warlock(3), Paladin(5)
Case in point; Munchkin 101, a stupid damage combo that's commonly played by unimaginative power-gamers.

Sorcerers are a bit worse than all the other full casters, but they're still good.
I wish they'd get just a minor tweaking - it wouldn't take all that much to put them next to the others.

Fluff-wise it's a Forgotten Realms thing, though of course that's adaptable.
But if you mean "is it tough", then yes, it's pretty strong.

Multiclassing has always been pretty weird in D&D I agree. I think they tied feats/ability score increases to your class levels in 5E to stop the deluge of like fighter 5/samurai 2/wizard 3/mind melter 6 multi class shenanigans of yesteryear.

Multiclassing CAN work quite well (e.g. barbarian/rogue, monk/rogue, fighter/paladin, etc) it's just that you need a fairly clear idea of where you're going and probably don't want to much further than 4 or 5 in your splash IMO. A splash of one level into many classes can prove beneficial in many ways, whether that's for some increased flexibility or more proficiencies or just some interesting RP.

They wanted to distinguish between the caster classes so sorcerers got the sort of flexible magic. As for origins, I really like the charlatan for fun. You get to make up a whole new identity for your character to inhabit, and it just generally offers a lot of fun RP choices.

1st: You learn Primordial

1st: Immediately after casting a 1st or higher level spell, you can fly up to 10 feet without provoking.

6th: Resist lightning, thunder. Whenever you cast a 1st or higher level spell that deals lightning or thunder, creatures of your choice within 10 feet of you take lightning or thunder damage equal to half sorc level.

6th: Minor weather control; stop the rain within 20 feet of you, or choose wind direction within 100 feet of you.

14th: When hit by a melee attack, reaction to deal lightning damage equal to sorc level to attacker. They make a Str save vs. 20 foot push.

18th: Immune to lightning, thunder. Gain fly 60. Once per rest, can cut it to fly 30 to give up to 3+cha creatures fly 30 for one hour.

>or just some interesting RP.
That's what Backgrounds are for. Let's not kid ourselves, people dip into other classes to stack abilities. It really makes me wonder if the people who do this simply can't find enough gamers who want to play Pathfinder.

Multiclassing sacrifices depth of ability for breadth of ability. You give up the strongest abilities of one class for the multiple less-powerful abilities of two (or more) classes. And yes, that includes ability score improvements--you sacrifice raising your stats in exchange for class features.

The only area where 5e multiclassing actively fails is Extra Attack. 4 of the 12 core classes get it but get nothing from multiclassing into one of the other classes with it up to 5th level. Paladin, ranger, and barbarian can be fine--they get higher-level spells or fast movement that level--but fighter 5 on top of any other martial class is a waste.

>Pathfinder
Yo homie I see your wizard and raise you a wizard. Now we wizards up in da wizards doin wizard shiiiieeeeeet.

>Multiclassing grants early nova-damage ability on the basic presumption that everyone will get tired of the game and drop out before 11th level.

Fix'd that for you.

Fighters are fucking disgustingly tasty in gestalt though.
Mmmmmmm.

Sure some folks do, and I've seen others who do it for flavor reasons. If it gets you that bothered then run a home game and ban multiclassing.

I figure that stable and ongoing campaigns got so rare after the 90s that for the next 20 years the game /is/ the build. See also the thousandth iteration of the CYOA generals (there are two of them).

The only multi-class option I've ever seen "agreed" upon to be good is one level into rogue for Expertise.

That's the annoying part for this character build, since those levels are not for damage at all but purely for flavor(warlock)and Find Steed from Paladin.

Which made me realize how pointless multi-classing was when I could just get Find Steed to be a level 1 spell or have it be a Warlock Pact Chain Familiar.

I didn't play the other editions so that makes sense but it still seems to be an odd choice when proficiency and other formula is tied to character level but it isn't.

My psychic cavalier required talking to his horse for flavor so homebrewing warlock to work with that(with only a 3 level dip)makes more sense than having to put in a ton of Paladin levels.

At least it seems like capstone abilities are not really as amazing as in other RPG's I've seen so losing out on a few isn't a big deal.

When you reduce the campaign to dungeon runs with metagame munchkin builds, you've take the first step to having a brief one.

That said, I'm an older DM who runs for players nearing 30yrs of age, I've never tried running for kids with the attention span of a gnat.

>At least it seems like capstone abilities are not really as amazing as in other RPG's I've seen so losing out on a few isn't a big deal.

Generally yea. I think the Barbarian one is fucking hilarious, but I've also never hit level 20 in D&D so I wouldn't worry about it that much.

Thanks, I just got it from the trove myself.
I'm a-ok with them not being top-tier casters, I'm making this character from a more RP stance than mechanical. but obviously it's nice if both sides are good.

>The only multi-class option I've ever seen "agreed" upon to be good is one level into rogue for Expertise.

Feat ______ Mastery. You gain Expertise in said skill, and 1 point in the primary attribute most associated with that Skill.

See you really don't need to multiclass at all.

hey guys dm here, for my campaign there are Djinn's, and I want this wizard NPC going around and capturing them like pokemon for him and the other "trainers" to battle them in this underground elemental fighting arena/game that they do as a secret club kind of thing

my question is, how does my wizard get these djinn in these objects exactly? are there rules to this? or did I miss something in my MM?

>Multiclassing grants early nova-damage ability on the basic presumption that the DM's planned encounters will crumble at the superior build, however the DM will be able to realize and counter the min-maxer's higher-than-stratosphere damage before other players can get to a similar level of utility and effectively contribute, but at some point the non-minmaxed characters will have died due to the heavily increased encounter power and the autist who abused multiclassing will have a sperg rage because the DM has "targeted" him based on the fact that he can no longer breeze through encounters and "beat" the DM, therefore the game will end before the other players finally get some sweet powers at 11th level.

Revised. Thoughts?

I've always loved sorcerer fluff. I played them in 3.5 and Pathfinder despite objectively being worse than wizards just for that. That's part of why it depresses me, if only a little, that they can't quite be on the same level as the rest in this edition. They definitely closed the gap between classes *ALL AROUND*, but damnit I wanted sorcerer to have its mechanical day in an edition so bad.

You'd think that would be a feat in the book.

>min-maxer's higher-than-stratosphere damage
Person who doesn't understand 5e go and please stay go.

He's an NPC. He can do whatever you (the DM) want him to do).

That sounds pretty much spot-on.
I love the guys who try to convince me that their "background concept totally makes sense for a Warlock/Paladin", when everyone knows it's just for bullshit smiting and the like.

I do not allow any multiclassing at my table, but then I had quality players who weren't interested in it in the first place.

It's what's heavily suggested here: media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/UA-Feats-V1.pdf
Keep in mind that such feats (skill, not tool) are very boring. And take away from the rogue and bard's somewhat unique niches.

It's a joke, boss. It's more in reference to older editions than this one anyway.

>If you aren't doing triple the damage of a single-class character, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULZ!"
Tha/tg/uy detected.

>triple damage
>5e
gapsg

Meh. I'm okay with a player trying some stuff out, as long as they actually try to fit ONE role and not ste on the other player's toes. We're all supposed to be having some fun here.

That's not what he was saying at all, bub.

>Keep in mind that such feats (skill, not tool) are very boring.

The guy taking them wants to be super-Acrobatic. Or super-knowledgeable about History. Or something. To him, it's not boring.

>And take away from the rogue and bard's somewhat unique niches.

They already get multiple Expertise, and the rogue has an extra Feat, so he can Expertise beyond his basic 4 and become incredibly proficient. The Stealth-Expert Halfing Ranger doesn't steal the Thief's thunder in any way, and that's not even considering the Thief's higher level enhancements like taking 10 automatically.

I'll be honest when I originally made my post about fighter/paladin/warlock I had no idea warlock/paladin smiting combo was a thing.

I just really like find steed.

I don't believe you, but you aren't in my game, so I don't care that much.

The feat itself is very boring.
But so is resilience, or skilled or tough I suppose. Or the attribute increase it's replacing. All fairly boring.
In regard to your ranger example in particular, I'd just take a level (or more) in rogue at some point if you're going for a super-stealth character concept. You can maintain the very same fluff while gaining a bit more than you lose, given what rangers get at later levels isn't all that impressive.

This conversation is reminding me of GURPS with its general abilities and specific abilities costing different amounts of points for equal utility. That game's character creation is so fucking annoying.

The oddest part of not believing that is in multiple of my posts I said it'd make no sense to go warlock/paladin for my character over just homebrew for Find Steed.

Since Fighter 12, Paladin 5 and Warlock 3 would be a really bad build for what I wanted to do.

Why are you even bothering with a retard who is circlejerking about imaginary munchkins?

Not every feat needs to grant you three separate abilities (which can hopefully combo somehow with other abilities). You find Feats boring that aren't "powerful".

>I'd just take a level (or more) in rogue
So your answer to "not stepping on the Rogues' toes" is to actually take levels in Rogue to get some of their cool abilities. Okay.

Yes it is. And my first tabletop *EVER* was GURPS. It's no wonder I turned into a book-diver rules-junkie after that bs.

No it doesn't. As I state. It is, however, boring.
>You find Feats boring that aren't "powerful"
Shut the fuck up nigger, don't strawman me.

If you're going to be a skillmonkey, take levels in the skillmonkey shit. Especially when the skill-monkey levels are better than your Legolas levels.

>imaginary munchkins
>Plotting out his character progression to 20th level see:
Okay whatever.

That's not munchkinning you fucking retard, that's common sense.

>don't strawman me.
So what feats DO you like that aren't combat reaction/bonus actions or +10 to damage?

Because all the ones you listed are useful Feats that give useful bonuses.
It's not a Strawman if it's the truth.

No, creating a 1st level character with the preset map for being a multi-class combo of specific levels is not "common sense", it's min-maxing.

>Are the MtG supplements any good?
>Do they just cover mechanics, or fluff too?
>Do they do a good job covering planeswalkers?
Curious about this new MtG D&D thing, and wondering if it's good enough to start playing 5e for MtG campaigns.

Considering that it doesn't fucking work and you end up with a useless sack of shit character if you don't do it right, no, it's common sense to plan things ahead when you want to try a concept that a single class doesn't cover.

I love Inspiring Leader, Healer, Magic Initiate, Lucky for starters that don't satisfy your arbitrary criteria. I don't know in what world you think I implied expertise +1 attribute bonus "isn't useful". I never said it wasn't *anywhere* you stupid shit. I said it was fucking boring, just like a +2 to a stat that any feat replaces is also fucking boring.

Like I said, why are you bothering with someone who's circlejerking over an imaginary bogeyman?

Not if you've played 3.x before.

You have to do that in 3.x if you're going to play the kind of character you want to play. I can understand how someone might think that carries over into other RPGs if that's where most of your experience comes from.

Not sure how applicable it is to 5 though.

You are confusing "Power set" with "Character concept".
You aren't building a "character", you are building a kill-bot that kills things effectively, chummo.

I don't know. I'm being baited successfully. Super-anti-op retards trigger me.

Your level 1 Fighter knows he's going to one day make a pact with an otherworldly entity to be rewarded arcane power and swear an oath of justice to be granted divine magic?

What happens when the DM doesn't present those options to you? Did you forget the game was controlled by a DM whilst fingering your book?

>Any good?
I think so. Some people hold that the Innistrad one sucks, but I think it did the job it wanted to do.

>Mechanics or just fluff?
Mostly fluff, and a lot of "mechanics" are just "use the stats for this existing thing, but change this one thing", but there's some good shit in there, and the fluff is DELICIOUSO

>Planeswalkers?
Not present at all. Nor is 5-colour magic. These books are for playing the worlds as a D&D setting, not for using D&D to play Magic. I expect if they stay popular, a 5-colour magic splatbook will appear.

>Not if you've played 3.x before.
Why would I possibly be discussing anything related to 3.whateverthefuck in a 5e general?

What would possibly make you think I was talking about multiclassing in reference to 3.x in the first place?

>You are confusing "Power set" with "Character concept".
>next fucking sentence you do exactly that
Are you for fucking real?

So we're doing cures of Strahd and honestly I've got no real drive to play anything for whatever reason. What's some fun classes/ combinations Veeky Forums? We have a barbarian, a cleric, a (greatweapon melee?)bladelock, and I have no idea what to do. Suggestions would be appreciated.

NTGB but
>Massive Stormwind Fallacy.
Seriously.

If your character idea isn't covered by a single class, plotting out the class progression you plan on taking is reasonable.

Character concept is a different subject entirely, and of course he should also design a decent character rather than a bland cardboard cutout.

>itt: retards, strawmen and triggered niggers

Are you illiterate? Go reread my post and reply again once you figure out what it says. Sound out the words if you need to, I'll be here.

Warlock Paladins and Assassin combo characters aren't character concepts. They are munchkin setups for doing explosive amounts of damage in combat. That isn't a "character concept", it's an ill-justified excuse to min-max damage.

Are you playing with semantics or honestly stupid?

Ranger/rogue/bard/monk/paladin/fighter/druid/wizard/sorcerer would all fit fine. Your current three leave your option really wide open.

>Warlock Paladins and Assassin combo characters aren't character concepts.
[citation needed]

>Good Setting fluff.
Well that's nice.

>No 5 Color Magic, or Planeswalkers.
Ah. That's too bad.

>I expect if they stay popular, a 5-colour magic splatbook will appear.
I hope so!

I don't know man, feylock and green paladin multiclass is pretty damn flavorful.

>If your character idea isn't covered by a single class,
If your character idea isn't covered by a single class + an archetype you are either trying to be too special a snowflake, min-maxing, or just bad at building characters.

Give me an example of a character concept that NEEDS multi-classing to work at all.
Translate it from autist for me.

Fluff is mutable. End of discussion.

>vengeance paladin/assassin isn't someone's character concept
And to begin with, it's not even that fucking good. You jump one enemy, once per combat, and you need to be able to sneak all the way up into melee to actually pull it off.
Retards are too fucking triggering. I need a safe space from this shit.

This is what you get for Wizards pandering to these kinds of players during the playtest.

>vengeance paladin/assassin isn't someone's character concept
No they aren't, they are forum garbage created by someone who feels they "created the maximum damage guy", and as you admit, it's not "that fucking good" meaning there are better min-maxes for damage out there.

It's not an idea for a neat character, it's pushing the rules for Super-Effectiveness, and then straining to fluff it up into half making sense.

You heard the man, Divine Batman isn't an idea for a neat character.

"Oh god how dare someone want to make a character who can do something that might be considered kind of but not super unique by mixing class levels! Min-max OP get out of my games I bet you can't even roleplay!"
Where do these people even come from? What is the trigger to make someone hate anyone who talks about game mechanics for the rest of their life?

>Translate it from autist for me.
I'll try to use small words for you.

>If play 3e, don't plan dude, dude suck.
>Bad Time.
>Learn to plan out dude so not suck.
>Play new game.
>Keep use learned thing with new game, so dude not suck.
>Not see you don't have to now.
Understand now? Sorry if my accent is a little thick, unfortunately I don't speak retard.

The pact could've been made long ago in the backstory and only at level 2 does the character decide to cash in and sign the dotted line.

>Warlocks, Paladins, and Assassins can only work the way I think they do and there's no possible way they could somehow meet in the middle

...

Y'all are being too extreme. Being an extremist is what makes people blow themselves up.
Physically and emotionally.

>No they aren't
What is an inquisition assassin.
Holy shit where do you people spawn from?

Multiclassing only exists in 5e, where you can already archetype an Arcane Knight, spellcasting rogue, ect. ect. because they knew a certain type of player (3. guy) wouldn't even look at the new edition without it.

>If play 3e, don't plan dude, dude suck.
>Bad Time.
THIS

It is not even remotely uncommon for someone to accidentally fuck themselves in 3.5. Multiclassing in 5E is no different.

A young man comes into contact with a fey lord and enters his service. Over the course of his adventuring career he decides to go even further and serve his lord as a green knight.

Would this not be best represented by starting as a feylock and eventually multiclassing into oath of ancients paladin?

In TTRPGs, fluff is more important than mechanics.

Sure. The guy who swore himself to a chaotic fey he barely knows is also an upholder of justice who fey are afraid of.

I love the shit out of that system but man is it painful to explain to newbies how garbage their first character is.
>But user, I just want to be a guy who is good at punching. He's a boxer.
>I know, but you can be good at all martial arts stuff if you take this general ability with less relative point loss!
>But user... why would they even have these specific skills if they cost so much more in comparison?
>...It don't matter. None of this matters.

That's fair I guess but just laying out what it looks like at 20 is weird regardless of what kind of player you are. Shouldn't you be laying out what it looks like incrementally from the campaign's start? Even then, unless you start at high level then your concept revolves around becoming what you want, as opposed to reacting based on what you are, which is a weird way to play a roleplaying game.

I can play a Fighter/Mage/Thief, a Fighter/Mage/Cleric, and a Cleric/Thief in AD&D, none of which have archetypes for them in 5E.

You can fuck right off with your dumb "BAWWW MOMMY THEY CARED ABOUT THE MECHANICS IT'S TRIGGERING ME!!!!" bullshit.