/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General: Displacer Beast Edition

>Official /5eg/ Mega Trove v3:
mega.nz/#F!BUdBDABK!K8WbWPKh6Qi1vZSm4OI2PQ

>Community DMs Guild trove
>Submit to [email protected], cleaning available!
mega.nz/#F!UA1BhCBS!Oul1nsYh15qJvCWOD2Wo9w

>Pastebin with resources and so on:
pastebin.com/X1TFNxck

>/5eg/ Discord server
discord.gg/0rRMo7j6WJoQmZ1b

>Old thread
Skinned a displacer beast lately?

>Trying to further reduce MAD.
I get that. And it's something I'd happily houserule for.

But deciding that a difficult task takes no roll, because it's climbing, and I'm reading the rules regarding climbing in a bizarre way to make the game less MAD than it would be if I read it the other way, not so much.

You're deluding yourself if you think every gm you game with is going to read that RAW the way you want, rather than reading it the other (more likely intended) way, even if it does mean climbing (unfortunately) continues to be difficult for Dex characters, as it has been in previous editions.

How do you undo ability score loss from Intellect Devourers?

Great restoration.

>a CR 2 monster
>countered by a spell they get at level 9

If that's what it takes I'll do it. I will justify what's will make things better for my players however I like - I'm not actually wrong just because you might not like the interpretation.
Not that I have to justify it though - it's our game.

>You're
I'll never play with a DM that makes someone's rogue or monk have to put points in strength to climb. Every kender or halfling thief in the D&D multiverse quakes at such an absurd suggestion.

Tossing around the idea of trying to craft pic related in our game. How bad would it be to have a lesser version of the divination archetypes Portent ability. Either a single D20 that fades after a long rest and requires an insight test to get (dont know what DC that would be) or instead you get a pai of d4 you can either add to your roll or subtract from an enemies roll.

No +1 or anything, counts as magical and must be attuned.

i think rare would be good but im still learning the magic item balance.

Who's the artist thoMy players have, and they (the ranger and the rogue) both botched their rolls so they got squat.

You obviously have no idea what CR is for.
It doesn't mean a party of four level 2s can take it on fine, it means that it would be a challenge. It's in the name. You shouldn't make them fight shit just because the CR is their level, especially when dealing with permanent ability score shit like the ID. Make them fight it at level 7, or 8, then when they level they can fix it. Or DM ex Machina it and throw in a potion that fixes it, or some shit.
Or a priest can fix it for a ton of gold.

Or just let them suffer through the damage. Make them quest for a cure or something.

But that's just my style.

Exactly. It's supposed to be a threatening, horrific monster, not just some orc to be stabbed.
It's a frickin brain with legs, some sort of John Carpenter lookin awful beast.

>I'm not wrong because you don't like my interpretation.
Not are the people whos interpretation you don't like wrong just because you don't like their interpretation.

Personally I play games with difficulty modifiers/target numbers/whatever you want to call them because I don't want more difficult tasks to be more difficult to accomplish. Removing the checks entirely is something I'd see making things worse, even if it also makes them less MAD.

I don't even have an inherent problem with things being MAD. I have a bit of a problem with only/some/ characters being MAD, but if *everyone* needed 4 of the 6 attributes and had to prioritize, I'd be totally cool with that.

>I'd never play with a DM who reads the RAW the other, more plausible way, because I don't like the consequences.
Whatever floats your boat. Hope you screen them first, rather than waiting until the first time climbing comes up and throwing a tantrum like a child and storming out, wasting everyone's time.

Any other ambiguously rules you won't play in a group with a DM over if they interpret them in a way other than the one you like?

Good damn auto correct.

Bad editing, didn't catch it all.

>*Nor are the people
>Because I do want more difficult tasks to be more difficult to accomplish
>Any other ambiguously worded rules*

>requires a DC check to get another dice to roll....
I already hate this item.
I'm just not fond of magic items with mechanics, or those that add extra mechanics to combat.

I don't say they're wrong. I say (implicit premise "I think") their interpretation that fucks over players in a stupid way is simply stupid because of everything they violate in making that ruling.
I never said I removed them entirely, but I *WILL* say I would *RATHER* remove them entirely than force that stupid MAD shit on players.

>I have a bit of a problem with only/some/ characters being MAD
I agree. If the game was designed around everyone being MAD and balanced that way, I'd have no complaints.

I've seen DMs who make decisions like that that needlessly hurt other player's efficiency at playing out their character concepts. Unsurprisingly in each case I find myself leaving not very long after, since those DMs tend to suck dick.
They can interpret things however they like, but fucking over their players for no reason is anti-gentleman's agreement and I'm not interested in that shit. Moon druids needing literally one stat while the rogue/monk would need four with that stupid ruling is fucking dumb and I won't be playing at anyone's table who's that blind and/or sadistic.

>interpretation that fucks over players in a stupid way
I've been backtracking to follow this conversation, but am I correct that the source of your buttpain is needing STR to climb?
Rogues can easily offset this with Expertise and automatically be the party climbing guy.

Is there some olden trope where the roguish fellow is automatically a climbing squirrel? I mean Gods-forbid the Barbarian is actually better and hauling himself up the side of a mountain than the pickpocket.

>Fucking over their players for no reason.
Personally I see this particular example as the game simply not being well balanced regarding Rogues and Monks, and them being shitty in comparison to the druid, rather than the GM fucking them over.

I wouldn't use your reading the RAW, but I'd be using houserules to make the Rogues and Monks less crappy, and would simply avoid playing them in a campaign where there were no houserules to bring them in line with the other classes.

I've had GM fucks over the players mid game problems as well, and also either leave the group, or retire/suicide the character and build something hes not fucking over.

>I've seen DMs who make decisions like that that needlessly hurt other player's efficiency at playing out their character concepts. Unsurprisingly in each case I find myself leaving not very long after, since those DMs tend to suck dick.

Ah so you're Tha/tg/uy. At least you do the gaming community the favor of self-removal.

Yes, you are correct, that is the source of his buttpain. He's arguing that you should interpret the rule to be that having checks to climb at all is both optional and terrible, rather than "when to call for and not call for a climb check is at the gms discretion, and here are some examples of why you'd call for s check", because otherwise Rogues and Monks (RAW) need Str to climb and that's unacceptable.

Rogues and Monks have either a fuckton of skills, extra feats, or (in the Monks case) a shit ton of useful abilities per level that easily offset any need to have high attributes towards an array of skills.
Have neither of you played a mid to high level character of those types? I sense that "McStormsoutofgamesalot" hasn't.

You'd need to expertise Athletics rather than acrobatics.
You get four expertises - you're hitting stealth and perception level one. You're hitting thieves' tools and x level six. Your options there are usually acrobatics, investigation, or sleight of hand. Tell me - in what world do you want to be forced to take athletics by a stupid ruling, forfeiting any of those more-roguish things to emulate Achilles?
Trying to insinuate the kender or halfling thief needs a high strength score to climb is patently absurd.

I have not. I have limited 5e gameplay experience.

I was just responding to the people pitching a fit about Str to climb to try to determine where they were getting the idea of "you're a bad gm if you call for athletics checks to climb" came from.

Seems perfectly acceptable to me. And high difficulty climbing, say scaling a sheer cliff in the wind, the Rogue would just be certain to have appropriate gear (ropes, pitons, special boots) and take it slow and easy. I must have missed the fantasy precedent that Monks are generally better climbers than, say, Illusionists.
I always thought monks were the runny, jumpy guys.

Hey, can someone give me some feedback on the shadowcaster class ive been homebrewing for the past 3 weeks or so? I listened to yalls advice and switched some of the spell progression to warlock style, up to 6th level instead of 5th and granted the class the same kind of mystic arcanum for 7th 8th and 9th level spells. That and some minor spell differences round out the changes. Thoughts? Is it different enough from the core classes now?

The DM has discretion on whether to make the rogue/monk need to make strength athletics checks to climb. What would be best for everyone is simply saying they can use acrobatics. But no - these babies want to force strength on them to make them *EVEN MORE* MAD, when one of the *CORE DESIGN GOALS* of 5e was to get rid of or at least heavily reduce MAD.

Well, monks can run up walls now.

Nah, I'm a brilliant saint of a player. Nobody's ever had any issue with me in a game in all my years as a player or DM. I've had issues with their stupidity sometimes, though I never publicize it. I could be your favorite player and you'd never know ;)

Characters in wuxia films often scale castle walls and the like in seconds. I suspect the monk in this case is being interpreted to be less "shaolin monk with magic powers" and more "all characters in a wuxia film", despite many of those characters using weapons or having other talents that Monks lack.

Hi guys. I just got home from my Adventurer's League game. I am simply shaking with fury right now.

For some background a player i had some issues with recently died in our campaign. Her character, that is. And, thanks to the fucking BULLSHIT rules she got to come back to life.

So tonight I confronted the Dungeon Master and told him the whole thing was fucking bullshit. He told me it's part of the AL rules, and it's meant to help new players not get frustrated and quit the game. I told him that's pussy shit, and he got mad at me and told me that it's not AD&D anymore. I told him that's damn right, this system is utter shit. Removing the chance of death COMPLETELY destroys half the tension in the story, especially in a shitty pre-run adventure module. Now the other players start chiming in saying Curse of Strahd is NOT shit, which just pissed me off even more because they are kind of right. I told the DM that if he was any good at DMing he'd be able to come up with his own story. Then the DM told me I had to leave, and I called him a faggot. Then he told the store manager and now I have a one-week ban from the store and I am also banned from that DM's AL campaign. Which I don't really give a fuck about cause he was a shitty DM and I have my other RPG campaigns with friends to play.

But the worst part was when I was in my car, cooling off and listening to music to calm down, the girl I asked out from the group whose character was saved by DM bullshit, came out and asked me if I was okay and offered to buy me a Subway sandwich but I told her to go away so she rolled her eyes and walked off. Then I drove home.

So yeah, I guess that's it for me and Adventurer's League. FUCK it. Anyone else got any stories of shitty 5e DMs like this?

Use acrobatics and athletics interchangeably you MAD worshiping cocksucker.

...

has this been posted before or is this fresh?

I just genuinely wish it was this same guy after all this time and that everything he has written was real

Well, the book doesn't say you can use athletics to climb. Realizing that hardly makes them babies.

Personally I allow skills using a different base attribute, but I'd be disinclined to let you use Acrobatics instead of Athletics whenever it applied simply because you're better at Acrobatics.

I have no issue with using Athletics and Acrobatics interchangibly if you can justify it. Leaping wall to wall Jackie Chan style works for acrobatics, but your standard climb style requires athletics.

Hell, I've even said "sure, but it will take twice as long or be a bigger challenge" because of finding a specific alternate route.

Gotta say, troll or no, this guy is keeping to his guns and its honestly kinda inspiring.

him keeping to his story and path. not him being a cock sucker

That is some dedication, user. You've been working on this story for months now!

You said you'd never play with a GM who interpreted a particular ambiguously worded rule in the less obtuse way. Either that was a falsehood, or you're leaving the group once you determine you're not getting your way. You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive.

This AL shit is the worst kind of dedication.

Here's what I would do as an experienced 5e DM, and a DM since 1e.
I already offer a Feat that is "Take one Expertise, and +1 to the Stat most associated with it".
Alternately, I would allow someone to take a Feat that we'll call "Nimble - you may use your Acrobatics skill to climb and jump" and tack on +1 to Dex or bonus climb move or something
OR
Allow a rogue with the proper climbing gear in his equipment to use the Thieves' Tools skill with Dex as a modifier to scale a building. Because honestly I think that there's a significant precedence in fantasy writing for thieves having clever tools for climbing, breaking and entering.

What I would NOT do is allow them to circumvent Athletics for Acrobatics for free.

>Well, the book doesn't say you can use athletics to climb
It says, to quote, "At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful strength (athletics) check."

You don't, as a DM, actually have to call for a check ever per the rule. But rather than that, I'm in favor of letting your super-cool monks and rogues use acrobatics for climbing, since climbing is a shtick of theirs and I don't think WotC ever intended to force MAD onto them when scaling walls and shit has almost always been a rogue/monk niche.

>You said you'd never play with a GM who interpreted a particular ambiguously worded rule in the less obtuse way
Learn to read faggot.
>I've seen DMs who make decisions like that that needlessly hurt other player's efficiency at playing out their character concepts

>Pitches a fit over a game.
>Girl he asked out comes to check on him and see if he's okay, and he tells her to f-off.
If bait, it's not very funny.
If not, Good job user, you're a retard who is throwing away chances at meaningful companionship or sex, over game rules.

>I'm not the problem, it's all the idiots I play with.

Lack of self-awareness is the keystone of being Tha/tg/uy. They all believe they are brilliant and personable, and everyone around them is to blame for their inability to stay in a game long-term.

I don't even come here this often and still this is stale pasta.

Making your rogue or monk take that feat just to climb is dumb in my opinion. I don't know how long you've DM'd 5e, but I've been DM'ing 5e since it's been out and have a few thousand hours of gameplay alone by now.

>Allow a rogue with the proper climbing gear in his equipment to use the Thieves' Tools skill with Dex as a modifier to scale a building
Now that's perfectly fine and reasonable.

damn, i guess ill get rid of ability checks then, thanks for the tip

Most of my games in life have been long term. I recognize the ones that aren't worth my time pretty quickly though. I actually am brilliant and personable though ;)

Acrobatics and Athletics are not interchangeable, they cover different things. If you want to be good at athletics things, get good at athletics. You can't make everyone else apply the houserules you want. Nice try though.
And it has nothing to do with MAD. If I want to address MAD issues I will do so in a way that's not "Acrobatics and Athletics are now interchangeable".

Why respond to a person's actual position when you can strawman it?
>But rather than that, I'm in favor of letting your super-cool monks and rogues use acrobatics for climbing, since climbing is a shtick of theirs and I don't think WotC ever intended to force MAD onto them when scaling walls and shit has almost always been a rogue/monk niche
;)

>You can't make everyone else apply the houserules you want
I attempted to "make" anyone do what I wanted... where?

Great! Do what this guy did then >Allow a rogue with the proper climbing gear in his equipment to use the Thieves' Tools skill with Dex as a modifier to scale a building
so as not to be a complete faggot to your rogues at the very least.

Athletics and acrobatics are basically interchangeable. One is climbing using hand a foot holds and one is parkour shit. The whole point of making them both broad was to use them interchangibly - just look at responding to a Shove or Grapple attempt. It's two flavored with a lot of overlap.

If this was an argument over swimming you would have a better foothold in saying swimming is athletics only.

Actually, the Feat would give you a better Jump as well, and a point of Dex. So I felt that would be a fair Feat.
And yeah, the Thieves tools allowance is the most liberal of the options, since it's a given for any Thief, with the simple requirement that they have the necessary gear. You could also add in Climber's Tools proficiency, which could be paid to learn, and have that as a Dex based option for Dex Rangers and other non-strength heavy climbers.
But I am completely ok with Barbarians and STR Rangers being the guys who can just naked-climb up mountain cliffs, as that sort of Free climbing is very STR based.

So this is a pretty pointless question since the next AL season is still a few weeks away, but I'm stuck deciding if I want to play a bard, great weapon fighter, or eldritch knight/bladesinger. If anyone wants to sell me on any of those ideas go for it.

Suggesting alternative ways dex users might climb things is not to take anything away from strength climbs. I have no problem with strength climbing at all. I just want others who also have a tradition of being great climbers to be able to do so without MAD crap. And it's very simple and reasonable how they might.

A classic example is Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser scaling Stardock, the tallest mountain in Nehwon, Fafhrd the Barbarian is more or less STR climbing with some minimal gear, basically Hammer/Pitons and decent boots.
Whereas the Grey Mouser has some extendable hook-pole and some really specialized footwear and suchlike, I'd say he's using Thieves' Tools/Climbing tools proficiency and DEX to Fafhrd's Athletics/STR, and both of them get up the mountain.

Damn it. Misspoke.

>"The book doesn't say you can use Acrobatics to climb, and realizing that doesn't make them babies".
Fixed.

As for the rules quote, I did read it. There's (at least) two ways of reading it.
>Having climb be something that is ever rolled for is not normally how the game would work, and doing so is adding in weird variant rules.
>It's up to the gm whether a particular obstacle requires a check to climb, but if it does require a check, it's an athletics check.

I'm inclined to read that rule the second way, because doing away with all climbing checks by default seems unlikely to be intended to me.

The other user is arguing for the other interpretation of RAW because it makes Rogues better at climb checks without having to specialize in athletics or raise their strength.

This should be clear by now, I'm not sure how it needs to be explained again.

So what wizard school makes the best buffer/debuffer/controller? I was origanlly going to play a necromancer but it turns out we have 9 players and one is a summoner homebrew class and i didnt want to bog down the game too much.

I guess that's kind of funny. Is this new?

>Acting like the second quote doesn't mean the same as the first one in this case.
I can read just fine, douchebag.

>Rogue with climbing gear can use the thieves tools skill to user them.
This is a neat idea.

No, and I wasn't trying to imply that. I'm just saying that at minimum I'd require Dex characters to have the proper thieves' tools/climbing gear to ignore Athletics. Rather than just have them run up a wall like a squirrel.

Because the squirrel has a rather specialized set of climbing tools at the end of it's feet as well.

...

Sadly its going to be the same two schools that make the best everything: Diviner and Illusionist. Abujurer gets honorable mention though.

I'd read it the first way if I was forced to, since it would be less needlessly penalizing to certain dex player characters. Luckily, I'm not forced to, and can impose my own rule wherein I allow dex users who are token climbers in concept to use dex to climb through one venue or another.

>The other user is arguing for the other interpretation of RAW because it makes Rogues better at climb checks without having to specialize in athletics or raise their strength
I am that other user. And yes, that's what I would argue if I was pigeon-holed.

I thought divination looked good. That portent looks too good.

>You said you'd never play with a GM who interpreted a particular ambiguously worded rule in the less obtuse way
>I've seen DMs who make decisions like that that needlessly hurt other player's efficiency at playing out their character concepts
Yeah these totally aren't contradictory in reference to the same person. Nope.

There's a world of difference between allowing Acrobatics as wuxia/prince of Persia style wall scaling (which I'm unconvinced of, but maybe) and , which has no such situational conditions.

That's fine. I don't think that's unreasonable, like forcing dex characters to have a high strength to do something iconic to their class is.

Right there. You understand what the words you say mean, right?

Divination and illusion. I think at least by level 14 illusionist wins out. Make an illusion of a solid block of adamantine around an enemy and turn it real for a minute no concentration required.

>do this
>"WAH YOU CAN'T MAKE ME"
Yeah. Words are violence and make you do anything. They take control of your brain and force you to do things.

I agree that they're not fully interchangeable, but I do think they're partly interchangeable, and I think that allowing dex for certain climbing related athletics tests is completely fine just like the variant rule in the skill chapter describes (I'd pretty much put that variant up with human and feats in terms of assuming everyone uses it to some degree anyway)

Nobody said they were against alternate means of bypassing the obstacle, simply that they wouldn't allow Acrobatics as a universal stand in for athletics, or as a de-facto replacement for athletics when climbing the normal way.

Read the fucking grapple rules. Nobody is saying you're fluff-wise doing the exact same thing. You fluff it differently, but the mechanics are in almost all cases possibly interchangable, the exceptions being flips n' shit style stuff and swimming.

>user expects other people do do what they want, makes demands.
>Has it pointed out that simply demanding something does not convince people to do it.
>Pretend no such demand was made.
>Evidence of said demand is pointed out.
>Switching tactics and pretending there was a "wah you can't make me".
Good job user. You're right, I now think whatever you want me to think, because of your excellent arguing skills.

Would you allow two ac formulas of "light" armor to stack into a medium armor class?

>Applying for Roll20 games
I have better luck in fucking /pfg/ games

>demands
better keep ur eyes open tonite or im gona come over and fuk ur mom and break ur xbox faggit
l e l

Write better.

Are you just saying remove the maximum dex for medium armor? If so, no

Grapple rules are not used for climbing.

In some cases might I allow Acrobatics to scale a wall or whatever? Sure, there might be an alternate way up using Acrobatics.

Will there always an Acrobatics viable way up, or will I let you use Acrobatics four hand and foothold climbing, or simply climbing with a grappling hook and root? Not so much.

I have a level 2 party that lost a fight to gnolls (no deaths though)
Gnolls, of course, are horrible nasty slavers because they're assholes
Now, assuming I already have a means for them to get free, how should I handle trying to arm themselves and escape from the middle of a gnoll camp? It seems like the moment they're free they should be instantly swarmed. Is the only solution to make all the gnolls be "elsewhere", so they aren't horrifically outnumbered?

I'm thinking of putting a map on r20 and maybe rolling line-of-sight aggroing whenever they go from place to place, with the assumption that the sounds of combat and screams are kind of run of the mill for a always-chaotic-evil warband's camp, but that seems like a pretty bitch way out of it, there has to be a better solution.

>and I think that allowing dex for certain climbing related tests
Which it is, when you are trying to edge along a thin ledge, or walk across a thin peak ridge, ect. it's already established as an Acrobatics/Dex check. Sheer hauling yourself up a cliff is Ath/STR, to which I suggested the alternate Thieves' Tools/Climber's Tools/DEX check.

I just see zero reason to allow a naked Acr/Dex in place of Ath/Str for climbing or jumping.

>Grapple rules are not used for climbing
No shit?

Athletics is for climbing. You're not fucking over rogues by not letting them use Acrobatics, just like your not fucking over wizards by not letting them use Arcana. Those are different abilities that allow them to do different things.
However, there is a variant rule called "Background Proficiency" which may be interesting to those who don't like the current proficiency system.
If you can't let go of the trope of rogues being very good climbers, make strength your second best skill, get athletics proficiency and expertise, second-story work, and you'll be the best climber and jumper in the party. Better than a fighter with 20 strength at high levels. Having a rogue add their strength to climbing, is no more MAD than making a fighter add his dexterity to balancing, or paladin add his intelligence to religion. You can't always add your best modifier to every ability check and the game isn't designed as such.

HOWEEVERRR, there is a section in the manual where it suggests the optional rule of mixing abilities with other skills, and gives the example of a Strength (Intimidation) check.

So, fuck it. Just be a good DM and explain how exactly they are using their dexterity instead of their strength of the Athletics check for climbing. But be careful of just straight up allowing them to use a different skill all together, as you will find a character quickly being able to do everything and having no downsides, if you allow them to add proficiency and their primary ability modifier to every skill, since what makes a character interesting is the flaws of the character, and what they can't accomplish. I guess.

>Write better
>Like the 500 other people who have submitted applications
Especially ones where they require you to write paragraphs on your character. Like, fuck, I just play my characters, not make up their god damn life story that literally nobody but the GM will ever hear

Gnolls have lots of enemies. They also travel in the wilderness.
Have an opportunity arise when the Gnolls are attacked by enemies (even non-friendly ones like Hobgobliins) or an avalanche in a pass/flood/whatever natural event.

I usually get into each group I apply to, and I'm almost certain it's because I'm an exceptional writer.

Yep. Real spoopy.

You'd need to go real fast to get all that done tonight. I live about 2600 miles from my mom.

Kek.

"I want to use my grappling hook to climb the mountain."

"Okay, make a Grapple check. If you pin the mountain, you pull the point your grapple landed at down to ground level."

>Captcha: Select all images with mountains.
You get me, Captcha.

Gnolls can be elsewhere, drunk as shit from celebrating, asleep, distracted by a rival attack, or just plain inattentive. Lots of options.

...

I've posted ABOUT it before but not this particular post.

Dude explain to me how the FUCK it is fair that you cannot die at all in D&D???? It's not even a fucking roleplaying game if you have literally NO chance of dying!!!!

They are screening for Roleplayers over Rollplayers. That's their right.

You're still a stupid cunt and a massive faggot.

This

I agree, user. That sounds like autistic bullshit. Though Roll20 is a shithole anyway. I did hear today of a GM that literally made his players answer 300 questions to play their first. level. characters.

Shit like this makes me realize that just being a slightly-better-than-mediocre GM gives me a huge amount of value in a gaming world full of spergs and faggots.

> replying to your own post

You have no argument, unless that is your admission of defeat. Please explain how Adventurer's League is even qualified as a D&D game. It is not. It is babby shit where no one can die which is completely un-fucking-fair. I am so sick of Wizards of the Coast pushing this dumbed-down bullshit just to get new players into the hobby so that they can whine when their characters get rekt in a real man campaign run by someone like me.

I don't fuck around with this shit, I cannot believe people think "lol your character dying will make people quit D&D"

Well, if that's what happens, they weren't cut out for playing D&D anyway.

I can tell you I'll never make my rogue need to make a strength athletics check, and the rules don't say I ever have to ;)

You're like the guy who has a medium sized swimming pool in his back yard on a hot day.