/5eg/ Fifth Edition General - Dance Party Edition

user, how do we fix the Trickster Cleric?
Or has it been fixed already?

>What's wrong with it?

I think the simple fact that you don't actually get to "be" a trickster or to feel like one is quite an issue for the subclass.

The Blessing of the Trickster is good mechanically, but it just is a pretty weak buff that won't fix Stealth's main issue (stealth is almost always impossible to maintain for the party) and will be outclassed by Pass Without a Trace very fast. This situation makes the Blessing very situational.

It's also, as I mentioned, making someone else better at something you should be good at, but without even being able to be good at. A Trickster Cleric cannot even get proficiency in Stealth.

Every single Trickster feature is shit, either because they're objectively underpowered (Cloak of Shadows is a more situational Invisibility) or because they're just plain worse than their counterparts (as you said, poison Divine Strike).

They don't get any Invisibility spells, but their Domain Spells are good. Then again, Domain Spells are always good.

>Worst Class
Ranger. You could remove it and the game wouldn't be missing anything.

>Archetype
Beastmaster. See >Feat
Probably Weapon Master. I don't EVER see someone mention taking it, and I can't think of a character I'd make that would ever NEED to take it.

The more I read tweets and shit from Mike Mearls the more I hate him. Its starting to affect my enjoyment of the game. Could we work on getting him fired. He deserves it, IMO.

>my patron (kezef) wants me to retrieve the spear that is located there and sacrifice it

I keep seeing stuff like this. I've DM'd for years at this point, and surprisingly no one I've ever had played a Warlock outside of one-shot "fun" adventures.

Is it stated somewhere that it's completely okay to Geas-lite a character that because they picked Warlock?

> Firing people for their personal views
Let me guess, you're american

Berserker Barbarians suffer from their main subclass feature giving them levels of fatigue, and fatigue being absolutely brutal this edition, on top of Barbarians generally having low AC with standard array (from being slightly MAD), they're a meatgrinder for essentially 1 minute per day then they suffer out of combat consequences.

Wildmage sorcs when compared to dragonic blood sorcs suck at first glance, because draconics get amazing passive power and wildmagic requires a LOT of DM cooperation (to proc their tides of chaos).

So the party of worst subclasses would be:
Beastmaster
Wild Magic Sorcerer
Berserker
Four Elements Monk

In a DM vs Party style game the BM's animal companion would always die in combat unless the ranger kept it far away from the action, and out of combat if the game doesn't revolve on wilderness exploration the ranger's usefulness would be severely limited.
The Berserker would just be a grinder for 1 minute a day and then would suffer disadvantage on skill checks until a long rest.
The Monk would end up always wanting to sit down and take a breather, casting barely anything and run out of their precious Ki.
And if the DM didn't want to throw the Wildmage a bone, they'd be a vanilla sorc with access to 1 free advantage per long rest.

I've never enjoyed a class more, but it requires your DM to be complicit. Mine will usually trigger it instantly, and we've made the roll 1d10, with the chance of it going off getting higher each roll it doesn't, so I get surges pretty frequently.

When you are getting surges, though, it's amazing.

As I said in another post, I've killed our rangers pet, saved the party from a TPK, got reincarnated, become a manlet before becoming a giant and plenty of other things.
It's the Class of Many Things, and I love it.

What's the actual use of shoving besides preventing an enemy to get to another ally

You typo'd Wild Magic sorcerer

>Domain spells are always good
Poor War clerics beg to differ, almost everything they have requires concentration

The way I've played Trickster Cleric was to Indirectly influence the action, picking up the charletan background for deception and disguise/forgery kit, using Blessing of the trickster to buff NPCs that I'd fooled into doing my dirty work (using fake identities, disguises bribes). Invoke duplicity was used to either overwhelm enemies that got too close to me, or to make it look like I'm helping when I'm actually squatting behind a nearby rock/tree.

It depends on the character, if you openly state ''I perform a ritual and contact my patron'' any good DM would not resist the opportunity to fit it into the story somehow. Although you can go the entire game without contacting your patron and chalk it up to ''my patron let's me do what I want because he/she knows I have potential''

pushing them into nearby pits full of liquid lead

Why isn't there a wild magic warlock yet?

And you could have done this with any other class. As you said, picking the Charlatan background was almost more of a defining point for your character than picking Trickery as a subclass.

If buffing NPC's and faking being useful is the pinnacle of the subclass, maybe something is wrong with it.

Thanks for your very valuable input though. Would you say that the subclass could/should be improved? How would you go about it?

Wild Magic Sorcerer is fun to play with in the party from experience. The only thing is please don't be Le Chaotic Neutral ebin xD version of this character, please. That's true of all classes but Wild Magic almost works in an excuse for it.

I think the PHB does say that sometimes a patron can tell the warlock to go do something. But it's kind of ambiguous about the actual consequences, similar to sentient weapon disagreements.

I think DMs do it just because it's a simple way to add motivation to the character, and lightly railroad the party down a plot.

He deserved to be fired for 4E alone.

You can block an exit so they have to shove you to escape, or you can prevent more enemies from getting inside the room.

If I could alter the class I'd probably make their divine strike players choice between poison or necrotic, just so three quarters of enemy mobs aren't immune to your compensatory damage buff.

Give them either a skill or cantrip (minor illusion/sending) at level 1 on top of their Blessing

I'd also give the option to spend 2 channel divinity uses at once to extend Invoke Duplicity to last 10 minutes, so it can be used for out of combat scenarios, like having your copy address people whilst you stay disguised within a crowd.

Currently deciding on one of two Eldritch Knight builds.

One is a greatsword, great weapon fighter. Less AC but lets me use full plate, once I get hold of it. Also harder hitting since 2d6+mod > 1d8+mod.

One is a DEX build, better initiative and AC early on and super late but largely irrelevant since mirror image is a thing. The other advantage is that it will let me hit more reliably with spell cantrips. Will probably go Warcaster with a shield, maybe pick up Shield Master. I'm also leaning towards taking the fighting style that lets me impose disability with my shield on people in combat if they don't attack me.

Thoughts?

tl;dr DEX eldritch knight or STR eldritch knight?

>If I could alter the class I'd probably make their divine strike players choice between poison or necrotic

That's problematic for two reasons. First, a lot of creature are immune to both. Second, necrotic damage doesn't have much to do with trickery itself. We're not dealing with an "evil" domain per se.
Maybe it should be "magical" damage, as to bypass resistances, and nothing else.

> Give them either a skill or cantrip at level 1 on top of their Blessing
At 1st level, you gain proficiency in one of the following skills of your choice: Acrobatics, Deception, Sleight of Hand or Stealth.
Alternatively, you may choose to gain proficiency with thieves' tools or with the disguise kit.

I like what you came up with Invoke Duplicity. I still think both the Blessing and this feature should be thrown away, they are pretty garbage.

Interesting. That's something I do in general, whenever pretty much any character prays to their chosen god or asks for guidance / help.

D100 with a 1% chance of something happening (if they are not a cleric).

The protective fighting style only works on attacks that aren't aimed at you.

With a greatsword and heavy armour you can freely dump dex, so the dex build doesn't really let you hit higher with cantrips.

Looking at AC maxings you could get, Greatsword guy could get a max of 18+1 (plate & defensive), and Dexguy gets 15+2+2+1 (half-plate & Dexmod & Shield & Defensive), to it's only 1 AC difference at the end of the day.

The most important thing is which concept you find more interesting

Beastmaster is bad but Hunter is a fine class. It deals out decent sustained damage in combat while being fairly safe due to range and resilient due to hit dice + medium armour and shields. They also provide the normal utility of ranger tracking and difficult terrain traversing

But a bladelock casting eldritch blast is still doing better than a beastmaster ranger.

You should probably not judge game designers based on their political beliefs, just like you shouldn't judge Michael Jackson music based on his sexuality.

Depends on your DM's combat design. If you fight in generic rectangular dungeon rooms, nothing. If there are interesting terrain features (bonfires, spikes, bottomless chasms), it can be the best move ever.

95 monsters are immune to poison in the MM
only 11 are immune to necrotic, but I see your point on the evil powers thing. So maybe Poison or Force damage, player's choice (similar to nature domain).

I still really like Invoke Duplicity, and feel like it's just a small tweak from being perfect.

Technically the dex guy would eventually just switch to full plate anyway and could have 18 + 2 + 1, which is higher by 2. +1 might not feel like a lot, but in 5e you're going to feel +2.

You need 15 str to wear full plate, which means you'll me fairly MAD if you're relying on cantrips for your ranged option. (INT, DEX, CON, STR), and dumpstatting WIS is never a good plan in 5e.

Strength build will do more damage because of GWM, but Dex build will probably have a shield and therefore more HP. It's up to you, though I'm personally a fan of Dex classes I suppose.

I'd take Dueling fighting style though, since the +2 damage will add up well.

Since you should eventually get 20 Dex you might want to grab the Magic Initiate feat and get Mage Armor, since Mage Armor and 5 Dex is the same as full plate. It'll only be outdone by magic light armor later in the game.

And by using a great weapon over a shield you wont need to pick up the war caster feat, but then again +3 magical shields are a thing, which is a big deal.

Dropped a chandelier on a group of enemies while they were already stuck in damaging effects from our casters.

I freaked out some succubi by negating all of their tactics by analyzing and telling the party exactly how to defeat them, causing them to flee.

Oh right, I tend to forget about Str requirements for armor. Haven't had to deal with them personally so I'm stuck in an older mentality.

The existence of shields with pluses really irks me. It goes against the 5e capping principles and also means that in a high-magic world nobody would ever, ever use a two-handed weapon.

Then again, 5e is really geared towards low-magic worlds, so it's not a big cause for practical concern.

What does a Hunter do that a druid or fighter or bard casting Swift Quiver doesn't do better?

Colossus Slayer is a Hell of a thing, or at least that's been my personal experience.

Shove them prone so other allies get advantage

Pushing them into a bonfie spell or pit.

What is the best cleric domain, and what is the worst?

Well, you can always make a Defender version of a two handed weapon.

>Best
They are all good.

Arcana lets you be a high level wizard along with being a cleric.

Life just overloads those heals.

War lets you be a better pally than the pally.

Tempest lets you play "Thundrrstrike" all day.

Death makes you better at making things deadder.

But then you'd take a -3 to attack and damage (well, -2 to damage, because your weapon is bigger) compared to one-handed weapons just to have the same AC.

No, one-handed is a clear winner here.

For most campaigns (that don't run beyond level 8), A hunter Ranger can pull off an attack, with hunter's mark and colossus slayer, which is DAMN GOOD, and few other level 3-4 classes can match that output.

What are some good ways to deal with spells such as Detect Thoughts in a mystery style campaign?

I'm running a sandbox game with a lot going on and several characters with ulterior motives , the odd murder mystery, noble intrigue and all that good stuff. While I don't want to give the entire game away due to one spell I also want player spells to have their value and uses so don't want to cockblock that shit by arbitarily giving everyone rings of mind shielding etc.

Give enemy NPCs proficiency in Wisdom saving throws and decent wisdom scores

In a world with +3 shields, a +3 animated shield isn't too much of a stretch and lets you use a 2-handed weapon.

What level would you even get hold of this stuff? How much would they cost?

Don't use purely humanoid characters. Things like doppelgangers and rakshasas have innate protection from such spells.

Whatever level the DM says. Whatever cost the DM says. 5e doesn't really lay out concrete info about that like older editions.

Knowledge. Expertise, proficiency with any skill or tool, reading minds followed by a Suggestion without using a spell slot that can recharge on a short rest, it is awesome for non-combat stuff!

War is the worst. Not for combat, but the fact that you are literally nothing but combat!

and the majority of their domain spells involve concentration

+3 stuff is more what you are getting at 15+...

Hooray! I get that it has some useful things, but it's so... bland.

Ranger is absolute shit. Mearls hates rangers because they remind him of how his fat ass doesn't go outside, so he nerfs the fuck out of them.

Monk is also pretty shitty, because again, they remind Merals of being a fat fuck.

Weapon Master is a HUGE load of crap. Ironically a wizard is probably the only fucking class to benefit from it.

That new feat that gave +1 to attack rolls in UA, that shit is disgusting.

All the feats suck, to be honest. Most of them are so badly balanced that they literally have to give attribute bonuses to be viable.

Champion fighter archetype is pretty gay. It also brings back the stupid-ass 19-20 critical shit from 3.5. Which was fine but if you're going to simplify the game don't confuse the "20 is a crit" and "20 is an autohit" narrative where people thought longswords auto-hit on a 19.

And don't give me that "lol well if you read the rules it makes perfect sense" shit because that was true of 3.5, too, because people often confused even the most clearly written rules because they were fucking newfags to the game.

Warlock is also shite by the way.

No, they are shite cancer that should have died with 3.5.

You deserve it for playing an edgelord class (warlock)

+X shields and armor don't have to exist if you don't want them to. 5e doesn't force any such thing to exist and they tend to screw up encounter balance badly.

I learned my lesson after several campaigns not to screw with bounded accuracy.

Actually, he needs to be fired for his GAME DESIGN views. Acting like background mechanics and advantage are new ideas is retarded as shit. He isn't a game designer, he just picks and choosing shit from other games to tack onto his retarded system. I am 90% sure he has never looked at any non-biased RPG design forum in his life. If he spent some time even in our /gdg/ threads his eyes would be opened. The /gdg/ homebrew faggots whose projects will never see the light of day, are better at game design than this nigger. He doesn't come up with any original ideas and hides in a fucking echo chamber. He hasn't "designed" anything since 3.5, and even Tome of Battle was a literal "martials should be 1-9 casters" to fix martial-caster imbalance..... by turning martials into casters. This followed into 4e where he did the same thing. Instead of coming up with an effective way of balancing casters and martials, he just blended them together into the same boring-ass mush.

With 5e he just went back to 3.5 and ripped off random shit and made up mechanics without even thinking about them. His design goals and design choices literally contradict each other: i.e. with "bounded accuracy", ability score caps, and a +2 every 4 levels (or less for fighter) to ability scores. All because of the instant gratification he is inserting to draw in new players who want it to be as gratifying as Pokemon Go or whatever reward-center-brain-triggering bullshit they play these days. That's why the XP system is fucktarded and level advancement makes no mathematical sense, it's just numbers Merals pulled out of his ass because he wants everyone to level up after the 1st session. Why? Because the new players in the hobby these days are fucking cancer who would quit if they didn't get gibsmedats after playing for five fucking minutes.

Go back to Dark Souls, you fucking sons of bitches.

Trickster Clerics aren't meant to be arcane tricksters user.
They aren't rogues, they deceive and manipulate, not stealth and gank.
Think a messer rather than a DPS.

D&D players, everyone! They are so incapacitated by their autistically restrictive rules system that they need help from other players on a Mongolian chalkboard to figure out interesting uses for PUSHING someone.

This is because D&D combat is boring as fuck.

Which is ironic from a game all about COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT.

Merals claims D&D's three pillars are exploration interaction and combat. But guess which ones has by FAR the most mechanics associated with it?

It's a wargame. Nothing else.

> bounded accuracy edition
> flat +3 to attack rolls

Hypocrisy at its finest.

>Death makes you better at making things deadder.

So does playing a fighter, idiot.

Well it's a very rare magic item that can only be crafted at level 11 by RAW so around then is when I'd hand it out.

As an aside it does annoy me that the rules don't give any concrete guidelines for this sort of thing so I'm left pissing in the dark. I'm aware 3.5 went too far in the opposite direction but I buy RPG books so I don't have to think about rules, not so it can just be hand waved and it's not as if magic items aren't a massive part of the game and always kind of have been, if not inherently neccesary anymore for the math to work.

>Literally the highest possible bonus from an official magic weapon, Very Rare if alone or Legendary if in addition to other bonuses
Yes, and? Your level 7 fighter doesn't get to go down to WizMart and compare prices on name brand and generic +3 Bastard Clubs of Zeal.

Calm down
Take a breath

Well damn, I guess 5e is terrible, perhaps you should, I don't know, not play it or come into threads discussing it. That would be an idea wouldn't it.

Where would he get his daily recommended allowance of (You)s from?

>Well damn, I guess 5e is terrible

Correct. Actually, not correct. 5e is a decent game. However, if you shoot randomly at a dartboard, some of your shots are going to hit. Merals is such a fucking retard he can barely comphrehend what he is designing. I'd give good money for 20 minutes with that fucker, assuming I had time to prepare. I'd grill the shit out of him and see if he can actually answer my fucking questions. Probably can't, he's too busy putting shit like pic related in the Player's Handbook to actually design a competent game.

>a single paragraph explaining there is no -4 STR and if you want you can think about your character's gender and sexual preferences
yes, I expect writing this took probably the majority of the dev team's time and the entire rest of the rulebook was an afterthought

For example, because I accidentally hit enter before I finished my thought:

Good things about 5e:

> proficiency bonus
> bounded accuracy (in concept not execution)
> finesse weapons (for attack bonus not damage)
> feats doing more than one thing
> RARE magic items

BAD ideas

> hit dice (same stupid structured healing bullshit as 4e)
> short rest horse crap
> keeping vancian magic when 4e's spellcasting system was objectively better
> ASIs
> feats replacing ASIs and sucking so much ass they had to provide ASIs to be useful
> dumb-ass class features like action surge
> ranger being a piece of shit
> bringing back favored enemy for ranger
> no NPC classes
> no unified system for building NPCs
> having fuck-all for feats because Merals can't understand modular design
> drow as a fucking CORE RACE
> +2/+1 ASI at first level for most races which clashes with the 20 cap even more

Apparently not since there was an entire Mary Sue interview about it. This part was more important to Merals than the rest of the book, because for him, game design is about virtue signalling. That's why the game is dumbed down and XP advancement is far easier (even though he made 1st level play fucking shit just so he'd have an excuse for his instant gratification bullshit).

themarysue.com/basic-rules-dnd/

Serious question: why have poison damage when there's already necrotic? Doesn't it amount to basically the same thing? Aren't many things immune to one also immune to the other? Would changing everything related to poison into necrotic break anything?

no

>> drow as a fucking CORE RACE
user why would they not be?
They're almost always put in a PHB or another, or there' some rules out there to make one.
Plus they have the nifty new subrace rules.
Of course it makes sense to put drow in the PHB, because it lines up perfectly.
Now, why Dragonborn don't have a subrace selection is beyond me. The two races that lacked it, Tieflings and Half-elves, got options rather quickly.

Who was he, user?

I perfectly agree. In my campaign, the legendary artifact sought by the heroes since the first adventure had a +1 enchantment on it, because anything else would've made its wielder completely OP.

The problem is that I don't know if other DMs and modules will have the same opinion, which is reinforced by fa/tg/uys and ca/tg/irls who theorycraft +3/+3/+3 characters.

I'm gonna be DMing a 5e game for the first time, would it be unbalanced to just give everyone a feat at first level? Waiting until level 4 seems kinda boring for something that helps define a characters role a bit better.

Standard 5fag argument, everyone! It's just "wah wah wah I like it because it's good and at least it's not 3.5/4e so fuck you."

They argue on the level of children.

Yet they still can't explain the +2 ASIs every four or less levels, ALONG WITH the pro-equality all-bonus-no-penalty racial modifiers (because god forbid the orc wizard's save DC is 5% less) ALONG WITH the high starting scores.

You could solve this with:

> +1 to two scores as the only ASI option

B-but, muh instant gratification!!

> Removing the ability cap

B-but, muh bounded accuracy

> Actual racial penalties

B-but, muh racial equality! STOP OPPRESSING ME SHITLORD.

People act like Orc Wizards and Dwarf Bards weren't viable in 3.5, that was only because of the fucking "need a 13 to cast 3rd level spells" requirement that 5e removed. Along with bonus spells.

I feel as though necrotic is tied to negative energy, in the same way that radiant is positive energy.
However, if your interpretation of exposure to negative energy is "flesh damaging" then it should be fine to convert poison to it. Doesn't that one level 8 spell in EE deal necrotic damage by sucking the water from things? Abudabi's Horrid Wilting or something?

> bounded accuracy edition
> flat +3 to attack rolls
> Hypocrisy at its finest.

I don't think you understand what bounded accuracy means. It just means that +Xs are relatively rare, difficult to acquire en masse, and can be acquired in a predictable way, and as a result the likely modifier a player has to an attack roll is easily predictable and therefore easy to balance around.

Note that a Defender weapon, being a Legendary item, doesn't show up until Magic Item Table I, which a GM doesn't even start rolling on until he's making the party face CR 17 monsters, i.e., until the average party level is 17 (and earlier the Magic Item Rarity table explicitly identifies Legendary items as something that should be held in reserve until level 17 as well). Bounded accuracy, then, simply means that the game assumes that it is possible that by level 17 a player might have access to a Defender weapon, and therefore balances monsters around that possibility.

...

>handing out +3 animated shield at level 11
I'm going to assume you are joking because otherwise I'd have to commit sudoku

5e isn't handwaving anything, it has the same exact magic item philosophy as 1e and 2e: magic items are rare as balls, especially ones with pluses. A character can go an entire career without finding more than 1 or 2, and that's okay. No class needs any magic items to function.

Besides, the DMG does give you random treasure charts, so I don't really know what you're complaining about anyway.

I do some pretty crazy magic weapons and armor, just nothing that touches on attack rolls, AC, or saves directly.

I don't mind giving out a an axe that critically hits on a 19 (or 18 for a champion fighter) that deals an extra die of damage on a critical hit as an uncommon magic item. You were going to hit on an 18 most likely anyway.

>They're almost always put in a PHB or another, or there' some rules out there to make one.

They are in the Monster Manual as an optional race.

Yes, people have been playing them for years. But the DM could always say no because it's in the Monster Manual. NOW it's in the core book and the players feel entitled to play it. Don't give me that DM veto shit, because I have gotten shit for banning drow whereas I never did before. Player brought it up repeatedly in game as a snipe comment until I threatened to kick him the fuck out of my house. Same with the gender rules, I had some tranny decide it was okay to bring her sexuality front and center stage "because the book said so" even though I told her/him/it/whateverthefuck that I didn't want that shit in my game.

> Plus they have the nifty new subrace rules.

Yeah those are fucking gay. Like I didn't have enough races to keep track of, now I have to differentiate between high elves and wood elves? At the very least make high elf the default and assume elf means high elf. I mean really, Hill dwarves and Mountain dwarves? WHO GIVES A FUCK???

> Of course it makes sense to put drow in the PHB, because it lines up perfectly.

No it doesn't, it's in there because RA Salvatore is now a corporate whore and he is bound in chains. I got to meet him and he looked dead inside. Wizards, and more specifically Mearls, has raped the shit out of him. I fucking hate Merals so much. Even more, though, I hate the fucking edgelords who play drow so much more too. I hope the exacto knife slips one day. I wish I could be there to watch it.

Yes, it would, because the feats are complete shit.

> Waiting until level 4 seems kinda boring for something that helps define a characters role a bit better.

I completely agree!!! However, Merals decided to pander to grognards in 5e and thus he made feats optional so as to pander to an OSR mindset. Ignoring the fact that OSR fans are already playing their own games and don't give a shit about fifth edition.

A feat every four levels (including 1st) along with a +1 ASI would be perfectly fine. Especially without bonus feats.But Merals doesn't believe in character customization, he believes your chargen freedom should be restricted to the shitton of shitty class features he dumps on you, so you can track a ton of once-per-rest abilities and other shit that you'll probably forget because it doesn't really matter.

At least 3.5 had feats to make up for the shitty class features. 5e doesn't even have that, it's near impossible to make an interesting character, because Merals has outright said he wants to decrease the interestingness of character creation to focus more on "in-game" discussion. So basically endless nat20 lulz stories. Yeah, fuck you Merals. Fuck character builds, because what you SHOULD be building is a unique sexuality for your dark, edgy, sensitive drow warlock.

Fuck 5e.

>People act like Orc Wizards and Dwarf Bards weren't viable in 3.5, that was only because of the fucking "need a 13 to cast 3rd level spells" requirement that 5e removed.

That is not why orc wizards and dwarf bards weren't viable in 3.5.

The issue was that other races were just objectively better. The dwarf bard, no matter how hard he tried, was always going to be 5% worse than a human bard kitted out otherwise the same (and 10% worse than a drow bard or other race with a +2 Charisma) at the thing that mattered to his class - which was spell save DCs, not spell levels. It was, on paper and in practice, a suboptimal choice.

By capping the various ability scores at 20 in 5E, it means that even though the dwarf bard might start off worse than the drow bard, the dwarf bard can eventually reach a point of mechanical equality at the thing that his class is intended to do. It takes a little longer and requires a little more dedication, but the end result is parity.

>bounded accuracy
Works, compared with 3e and 4e the number bloat is nonexistent. Remember when you had to provide every character a +X weapon/implement at set levels in order to not break the game's scaling? Remember when ACs got up to 30, 40 or even 50 if you optimised hard? Not any more, it all works fine.

>finesse weapons
Necessary to prevent half if not most classes being MAD or just useless in melee and limited by the best weapon being 1d8 and needing martial proficiency. Fine as is.

>hit dice
Mean that not every party needs a cleric or wand of cure light wounds, mean an adventuring day can actually last long enough for people to use all their resources - in fact, I don't even understand what your problem with it is, because it's a good addition. If it's too 'gamey' for you then I invite you to look at the 'G' in 'RPG'.
>short rests
Same thing. What's so unbearable about the idea of having a breather letting someone get back on their feet? It provides a balancing tool for abilities by having a mid-point in power and usability between at-will and daily features. How could you possibly manage things like superiority dice, ki points and Warlock spell slots without some mid-adventuring-day restore point?

>Vancian magic
I agree it's outdated, but given this was throwback edition it was obviously going to be in. Yes, there has to be some better way but this is tried and true and everyone knows it's how D&D works.

>ASIs and feats
Once again, what? I don't understand what you're objecting to here. ASIs balance character progression by some classes having more than others, and feats provide alternatives to raw stat increases with new abilities. Some new abilities are powerful enough to be worth a whole extra modifier point (GWF, Sharpshooter, Alert) some are not (Athletic, Keen Mind).

>action surge
What? An extra action, what's wrong with that?

(Cont, regretfully)

>would it be unbalanced to just give everyone a feat at first level?

Not really, but if you do don't allow variant humans. Two feats at first level *would* be overpowered.

It's probably fine. But make sure everyone takes a feat and not ability score bonuses.

Necrotic (and radiant) damage, as I see them, are more than physical. They have a component that affects the soul, either overcharging (radiant) it or draining it (necrotic). They have a strong connection with divine forces, which gives them a reason to exist.

Have you never played a game older than 4e? Subraces were ALWAYS a thing, even if there was a default. 2e had entire manuals full of subraces. I get it that you don't like them, but don't pretend they're a shitty new invention.

What are you even doing in this thread? We wouldn't be here if we didn't enjoy 5e, so you're almost certainly wasting your breath. Go back to whatever general appeals to you and stop telling us we're having fun wrong.

>hates 5e
>comes into 5e thread complaining it doesn't cater to him

...

>ranger
Yeah it's a problem, but given that no one is really sure what the design space of a ranger is anyway it was pretty inevitable. The succession of patch attempts were a little embarrassing too. Perhaps ranger was just never meant to be, I mean it's not like most of its kit couldn't be packaged as feats and left for the Fighter to pick up with its spare ASIs.

>no NPC classes
Fucking good. If the players aren't going to fight an NPC there's no reason to make a stat block. If the players are going to fight an NPC use the same rules you would for a monster, as spelled out (admittedly in a jumbled manner) in the DMG. Class levels can and should be reserved for player characters.

>fuck-all for feats
There are quite a lot, and the design makes it easy to add more. And weren't you just complaining about their existence anyway?

>drow as a core race
Personal taste, ban them if it bothers you so much

>+2/+1 ASI
Highest point buy stat you can get at level 1 is 17, it takes at least until level 8 to reach 20, neglecting your other stats completely and having reached your peak in your most important stat by mid game seems perfectly reasonable - and if you choose not to it's only a single point difference in the modifier.

Basically it's a fine and functional game and your bitching and moaning won't stop that being so, or stop me or anyone else running and enjoying games with it. Leave this thread if it triggers you so much.

But don't you get it? WE'RE HAVING FUN WRONG!

Alright, thanks bro

>Personal taste, ban them if it bothers you so much

I believe he's already said
> I banned them and people didn't like me.

theresnothingmencandoagainstsuchrecklessfaggotry.png

Just ignore this twat and move on.

>Ranger

The ranger's a bit too sacred a cow for me to want to get rid of it entirely. I've become a fan of the consensus ranger, personally.