D&D 5e General /5eg/

I try to treat Druidism less like a profession and more like a skill that frequently LEADS to a common profession.
Just how clerics can do all kinds of different things while still being clerics and Paladins can do all kinds of different things while still being Paladins.

I would still love to make an evil druid character who is all for the gruesome nature of... well nature. Totally anti civilization to the point of burning down shit just for fun, I think its way to idiotic character to play in a group tho.

FR and classic D&D called them "Shadow" Druids, usually.
Deities like Malar, God of primal hunting, violence, and mindless savagery are great for that and many worshippers of his are Druids of different kinds.

Thanks, anons. I will try these out and cook somethin' up. Sadly won't meet my nephew until later this weekend but I should be ready with something at least! Thanks!

user I think he meant an official WotC Shaman class. [Spoiler]Homebrews either become horribly OP or incredibly underwhelming.[/spoiler]

The burning things down sounds dumb from a PC perspective unless your party is evil. I have a more savage druid that views humanoids as more clever but destructive animals so he won't always put much effort or care if people die.

Forest fires are actually good for a forest, and if too many predatory animals are killed the prey species overpopulate and can become sick/ starve so you can "cull" creatures. Since in campaigns you hang around populated areas you can become a bane to the local racoon population if it's doing to well. You can be a druid whose a bit of a cunt, you just have to rationalize it in a bigger picture type of way when it comes to balance in nature.

Town is over populated and you have intel about an incoming attack the party forgets to share, or doesn't know about yet? Don't tell anyone.

I imagine him thinking that the weak are parasites, who only survive because of a "flaw" in the world called civilization and that his ultimate goal is to bring an end to all that is dependent on its rules. But yea he would be super impractical as a player,.

Casters ought to be able to use whatever they think is cool as a spellcasting focus. It's such a minor thing mechanically to begin with.

That would well for an evil druid.

Mine just views civilized sorts as "herd" animals like deer that use safety in numbers, but also have ant like behaviour in terms of hives and the advantage of intelligence. Too many advantages for selfish creatures. I'm a little worried my DM and party won't put in effort to keep him from hating everything. It's a fun character, but anything beyond generic hippy druid is a bit more difficult with long term party dynamics.

I still love the Magical Tattoo idea, untill my char would take dmg ofc.

They might need to do some setup to change spellcasting focus if their old one gets destroyed or something.

i feel as though unless its clearly minmaxing, focuses should be handwaved as long as they own/have access one.
if a cleric has a shield, he has the options for brazier, necklance, and shield emblem
why would he ever pick something other than emblem
on that note, why would he ever pick brazier, which is clearly the mechanically worse of the three

but for your specific question, yes, if they choose to use a fancy stick as their focus, then they can hit things with the stick. its magic, it shouldnt break

You can't "min/max" something so fucking worthlessly minute a mechanical thing mane.
Focuses and material components exist for fluff, not to mechanically limit you. If someone wants to use x - WHATEVER x actually is - as a spellcasting focus, just let them. It makes virtually no difference mechanically.

>I still love the Magical Tattoo idea, untill my char would take dmg ofc.

I created a wizard that used every inch of his body to tattoo his most valued spells on himself. He could put about 20 levels worth of spells on himself, and fireball took most of his head.

He walked around shirtless off course, boasting his sweet ink and uncannily high wizard strength.

i more mean minmax in the sense of a person trying to abuse those ignored rules
say, a person two weapon fighting, switching to a 2hand and casting an attack cantrip or something as an opportunity attack
like, as long as the person is just using two hands, and isnt just fucking around with 8 pieces of gear in them, i dont care what they do

Hand occupation and item interaction is a big deal, even object durability can be sometimes. Martials shouldn't be the only ones scrutinized in this regard.

With the power of my awesome guns I invoke my greatest enchantment. FIST!

Speaking of druids. Would your DM allow a moon druid to wildshape into the dreaded fart-cat?

Those rules don't really change anything at all. The vast majority of material components that spells are attached to are just due to historically those spells having had one by iconic casters. But here's the thing - virtually every caster - especially the non-wizards - are unique and don't cast spells all perfectly the same way. That includes material components and spellcasting focuses.

It's not a big deal. The "biggest" deal it can possibly be is if a caster uses a shield as a focus and has to use a free action to stow their weapon on turns where they cast spells with somatic and material components. And that has the mechanical impact of not letting the caster make attacks of opportunity until the next round. Ooooh noooo.

STAFFS

Unless a staff's description says otherwise, a staff can
be used as a quarterstaff.

-dmg

Not every spell list can use shields as a focus. Only holy ones.

Opportunity attacks are nothing to sneeze at for casters at lower levels(druids, bards and clerics can be quite decent at melee), every bit helps. At higher level, what magic items you're holding is a huge deal, since you don't want to drop n' draw them.

If you're *NOT* wearing a shield, it's even *LESS* of a problem, because you're able to actually stow your damn focus.

You can save a Google Doc as a pdf. It's how I've been backing up my stuff for the past month or so.

>someone saying holy focuses are bad around me
>mfw

Shields are an important source of defense for all non-wizard/sorcerer magic users, having one as a focus is a huge boon. At least you're not a bard, a lot of DMs say you gotta play that shit with both hands or with your mouth(that means no V if he's playing RAW).

>implying I'm saying holy focuses are bad when this *entire* conversation has simply been that material components that don't have a cost and thus spellcasting focuses are an almost completely irrelevant game mechanic to begin with
Keep up gnome.

>a lot of DMs say you gotta play that shit with both hands
What on earth? The rules are pretty clear that the instrument is just a focus, same as a symbol or staff. Fluffing somantic/verbal components as playing it are fine, but who requires it? Do they make wizards suck off their wands to cast them?

It's all fine and sandy having no difference in focuses until you find a magical focus that you want the cleric to be able to use but not the wizard

My casters all have obsidian dildos as their arcane focus. They all add double my proficiency to fucking you in the ass, dealing force and psychic damage.

>Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard
spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you
pour into the performance of your music and oration.
You use your Charisma whenever a spell refers to your
spellcasting ability.

Pretty clear cut that bards perform to cast spells, not DBZ bullshit.

my druid's a mailman. part of a secret society within the mailmen guild who protect the flow of information through the world and seek to shut down anything that hinders that flow.
he uses his druidic powers to help him while he's travelling through the wilderness, delivering mail.

That's fluff. The rules are that they can use an instrument as an arcane focus, and that merely requires being held in one hand. Besides, you can take instruments that can be played with one hand. Are those supposed to be better than 'two handed' instruments for no reason?

I'm creating my own printable character sheet PDF in adobe illustrator. I want to be able to edit them after the fact vs. editing text on top after each little change. I've seen lots of custom character sheets with radio buttons and text fields, I just can't figure out what people use.

Can someone post pictures of King Hekaton, Queen Neri, and their kids from Storm King's Thunder?

I fucking hate scumbag casters that want to hand wave all the rules for how they cast spells, but would have a shitfit if a two-weapon rogue dared to draw two weapons at once without the feat.

It's not "fluff", it's how you cast your damn spells you insufferable casual. You don't just shoot fireballs out of your bagpipes while you swing them through the air like a girl's shirt at a KISS concert.
Yes, some instruments are better for combat brawls. Bagpipes aren't practical since they use two hands and your mouth, and droning is quite annoying especially indoors. Horns are nice, although they still use your mouth/hand instead. But most DMs allow for the V/M of bards to combine if it's a wind instrument since it's part of the performance.

Please, give me the sentence that states that a bard can't cast a spell without playing an instrument, because all I can find is "You can use a musical instrument (found in Chapter 5) as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells."

Obviously it's implied that they play the instrument. The game mechanics say that they need to be able to speak to perform verbal components, and a focus can circumvent material requirements. If this means that the bard's verbal components are music from their horn, and the somantic is the fingering, and the material is their bagpipe, that's fine and dandy. But there's no need to restrict the player by saying they can't use their other free hand, or else you're stifling the player by making it more efficient to use a one handed instrument like a bugle or pan flute.

Say I want to make a Wizard and focus on Conjuration/Transmutation. Which is the better school to make my subclass, and what are some of the most synergistic/have the most potential spells to pick? Also, is their a better feat to pick (variant human level 3) besides spell sniper? Trying to go for that Wizard that is in the party to find new magic and try to discover/develop what he can. Kinda wants a trick for most situations, and likes to fuck with peasants, but isn't really evil or particularly murder-y.

>I fucking hate scumbag casters that want to hand wave all the rules for how they cast spells, but would have a shitfit if a two-weapon rogue dared to draw two weapons at once without the feat.

>Be forever-dm
>Playing at my flgs with a regular group
>New guy wants to join, says he has played past D&D games.
>Plays Wizard.
>Combat starts and out fighter goes into battle.
>New Guy "You can't start with both your mace and your shield, you can only drawn one at the start of each turn." :^)
>Tell him he's technically right but I never gave too much of a damn for that rule cause it's pointless really.
>"But it's the ruuuules!"
>Play along with it.
>"I cast Lightning Bolt!"
>"Do you have the correct components?"
>"What?"
>"Do you have a bit of fur and a rod of amber, crystal, or glass?"
>"No... but I have a component pouch."
>"What's specifically in this pouch?"

I know I was being "That GM" but I fucking hate when people I do not know come to join our group and straight off push to change how we play to cater to their wants. Never saw him again after that.

He deserves it for not just using a focus. There's no reason for a pure caster to use a component pouch over a focus.

>you can only draw one at the start of each turn

A shield takes a whole fucking action to 'draw'.

Not to mention, a shield is typically regarded as a piece of armour, and thus is typically considered already worn. Weapons - on the other hand - are considered not at-the-ready in any situation characters didn't expect very likely combat to occur in.
And that's just one object interaction.

If you play by the rules, that guy was just wrong.
However,
>what's specifically in this pouch
It is assumed there is a bit of fur and a rod of amber/crystal/glass in the components pouch.
But he should know and state that.

There's not awfully significant reason to usea focus over a component pouch, either.

Mostly fluff.

True enough. Generally I am pretty lax on this rules. Obviously if you have been silenced and you want to cast a verbal spell I won't let you. But I can rationalize a rogue being able to draw two daggers at once or a Fighter being able to quickly equip sword and shield. Only times I actually enforce these rules is if they were asleep when being attacked and so they are left unarmored and ill equipped to fight.

No, you were just being "That GM". There's no real "but" to that situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're correct and I am fully aware of how to component pouch worked, I gave the guy a hard time because we didn't know him and he felt it was needed to tell us we should change how we play when I already stated we did not care for the specific rule. Bitter, I know.

As for the shield counting as always worn, never thought of it exactly like that before. If I do ever come across a scenario though where a player wants to equip a random shield they found in the midst of combat I guess I will make it take a full action.

>Two wrongs don't make a right.
It does when the party has a good laugh about it after :^)

...why did you play along with it? Just assume the fighter's shield was already on like you always do and let him use the pouch how it says on the box.
You just served to let him disrupt play then do it yourself. Hell, he had half a point if the fighter was doing something with that arm before battle. You just broke RAW.

How would you stat the Son of a Shepherd?

New to the system and I'm playing a character from an old game converted. The 3 big things he had going for him was divine magic, a greatsword he actually used and angelic wings. Thoughts on classes that can accomplish this?

The player's a bit of a loser if they whine about a ruling after it has been decided (suggesting 'oh, this isn't the rules.' is fine, then trying to argue it normally isn't if it's something minor), but I think it's generally good to stick to the rules.

If you cut corners too often, it can sometimes lose some of the depth to the game.

If a rogue can't draw both their weapons at once, it forces them to think 'oh, maybe I should pull out a crossbow, or take out only one weapon, hide and then attack or just use my bonus action for anything else at all', a bit rather than following a routine.

As long as I don't hear you catch your players unarmoured in the night too often, I think things are okay anyway.

fuck off

A paladin. The angelic wings thing may be a problem but they've got the divine magic and greatsword down pat.

Oath of vengeance paladin.

>divine magic
>greatswording if you want
>angelic wings at level 18... If you make it that far.

Devotion Paladin if your DM is cool
Vengence Paladin if you know your goign to hit 20

No.

Human variant (tavern brawler), far traveler background, barbarian (totem warrior, w/custom sea cucumber totem)

16 str, 12 dex, 14 con, 8 int, 14 wis, 10 cha.

Oath of vengeance, baby

The wings and magic are the most important because he got them both from drinking the blood of the god of wind and seas. The greatsword is removable though, are there any classes that get flight at low levels that I could refluff?

Yeah but are any of them actually good?

I'm working on running a one shot for some friends who have never played a tabletop game before. I want to keep things as simple for them as I can so I'm going to pre make characters for them to pick from, with one character for each class.

In the dungeon I want to have an intro fight, the middle part, and then the "boss fight" at the end. In the middle part I want to make it more puzzle and exploratory instead of just fighting. I had thought about making the party go through rooms that were designed so that one character would be much better at solving it than others (for example, having a room full of traps for the rogue to disarm).

The players would only enter the rooms that corresponded to the characters in the party and I'm looking for suggestions on what kind of puzzle I could design for each class

Aarakokra race, Winged tiefling variant race and storm sorcerer (!), eagle barbarian are the only ways you'll get low level flight.
Aarakokra has ridiculous speed at about 50ft or something, winged tiefling is just 30ft, storm sorcerer technically doesn't have wings or a fly speed but can be refluffed so they have wings that only work for a moment after casting spells.
Basically, they fly for a short period of time after a spell.
Eagle barbarian is very similar, but non-magical for sure, only works while raging and only in short bursts again.

If you can start with an uncommon magical item, you may be able to refluff the 'winged boots' to suit your needs.

Storm sorcerer sounds best. I imagine they get bonuses to lightning spells to suit the whole god of wind and sea thing?

I know you didn't ask for this but I would suggest doing a session zero where you help the players make their characters. 1, it teaches them how to make a character and some intro to playing and 2, players will always have more fun playing their own created characters than someone elses. Also be sure to add enough magical items so each character will get 1, make it cool as well cause everyone loves loot.

As for puzzle? Slider puzzles are always fun.

I personally think that sounds really lame, and the party should instead think amongst themselves who would be best at what. Still, I'm not a new player.

Your main difficulty is going to be with, say, a fighter or barbarian.Their best bets are to lift boulders - you'd have to give them some sort of backstory feature ( a fighter - battlemaster for example gets a tool proficiency, or their racial might give them something) that can be used, but isn't obviously 'HEY BATTLEMASTER I GAVE YOU BRINK LAYING PROFICEINCY AND THERE'S A WALL HERE AND SOME BRICKS AND MORTAR GUESS WHAT THE PUZZLE IS'

Eh. They get some flavour stuff, but if you want a straight-up damage boost .. They might gte one, butI think that's more dragon sorcerer territory.

I believe the storm sorcerer is in the waterbourne adventures thing, so you'd best look for it in there and see i you like it.

holy fuck you guys are a bunch of retards
>need two hands to play
you can stow a weapon and then DRAW YOUR INSTRUMENT AS PART OF YOUR SPELL FUCK

All this talk on stowing and drawing weapons now really has me asking this question. If you're a rogue with two daggers tucked into your belt, would it not make sense that you can reasonably draw both just by using each hand to grab one then pull them out? It's not actually like it's a difficult action to perform.

Exactly. You need one (1) free hand to use a spellcasting focus. There are no more rules about a bard having to play an instrument that serves as their focus than there are about a warlock shoving their rod up their arse to use it as theirs.

You did not read that errata about the warlock? Its in bro

>he didn't read that fiend warlocks have to have a demonic buttplug in order to regenerate their pact magic feature

Fucking warlocks
Always trying to make people forget about the rules to save their own arses.

You're technically right, the best kind of right. However we can assume a bard must play their instrument in order to cast a spell simply cause the Bard fluff is that their magic comes from their music. But that's just assuming of course. Reasonably it should just be left at the GM's discretion.

Guys, I'm running a fey warlock. The thing-ring is much easier to deal with.
Their magic doesn't just come from music, it also comes from their "wishes" and "oration" according to the PHB.

The problem is that if at any point playing an instrument becomes much more troublesome than the bard just using a component pouch, they'll just go for the component pouch.

That's where if I was a DM I would just tell the Bard's that their source of magic comes from the "art" they are proficient in. I don't have the PHB on me now so I can reread Bards. I know the DM in one campaign I played it let our Bard use his Greataxe as his instrument because it was both an Axe and a Guitar.

Was actually pretty metal.

Does that mean you can't play a 2H Valor bard? Or do you just whistle Neverwinter Nights style?

Depends on the GM and how he interprets the plot.
Right now we have a Valor Bard with a longsword in our group that's a Skald from Norland and he uses uses his sword in two hands.

>how he interprets the rules
I meant.

The class should be renamed to Sage instead of Druid.
When someone says Druid you immediately think of either Celtic priests or Shapeshifting mages of nature.

When someone says Sage... well the term encompasses a far broader concept.

>Shapeshifting mages of nature
... which is exactly what druids are?

How to do an evil monk well? Beyond just treating ki as a source of evil power.

I thought wildshape only went up to cr 3 monsters

Moon druids can turn into a beast whose CR is equal to their druid level divided by 3, so at 12th they can turn into CR 4 beasts.

My druid is A monk who being somehow unable to train his ki decided to seek out different forms of magic instead.
He found his way with a group of sages who observe and study nature to master it's powers and maintain its balance.
So he's traveling the world seeking out and destroying those that taint nature through negative magical energies so he can gain more power.

Yes they should be able to use a quarter staff as focus.

As far as I'm concerned every caster should be able to pick any melee weapon as a focus as long as they have it silvered or enchanted with at least a minor magical effect.

By treating the ki as a source of evil power.

Dude it's a fucking arpeggie, make this shit up until it sounds fucking baller. Be some sort of "Kill Destroy" inversion of Buddhism like the bad guys from Karate Kid.

That's ridiculously easy.
Basically, stop treating a Monks as LITERAL monks; even the culture the invented the concept of fantasy warriors who used ki didn't do that. It was just a skill, and like any other skill anyone on earth could learn to use it and then do whatever they wanted with it at all. Like learning to fight with a sword, only more complex and involved.
Monestaries might be a reliable place to find training, but not the ONLY one. Ever heard of the "wandering incognito kungfu master" thing?

If you have to have them be Monks, associate them with an evil religion; one of my group's recurring foes is a Monk of Bane who I'd originally planned as a one and done threat but the group enjoyed his vaguely Darth Maul-inspired presence so much that he kept coming back.

>one of my group's recurring foes is a Monk of Bane who I'd originally planned as a one and done threat but the group enjoyed his vaguely Darth Maul-inspired presence so much that he kept coming back.

I think I remember you coming on here and posting about that some months ago, that sounds vaguely familiar.

Is there actually a good "I cast fist" build for casters?

dndmagic.com/?id=31

Im a first time DM getting ready for his first Adventure with a group of 3 players who are familiar with the game (they've played a bit).
im currently pouring over the DMs guide and have read through the MM and Players Guide.
i have a decent if basic first go Adventure in my head buts its not committed to paper yet
im nervous about making sure the rules and rolls are followed though and making sure to keep it engaging and entertaining
any tips?

Is it alright to disclose the DC for saving throws? Like say they need to roll n to succeed this Strength saving throw so they can withstand the gust of wind that might push them off the high cliff they are at.

I want to be impartial to certain mechanics like hiding DC for skil checks to maintain a certain immersion that and if they were told that, say, a wooden door needs DC 20 to break open it will gve away that there is indeed something special about the door instead of finding that out for themselves as characters vs as players. Stil, however, I do feel that something like the number of a saving throw DC is something they should know at least esp if its something lethal.

If you feel comfortable with your party knowing, then say it. That all comes down to your party's playstyle and whether they can separate character-player knowledge or not.