/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General

Tome is also great.

Got 'em!

As far as writing goes, agreed.

But if you're just looking for fun value, any of those can work in the right hands. I enjoy a good elder god-tier villain, but sometimes it's just great to take down a Skeletor.

That has nothing to do with 'evil', it's just an opinionated chart judging the motivations of antagonists.

If we're continuing this shitposting, we need to discuss the motivations for morally impure, corrupt, or damaged individuals who become protagonists along with more upstanding allies.

Arbitrary and meaningless.
A quality of villain relates to how deftly they are handled and how well they are written, not your personal preferences in a villain. That's called a subjective opinion.
I would argue basically ALL of the villains on your chart are good ones because most are handled fairly well, excepting perhaps the dragon from Dragon Age which is basically a dragon because all fantasy video games made after 2000 apparently require you to fight a dragon as the last boss, regardless of actual context.

>thinks that image constitutes a point

I know this is meant to be bait, but I'll respond only because I want to talk about how balanced/imbalanced the race is.

40 ft. base move speed is pretty busted, I'd limit it to 35 ft. like Wood Elf. Being potentially immortal is also bad, just have them live as long as High Elves (so 500-700 years).

Gaining proficiency with Perception I'm actually ok with, same with normal darkvision distance. Advantage on saves vs. being knocked prone is situationally very strong, so I'd probably just change it so that if you ever get knocked down it only costs you 5 ft. of your move speed to stand back up.

Enthrall spell should be 1/long rest because of it being a 2nd level spell. I don't agree with 'only good' alignment restriction, would probably just remove it entirely, and just talk about how they tend to fall in the 'good to neutral' alignment scope, ranging from playfulness to lack of caring, but occasionally you find "bad apples" amongst their race. And it should be +1 Cha., +1 Dex. because of how back-loaded the rest of the class is, and they need to give up power somewhere.

>I know this is meant to be bait, but I'll respond only
The beginning of your sentence invalidates everything you say afterword.

Where would Darkseid fit on this list. He's the god of evil and tyranny. He wants to reshape reality in his image.

Agreed. There must be balance. Taking on an Ozymandias (and to a lesser extent even a Mr. Freeze or a well-played Magneto) can be very draining. You've gotta have a few good whacks at a Sauron or Green Goblin every now and again to recharge the ol' hero batteries.

It was just a threadly reminder due to some last minute shit posting on previous thread.
I love me almost all villains and evil playstyles or characters.

It was more to show the variety of villainry.
What are some reasons you'd think?
I'd throw out necessity is a huge one. Hiding amongst good will make them less questioned by common society, although you can see evil in D&D so this might be slightly null, and they may see the group as having something they lack.

Try harder.

Doesn't matter.
It's a pretty arbitrary list.

The 40 ft extra movement is the main racial strength. I used the differences and traits of aarakockra and wood elf as my measure of if it was alright or not. I decided it was, given what other features I gave them.

The age thing is an obvious joke, as is the alignment thing.
Enthrall is a shitty spell, so I thought it was perfectly fine to just throw that on top for giggles.
I actually think the race is pretty mechanically balanced.

Not to familiar with Darkseid. Why does he want to do this? He'd go on a lower scale but being a god of evil and tyranny it just might be in his bones.

His reasons are not stated (whenever he is questioned on it he usually responds with something along the lines of "DARKSEID IS", which tells you a bit about him), but generally he seems fairly uncomfortable with even the basic concept of free will.

He wants to make a universe where everything is orderly and functioning and neat. Not even because he wants everyone happy (because in places where he has accomplished this he quite literally turns them into hell on earth), but because he just fundamentally dislikes the idea that anyone anywhere should get to choose to do anything then what he wants them to do.

>show the variety of villainry.
Villain is a bad word for this discussion. Players are protagonists, and villain can mean "person of despicable nature" or "antagonist".
Sure, occasionally a player can take the role of an antagonist briefly- Being coerced into joining the enemies, whether by magic, blackmail, gold, power, or any number of motivating factors. And while these may be present upon character creation, such as a rogue's greedy streak, a wizard's taste for power, or a paladin's love of their family above victory at the cost of them, a player should not intend to antagonize the party often, or they should be dealt with as any enemy and replaced with a cooperative character.
A well played evil PC is one that cooperates with the party as necessary to drive the game, while happening to be ruthless and not personally care for the trappings of morality.

That's a tough then. So the orderly and neat bit might even come off as elder god tier, but it's does seem to fit in lower scale. However, I'll nip the bud and say this isn't really 5e related.

So, imagine the aspiest aspie to ever aspirate, then make him a god?

It's not, at all.
Though when Asmodeus shows up even by proxy in my games I generally make him into Darkseid in temperament and disposition.

>A well played evil PC is one that cooperates with the party as necessary to drive the game, while happening to be ruthless and not personally care for the trappings of morality.

I agree with all of that. However, villain can fit in. There are points where an entire parties motives could be considered antagonistic so you're essentially doing a villain campaign. Still, very rare to think of the PCs as villains.

Not really. He just doesn't get along with people very well I guess.
He's not wildly emotional or erratic, he doesn't feel sad if he gets misunderstood or surprised when he discovers people's feelings are hurt by what he does, he's not conflicted about himself and what he does, he never wishes he's anything else.

He states it pretty clear; he does what he does because it's who and what he is. He was made for it and born to it.

Come on now, taking joke stats seriously and fixing them is fair and proper. It's not the same thing as starting an argument over being obviously taunted into it.

The latter half of the entire last thread was consisted of trolling and maybe one or two people who simply refused to stop responding to the troll.
No. If you have to do it at least do it on your own thread you made so it shits up nothing except stuff you're involved in.

I feel like it's always the same persistent and salty autistic anti-weebs who just can't let a single thing go, and feel the need to bitch and moan about everything in every thread. Oddly enough, they sound a whole lot like you and how you write.
Gotta be a coincidence ;)

>while happening to be ruthless and not personally care for the trappings of morality.
The problem with this is, even when done with a stone cold or cruel intent really tends to be a neutral alignment. D&D alignment represents actions more than anything else, you need to earn that evil alignment somehow.

I've actually never felt particularly strongly about the Warlock thing.
Maybe if I get around to wanting to play one I'll start caring but I'm not quite there yet.

Again, this was just stats. It had no similarly to any of those arguments.

One action doesn't define a character. Certainly, an "evil" character doing a lot of good doesn't make them evil anymore. Just doing one good thing, to further evil, could still be seen as an evil act and not really sway them to the other side.

I think of alignment entirely as a mindset.
If someone lives their life plotting the eventual demise, betrayal, and subjugation of every other living soul yet only does things that seem to help other people out until he dies one day when he's not expecting it, that character was not good - he was evil. The fact that no one ever realized it because he only ever seemed like a nice person who wanted to help does not change that he was evil.

If you say so. I've always felt it was a bad habit to fall into, even if it's just a little light feeding.
Arguably a person's actions define them in real life too.
To whit; nobody REALLY cares about your super-secret inner self reasons for doing things or how your soul is wounded and in need of healing or any of that stuff, honestly.

People in real life just care about what you do and how it affects the world around you. Everything else is basically just private thoughts, and most people you meet aren't particularly interested in what someone was like privately because their private moments don't or didn't affect them at all.

Not one action no, but the overall weight of your influence on the world surely matters.

But then again, it's not like there's one interpretation of alignment nor one settings metaphysics to rely on. Still, it seems to fit with how it usually plays out.

What people think is irrelevant to how you actually are though. And alignment denotes how you really are. You may have the demeanor of a good or neutral character, but what you *nature* is - which is what alignment denotes - can be simply evil.

....honestly, that seems like an edgelord without the real balls to ever be edgy.
Like Wolverine in any X-Men animated series he features in; people will talk about how "hardcore" and "out of control" he is, but the G-rated format of the thing he's in means he'll never be able to say or do anything really edgy at all, just scowl sometimes.

Yeah, I don't like how D&D almost makes it seem like how you have to be. Agree with literally everything you just said.

If you do good you're entire life, to further evil, definitely you'll be seen as good. Just, sort of imagine the dissonance between the guy doing good all of a sudden just murdering half the population and the trail leads from all the good acts.
If you die, it doesn't matter.

No - it could be that the person really was just biding their time, waiting for the right opportunity to strike, and just never had a good enough opportunity that they thought was worth blowing their cover for.

>What people think is irrelevant to how you actually are though. And alignment denotes how you really are.

Your "reality" is the sum of your actions.
Your inner thoughts are private, basically affecting nothing at and nobody at all. They provide motivation sure, but ultimately if you spend a life not acting on inner thoughts even in small ways you aren't really Good because all you did was sit there and do nothing, but you aren't Evil either, again because all you did was sit there and do nothing.
Like it as not, you can't deny that carbon-based complex life forms don't really give a toss about your "feelings", just what you do and how you do it. We are physical beings who deal with physical problems that affect physical reality, and thus it's kind of "this is real life" type problems that we care about most.

God, Tibalt a QT
And yeah, but two of them browse here regularly and I don't want to spoil it.

No, I am who I am. Other people's opinions of who I am are irrelevant to my actual character and nature.
If a man is framed for every evil some other man committed, despite *actually* being a good and honest man, how other people perceive him is irrelevant to the truth. That person could be tried and executed for things he never did, with no one on earth having known his real character - it would not change the truth that he was a good person. People's opinions are irrelevant to truth.

I suppose that's true.
It's hard to judge though as it's not really something that happens in real life, though in fiction it totally does happen.

I'd probably label the character True Neutral or Neutral Evil I guess.

It could happen, and it actually might happen - if it did, you'd never know by virtue of the scenario itself unless you *were* such a person.

Here's why the extra 10 ft. move speed is busted: pretty much any class that gives extra movement as a bonus action or via class features (Rogue, Barbarian, Monk) will be able to chase down almost anything in the MM that doesn't have a way to change the battlefield in their favor (flying/hovering, digging/tunneling, phasing into and out of walls, teleportation), and most of the things that can do that stuff only show up in higher levels when the party should have more access to ranged attacks (stronger ranged weapons, better spells, etc.)

This doesn't let DMs threaten the possibility of a foe retreating to come back and fight the party another day, when they are better prepared for the group's tricks and power level.

Sorry, I didn't mean people's opinions.
I meant more like the consequences of your actual actions, rather then how people see them or anything.
Like, there's a thousand people working at groups like Greenpeace or whatever for absolutely selfless reasons, but nobody will ever really know their names or what they did publicly because nobody really pays all that much attention to that sort of thing.
But if their actions and lives are spent actively trying to alleviate suffering and make things easier, they'd be Good even if they aren't famous because what they spent their lives doing and tried to do with their time was only dons because they wanted to help people or make their lives a little less difficult.

Actions, not opinions, I suppose?
BTW, good talk. Can never have an even halfway rational discussion on the subject on Veeky Forums it seems to me, but here we are doing it.

That didn't really address what he says. A framed man is not evil in the original argument. His argument is actions define alignment, therefore the framed man may be seen as evil but he never committed an evil act. Your argument seems to be feelings and motivation define alignment.

You could had 2 alignments if it makes you feel better. Emotional Alignment and Action-based Alignment.

Aarakockra get 20 extra move and a z-axis bruh.
I know it's good - it's literally the main racial feature. If you look at the others, you'll notice none of them are actually that impressive or regularly relevant.

Asking again

>"Congrats! You are now going to Lawful Good Heaven!"
>"But I'm Evil. My whole life I've been Evil."
>"Really? Hrmm....no, your file says that you did only Good acts. Flirted with Neutrality here and there early on, but then you upheld the Law and did Good."
>"For Evil reasons though!"
>"Look, if you want to protest the ruling take it up with upper management pal, I'm not your case worker."

I can't remember but if it has a somatic component, you need a hand free. Which, you can do a whole thing of stashing a weapon, buffing one, stashing that one, pulling the other, buffing, and then drawing both.

I'm also going to get Warcaster feat.

Brb, making a tiefling warlock named Tibalt.

I'm a deontological ethicist m8.
We've got fundamentally incompatible views, based on axiomatic commitments that are irreconcilable.

I think intent and what a person actually wills is what ultimately matters when it comes to morality.

Yeah, I know - I just don't agree at all. I think intent is what matters. The thing about trying to split alignment along those lines is that what your action actually accomplishes isn't relevant. If a would-be murderer shoots a man who he thought was his target, only to find out it was a man that was *also* about to kill his target, that action is not good simply by virtue of what it happened to result in.

Then yes, you can do it.
However, I had a DM that argued I couldn't do that, since he deemed it "broken". Just with a different spell, can't quite remember.

I believe God judges by intent, not by results =/
If I rush to save someone, trip, and fall on top of a hidden nuclear launch button on the floor that ends up killing hundreds of thousands of people, God's not going to hold that against me.

>We've got fundamentally incompatible views, based on axiomatic commitments that are irreconcilable.
The benefit of living in this world is that we don't actually need to agree to get along or have pleasant and rational conversations on the subjects
Though lots of people will claim otherwise I suppose.

I believe that you don't need both hands to hold onto a 2h weapon, just to attack with it.

Anyone here play a favored soul in 5e?

I am playing a Favored Soul (from that one UA) and it's pretty not good

besides for the extra spells known, which is pretty great, I think draconic bloodline would be better in every way.

I just don't see the point of getting an extra attack when you only have simple weapons proficiency + light/medium armor, effectively cutting you off from being str based while cutting you off from any decent dex weapons.

like assume I'm level 6; why would I not just firebolt for 2d10 instead of attacking twice in melee with like a fucking dagger?

It's pretty disappointing; Favored Soul was awesome in NWN2

I think draconic sorcerers are better, yes.
It's just kind of an okay archetype. Better than wild mage I think, not as good as draconic or storm. I would still play one for the right character though.

I'd agree with that, though I guess I dunno about the God part.
I guess my beliefs are too simplistic to really involve a complex philosophy discussion about them. To me, action matters as much as intent because action tends to stem from intent, and negative things are things that remove or take away things that benefit the whole without really leaving improvements or doing it for reasons that particularly matter. I don't just mean major actions either, little stuff like how you treat other people and random strangers, positive feelings and emotions you leave behind.

I apologize, it seems I'm not very good at explaining it. Sorry.

Looking for ideas, group is scaling the tower of a corrupt paladin order, don't want to have it just fight after fight, any ideas of how I can diversify a bit?

Is the "The wood of a club or quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature's power." line just flavor text or do I actually need a wooden weapon?

Yea, the only reason I'm not miserable with the character is that I am really lucky with my rolls + have got some cool magic items.

I think I will eventually be outperformed by literally everyone in the party. I basically don't get any worthwhile archetype features until the special snowflake angel wings at level 14

you need a wooden weapon, either a club or a quarterstaff.

It's a druid cantrip.

kek I just realized that draconic sorcerers get the exact same level 14 class feature. Favored Soul sucks man

It's important to remember that thinking beings aren't going to just sit in another room when there's trouble they become aware of to wait for to enemies to come to them unless it's part of a plan.

When the PC's first attack the group's first inclination would likely be to send everyone they had to overwhelm them at once, not line up in nice groups like dominos waiting to fight whoever comes up the stairs.
If they start to loose too many people they might change tactics and retreat to a more hardened position farther up the tower.
And actually, making use of positioning and the construction of a tower itself can change a fight entirely.

Nah, you sound like a normal consequentialist. I'd imagine you could likely be described as a pragmatist as well.

Very incompatible with my own beliefs, but a much larger portion of people in the world probably fall closer to you than to me. I think there are more problems in those views, and inconsistencies between people who say they commit to such beliefs and what they actually find acceptable, but it's not an incomprehensible view in the least.

I'd wonder if you think there ought to be a distinction between things like murder and manslaughter though - the result of the action, and the physical components of the action itself, can be completely identical, but most people do hold that there's still an important enough distinction between the two that one carries one duration of sentencing and the other a different one.

Access to domain spells is pretty good tho.
Having bless, cure wounds, spiritual weapon, revivify, mass cure wounds and raise dead as a *sorcerer* is pretty handy.

like I said the only good thing is the extra spells.

Unfortunately I kinda got stuck with picking Light domain, so I don't really have anything that I couldn't have got as a regular sorc

It's also a movement type that can be shut down entirely by the environment and carries some risks when used. Pure land speed is more powerful, even when it's not quite as fast.

>Pure land speed is more powerful
Uhhh.

i just finished my first session eve AND my first time as a DM!
my players had fun! and aside from soe hiccups on getting them all to the same point i think it went really well

>Light domain
Yeah that sounds shitty =/

How useful is the light cantrip in OotA?

Better than it is in most campaigns.

depends. got darkvision?

if so, not useful at all really. if not, pretty useful.

Look at it another way: does a kind and we'll intention person, who never does anyone a kindness our of fear or follows up on those good intentions deserve to be counted amongst the good and serve in heaven? Or would they be consigned to the fate of the other weak hearts of neutrality.

Also, fuck typos. I swear this phone makes me even sloppier.

Was stuck on weather I should take it or Lightning lure. t. Great weapon eldritch knight

Even with darkvision it's pretty handy in OotA. If enemies are outside your darkvision or sensitive to light, you can light them up with a lit arrow or something.

Word of warning, eknight kinda sucks until level 7, post level 7 it's finally a gish but still meh

I would take lightning lure honestly. Think to yourself; when will you ever use it as opposed to just hitting someone with your greatsword

>I would take

wouldn't

>I'd wonder if you think there ought to be a distinction between things like murder and manslaughter though

I do, actually. The intent is important there. Intent isn't irrelevant, just a bit more complex then "good" or "bad".
Stuff like death and killing I have difficulty reconciling with my personal beliefs in a lot of ways, especially given my professional life choices I think.
Like, I agree that life is extremely precious and the removal of something mentally unique is pretty bad, but also that needing to employ lethal force at times to prevent your OWN uniqueness from being removed is necessary.

I mostly disagree with the death penalty though, as the reasons for it's employment in my country have nothing to do with law or the crime and largely to do with feeding an emotional need for revenge on the part of the accuser and populace rather then anything rational at all.

I mean, I'd rather have 10 more land speed than 10 more of flight. Having flight period is a massive advantage, of course.

I was making a joke, really.
The opposite of "doing one good thing doesn't undo a lifetime of bad things", I guess.

>when will you ever use it as opposed to just hitting someone with your greatsword
Can't reach the guy, or at least not without consequences. After they're close you commence the beatings.

Right right, but the argument I've been making is one of action versus nature. If ones nature on the good or evil axis isn't reflected in one's actions, either by opposition or simple absence, then the universe should consider them a neutral being. Same with any other conflicted alignment situation.

That makes some sense I think, the universe balancing out your intention with your actions.

I made a homebrew favored soul some time ago for a campaign that never got started. Still based on the Sorcerer, but gradually getting the features from a single Cleric Domain, aside from Channel Divinity. When a later feature requires Channel Divinity, it can be used once per short rest instead. Oh and you also get wings like the Draconic Sorc.

I'm also reminded of that one guy who committed a sin so egregious he spent generations of good deeds to make up for it and he was still destined to hell over it. I forgot who that was though, he was in some game I never played.

Is anyone starting a new game soon?

That'd have to be pretty bad.

I think it was never spelled out. I suspect it was something along the lines of introducing entropy to the multiverse.

where were you when you realized bladesinger is the best arcane tradition?

What's a good spell list for a 5th level Sorcerer with the blue draconic bloodline? We're mostly looking for damage at this point, but utility isn't bad obviously.