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

But what about battlerager :^)

Though also, a barbarian could also quite effectively fight with light thrown weapons if need be.

That's basically berserker lite.

Anyone used a blood hawk for a range companion? I want a bird and it seems like the best one that fits the "1/4 CR and medium size or lower" criteria.

When the players consume food, goodberries, water, or wine when out on the road or at a tavern secretly tell the two that the taste of the nourishment seems off. Graduate that tasteless, then to repulsive. At that point have them make CON saves to keep nourishment down. Give them permanent levels of exhaustion after that until the curse is lifted.

You do realize that if the players discover they are Sparrow-esque immortals they will do stupid shit. Unless they really really want to RP redemption then you will have to throw down so extremely heavy penalties that do not involve combat.

Most animals with at least a 14 are passable.

Actually, a barbarian with a backpack full of javelins with two-weapon-fighting feat sounds pretty cool.

>add rage damage bonus to thrown attacks with javelins
>multiclass into fighter for either:
Duelling - +2 to damage if you're careful about how you throw them. Works best if your DM lets you use the feat's 'You can take out two weapons with one object interaction' to split it up into 'Draw one, throw, draw one, throw'.
Archery - +2 to hit
Two-weapon-fighting: More damage on bonus attack.
Could also multiclass into rogue for sneak attack if you use daggers.
Could also multiclass into two fighting classes with the right fighting styles so you can get archery AND duelling.

Main issue is you can normally only draw one weapon at a time. Two with a bonus action as thief. Two with the TWF feat. Three with a bonus action and being a thief with the TWF feat.

Wait a second, a thief with TWF can draw four weapons with an object interaction and a bonus action, can't they?

Gee, try and find a use for that.

In strength, or just in general? A blood hawk only has 6 Str, but +4 perception, 14 passive perception and advantage on sight based perception checks. I would certainly like it to hold its own in combat, but do companions apply str modifiers even though beak says +4 to hit?

just in general a decent deal of the small beasts have awful stats.

Blood hawk has 14s in dex and wis, on top of the bazillion bonuses it gets to perception, and I like getting idea of having a flying scout. I guess I'd just hate to have it hide from combat all the time.

Ravens are the best. They make the best spies at least.

+2 Con instead of +1. That's really all it needs.

Trying to find out if this is actually valid. Probably not viable, so it sounds fun, but I'm trying to work it out.

sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/
Says that the weapon is still a melee weapon. So isn't it a 'melee weapon attack' in that you're still making an attack with a melee weapon?
But
sageadvice.eu/tag/smite/
Then says you have to make a melee attack to make a melee weapon attack.
It's a little confusing, but by RAW it seems you can't add rage damage to thrown attacks, but that feels like a stupid ruling.

Thrown attacks kind of deserve rage damage. It doesn't really break anything.
Barbarians aren't supposed to be good at ranged, but that doesn't mean they should be completely hopeless at it.

what is wrong with 5e?

You're mixing two unrelated rulings together.

"Melee weapon attack" is a subset of attack rolls.
"Melee weapon" is a subset of equipment.

Rage refers to "melee weapon attack," the subset of d20 attack rolls made when you hold onto a weapon to strike at something, not launching the weapon or a piece of ammo over a distance.

RAW, Rage doesn't work with javelins. This is why totem barbarians are great because they have an easier time closing distances with Eagle and/or Elk features.

Javelins are weird because they are listed as melee weapons. This means features like Dueling that mention melee weapons actually add damage to them regardless of the type of attack roll you're making. However, when you throw a javelin, you're making a ranged weapon attack, not a melee weapon attack, even though a javelin is still considered a melee weapon.

>RAW, Rage doesn't work with javelins when thrown

Not really. With two weapons, you'd be dealing 1d6+STR for the first attack, 1d6 for the second. That's the same damage as 2d6+STR from two-handed weapons.

The difference is that you're spending a bonus action and potentially getting +2 damage out of your rage.

But in general, dual wielding for any class but rogues and fighters feels very clumsy and deals less damage than GWM. And that makes me angry, because dual wielding isn't supposed to be a sub-par fantasy for barbarians.

>Death rules are shit.
>Pets are annoying to deal with.
>Not enough variant races

They removed the game aspect of RPG, I feel like I spend more time larping than when I play WoD.

5e feels like it was designed to be a spectator sport, watched rather than played.

Strength sucks for anyone but GWF paladin/fighter and barbarian. Heavy armour is underpowered.
Int sucks for anyone but wizard, somewhat EK and to a much lesser extent arcane trickster. The int save is almost never, ever used.
Charisma save is barely ever used, too.

Saves for each stat was a nice idea, but the saves don't cover a lot. Strength saves at least get some use.

That's what I thought. But really, I think it's deserved that Barbarian's bonus rage damage should say 'any attack roll that relies on strength'. Thrown weapons could use that little bit of love.

At levels 1-4, you won't have a lot to do with your bonus aside from rage. If you're a berserker, you should be using big weapons anyway.

+2 damage and having two attacks you can use on two different creatures is worth it. There's no real downside aside from not being able to use it on the turn you rage, and only being able to pull out one weapon at a time without feat.

At level 5 two-weapon-fighting falls behind by -0.5 damage. Still viable, but still has the problems.
If you don't feel like getting GWF early, it might still be a viable alternative if your DM lets you add rage damage to thrown weapons.

Talk to your DM about shrinking the giant owl to medium for you, and ride it as a ghostwise halfling.

well it is easy to mod death rules , you die when you have -con score, and races are easy to make, dont know shit about pets,maybe that they are like a second character
Quite funny that i saw a campaign focused in combat, they where playing like it was ragnarok or something like that
yeah, those st feel like are just occupying space,armour could be easily modded tho

>If you don't feel like getting GWF early, it might still be a viable alternative if your DM lets you add rage damage to thrown weapons.

But here's the thing: If the optimal way to use two weapons is with a feat, GWM also has to come into play. Which means the discrepancy in damage only grows.

It's not really the optimal way. It's just a possibility.

If you take the two-weapon feat, you get +1 damage on all attacks, essentially. You also get +1 AC and to pull two weapons.
If you take +2 to strength, you get +1 to hit, +1 to damage and +1 on strength related things.

If you assume that a barbarian keeps taking +2 to strength until they hit 20, it's probably not an issue.

Of course, if you want to play optimally, you don't level barbarian past level 5.

Why is booming blade considered "broken"?

Anyone use the spellbook cards? If so, how good are they? Do they really streamline things for casters, or are they just more bookkeeping and paper to shuffle around?

I like them for making my own spell lists quickly. Sorting stuff by elements/levels/usefulness/etc.

I just had an awkward situation
>Player rolls to see if a guy who just appeared on their galley is hostile, rolls a 5
>DM tells him he is a grave threat and must be eliminated
>Player has his character charge this new guy, trying to incapacitate him or knock him prone
>Captain of the ship and the newcomer drop the character to 0 health in one round, nevermind we just stopped 30 gnolls from wrecking the captains ship
>turns out the newcomer was harmless
>Player who rolled for perception feels slighted, by being lied to from a roll that wasn't even a critical failure
>another character who's close to his is no longer comfortable remaining on this ship
>Other party members don't care

Was the DM or the player justified here? I'm the guy who's character no longer feels comfortable, and honestly considering walking from the table, seeing as that was pretty much my only interaction with the DM through the whole 2.5 hour session.

It's not.
For a rogue, it can be powerful if the rogue somehow obtains constant advantage. Otherwise, it's a trade-off as they only get one chance of triggering their sneak attack.

For an EK, it's a direct upgrade at certain levels, but only certain levels. And even then, it's not a massive upgrade.
At other levels it's a choice.

For clerics, they have to find some way to get it in the first place. It's definitely betterthan their cantrips then, but generally clerics don't rely on their cantrips much anyway.
For sorcerers, wizards and bladelocks... They have to be in melee, duh. Bladesingers trade multi-attack and multi-+intdamage proc for it.
For normal warlocks, eldritch blast is better.

Did he kill the character, or just knock him out?
Seems like he went overboard in his 'failed roll description' and then stuck to his guns. Makes more sense to give a neutral response than a strong negative response if someone fails an insight /investigate /perception check they instigated.

Why would a failed perception roll identify someone as a grave threat?
The DM shouldn't decide how a player's character should react to something. Saying "he must be eliminated" is telling the player what their character feels.
The character might misidentify them as threatening, but might not immediately attack.

If the failed perception roll was like 'you think you seem the gleam of a weapon' then that's okay. Because it leaves the player to think what their character would do if this newcomer is flashing weapons and seems very shadey.

He was at zero health. My character came running and got him stabilized with a medicine check.

I just think its not right for a player to be punished that harshly for acting on bad information that was given to them, with the exception of a critical failure.

To me, a fair peception roll result would have been "He's a dragonborn, you haven't familiarized with enough dragonborn to be able to determine his posture or intent"

1) The roll should have been insight, not perception
2) Critical failures don't exist in the rules
3) You should talk with your DM and the rest of the group and set clear rules about whether failed checks can result in misinformation, or just lack of information.

Hey, I'm new to D&D and I just wanted to know if there was anything else I can do to prepare for my first game, and what to do during, besides reading over the rules.

Rules menutia like in a "streamlined" game.

I think I recall thrown attacks not counting as ranged attacks in some sage advice or FAQ. But I might just be misremembering...

There are existing archetypes where a spell is the centrepiece. For example, Necromancy gets an augmented Animate Dead, and in 3.5 Swiftblade got extra benefits from Haste. Can you think of any archetpyes you'd like to see built around a particular spell? Or any spells that you could ssee an archetype built around?

They don't count as "ranged weapons" (equipment type), but do count as ranged weapon attacks (type of attack roll).

i.e. Archery fighting style doesn't apply to thrown weapons because it says it applies when you use a "ranged weapon."

The first two bullet points of Sharpshooter work with thrown weapons because they say "ranged weapon attacks." The third bullet point does not because it only says "ranged weapon."

There should not be anything as a "failed" perception roll. A dm should roll on behalf of the player in secret or use their passive. Then give the player the results. Also ascertaining a threat is insight not perception.

this was posted like yesterday but by the player who said he was gonna leave the game I think...

This gets complicated when players have features like the Bard or Monster Hunter which allow the player to add dice to a roll after seeing the roll but before knowing the result.

I was planning on undeath in the form of, if they die, they are dead permanently with no form of redemption. At least, that's what a cursory examination by a Cleric of some kind would be able to tell them if they chose to research it.

But let's say they are essentially immortal until the curse is lifted. What kind of shenanigans can I expect and how can I head that off or prevent it?

Yeah he posted it, but he didn't articulate it quite as well because he was still pissed from the session. As a result didn't get much of a response as to whether he or the DM were being an idiot.

Mage hand
>Master of the Unseen Hand

Color Spray
>More spells and abilities for a majestic goddamn fabulous wizard

Grease
>Just because

A fighter archetype built around Unseen servant.

Failed perception/insight rolls should get responses of "you can't tell", not false information.

Without feats on a barbarian, we assume you've got to 2-shortswords for 1d6 + Str + 1d6 vs a Maul which is 2d6 + Str

So the question becomes - is it better to roll once for 2 attacks or twice?

Probably the best way.
Passive perception tells you what you'd passively notice. Players have to choose to actively check things otherwise or be prompted to do so.

I'd like to do DM secret rolls for perception, but taking the power away from the players is a bit naf.

It'd be nice if there was some valid way to fairly tell lies about what a player sees, but honestly most people shouldn't be hallucinating. You'd have to actually make the players hallucinate to do that.

So I guess 'Neutral not very useful but still true information' might be a good thing for low rolls.

Twice.

2d6 > 1d12 by like a percentage point, on average.

You're forgetting rage damage.

Rage damage at lower levels gives +2 to every attack.

You get 1d6+1d6+2+2+STRMOD for shortswords.
2d6+2+STRMOD for maul.

Rolling twice is generally better. You can kill an enemy and then move onto the next.
There are some rare situations where rolling only once would be better - Where you have to do maximum damage in order to kill something before it has a turn. You might still miss, but you're much more likely to reach maximum damage than if you make two seperate attacks.

Oh, and, similarly, doing two attacks gives you a vastly better chance of hitting at least one of the attacks. Two seperate attacks are much more likely to kill a 1 HP mob.

However, there are also effects like Guiding Bolt which only apply to one attack, so it might vary sometimes.

Have you guys been diligent in organizing and running your games?

I'm going to update my Play-by-Post games RIGHT NOW holy shit I'm fucking slothful

So my DM is using an alternate healing system that basically makes my song of rest not work/basically never work(we need a healer's kit to spend hit dice). Should I ask for something to replace it? If so, what should I ask for?

I probably annoy my players reminding them to update their sheets, make ASI/feat choices, asking if they understand how their new magic items work, checking on who will be attending, etc. so we don't have to take any of our session time making adjustments.

he was a bit of an idiot DESU but understandably so. if I spent a session being ignored and a dm basically false flagged me over nothing I'd feel pretty frustrated too. the DM just sounds like he isn't interested in y'all's characters or else isn't as into you two as people as he is the others. if it were me I'd just walk away but I'm not one for compromise or being personable

Rogue magic trickster is kind of the mage hand one already

Talk to the DM about it, if they don't admit that it was weird/shady and say they won't do it again then leave. Perception would be to notice if he was armed, insight would be to tell if he was going to make a threatening move or had hidden intent. Either way a 5 doesn't deserve a "he is a threat, kill him" vibe from some random guy, unless that guy is like pretending to be a crazy demon in disguise or something.

Maybe a Monk with Spiritual Weapon that can also be used to flurry.

This is more of a tipping point. In an earlier session we unfortunately had a lot of slaves we saved get killed by gnolls. The DM let our level 2 wizard use dimension gate without a scroll to pull a healer from miles away to the ship to resurrect the important slaves.

This is also the second session he's heavily favored the other two players.

I'd beat the player with a tube sock full of quarters and see if they still wanted to play it.

It should still work.

Song of rest does not expend hitdice, as does casting healing spells with warlock slots or healing using the 'healer' feat.

Would it be better for a Variant Human War Cleric to take Magic Initiate(Druid) for Shillelagh or Martial Adept for some Battle Master maneuvers like Commander's Strike and Rally? Of course I suppose I could eventually take both, but even then which would you take first?

Oh, right, I remember this.

This is the one where the DM berated everyone for letting some slaves die when their ship was filled to the fucking brim with gnolls that somehow weren't awfully threat-inducing and were just annoying, right?

Someone getting the 'inspiring leadership' or whatever it was called temporary HP buff feat sounds better than getting battle master's rally.

All the characters are the fucking same. If the game is to be interesting you have to roleplay and make decisions bassed off the fluff and the characters weaknesses or everybody is just playing the same fucking character that changes the labels of the numbers for each class to do shit. Min-maxers that metagame and play like the characters know their ability scores are fucking swine.

Some enemy's have a 'buffer' for attacks, where any single hit has damage taken away from it. So attacking twice lessens the damage further.

Just look at paladins with their -3 to the damage of any hit.

Yeah, somehow every single slave got slaughtered but our characters emerged unscathed.

Sure, that makes sense. So would you say it's better to get Martial Adept over Magic Initiate? I mean the maneuvers seem real handy, but if I can get WIS to damage with Shillelagh from the get-go I don't need to worry as much about STR, right?

IMO Int's better for AT than it is for EK. EK has a better variety of saveless spells, where as AT has to go for Illusions (Int DC to discern as fake) or enchantments.

Depends if you're using melee a lot.

If you are, it's a good choice.

The one that gives everybody in the party a generous helping of temporary HP is very powerful in parties with more people, though is probably better for a charisma user.
Martial adept doesn't really feel worth it.

How would you do Swiftblade in 5e?

I wouldn't even bother with martial adept as a war cleric. It's only worth it for characters that already have superiority dice, like a bunch of the UA fighter archetypes.

Yeah, only just realized Adept gives just 1 superiority die.

Quite often the DC doesn't come into play for illusions, I find. Especially in combat where it takes an entire action.

EK has war magic, but then I've just realized - Booming blade doesn't care about your spellcasting modifier.

I can't remember if absorb elements uses it, but green flame blade does. Overall, they might be fairly even if the fighter doesn't waste all their spell slots and reactions on 'shield'. And they probably will.

I suppose it'd be wizard>AT>EK then.

Not him, but I'd probably just go with a bladesinger

>downloaded grimoire since I wanted to use it offline
>couldn't figure out how to use it even after installing github

any tips, lads? It's a .zip so if anybody else wants it, it'd need to be through some other source

>not important for combat

sure, if you're not using something like phantasmal killer, but one of the rogue's great strengths is his out of combat exploration abilities, where illusions might even mean the difference between life or death.

if you even take green flame blade (since your cantrip selection is so limited) then it has some use, but it's much easier for an EK to not take any spells that require Int at all. It's not my preferred way to play, though, but it's definitely possible.

I only like Martial Adept when I already have maneuver dice from something else. I think it'd be great on a Monster Hunter, for instance.

Prestidigitation. Just various ways to make it better until it makes you a utility beast.

And it's a d6 that never gets better

Monster Hunter is the true "Champion" archetype. Simple, effective, and gets big dude with big sword fluff that is much better.

Prestidigitation is so ambiguous that the only real higher level spell I would consider along the same conceptual bounds is wish, but obviously there's a lot of shit between the two.

I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine how you would really expand on it without just winning the game with a cantrip, but one thing that comes to mind that I think could kind of work is a generalist wizard archetype that has features more about getting a little more out of your low level spells or something

>Strength sucks for anyone but GWF paladin/fighter and barbarian

And grappler builds. A bit niche but rather powerful in the right circumstances.

Would a feat that simply stated

"Two Weapon Master: When using two weapons, attacking with your off hand weapon doesnt use a bonus action. You may only attack this way once per turn.

In addition, when your off hand weapon is a knife instead of attacking you can instead increase your AC by +1"

A grappler build should utilize some levels in barbarian anyway, really. Otherwise, it's not really worth the sacrifice. It doesn't absolutely suck if you're a non-GWF fighter or paladin, but it'd still be suboptimal unless you multiclassed fighter-rogue or something. And then, you might as well go barbarian-rogue.

Depending on how the DM does it, there might not even be rolls to check illusions.
Going around town using 'disguise self'? If there's nothing off about you, nobody has any reason to investigate you. If you're pretending to be someone else, deception checks might prove more important.

Phantasmal killer is quite late in the levels, and it's not a massively great alternative to simply just sneak attacking someone, but the range and potential damage over time might pay off if you know a creature's saves aren't going to be toogood.

My main reasoning for putting EK below AT before was I was thinking about utilitizing cantrips with war magic. The problem with this however is a) they'd be better to go charisma and grab eldritch blast and b) Booming blade needs no int.
So, yes, EK can definitely avoid int almost entirely.

AT still doesn't get extensive use of it, but I'll certainly say it's more than EK.

>my main reasoning for putting EK below AT before
Should've been >my main reasoning for putting EK above AT before for requiring int more

I'd probably allow it, but I'd change the wording a bit to include "as part of an attack action". It kind of falls a little too much into mandatory to justify two weapon fighting for non-rogues, but I don't think anyone else really has much reason to two weapon fight as is

Theyre useful if you only have 1 PHB and dont wanna wait while people constantly check their spell efects

>there might not even be rolls to check illusions

Yes, but when there are (i.e. when you need your illusion to stick) it'll be against your saving throw DC as determined by your Intelligence. It's also important for (I think) every enchantment spell, which is the other big part of your repertoire. You MIGHT be able to get away with dumping Int as an Arcane Trickster, but I never would and would never recommend it.

>grab EB

I would never grab EB as any of these classes. A fighter will do better straight up attacking and a rogue needs to use his sneak attack.

Any suggestions for feats for a Variant Human Wizard?