/5eg/ D&D 5th Edition General

The Avenger blew hard goats in 4e. The Vengeance Paladin is a much better fit for the concept.

>+1 AC should never be in a feat
It already is, and this fighting style will always let the big guy with a big axe and most archers hit harder than this feat which falls between the two on ability to hit and allows TWF to outdamage archery.

The +1 AC has a cost and is makes both heavily armored characters and lightly armored melee classes better at their roles, and the reaction is for kiting classes to kite better without stepping on a swashbuckler's toes at all.

>Mearls
>(easier?)

I would like a ToB style class done using the Warlock as a template for the class. It only gets the Extra Attack instead of the Pact Boon, but the rest of the template would be the same.

>It already is
Yes, on the dual-wielder that sacrifices the +2 AC from using a shield. You're just trolling now, right?
>makes both heavily armored characters and lightly armored melee classes better at their roles
>Everyone should take this feat
Now I KNOW you're trolling.

I like the idea of a divine 'rogue' class though, which is fragile but skilled and can punish heavily in the right circumstances.

and i'll add that the biggest problem with the ocean in fantasy is that the is no one to introduce your party to it. elves indtroduce you to the forest, dwarfs to the underdark, orcs to the mountains. their needs to be a REASON to goto the ocean, and a way to introduce the party to that reason. thus, aquatic PC race solves all those problems. and it cant be a shitty privitive race either, it has to be a fully developed interesting race that is engaged with the world. or it wont work

I think it's a tad overpowered (both Silver Tongue and Skill Versatility seems over-the-top) but in general it's comparable to a half-elf with waterbreathing. I'd definitely allow players to take it. Only other suggestion is to not name the race after the Blood Elf language.

Agreed, the mechanics were lacking. Doesn't mean it's not doable. I like the vengeance paladin, but I think there's a flavor difference between "SMITE ALL THE EVIL" and "SMITE THIS WELL-HIDDEN EVIL IN PARTICULAR."

Most aquatic fiction I've read indeed starts with the introduction of an aquatic character. This makes sense.

But user, battlemaster already exists.

Didn't notice that we'd jumped threads, so here is my question again.

Anyone tried Mercer's gunslinger fighter archetype?

Might throw one together for a pirate character, and want to know how the class fared.

>I think it's a tad overpowered (both Silver Tongue and Skill Versatility seems over-the-top) but in general it's comparable to a half-elf with waterbreathing. I'd definitely allow players to take it.
it designed to be a half elf replacement. my world world doesnt have half elves, and has these guys instead. the race abilities are very similiar. also very similiar to the merfolk WOTC designed fro zendikar a while back, i think they stole from me.
>Only other suggestion is to not name the race after the Blood Elf language.
i named them after the greek word for ocean. thalass. fucking warcraft. i agree tho i need a better name. any suggestions? hows thrass sound?

critters.boards.net/thread/116/mercer-gunslinger-rules-fighter-archetype
Just looking at the class, I'm not a huge fan. I've never liked Pathfinder's grit system, and the archetype honestly doesn't accomplish much that a ranged battlemaster wouldn't.

The guns are also pretty overpowered (pistol is so much strictly better than anything else in the weapon list that everyone will start using it).

Thrass is hard to say. :(
Going by your theme, I'd stick to your original strategy of naming them something Greek-related. Thalassian might still work if your players aren't the type to make Warcraft references.

It doesn't matter how good a reason they have or how charismatic and inviting their guide is, non-aquatic PCs are just not going to go into the water. Not only can they, you know, not breathe unless you contrive some magical air supply for them, but even then a significant number of their abilities are severely hindered or don't work at all. They're going to be slower, their equipment is going to be damaged, and three-dimensional combat is going to be a pain to figure out.

Unless your players want to do an all-aquatic campaign, no single one of them is going to want to be an aquatic PC unless they have a secret fetish for splitting the party and dying.

Half of all classes have shields as an option, but all classes have melee focused character archetypes (if not the whole class). Those lightly armored classes get better at their jobs.

Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin are the only three classes that have the AC and class features to focus on an AC build, and this feat makes them better at their job.

Any ranged character, and any character using heavy weapons will not take this feat. They will always take the ASI, their preferred fighting style feat, or GWM/SS. Always. They would be better optimizers for doing so.

Even within a fighter with the Duelist fighting style: there is the STR based fighter with a shield and plate armor taking this feat to boost damage and give some defensive abilities that pair with Shield Master for 21AC, while a DEX focused build would wear half-plate and use this feat combined with defensive duelist for 18AC with a reaction up to 24AC. It make two very different characters better at their jobs.

It also means a monk can reach 22AC if they wanted the investment, a rogue can hover around 18AC at a maximum, a bladelock hits the 18AC too, etc.

It's pretty damn well balanced in my opinion, the guns do more damage but no other weapons have the fuck up potential of these. The reload keeps you wasting attacks, and it's all about risk to up the damage.

I have a level 3 gunslinger and they are doing pretty fine.

Good homebrew.

Even you know that it isn't the same, though. A battlemaster is a really good fighter while the ToB classes are a lot different in function and realistically in flavor.

Would you allow a bondage-themed psychic human subrace in your games /5eg/?

No

>all dungeons are either 100% land or 100% water
youre really not very good at this

While it's my fetish I leave my ball gag at the door when I play DnD.

What does that have to do with anything? If a dungeon is 50% underwater, prepare to have that dungeon 50% skipped.

>The reload keeps you wasting attacks
No more than crossbows. Though I agree misfire balances it out somewhat.

>secret fetish for splitting the party and dying
If they had that they'd be DMing.

You keep repeating reasons why this feat is good for everyone, and I keep telling you this is the exact reason it's overpowered. Listing reasons it's useful isn't helping your case.

>all areas are either 100% water or 100% land
still very bad. im glad youre not my GM, or one of my players

you ever play Wet Dry World on Super Mario 64

or the zelda water temple is another good example

I agree that crossbows do have a similar deal but that can be solved by the feat, where that issue is completely gone and you get other bonuses. This would be something a fighter would get it they were planning on using crossbows. You can't get rid of the misfire without a homebrewed feat.

Also the misfire gets more dangerous the less Int you have, so if you dump stat Int like all of us do you could end up with 2-3 attacks of not firing.

I won't say the gunslinger is weak at all I think it's strong, but I don't think it's OP.

Why not?

Now you're not even making sense. If an area is halfway between being underwater and not, like boggy shallow water, being aquatic and having a swim speed isn't going to be a huge help there because there might not even be enough water to swim in. The chance of running into such an area is hardly a good motivator to choose an aquatic race.

>the misfire gets more dangerous the less Int you have
Am I looking at the wrong ruleset? I'm not seeing how int has anything to do with misfires.

You're not really selling me on the appeal of water-heavy dungeons by listing the worst levels in their respective games.

The worst level in a game is often a water level, for the reasons I've already given. And if one PC in a party is much better at speeding through such a level, that only enhances his ability to split the party. On land as well as in water, a cohesive party is only as fast as its slowest member.

He's probably talking about submerged parts of a dungeons. If a staircase just leads into dark black water a swim speed may come in handy.

A water breathing BBEG would stop PCs in their tracks if nobody had a swim speed.

When you misfire you have to make a check with your tinker tools to unjam the gun. The player's handbook says you tie an ability check with a tool to make the roll, like a thieve's tools check is made with Dex.

I mean I guess it's up to the DM but if I were running the game it would be intelligence. If they made the tinker tools check with Dex then it would be really easy and maybe be crossing into overpowered.

What is the best pet for the new Beastmaster Ranger, and why is it Ape?

Heya /5eg/, I'' currently playing a Paladin in a campaign, and I'm playing him like a Saturday Morning hero. Even has a swear jar. I'm currently trying to figure out what god would best suit this. Currently think Pelor, but considering he drinks Milk instead of Ale, I need a god that's pretty extreme in the "Goodness", cliché, kind of way.

Bear or wolf because the Beast Bond spell doesn't work with an Ape. Its intelligence is too high for the spell.

All I see is "until an Action is used to repair and clear the weapon," which doesn't imply a check at all. So either you're extrapolating a lot or we're looking at different rules.

>le meme rhetorical questions

I can't help you pick a god but I just imagined early WWE Kurt Angle as a paladin. You need a way to make the milk truck moment happen.

Think about that, though. If there's a staircase that only one member of the party can go through, that party member should not go through it! That's splitting the party, and most of the time splitting the party is caused by one player trying to bring some ability of his character to bear because keeping the party together feels like a waste. "I'm a rogue, so I'll stealth ahead." "I'm really fast, so I'll run ahead of the party." "I can swim, so I'll swim into this mysterious abyss!" No, no you won't, because if you do that you will be all alone and unable to properly attack or defend yourself.

I believe we are then. I was talking about Matt Mercer's 5e Gunslinger Hombrew.

So am I, but I might be looking at an imperfect duplication (or you might be). Where are you reading it?

I actually made a Long-death monk based off Edgelord reaper. It was for a kek campaign but yeah, pulled the whole "Die Die Die!" and "I'm not a psycopath, I'm a high functioning psycopath!" memes. He wore a hooded cowl and a long-skull mask with silver-claw-tipped gloves to make his unarmed attacks with. The memes were real creamy that game.

Pelor is secretly evil, or at least there's a popular meme/running joke that he's secretly evil, so don't pick him. You're probably not playing in Greyhawk anyway.

Tyr is the god of doing the right thing and not complaining even when it really sucks for you. Every time Tyr has stood up for mortals or for his divine peers he gets screwed over for it, but he keeps on doing it. Tyr's a bro.

>Pelor is secretly evil, or at least there's a popular meme/running joke that he's secretly evil, so don't pick him.
Are you retarded?

Gunslinger Version 1.2, page 3.

And I was wrong if you fail the check which needs a full action to attempt the gun breaks and you have to spend half the cost of the weapon to fix it.

If you roll a 1 with a pistol and fail the DC 9 tinker tools check, you have to spend 125 gold out of combat to fix it

No, just full of memes
So yes

Seems it got nerfed since the version I was looking at. Do you have a full source?

I'm on my phone, but it's in one of the links at the top of the thread. Or a gracious user can post it.

Found it, thanks! Will give it a read before commenting further.

You are mind-meltingly dense about this. I'm listing reasons why it helps makes the characters people fully aknowledge red the bump would find it good, and why it doesn't take things away from GWM and SS. You are saying because there are a lot of players that would take this it is broken, but you are not showing why an archer fighter or polearm wielding barbarian would choose this over the other damage boosting feats.

There's a fair amount of evidence in favor of the theory.

In any case, it's likely that user is playing in a setting where Pelor isn't really a thing

Does anybody have a pdf of the Planar bestiary from DM's Guild they can share?

>Creates a feat that's a must-have for every rogue, monk, and cleric and most fighters, rangers, and paladins
>Is proud of that fact
>I'M the one being dense

It's a fucking ancient 3e meme from the WotC forums you dipshit.

Not that guy, but it needs to be worse than the other two because they give up shields for their weapon types. Why would a PAM fighter choose this? Because he wouldn't be PAM, he would be using a whip and shield, with shield mastery.

Keep the cool bonuses but let the non-shield using fighters keep their high damage identity. Change the attack and damage to -3/+6. Makes them good and very competitive with the other styles, but now it's an actual choice for all of them, Ac or high damage. It's just more balanced than it is right now.

>*can't* name one other must have feat for monks or rogues or whatever
>*can* name one for fighters and paladins and others now

Based on your post and the other reply, it seems you're referring to a class called avenger from an older edition. But the name gives me an idea for something different-

A class built around reactions, maybe a fighter archetype. They start with one reaction but with more options to use with it- stuff like parry archetypes riposte. As they progress they get more reactions, to the point where it's like legendary actions that tough monsters get. Maybe "lair actions" at the top of initiative. Stuff like hide, move half-speed, block damage, expanded AOOS. If theres a feat to give you a minor version of battlemasters maneuvers, a feat to give you a minor version of spellcasting, a feat that gives you a minor version of the monk's proficiency in all saving throws, this would be the class that the sentinel feat or tunnel defender feat is a minor version of.

If it's a fighter archetype though, of course it wouldn't get extra attacks as often, which would mean having text in the archetype that contradicts the main class feature list, or at least says "the extra attacks gained from fighter levels can only be used as a reaction" which doesn't mesh with 5e design as I understand it. Maybe if it was a ranger archetype that went with the new UA ranger progression.

It's already significantly worse damage than SS without dedicating to TWF, and significantly worst than GWM even with dedicating yourself to TWF.

In the typical martial case beyond fighters the similarities fall away a bit more, but you are still talking 3 GWM attacks and only a Monk can beat that with this feat when they invest their ki.

Okay, dickish memery aside, the problem is that you've missed the point of feats in 5e. You're treating a feat as "something nice that helps you fulfill your role," but that's not what it is.

A feat lets you specialize and provides bonuses when acting in a particular way. Mage Slayer is only useful when fighting mages, Grappler is only useful when grappling, GWF is only helpful for great weapon fighters, Polearm Master is only good if you're using a polearm, and Crossbow Expert is only good for attack cantrips.

Your feat, meanwhile, is good for sword-and-board users (both defensive and offensive), literally every rogue and monk build, and in general anyone using any non-great, non-ranged weapon, which is most weapon users. The reason is that it's not narrow enough and thus provides an advantage to too many people. That's more than a feat's scope should be.

And even all that aside, +1 to AC is just too good for a feat (again, TWF means giving up on a shield, so the +1 in that case is a patch and not a buff). It makes the feat so valuable that in every case where the feat isn't specifically not allowed, it's a must-have, because of the tremendous efficiency of AC bonuses in 5e.

So to summarize, your feat is
A. Too wide in scope, and
B. Too strong,
which means it will not only see use on 80%+ of current weapon users but will also encourage all future players to create their weapon-users around it. This is not a healthy state for the game, so the feat must be toned down, in power, scope, or both.

Does anyone have that flow chart or whatever of setting up a campaign and having multiple branches and paths for PCs to go down but ultimately leading to the same ending?

Full battlefield control at the expense of direct actions on your turn? That actually sounds pretty bitchin. Would make for a very interesting rogue or ranger archetype, perhaps? (Obviously shouldn't be on a spellcaster or a class with extra attack)

I haven't looked at the homebrew gunslinger and my experience with the pf gunslinger is somebody else using it in a game I was in some years ago, but I remember grit. The first thing that comes to mind is to think of it as ki, and the things you can do with it are like what monks can do, except with guns.
Spend a ki to make a precision/power attack. Spend a ki to get super long range. Spend a ki to get extra shots off from off the guns. Spend a ki to get a close range shot without disadvantage. I think if the 5e gunslinger homebrew was smart, it would do this stuff.

Not super familiar with 5e guns, haven't had a reason to look at them, but there should be limitations on them in certain ways- can only craft new ammunition on a long rest, takes an action to reload after one shot, can have multiple guns but they're expensive and rare, so extra attacks are either unarmed or gained through the spending of your characters resources rather than automatic. Spend a ki to reload as a bonus action or some shit.

>That river

Isley Isley Isley
I'll soon out diddlylift ye

building a class around a concept that only exists in the game's rules is kind of nutty. If you're going to make a homebrew player option that does good counterattacks, at least let it be a monk subclass based on judo or aikido - you know, something that's more than just a rule in an RPG.

Similarly, the Avenger was the product of 4e's class creation strategy of just brute-forcing every combination of a power source and a party role. As a result, it doesn't really have an identity apart from being "divine" and having a certain set of proficiencies.

Rogue may be good, I was picturing a moderately-armored sword and board kind of character however. I think the new ranger would be perfect for it since extra attack is an amndrchetype feature now and you wouldn't have to exclude it, and punishing enemies for daring to attack you/your friends seems pretty rangery to me.

I don't know the original chart you mean but I hope this helps

What the hell are you talking about. As written the feat out damages sharpshooter while using a shield, and is less than 2 damage behind GWM per attack. I proposed the changes because a character shouldn't get equal damage and also +3 ac ( 2 from shield, 1 from feat).

Copypastaing the feat you wrote into this thread so everyone can see how retarded you are:
This is the more correct wording:

Defensive Fighter (needs a better name)
Your experience on the field of battle has developed a keen sense of danger and opportunity with a variety of weapons. You gain the following benefits:
>You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are not wielding a heavy weapon.
>When another creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to move up to half your movement speed without provoking opportunity attacks.
>Before you make a melee attack with an unarmed strike or with a weapon that does not have the heavy property, you can choose to take a -4 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage. You must be proficient with the weapon used to make the attack to receive this benefit.

>lists weapon specialization feats
This isn't a weapon specialization feat, this is a damage boosting feat casting a net wide enough to cover the players not using the optimal method to damage other creatures. Of course it hits a wide range of fighting styles - that's literally the point of a feat like this.

I could make three feats but you are carving strange and meaningless distinctions - versatile weapons/weapons held with nothing in the other hand, attacking with a shield or second weapon in the other hand, and monks? Or do you want even further granularity? At what point do you stop gerrymandering weapon groups and just leave things simple?

This feat says "you will do less damage but you can avoid attacks better," SS says "you will hit more often with these strong attacks," and GWM says "you will do the most damage"

What other damage feat statement needs to be made?

I think you are seeing that a lot more options have become appealing that otherwise took a severe hit in a game with feats, and not actually evaluating the power as something that hurts the game.

Could also fit monk fairly well, now that you've brought it up. The "move" legendary action would work well with the increased speed monks get, and maybe ki could be spent to activate the extra reactions. Turn missed enemy attacks into knocking the enemy prone or moving them, letting allies get AOOs, allowing flurry of blows on reactions, etc

That +10 should be a +8

Would "+1 str, dex, or con and gain a fighting style" be okay as a feat?

Defensive Fighter (needs a better name)
Your experience on the field of battle has developed a keen sense of danger and opportunity with a variety of weapons. You gain the following benefits:
>You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are not wielding a heavy weapon.
>When another creature misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to move up to half your movement speed without provoking opportunity attacks.
>Before you make a melee attack with an unarmed strike or with a weapon that does not have the heavy property, you can choose to take a -4 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +8 to the attack's damage. You must be proficient with the weapon used to make the attack to receive this benefit.

Psion of every variety.

after that a summoner who focuses on a single particular creature. like a beast master but not nature and wisdom based, essentially.

>This feat says "you will do less damage but you can avoid attacks better
No, it fucking doesn't. Applied to someone who's already sword-and-boarding/roguing/monking, this feat says "you have better AC and mobility and also sometimes you do more damage."
Weapon style feats have the built-in drawback of lack of flexibility. This feat is not only stronger than most of them, it completely lacks any sort of restraint.
>I think you are seeing that a lot more options have become appealing that otherwise took a severe hit in a game with feats
Rogue was never weak, sword-and-board was never weak, paladin was never weak. You're not helping out underdogs (except bladelocks I suppose), you're just providing a blanket buff without any justification. Show me ONE feat that just generally and significantly improves combat performance with near-complete disregard to the strategy used ("no heavy weapons" is a bullshit drawback when longswords exist) and I will stop arguing with you right this instant.

In that case we are pretty close to similar.
I still think it's a pretty big boost because whomever uses it gets a total of +3 ac because they will get a shield equipped.

Why don't you change the feat so you just can't be using a shield while you use it?

Any good homebrews for a parrying dagger?

1d4 damage, +1 AC while TWF?

"Because defensive fighters will want to use a shield and I'm more concerned with preserving my original concept than with game balance"

Entertaining a thought of implementing True20-style damage in 5e.

First things first, I know it's a death spiral and that it negates / requires reworking of everything hp-related, basically a new system. But that's just it, I'm thinking about it, not thinking about implementing it right away.

But, let's pretend we only have martial characters and archetypes. Ability scores / saves / proficiencies and action economy is per default 5e. How do you need to change the math to keep roughly the same probabilities of hitting things?

I'd reduce the damage to 1d3 (otherwise it's strictly better than the regular dagger).
As for the special property, maybe something like "you can use your reaction to add half your proficiency modifier against a melee attack roll." This would nicely simulate the need to use it more proactively than most defenses as well as its specialty in dueling.

Also here's a full list of conditions.

>PARRYING DAGGER (martial melee):
>1d4 piercing, finesse, light, special
>A creature wielding this weapon can use a reaction to gain +2 AC against a melee attack. The wielder must be proficient in this weapon and not wearing a shield to use this feature.

Making it martial would definitely make sense and allow it to keep the d4 (because martial weapons are supposed to be better than simple weapons).

Same guy? Seems like. Just wanna make sure the feat writer is the one I'm addressing.

The fighting styles/feats that make strong distinctions on what weapons or weapon/armor/item combinations they apply to are based on general conceptions of heroic roles, or else obvious roles dictated by the rules of the equipment players will use. Sword and shield. Two swords. Big weapon and no shield. One sword. They looked at the specific and obvious combinations that would come about based on weapon rules dictating how they can be wielded and made small boosts to help a character focus on that combination.

I see where you're coming from, in that there are power attacks for ranged weapons and for large weapons, and you're looking to make one for small weapons. The issue is that the way you chose to make the distinction (which is in fact a distinction made in the weapon rules, so good on you for looking at those) is still very broad, and that makes the feat almost a requirement for any character. Why would 80 percent of characters NOT take that feat? And if it is to be assumed that 80 percent of the time the game is played a certain way, the rest of the game needs to follow suit.

I like the +1 ac. I like that the power attack is smaller because the weapons are smaller. I like that it assumes characters are speedy and so are allows them to move more. I think all you have to do to make it really good and not an obvious choice for everybody is to restrict what weapons it applies to.aybe unarmed and the weapons rogues are proficient in, maybe a couple monk weapons as well, but that's getting real broad again.

Yeah, I think so.

If you aren't concerned with game balance, why post your feat on the internet?

Using your own logic SS and GWM. One is restricted to a type of attack, and removes disadvantage and AC bonuses due to battlefield position while giving a bigger bonus to damage than a versatile weapon with this feat. The other is solely focused on dealing more damage, and can deal the most damage. It also pairs with one of the best weapon restricting feats.

Both of those feats do exactly what you are saying, and you are not drawing a line or explaining why the line is needed other than saying it's needed.

And Paladins use PAM and GWM, and sword and board is incredibly weak when feats are involved.

Then why are you asking for game balance feedback? An effective +3 AC is too strong for a feat to enable, it's as simple as that.

Kind of like the sound of the second one. Maybe warlock archetype similar to bladester but gets a beast instead of a weapon, and can boost it with invocations.

regular daggers can be thrown

Feats should always be balanced against gaining +2 in your primary or secondary stat. In this case, I'd say it's a bit powerful but perhaps reasonable - fighting styles can give +2 to damage or to hit, which is quite good. Maybe lose the +1 str, dex, or con, and just make the feat give a fighting style, and you should be good.

Wouldn't that just be a stronger chainlock?

Warlock would be the way to go. I was thinking of a half caster, I guess.