/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

D&D 5th Edition General Discussion

>Official /5eg/ Mega Trove v3:
mega.nz/#F!BUdBDABK!K8WbWPKh6Qi1vZSm4OI2PQ

>Community DMs Guild trove
>Submit to [email protected], cleaning available!
mega.nz/#F!UA1BhCBS!Oul1nsYh15qJvCWOD2Wo9w

>Pastebin with resources and so on:
pastebin.com/X1TFNxck

>/5eg/ Discord server
discord.gg/0rRMo7j6WJoQmZ1b

>Last Session:

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.google.com/document/d/1XovWm65MSmIzQWSMDMXo0_aIpZgq9YSa2KkpO3kThS4/edit#
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>all those magical items
What is this, 3.5e?

Building a half-Sun elf favored soul of Lathander for a new game. I was going to go with 10 14 14 12 10 17 for stats. He gets medium armor so with a chain shirt, which I should be able to get pretty quick since it costs 50g, and a shield, he'll have 17 ac. If I carry a shield in one hand and an implement in the other, can I cast spells? The favored soul seems pretty powerful, is it so powerful in your opinion it might ruin the game for other players? I'll choose something else if that's the case...

You can't use the shield and cast until you get warcaster. The focus only handles material components.

Also does anyone have an idea of a replacement for a feral tiefling'so infernal legacy that not wings?

Continuing from last thread:what would be a good class to multiclass in for a level 2 ranged/melee fighter? I'm looking for ways to deal with threats that are resistant to physical damage but our party could also really use a rogue.

Don't, just go Eldritch Knight. You'll get cantrips.

/this, or go valour bard.

Magic Initiate for Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade or Shillelagh.

Silver your weapons.

Stop trying to just outfight everything you meet.

You should probably post your attribute scores, too. No point telling you to go eldritch blasting if you have -1 on charisma.

Hey there, anons. Race-building guy back again repeating his inevitable request for criticisms and suggestions as to which race to tackle next.

docs.google.com/document/d/1XovWm65MSmIzQWSMDMXo0_aIpZgq9YSa2KkpO3kThS4/edit#

For those who'd rather not poke around and try to figure it out, here's the direct list of races I need to get written up:
Pterran
Bladeling
Fey'ri
Rogue Modron
Hamadryad
Satyr
Huldra
Dust Genasi
Rain Genasi
Magma Genasi
Blight Genasi
Smoke Genasi
Tanuki
Mujina
Kawauso
Bakeneko
Itachi
Tengu
Spellscale

Criticisms brought up in the last thread:
* Racial feats are near-universally overpowered; need help toning those down.

* Many races are either bland, underpowered or both - need help boosting them up. Finding more "fluffy" racial traits and switching out the boring "free proficiency" skills is definitely on the list.

As an aside, could really use help figuring out where to go with the Spellscale and Yokai races. The former in particular... I wonder... Maybe go for a subrace mechanic based on Draconic Ancestry, and give 'em damage resistance, spell-like abilities and possibly other features based on canon dragons? Because, honestly, the old Blood Quickening mechanic probably wouldn't work in 5e and was kind of bland back then anyway?

Oh, I just realised... I've been focusing mostly on the crunch, but, maybe I should take a step back and try writing up racial fluff instead? Or should I leave that until I have all of the races statted?

Str 16
Dex 15
Con 14
Int 13
Wis 11
Cha 9

Not the guy you're replying to, but I'm planning a variant human fighter to pick up the magic initiate feat at level 1.

My plan is to take Mage Hand and Fire Bolt, and maybe Sleep?

I've not really played D&D before though so don't know if the build will be actually useful.

I would choose Find Familiar, It is by far the best spell for anyone to grab.

Don't take an offensive Cantrip because as a Fighter throwing a hand axe at someone will almost always do more damage but Mage Hand's a good choice.

Minor Illusion.

How good are hexblade Warlocks? Specifically Star locks.

>str 16
>dex 15

If you wanted to be a ranger, you only needed dex. If you really wanted the extra +1 AC from heavy armour, putting 15 strength is okay. But you don't need more than 15.
If you use two-weapon-fighting or a shield, you've got no reason to get strength and if you're supposed to be somewhat ranged then you should've focused up dexterity. Strength is only really for dedicated grapplers/shovers, two-handed-weapon fighters/paladins and barbarians.

But that's all too late now. There is only one attack cantrip that doesn't rely on int, wis or charisma, and that is booming blade. Luckily, an eldritch knight can get that and it's quite nice.

Booming blade deals thunder damage, although until level 5 you can't gaurantee it'll do the thunder portion of the damage. Level 5 onwards you'll know for sure that it'll deal thunder damage if it hits. Green flame blade wouldn't be too great with 13 int, but it's still nice to have.

I wouldn't say it's too worth it to try picking up cantrips though, really.

Also don't mind me, I'm just excessively grouchy at how limited strength and intellect are.

Are there any Dungeonographer equivalents that are free? I'm making maps in photoshop right now and it gets the job done but it feels like it's more time consuming than it should be.

Wrong edition there, friendo. You want /4eg/

Are Two-Handed Rangers possible or should I just play a Totem Barbarian?

I want to play a huge man with an obsession for hunting the biggest, baddest and toughest creatures and people around.

Bladelocks?

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

Assuming you're using the favored soul sorc archetype from that UA,

Id advise against it. The free spells know is fucking great but a wizard still fucks your ass all day with his spellbook.

The armor and shield proficiencies are cool, however do remember that drac sorcs get 13+dex without having to wear shit. Unless you're gonna be using scale mail and a shield, and either be forced to spend an ASI on warcaster or hold a focus in your non shield hand, drac resilience is just better. Late game FS will have better AC but you need half plate and a shield.

The extra attack you get at level 6 is a complete, complete waste of a feature. You only have simple weapons unless you get weapons from your race, and since you dont have heavy armor proficiencies you are forced to go dex for AC, and since you dont have martial weaps there is no good finesse weapons in the simple category, meaning what the fuck are you using that extra attack for? Wacking a guy with your 1d6+2 mace? Congrats mate, the drac sorc is now doing +cha on all his ele affinity spells.

With your d6 hit die you are waay better of just firebolting for 2d10 from 120ft away instead of running in for melee for your shit ass melee weapons.

Then, you have all the problems that base sorcerer has.

Tldr sorc sucks ass and fs is meh besides for those spells known.

Thanks, I was actually looking at Find Familiar because of the cool factor.

Fire bolt is more for flavour than anything, I just have this vision of a guy in plate whirling through a combat with a sword in one hand and cupping a fireball in the other, so I might stick with it and see how it goes..

Oh soz, what are they called in this edition? I know there's sword wielding Warlocks and Warlocks that made pacts with not-Cthlulu.

Are you going to play an Eldritch Knight? If so I think they get something that lets them attack and cast a cantrip in the same round.

It's not the strongest way to play one but it will most likely be fun!

Oh, GOO Bladelocks.
Technically Great Old One warlocks with the Pact of the Blade, but everything get shortened.

Bladelocks in general are not considered great, but GOOlocks are pretty decent. Check them out on pg 110 of the phb.

Is this something similar to what the PF magus gets?

Err, I was in a 5e thread a while back and asked about how good a GOO bladelock would be, and everyone said go fiend bladelock instead.

Any thoughts? Pros / Cons?

Anyone have the .pdf for something like 'simple magic items?' I was doing a game today that probably won't go anywhere, but I was having trouble thinking of magic items for the treasure and was looking for that 'simple magic items' tables but I guess I didn't save it on my computer.

>some type of long term, very long range hunters mark has been placed on my character
>we never did any rolls to notice what they did to us
>detect magic never picked it up
how am I even supposed to defend against or find something like that out without the plot point punching me in the face with it

Ask the DM ooc if this is something that is unstoppable or not to see if you should worry about it.

guess I'll have to, since it really doesn't make sense how they found us. we should have been hours out of range by spells distance wise, duration, and them seeing us to visually cast.

Could always be some homebrew high level divination crap.

It's most likely just the easiest way for him to plan out the campaign though.

I hope not, that would be kind of shitty of him. The plot moment wasn't that big of a deal and it just would have meant the party was split for a while. I've got to talk to him about a few things anyways.

Actually, because it's not copyrighted, they actually mention Cthulu in the book, as well as some other options.

Fiend Patron gives access to a more offensive spell list and gives more defensive capabilities with early to mid game level ups with the Dark One Luck, Blessing, and Resilience.

Great Old One Patron is more thematic with early game telepathy and late game thrall making. Shines in a RPish gamestyle rather than a hack n slash gamestyle.

If you plan to go Bladelock, Fiend is the best choice to shore up your weaknesses a gish combatant.

How's revised ranger stack up to other classes?

>Kitsune
>Kappa
>Tengu
>NO ONI

I am severely disappointed.

I just got into a heated discussion about how one of my players only makes characters that are complete stereotypes of that given race.
>Dwarf whos getting old and grumpy and wants to just go back under the mountains
>Whimsical copper dragonborn who has an unhealthy desire for treasure
>Drow rogue who thinks every other race is nothing but human cattle
I tried explaining to him that he should make more interesting, less stereotypical characters. He claims that all races except humans have to exemplify the traits of their race, that only humans get variance in their personalities.
The example I gave him was a dwarf who got to take a visit to the surface as a child, and they became totally transfixed by the sun, and they would grow up to become a light cleric who worships the sun. He claims such a character is completely wrong, and unroleplayable.

Am I in the wrong here, /5eg/? Are all races except humans supposed to be stereotypes?

Give him Drizzt as an example of Drow.

No, your player is just a retarded, unimaginative fuck.

I need help. my players are all convinced that 3 hours is a long session and are mad that I couldn't finish a one shot in that time. I don't understand how they can't see that 3 hours is almost nothing, and I've tried talking to them but they flat out don't believe that a session should go on longer than 3 hours at MAX. any advice on keeping them around for longer games?

I think both you and your players have a problem.
3 hours is a bit short but it's not "almost nothing" either. 1 shot should be around 4 hour.

Kinda similar. But it's the other way around.

When you cast cantrip, you can use bonus attack to do 1 melee attack.

Large creatures don't make good player characters

Oni are about the size of Goliaths, which are a playable race.

So many new players, they don't remember the cavalier dilemma.

You're right, characters are already exceptional because they're heroes, so being atypical in temperament is not an issue.
BUT, there's no reason to get into a heated argument, if he wants to be default characters, that's fine.

What, exactly, is wrong with the "stereotype"?
Seriously, how many grumpy dwarves have you seen played?
I've seen exactly... 3, in almost 20 years of gaming.
I've never saved a princess from a dragon, either.
The issue here is literally entirely in your own head, your own hangups, and has nothing to do with the player, but with your own BADWRONGFUN alarm going off.
Stop it, you are a twat and a That Guy at this point.

To wit, tho, I've noticed that how long a one shot lasts is based on how on the ball the players on.
I set up a one shot a few months ago that turned into 2 6 hour sessions because they kept poking around.

I'd say 4 - 5 hours. Highly dependent on your actual players.

They're possible. I feel like the Monster Hunter Ranger is a missing archetype though, and whenever you consider rolling Ranger you're almost always going to be better off just choosing Fighter.

I just had a first time player run it last night. It's good, but not overpowered.

This is why drop-in-drop-out campaigns should become a thing again.

So /5eg/, I've always been a fan of making characters who have a touch of magic relating to communing with ghostly things or calling on more primitive, natural spirits.

Basically being a medium/detective style investigator, but not being a full blown robes and hat wizard. The sort of guy who can't rely on a spell to stop a fight or a ritual to fix a broken limb like the full casters which usually get the kinds of spells I want for this kind of character.

Is there any suggestion you can give to help me flesh out this concept into something not entirely useless in 5e?

What do you guys mean by shot?

Warlock 3, (Arcane Trickster or Paladin or Eldritch Knight, Ranger) X

Warlock 3 is for a pact (blade would be neato, and invocations. There are two invocations that fit directly into your theme, one that lets you cast Speak with Dead at will, and one that lets you cast Speak with Animals at will. All of the other classes advance your spell progression, but only up to level 4 spells, while also giving you great damage options. If you like invocations, going up to 5 more gets you another invocation, of which Disguise Self at will and Silent Image at will are both great.

I suggest you check out the UA Gothic Heroes pdf in the MEGA link in the OP.

>There are two invocations that fit directly into your theme, one that lets you cast Speak with Dead at will, and one that lets you cast Speak with Animals at will.
[excitement intensifies]
>If you like invocations, going up to 5 more gets you another invocation, of which Disguise Self at will and Silent Image at will are both great.
Okay sold we warlock multiclass now.

Both times I could have wrapped it up shortly but the last half hour they were clearly and visibly tired and complaining "this is not a one shot!" Like the finish line in sight. I'm not looking for 6 hours but I'd expect them to not check there watches after two hours and call it quits after 3. I think I'm gonna give a 15 minute break every hour or two now so they feel like it's not all so much and also just tell the problem players to show up on time and not make such a fuss about time. we had a problem player before who set a bad precedent, always on his phone on other people's turns, always asking what was going on, always complaining that he was tired. Good guy but I had to stop including him because it dragged everyone down. I also had to write every character sheet he's ever used the day of the first session of every campaign/one shot because he refuses to read the PHB or do it himself even with weeks of notice

Just make sure you manage the multiclass correctly. Eldritch Blast is almost always the best damage option a warlock has, unless they significantly invest in other classes. It didn't sound like you wanted to be a blasty type mage, so warlock should always be a dip.

of the classes I listed, Paladin has the most synergy with Warlock, because you can use pact magic spell slots for smiting purposes. Which lets you smite way more often, and at a higher level than a normal paladin would usually be able to.

Well, I only really want it for the invocations and a couple of the more flavor-appropriate spells. I figure not taking more Warlock than I need for that would be part of it.

sounds good. The pact boons are all appropriate for you too. Pact of the Chain gives you one of the best scout pets in the game, pact of the blade gives you a neat weapon type feature, and pact of the tome gives you more cantrip options.

Unfortunately, pact of the blade almost needs certain invocations, and invocations will be tight for you. Pact of the Chain and pact of the Tome get better with invocations (in fact, one of the pact of the tome invocations is probably the best warlock invocation period), but don't need them to be highly useful.

Anyone got that pdf with the list of all character options for race, class and archetype?
I've got some new players hitting level 3 soon and I want to make sure I'm not missing any options

To add to this, if you go Warlock your 'Patron' can be whatever freakish extraplanar creature is sending you to investigate the weird shit.

They actually are a thing.
At my uni RPG society there's a 5e game with around 10-12 players which is described as a "revolving cast".

This used to be incredibly common. It's a good idea if you can make it work, but easier in old-school games where you don't have to worry so much about fair encounters.

As in one-shot?
A one-session adventure, usually a single scenario that a group plays through with new characters that aren't used again.
A lot of people ran Death House as a one-shot before the CoS came out.
One side effect of them being single sessions with throwaway characters is that people don't mind being killed off so much.

True.
I like that aspect where there can be a few levels between heroes without bothering people.

But it doesn't come online until 7th which fucking sucks.

So when giving out exp for encounters, do divide the base EXP of all the monsters up between the party, the total encounter exp between the party or does each person get the combined monster exp?

Just use milestones. So much easier.

Divide total encounter exp (base, not adjusted) among each party member.

Or just use milestones. But do it because you want to, not because some asshat on a taiwanese puppet drama image board told you to.

How legit is it to go thief rogue and become a field medic. Take expertise in medicine, the healer feat, and a healers kit. You can then use the healing kit with your cunning action and shit. You could RP sneak attacks as having good knowledge of anatomy and stuff.

How do you reconcile the fact that (pre-optimization) Wizards have far and away more power in combat and influence out of combat than a Fighter? See attached file for more details.

Why is Foresight even a thing? Immunity to surprise, advantage to all saving throws, ability checks, and attack rolls, and enemies have disadvantage to attack the target? Plus an eight hour duration without significant material component cost nor Concentration? It's like WotC didn't even care about game balance at all in this edition.

On that note, why did WotC trash the Martial Superiority dice mechanic from the playtest? Every non-caster used to get it, not just the Battlemaster. The Fighter's claim to fame was it had more maneuvers, more dice, and better dice than everyone else, plus they regained those dice easier/faster if memory serves. The martial dice had almost universally positive feedback in the playtest - it gave martial characters options and since every class interacted with their dice differently, it made each class feel distinct while using a unified resource. Did they trash it because it was too innovative and they wanted to play it safe after 4E, or because Grognards whined about verisimilitude and how magic SHOULD be overpowered until they got their way?

Excuse me, I meant to link this document. Seriously, give it a read, it's quite fascinating.

To answer your question, really bad. They're not even the best warlock subclass to use in melee, because tomelocks can completely surpass them through the use of spells like Shillelagh and Shocking Grasp. And regardless of what subclass you're using, no warlock will ever have a reason to go into melee when they can just cast Eldritch Blast instead.

Combat is a lot more versatile in this edition. Yes/No?

>For this analysis, I’ll use a currency called “points”.
>THERE IS NO BALANCE BECAUSE I SAID SO!
Well, okay.

>starts by complaining that fighters aren't good enough
>then drifts into complaining about how fighters were made unique with a resource nobody else got

Pick one, friendo

Dude just... don't reply

Basically, to answer your question: grognards, and the grognards who work at Wizards. Actually, does anyone expect WIZARDS of the coast to release a product where Wizards are not overpowered? Wake up sheeple.

In 4e, wizards were balanced with martials. But this was accomplished through giving martials spell like abilities.

In 5e's playtest, every martial had abilities they could use in combat called maneuvers.

In both situations, there is a very loud, very vocal minority that complains. They just want to hit things with their swords, and they want just hitting things with swords to always be optimal so they don't have to think strategy through. In both cases, wizards acquiessed. 4e and the balance it brought was scrapped for the 5e playtest (which might have represented the best of both worlds), which in turn was scrapped for 5e, another caster's edition of DnD.

>some autist with too much time on his hands assigns point values to various class abilities on a completely arbitrary basis
>expects people to treat it like a scientific study or anything else other than an excessively wordy opinion

What should have happened is every martial class gets unique maneuvers (with battlemaster having the best ones. Champion fighters would be the sole exception to the rule, because we need a containment class for the "I just want to hit it with my sword again" type grognard. Champions get no maneuvers, but deal more damage. Every martial class gets one more skill proficiency and one crafting type proficiency.

there, martials and mages are balanced and fun again.

You can have a unique resource without being good. Look at monks.

This is stupid. Nobody needed to 'prove' that wizards are better. They just are.

True, the two things are completely unrelated. Which means that user started with one argument and segued into a completely unrelated one. Which tells me that he's arguing just to argue and should not be taken seriously.

You just sound like a total pussy. Hahahahaha. I'd walk all over you too.

He sets the value of an Ability Score Increase (ASI) or feat at 6 points. That's so he can have a baseline value for what an ASI is, what it provides, and thus evaluate the rest of the options available in relation to that. 6 is a good figure (as he says) because it can be divided in half and in thirds, which is important since a lot of ASIs give two or three separate benefits. He's not throwing numbers around completely arbitrarily, they're all in relation to the 'core' metric of an ASI. Seriously, read through it. If you can disprove his findings I'd love to see your math.

I'm not complaining that fighters were made unique. I'm complaining that the entire concept of Martial Superiority Dice (MSD) could have been a cool mechanic to give ALL the martial classes. You know, in the same way that every caster has spell slots, but some of them (like the Warlock and Sorcerer) interact with their spell slots differently than other casters. Paladins could have used MSD for their smites, Barbarians for rage-based powers and maneuvers, Rogues could have used them to perform stunts and tricks, Monks could have had MSD instead of Ki or perhaps a fusion of the two. I'd love to see something like the Ranger only with Battlemaster-style maneuvers instead of spellcasting, with spellcasting as an Archetype like the Eldritch Knight.

So a mixture of both my suspicions then. I really do wish that the final product had been closer to the playtest, we would have a better game in my estimation.

I'd be totally fine with having one class or archetype option that's just simple, straightforward damage and durability in combat, maybe with excellent skill use to shore up their non-combat functions. There's a place for that kind of simplicity in the game, and some players WANT things to be simple.

>Hahahahaha
An Hero. Please.

I too wish the final product was closer to the playtest. Sorcerers were more interesting in the playtest, adopting more draconic features the more spell points they used for instance.

And I understand that some players fairly want simplicity. I'm just salty that the players that wanted simplicity for every martial got their way, instead of wizards offering diverse options for everyone.

He assigns a feat/ASI 6 points; that's cute. And then every feature that isn't a feat or ASI (i.e. almost all of them) he arbitrarily evaluates in terms of how many feats/ASIs he thinks they're worth. It's a set of hundreds of opinions masquerading as measurements.

>If you can disprove his findings I'd love to see your math

These aren't "findings" and the burden of proof rests on him to prove that he isn't an idiot.

>He sets the value of an Ability Score Increase (ASI) or feat at 6 points. That's so he can have a baseline value for what an ASI is, what it provides, and thus evaluate the rest of the options available in relation to that
Again with WELL GUYS JUST TRUST ME ITS TRUE. Why 6? Why not 60 or 100 or 10 or 1? Why should I even care about some randomly assigned numbers?

Hmm. Okay, cool. The whole 'thematic' thing is pretty much why I went for GOO initially, but close-combat wise it seemed super lacklustre, which was what I was trying to do.

Thanks for the reply.

If you want a complex character, you do indeed have diverse options. They're called casters.

i want a complex sword hitter though.

That's called a Paladin, son. You'll notice they still have spell slots.

Then go play 4e and leave us alone.

why should i be excluded for liking tactically deep melee combat?

(I'm not that guy) - It's one thing to go for a stereotypical type of character occasionally, but it kind of gets boring if you only have a single group that you play with and one of them only ever plays as super predictable, trope-carbon-copy characters. Maybe you personally have lots of friends over the years who think up really original characters, but that's a good thing, and apparently it's a good thing that this other guy is lacking.

I don't think it's a matter of wrongfun, because it's not like this player is simply choosing stereotype characters over more unique or varied ones, but rather that he has a hangup in that he believes literally only human characters CAN be unique or varied. Imagine that were true for a moment: There would be literally one type of dwarf character, one type of drow, one type of elf and so on ... And then hundreds of cool human ideas. Does that not seem a little ridiculous to you?

Oh, k, thx. Makes sense.
But in my 20 years of DMing we never did that on purpose, even smallest modules usually took 2-3 sessions of 4-6 hours. Most of times im DMing campaigns anyway.

Because it shows that you're just interested in proving your mastery of a nigh-impenetrable ruleset, which was par for the course in previous editions but is an attitude that we're trying to distance ourselves from.