/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General

Just play a refluffed monk you crying little bitchmonkey

dese are the best, class specific and clean

>spear attached to a shield
>OH NO BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A SHIELD AND ALSO USE A WEAPON IN THAT HAND

they need a STR based monk.
Running around armored and unarmed is stupid as fuck.

Two-Weapon Fighting with Hand Crossbows.

>'I'm a noble and I've only ever done evil by means of other people, I've never had to kill someone myself until now'. Still, a selfish attitude will generally arise if somebody doesn't care or understand the feelings of others
you could simply play that and Fug Alignment
Then you'd actually be Roleplaying a character.

Fighting without armour or weapons is stupid as fuck as well, and 5e doesn't like stupid as fuck things like gnomes using longbows or +2 strength gnomes I see you there, 'each race can apply its stats to any stat it likes if you want a +2 strength +1 con gnome' man..

You'd still set your alignment to evil-whatever.

It's 5e, your alignment affects hardly anything so there's no need to lie about your alignment.

he clearly can't use the weapon to attack and gain defense from the shield at the same time.
Also; it's just art.

How do you fake being a class to your party but secretly another? Always when we level up everyone looks at each other and announces what they do, any sly tactics?

This, alignments do almost nothing in 5e and it's a good thing. Alignments are fucking retarded and inhibit roleplay more than they help it.

Explain the need to have one then.

Alignments are what the players make of them. I'm sorry you've only ever played with retards, user.

It implies things that are not supposed to be implied of 5e.

If you let them attack with it without gaining shield benefits, they've just avoided taking an entire action to unequip the shield. Yet, they need the shield out to attack with it.

Honestly they probably just said to an artist 'Hey, draw us a fighting man. We'll pay you. Match the diversity quota while you're at it, let's get some zulu fighting going on.'

Naked
a
k
e
d
Fighter
i
g
h
t
e
r

how would you fake being a Wizard as a Barbarian?
let's assume you are talking about Archetypes?
>Always when we level up everyone looks at each other and announces what they do, any sly tactics?
OK, what the serious fuck are you on about? It's like this post is being translated through 3 languages.

Real advice: Don't. You should have no reason to be lying to your party about abilities that could save all your lives. If you're playing in a game where deceiving your fellow players is encouraged, you should just leave and look for another group. DnD is a cooperative game, either get on board with working together, or just quit and don't waste your time in whatever edgelord contest the DM and other players wana shit on eachother with.

As I said "It's just art".

If the players are making alignments into ANYTHING, they're one step closer to playing cardboard cutouts and not real characters.

Why restrict how you're viewing your own character and roleplay when it literally has no effect on anything except making you more one-dimensional?

Wow what an original and cool and meaningful idea user

you should totally pretend your character is one thing, but is in fact another! your party will never see it coming!

when you reveal it it will be so cool and epic! you should secretly be evil and betray the party at a crucial moment!

I can't believe i've never heard of anyone trying to do this before.

Wouldn't Eldritch Knight work as a mage hunter? Just pick up dispel magic and counter spell bullshit...

It's a quick, two-word summary of a character that hints towards their likely beliefs, which may tie them in with a god and may tie in with their place in a party.

A DM can have a quick look and say 'Are you sure you want to play an evil character?' and either get a good response or quickly flush out the bad characters that serve only to create murderhobo drama.

Yes, you could have an entire list of the things the character believes in ('Slavery is okay!' 'It's every man for himself' 'If you get caught or die, you're weak, it's survival of the fittest', 'family should stick together, because if everybody is out for themselves family have mutual bonds and everybody has a time in their life where they're weak and need somebody for support'), but nobody has time for checking every single thing. Sure, it's not 100% accurate, but it's two fucking words you can easily identify a character by.

Especially for monsters that tend to be less individualistic, you can quickly assume 'Oh, it's lawful and weak, it might be working as part of a larger system' or 'Oh, it's neutral, maybe it'll leave us alone if we leave it alone'. Not that anybody but the DM has the alignment, but it's good for the DM to have too for a quick check if they didn't do their research on the monster's behaviour.

Art is a terrible, terrible thing.
Fuck art.
Except the art I like.

This is a reasonable answer and I will respect it even if I don't completely agree with it.

There is no "need" to have an alignment anymore. They do very little in 5e.

They're still useful to have in some situations though. Like if you want to give the paladin some sword of holy bitchslap that does extra damage to the "bad guys" but without letting him turn mary sue the good girl cleric into salsa on contact. "The sword is abnormally heavy to non-Good aligned characters, and does not grant bonus damage when attacking non-Evil aligned characters" is a lot quicker and easier than making a list of exactly what actions and how much of them puts you on the sword's naughty list and qualifies you for the holy pimp hand.

I'd say abjuration wizard or ancients paladin would work better for that.
EK takes too long to get counterspell, and by that time these others will have features such as 'reduce spell damage by half', which is kind of a big deal if you hate magic.

I guess I just like to group things into simple categories. Some people like to say 'Oh, we have a lawful good and a true neutral and a..'

you know, you guys are alright

...

>Like if you want to give the paladin some sword of holy bitchslap that does extra damage to the "bad guys" but without letting him turn mary sue the good girl cleric into salsa on contact.
Why would a Paladin go around stabbing townsfolk and benevolent priests? Why should Paladins alone have weapons with restricted lethality
>A DM can have a quick look and say 'Are you sure you want to play an evil character?
Or he can simply say, "This is a heroic campaign, you can have quirks, but if you plan on playing a psychotic edglord or fuck over party members, reconsider or pack your shit up".
That's even easier.

And yet the archetype existed before booming blade or GFB, and it saw play.
Throw a firebolt and smack a bitch, shock a guy in melee and get in a sword hit. It entirely fills the niche, you just dislike the specific mechanic, which has nothing to do with flavor, and complain about power level.
Your the same kind of faggot who can't/refuses to play a battlemaster with the ally based maneuvers+inspiring leader and/or healer, and then says they want a warlord. Faggots don't and haven't tried to fit into 5e, they want 5e to turn into their game of choice.

Oh, not to mention abjuration wizard gets a feature even better than the bard's for making counterspell checks.

Even that sounds a bit dangerous. That'd be a sword that can only be used by a selfless person to hurt selfish people in 5e. Even if magic items are the DM's realm, it'd be better if it was more akin to 'the sword does extra damage to undead/fiends'.

>Yes, you could have an entire list of the things the character believes in ('Slavery is okay!' 'It's every man for himself' 'If you get caught or die, you're weak, it's survival of the fittest', 'family should stick together, because if everybody is out for themselves family have mutual bonds and everybody has a time in their life where they're weak and need somebody for support'), but nobody has time for checking every single thing.
Why would people feel the need to "check" your character sheet for this sort of thing.

There's this thing some TTRPGamers know as "roleplaying", where traits like these are exhibited in situations where they would apply, and then other players "roleplay" off of that.

It's much simpler to say "Outright harassment or dicking over of other player's characters is considered Bad Form, and you agreed this campaign would be heroic in nature". Then you can play whatever interests you, unless that thing is Hannibal Lector's younger brother who is a Necromancer.

This is 5e. Oaths do not bind you to any particular alignment.
You can take pretty much any oath while being evil, actually.

I use the Veeky Forums character sheets, but these spell sheets are WAY better for full spell list casters than the more learned caster sheets will ever be.

That makes the sword idea even dumber, if anything.

I agree with you. Faggots don't understand that 5e is all about flavoring. They don't need class bloat like 3.pf.

The paladin happened to be good, in what way does that change a single thing mentioned. If they weren't good, a good-aligned intelligent weapon might take issue.

>They don't need class bloat like 3.pf.
B-but muh Optimuzation!!

Agreed, there's nothing worse than a 3.pf autist who finds themselves trapped with people who simply want to play 5e.

>why would a paladin go around stabbing townsfolk

Flavor is one thing. Making a class that's engineered so that the most advantageous thing to do is ignore some of it's most flavorful mechanics is another.

Then again, Eldritch Knights are hardly the worst victims here. 4 Elements Monk, vanilla Ranger, Blade Pact Warlock,Wild Magic Sorcerer and a few others are all a "shot in the foot" to play. I understand 5e isn't as bloaty or mechanics-heavy as Pathfinder, but nobody wants to play a character who's weaker than everyone else when played as intended.

>Now the sword suddenly is intelligent and HAS AN ALIGNMENT
it's like doubling down on dumb.
if the sword is intelligent, it should have motivations and goals, not just go around snarling at Evil People it probably can't detect anyway.

An intelligent weapon will often have a personality, but their personality ultimately stems from something in their creation. They don't generally have life experiences and teachers forming their sense of self, it is entirely intrinsic to their existence. Good aligned swords may have been crafted by celestials, gifted by a good aligned god, or enchanted by a powerful demon hunter. In all likelihood, if any of those were intelligent weapons, they are also good aligned, simply due to their very nature. A good aligned weapon may balk at the slaughter of innocents, as it goes against the very nature of its existence. It may read the intentions of its wielder and choose to accept them or not.

>This other guy is optimized, I wanna be too!

Dex based and particularly Dex based ranged characters are boss, and Wizards as they always have been in Dungeons and Dragons.

Inventing flaky new Classes and Archetypes isn't the answer. And even WotC have tried to apologize for the RAW Ranger and fix it.

Almost all complaints come from Optimizing dipshits worried they are doing 1.8 points of damage less than the Barbarian per round.

>but their personality ultimately stems from something in their creation. They don't generally have life experiences and teachers forming their sense of self, it is entirely intrinsic to their existence.
In your setting.
In my setting, the Intelligent Weapon they've found is a weapon linked to the shade of a dead Barbarian-Smith. A gruff mentor-sort with a fondless for Mingol women.

>Why would a Paladin
Because it's an example and paladins are traditionally the most likely to get the "blade of holy wrath" or whatever from their god to go out and smite the bad guys. Such an artifact, presumably created by a holy creature or sufficiently high-level priest, is likely to resist usage that fundamentally conflicts with its nature. But it could just as easily have been crunk the barbarian who found an enchanted intelligent battleaxe that fell off a truck behind the local walmart. The battleaxe was made in an arcane ritual where it was bathed in the blood of 400 slavic virgins and exists solely to kill good guys. The names and alignments don't matter at all. None of this matters.

The core of the example is that the weapon is designed for a specific task: fighting those its creator is opposed to. This isn't an uncommon scenario, and in this scenario a glance at the alignments of the wielder and the target is the quickest way to eyeball whether or not the weapon is going to resist that use or not. Otherwise you end up back at where the alternative is making a gigantic list of ridiculously specific shit that counts as "evil" for the weapon. And at that point, you obviously are willing to go to great lengths to slow down the game and might as well just take one for the team and go play Pathfinder.

At this point there will be nothing remotely approaching agreement in this discussion. You either see alignment for what it is, a quick at-a-glance descriptor, or you don't and pretend it doesn't exist. It won't affect your game in the least.

Optimization is the guy who plays a cross-classed Sorlock and spams meta-meta on agonizing eldritch blast every turn. Optimization is the guy who plays a Rogue-Paladin to do sneak attack damage with Smite.

Poor game design is the class that has a feature that you wouldn't really want to use in any situation with even half an understanding how the game works. See Blade Pact warlock and how almost every single feature granted by choosing Blade Pact is worse than the things granted by other pacts, and often times is worse than even just using Eldritch Blast which every pact gets for free anyway.

Point is, not every complaint about the game design stems from someone wanting to be an autistic min-maxer. Some of us just want cool options to not be a handicap, that's all.

Necromancer Question:

I'm currently a level 3 Necromancer Wizard, how do I make it so my party wont hate me when I get ~20 minions?

Yes, but even "LG" deities of different pantheons (or even within pantheons) have different ways of dealing out Justice and Punishment or even helping. Not every culture is going to necessarily view those motives or actions as Lawful or Good.

So again, giving the weapon or the Paladin an alignment is silly.

Everything i said was the default of the default. It's not even always true in FR, but its true often enough that it certainly has meaning, just like alignments themselves. You get the generally gist of an example of the the alignment, a vague, stereotypical interpretation of an individual based on the norm.
The Ghearufu, for example, are assumed to have been made, in setting, in the lower planes and is of evil weal. It's just assumed, because thats how it works.

Convince them that, rather than forcibly stuffing unwilling souls into bodies, you're speaking to spirits that long to live and fight again, and letting them help you and the party with their works.

>almost every single feature granted by choosing Blade Pact is worse than the things granted by other pacts, and often times is worse than even just using Eldritch Blast which every pact gets for free anyway.
That's an argument for the Game Developers and Individual DM's to give the Blade Warlock a small boost.

It is not an argument for redesigning entire classes or writing new ones. PLAYERS who get involved in this Invariably swing the pendulum too far the other way, and then it becomes an arms race.

>See Blade Pact warlock and how almost every single feature granted by choosing Blade Pact is worse than the things granted by other pacts, and often times is worse than even just using Eldritch Blast which every pact gets for free anyway.
That's players trying to take an archetype, and trying to play like they're a different class. Bladelocks are weaker, which is certainly not intended, but they ARE intended to be Warlocks, first and foremost. Warlocks who can defend themselves and fight when confronted in melee, rather than trying to retreat or have disadvantaged attacks.

I'm thinking more like having to roll 20d20 and 20d6 every combat. Is there anyway to expedite this besides buying a fuckton of dice?

The Alignments have no meaning aside from being old training wheels from the 60's for people who'd never heard of Roleplaying Games.

Bogging down fights while you resolve your 20 monkeymen fighting shit is going to make the players and DM hate you. And there's an optional rule for mass attackers and hit resolution in the DM I believe.

It will be amusing when they all get on their horses and ride off while your boys are left shambling.

If you need that many dice results, the best solution is a mass dice rolling app or website, just get it all OK'd beforehand with your DM. Alternatively, your DM might roll a mass number of rolls, and have them prepared as they come up. You say skeleton attacks, he looks at result 1, and it goes on until he runs out.

Alignments are objective and have physical manifestations, they are ingrained in D&D.

Generally turning every fight into Warhammer Fantasy Battle is going to be irritating and force the DM to kill you.
I DM and I have to admit I'd already like to kill you with some Inquisitors or something.

guess i'm gonna have to be the one to break it to you since everyone else in here is eating shit to this bait and hard

>good, evil, law, and chaos are fundamental forces of the multiverse
>there is actual measurable good, evil, law, and chaos energy just like there's measurable light and measurable gravity in the real world
>what you or your culture believe about them literally doesn't matter
>they are set in fucking stone and those are the rules
>these are the rules as sent down from on high by the people who make the fucking rules

>In my setting
no one cares

Man, one cleric could fuck up your day. And good luck bringing those into any real city.

>Alignments are objective and have physical manifestations, they are ingrained in D&D.
Muh Catholicism-based dimensional monsters!
Not an argument.
There are freaky scaly critters on hostile death planes.
Set isn't even Evil in the Egyptian religion, and Satan is some shit cobbled up to persecute Pagan nature worshipers.

I was either going to dress them up in robes n' masks or just have them wait outside of town.

Does anyone have a reversed picture, asking if he has tried playing D&D?

You aren't obligated by Law to use Gary's cosmology when you purchase the game.
And I hate to break this to you, it objectively stopped being measureable (or even really detectable) in Fifth edition.

I've played it since 1981, but thanks.

I was thinking I could make a sedan chair, and have the skelly-men carry me at dash speed, being immune to fatigue and all. The rest can sit in a cart.

Oh good, now your infiltrating civilization with your army of objectively evil skeleton creatures.
Ignoring base assumptions and mechanics of the game defeats any point in discussing it. Fiends are objectively evil, and physical manifestations of their alignment. It's how the game is. You can play however you want, but it makes this discussion pointless.
Thus far you've only spoken of your D&D-styled adventures, rather than D&D.

That's because I stopped using alignments in 3e, as they served no genuine purpose aside from making my game cosmology the cookie-cutter of yours.
Multiclassing was once a non-optional rule, now it's optional. Same with a lot of shit like flanking.

Mechanically alignments are cartoonishly simplistic and crutches for roleplaying.
Sorry that you still feel they are an indispensable part of Dungeons and Dragons, clearly the designers think most everything is not.

Your prattling about Muh Pure Game, doesn't move me overmuch.

I prefer "Retainer of Friendly Skelly-Men", but different strokes, I suppose.

>Amusingly, the Bard is a functioning Warlord (Rogue). With variants.

People who keep saying this either never even seen a warlord, or their bar is so fucking low as to be absolutely meaningless.

>I guess by boring you mean doesn't "wait, let me decide which of my abilities I'm gonna use this attack, and roll for the dice effect" constantly.

Or maybe he means getting something other than an ability that triggers 1/20th of a time. Passives are fine, but there's nothing exciting happening in a Champion's turn.

>Your prattling about Muh Pure Game, doesn't move me overmuch.
It has nothing to do with me caring how you or anyone else plays, only that, when discussion is taking place you should assume that the game is being played as is, rather than in a homebrew setting, with homebrew rules, otherwise the discussion itself means nothing to anyone, and can also accomplish nothing, beyond a potentially entertaining story. Which this is not.
However since this is long past D&D, and entirely moved into discussing discussions, and social decorum, i will stop responding here

There's not even a point to having Demons/Demodands/Daemons/Devils.

Why have 4 or more factions of implacable dimensional nasty monsters with similar stats, all plotting the ruination of humanity and shaking their fists at the Gods of "Good" at the same time and warring with each other in a way that's generally meaningless to the races who live a few dimensions away and are "glad they have a hobby I guess?"
>Muh Alignment embodiment
Is a dumb rationale. The endless war between snarling nasty rules-loving Horned Monster Men and snarling nasty rules-hating Horned Monster Men.

>only that, when discussion is taking place you should assume that the game is being played as is
No, you're being stupid, the entire point of the conversation was that Alignment isn't a very good or necessary convention.
I'm suggesting that it's easy to lose and nothing is lost. I don't give a shit what you run at your table.
Not a single one. I'll never sit at it.

Am I then nly one who really likes Zulu fighting man?

He looks about as Zulu as Doctor Dre.
Not even his retarded shield-spear looks Zulu.

Take a deep breath, user

if you aren't going to accept "because the designers have designed it this way" then you might want to consider going and making the weekly alignment argument thread. you'll probably get some real discussion from a system and setting-agnostic vantage point and not just a few people repeatedly telling you that you're arguing against a brick wall because that's how the game and setting are designed.

"definitely not zulu" zulu fighting man is pretty dope desu

Give all martials superiority dice. Is this good or bad?

good if was like beta idea
bad if it is like battlemaster

Superiority dice used in various ways by class/archetype, good.
Everyone is a battlemaster, bad.

I really like the Monk iconic. She's super cute.

Please elaborate?

Please elaborate further?

virt?

Depends how deep you wanna go.
Rangers fueling their special attacks/defenses and their special arrows with superiority die would probably be neat. Beastmasters could heal their pets, or grant them a one turn buff. Hunters can Volley or Whirlwind attack, or trigger some sort of AC boost against swarming enemies.
Barbarians could trigger rage effects. Go a bit deeper with totem barbs, let each totem chosen gain an active they can spend die to fuel, as well as a small passive. Give Berserkers -AC for +damage for a turn. Let barbarians in general lengthen their current rage by spending a die, or ignore the next blow unless it deals die+barb level in damage or more.
We can go deeper, let rogues spend a die to gain advantage, monks just have their ki abilities tuned to dice rolls more frequently, paladins can smite.

Does it work with the game like it is now? Probably not, but i think it very well could have been more interesting.

In the first D&D 5e playtest, figthers had per round superiority dice, but no extra attack.
Also you had 7 or so styles.
Every style gave 3 manuvers, plus two basics manouvers for everyone that were a parry and another to do more dmg.

These are pretty good ideas.

Yes because the Battlemaster is perfect Warlord.
The warlord shenanigans where you and your party could take shit ton of basic attacks(looking at you storm of blades) or where you functioned as the current cleric cant happen in 5e.
Rally, Maneuvering Strike, Commanding Strike and the others are perfect translation of 4e powers to 5e action economy and with Inspiring Leader and Martial Adept you can be the ultimate support machine. Problem is it will never be enough for the powergamers

What are some good multiclass combinations for the monk?

Today's Unarmed Fighter UA

Clerics can be decent, but realistically, anything you do will generally weaken you in terms of monkness, monks are probably the most leveled feature dependent class in 5e.