/5eg/ Fifth Edition General:

>This is a terrible idea for one specific reason - vistani, unlike everyone else, can leave Barovia.

They can, at Strahds permission, which is why they are his spies and servants.

Any Vistani who dare defy Strahd, mess with his plots, aid and ally with the heroes significantly, or simply piss him off slightly, lose this privelidge.

Most often is warlock and druid.
Least often is Bard and Wizard

But that's wrong. It's werewolves who can leave at Strahd's permission. Vistani can leave Barovia at any moment's notice, period, because Strahd gave permission to come and go to their whole nation before even becoming a vampire.

I would do Vistani as a Background, not a Race.

>most often
rogue

>least often
cleric

Lots of Wizards in my groups. Not so many barbarians. Everything else seems to pop up normally.

Hm, do you think "Cast Hex once a day" will be too strong of a background perk though as they are almost always noncombat utility ones. Proficiencies and that can be crap as an attempt to balance it.

Or maybe add it as "Up to twice a day, a Vistani may spend a hit die to cast Hex as a 1st level spell." so it is costing their healing reserves.

>do you think "Cast Hex once a day" will be too strong of a background perk
Yes.

>What's the class you see most often in your groups?
Warlock

>Least often?
Monk

All my campaigns have had a fighter, a rogue, and a bard.

I posted this in the last few threads, but here y'go My Custon Weapon Framework and Weapon Set:
homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BycRANgSx

What's the most high fantasy premade adventure?

Assault on Gumdrop Mountain

How compatible are 3.5 monster stat blocks with 5e?

That picture is awesome. IS there some kind of necromancer/druid-ish class type thing?

Death cleric-druid works.

I love the pic also. So cute.

What are the tiers for the classes and archetypes?

Not at all.

The conversion to 5e isn't that difficult, from what I've heard, though

Average tier: everything.

Needs Help Tier: 4 Elements monks, blade pact warlocks, pre-revision rangers

Fine Tier: everything else

...

in comparison to 3.x tiers, most classes in 5e are average, in tier 3 or 4 in that they're capable of doing most things required of them fairly well. Some are lower down than others, most notably the 4-element monks (due to chi inefficiency) and early beastmaster rangers (action economy inefficiency), but on the whole, there's no major gap as there was with CoDzillas vs., say, the CW Samurai as there was in 3.x

>What's the class you see most often in your groups?

Paladin

>Least often?
Bard

Druid UA, Circle of Twilight

Tier 1 (can do anything, all the time): Clerics, wizards, bards
Tier 2 (can do most things some of the time): Druids, warlocks, paladins
Tier 3 (can do one thing most of the time): Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians
Tier 4 (total shit): Rangers, monks

So, basically the same as 3.x. The only thing 5e really changed was simplifying the rules (semi-good idea), rolling all the level-based bonuses into one thing (good idea), and turning all the interesting effects into shitty damage types (horrid idea).

It's still the same unbalanced shit-heap, except better balanced, and the imbalance is hidden behind a wall of once-per-day abilities. The superior choice is still either D&D 4e or AD&D depending if you want heroic heroes or semi-heroic dungeon crawling.

Sort of the opposite of a necromancer/druid although I guess it does still do funky necrotic damage lifegain stuff.

...

Most often, it's been rogues. Everybody likes being sneaky stabby guy.

Least often, I haven't seen a druid yet. Seen one of every other class, but no druids. It's kinda weird, actually.

Accurate, except rogues are tier 1 if thief or arcane.

>large Firenewt armies are pouring in from the shores
>many mounted on domesticated dinosaurs bred for battle and war
>they come to the mainland in hopes to capture dragon eggs and breed them for the same mounting and war purpose as dinosaurs

What is going on in the campaign you are in, /5eg/?

Other than the vitriol he's mostly right. It's a step up to see fighter, rogue, and barbarian in tier 3 when they were tier 5 classes that could creep onto tier 4 in 3.5

Monk is low tier 3, with Wot4E being tier 4 though. UA Ranger is high tier 3.

Show me how a rogue opens a portal to another plane. That's the kind of stuff that gets you on tier 1, not combat ability.

ye so funny, user.

It's not right. But baiting more is useless.

If you understood the tiers as they were in 3.5, being on tier 3 or above is potent enough to be a good character with no outside help. That only 1 class (that got a rewrite) and one archetype of another class is below that threshold is pretty good.

I am trying to build a STR based beastmaster character. Is it a good idea to start at level 1 as a fighter, so I can get the heavy armor and the extra fighting style? UA beastmaster gets their "extra attack" equivalent at 3rd level, so I'm still basically a level ahead.

Tiers are pretty useless, aside for the penis-measuring contests of 3.PF

How are you doing starting ability scores? Heavy armor isn't that much better than medium if you can afford a 14 Dex without too much tradeoff. Get that pet advancing quicker. You're only really losing out on Great Weapon Fighting, since you can take Defensive fighting style on a ranger.

Even if the tier part was right, and discounting the subjective stuff, the rest would still be wrong.

As for the tier thing, it's wrong already at the first line. None of those classes are tier 1, by the definition provided.

Mentioned it in a previous thread, considering fleshing it out more
>Feudal Goblins, a Goblin society/nation based off Japan in the Warring States period
>These Goblinoids are more similar in appearance, with Goblins being as tall as 5'

Note that there is some rare exceptions to the caste system, such as a particularly skilled Goblin becoming a noble through battlefield promotions

Hobgoblins: the Nobles and Samurai; middle and high caste
>Hobgoblin Warrior variant, +1 STR, replaces +1 INT
>Hobgoblin Politician variant, +replaces +2 CON/+1INT with +1 CON/+1 CHA/+1INT "You are proficient with one Martial weapon of your choice and the Persuasion and Deception skill", uses Saving Face more for social situations (After rereading it's description there's no need to change it)

Goblins: the Peasants, commoners, low-ranking soldiers, and Merchants; low and middle castes
>Goblin Peasant/Manual Laborer/Soldier variant, your size is Medium, replaces Ability Score changes and abilities with +1 to STR, DEX, CON and 2 skills
>Goblin Peasant/Manual Laborer/Soldier "variant-variant", your size is Medium, replaces Ability Score changes and abilities with +1 to an Ability Score and skill of your choice, +1 Feat (Weaker than Variant Human because Darkvision)
>Goblin Merchant variant, replaces Ability Score changes with +2 DEX, +1 CHA, replaces "Fury of the Small" with "Art of the Deal", "When you roll to haggle with a creature to buy or sell items you're trading with, you can add your level+your Proficiency bonus (In addition to normal Persuasion proficiency or expertise) to the Persuasion roll. Once you use this trait, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

Bugbears: The rural mountain men and trappers (And Mountain Bandits) caste varies based on personal accomplishments from peasants to Nobles who fought their way to the top in wars. also in charge of the not-Shinto/Buddhist religion, Priests are somewhat outside the caste system.
>no ideas for Bugbear variants yet

Well all you'd be missing would be the extremely shitty Ranger capstone (and most games never go to 20 anyway). If you're completely deadset on heavy armor, then yeah, there's no better way to get it then to do your first level as fighter.

What do you think of the Paladin UA?

Those archetypes don't seem very good, at first glance, but I haven't made a side-by-side comparison

Treachery has a good spell list. Conquest has good synergy with a fear-based party, and it has good channel divinity options because they don't require actions to use, much like Battle Master maneuvers.

Treachery's poison damage ability is quite strong early game but evens out as your level. It's good because it's like a no-concentration smite spell that stacks with Divine Smite and allows the paladin to maintain invisibility.

Ruleswise, the archetypes are fine. They're actually pretty fucking rad, in a lot of ways.

I don't like that they just dumped two more evil options for Paladins on us, seems a little lame to me. Would've liked it more had they given us a good option and an evil option. There's now almost as many evil options in the game as there are good options, which just feels stupid to me. It's a fucking paladin. Paladins have always been heroic, blessed knights, whereas these two archetypes feel like edgy faggot options.

They wrote evil fluff for Conquest but that's easy enough to make non-evil. It's only evil from an outsider's point of view. For the people the paladin serves, he's probably seen as good.

As a player I love them, because one fits the first paladin concept I came up with when I was like 14 (narcissistic paladin who derives power from his own narcissism)

As a DM I fucking hate it because 2 of my players have a boner for playing edgelord characters

Oh, it's definitely the least evil of the two. But it also has some warlock spells, it relies on scaring enemies, and the tenets of the oath involve shit like completely destroying hope, and ruling with an iron fist. So even a good Oath of Conquest is going to be a massive edgelord, and good god am I sick of that shit. Paladins are supposed to be the bright shining beacon of hope.

Even Vengeance, the one that is usually pointed to as being the edgelord paladin option, has a tenet where you have to help out those harmed by evil's misdeeds. And that one flat out says you should destroy evil by any means necessary. It was more than dark enough; we didn't need another one like it.

>because one fits the first paladin concept I came up with when I was like 14 (narcissistic paladin who derives power from his own narcissism)

Whisper can do it!

>it relies on scaring enemies, and the tenets of the oath involve shit like completely destroying hope, and ruling with an iron fist.

That kind of stuff is advocated in ancient wisdom writings on war. The idea is that such displays prevent unnecessary conflict when done right. It's not a totally evil concept.

Oath of Conquest is basically what you want to play Darth Vader.

The talk of guns the other day made me think a bit on it. Here's a take on it as Guns as a Cantrip usable by non-casters.

>Dwarvish Rifle
>150 gp
>1d8+1d4 magic damage
>Ammunition (Range 150-600), Two Handed, Special, Magic Ranged, Loud, Loading (Does not benefit from Loading feats)
>Loud- This weapon makes an extremely loud noise when used, loud out to 300 feet and audible out to one mile.
>Magic Ranged- If you are a spellcaster, you can substitute your DEX for your spellcasting ability for attack and damage rolls. Shots from this weapon count as magic for bypassing enemy resistances and immunity to nonmagic weapons.
>Special- Magic Bullets, when you load a bullet, choose a damage type: Fire, Lightning, or Thunder. The bullet fired deals an additional 1d4 of the selected damage type. This damage increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th level (2d4), 11th level (3d4), and 17th level (4d4).

Thoughts? I'm thinking as of now it'd be a Rare/high end Uncommon magic item.

Treachery spells are so fucking baller I'm seriously tempted to play one (and I -hate- half/no casters)

The only weak part are the 5th level spells. Dominate is nice but unless your CHA is maxed they'll probably save. Passwall is 'eh' but can have niche uses.
Grab Resilient (Con) and you'll be a murder machine with great AC (Full + Shield + Haste) attacking 3 times a round possibly smiting with a Mirror Image on for good measure.
Then theres the invisibility, charm person, and expeditious retreat for out of combat (Cause cheating at races is fun)

Seems pretty cool to me. Will it require attunement? I feel like, especially if it's able to use a spellcaster's spellcasting ability, it should use up an attunement slot.

As of now I'm thinking it doesn't "need" attunement, but it does to use your spellcasting ability for attacks.

5megaanon, you here?

I just noticed that when you sort by CR, it goes alphabetically: 1 < 1/2 < 1/4 < 2.

What you could do is make a custom compare function for CRs that gives the correct order. Or alternatively store the CRs as decimals

That's a good point. I guess I'm just miffed more on how they presented the class. Specifically using "hell knights" as the one example just makes the whole thing feel more evil than it is.

If I was playing one and wanted to make it feel at least slightly non-evil, I'd probably go with a "fear of god" style paladin, converting the nonbelievers through fear and completely destroying evil. I mean, you get insect plague later, so it's pretty fitting. I think that could be pretty fun, even if it's still way too grimdark for my taste.

No such thing as magic type damage. Should be piercing damage (+ counting as magical for resistances, if you want).

Also maybe disadvantage against targets within 10-15 feet instead of just 5 feet.

Also maybe if fired in an enclosed space, creatures in a 5 foot radius make a DC 15 constitution save or are deafened for 1 minute

And no don't let spellcasters use their ability to shoot, that doesn't make any sense. This is already more powerful than fire bolt. Why not let the martials be better at something for once. MAYBE add it to attack rolls, but not damage rolls. Unless you're fluffing it as the spellcaster creating the ammunition themselves?

Btw, 1d8+1d4 has exactly the same average, min and max as 2d6. It just has a more flat distribution. So in a sense it's more reliable than a single die but less reliable than two of equal size.

The oath of treachery seems weird to me, conceptually, since it's not actually an oath at all, but the lack of one. It works great for a paladin who falls, but it's really weird if you're going to play a paladin, reach level 3, and be like "syke! I'm not going to swear any oaths at all!" and still get powers for it. I mean, I guess if that's what you were planning all along, that's pretty treacherous, but under ordinary circumstances I would disallow a character from gaining a 3rd level in paladin if they refuse to swear an oath.

Sounds like a good way to aggro every creature in the dungeon to your location

>magic type damage
It's Force now.

Clunky as hell. Making your feats not work is not fun and is an obvious patch, using your magic ability modifier makes no sense and is pointless (especially since if you're a spellcaster you'll already have at least one attack cantrip,) it's ambiguous whether the magic ammunition is different from the extra "magic damage" of the weapon, and in general it's just unnecessary and stupid. I don't like it.

It seems to me like it's meant to be an NPC option, but eh, weird thing to make 50% of an UA

I think you can fluff it as being something interesting (e.g. a paladin of freedom who renounces gods, kings, and ideology and trusts only in themself) but it is a weird one for PCs to take.

That's the best damage type in the game btw

weird. I love playing warlocks for some reason. My last 2 characters were Warlocks. I enjoy them.

Our fighter is going to multiclass into one next level for the fuck of it.

Never seen one in action.

Why don't all skills have a passive

because 5e designers wanted to say fuck you to what may have been a good idea at some point, and they got lazy halfway through.

Because that would make no sense and waste a ton of space on a character sheet. You can perceive something without really looking for it, but you can't, say, just happen to unconsciously climb a wall or practice medicine.

Not even a 2 level dip into Warlock? Some of those invocations are pretty sick but there's really no point in playing full Warlock imo.

I can't really see a use for it for anybody aside from rogues, and rogues might not even be able to use it because what the fuck is 'magic ranged'.

You need someone who:
1. Doesn't have any extra attacks.
2. Doesn't have good cantrip scaling.
3. Has free hands to use (not using a shield).
4. Is actually allowed to use it (say, rogues need it to be a 'ranged weapon' and one of their weapon proficiencies, probably)

Simply put, if it's a martial weapon then it's honestly quite useless since only, say, a multiclassing wizard might be able to use it, and they'd rather have a shield. And then, a multiclassed rogue might have reason to use it given they can't make ranged weapon attacks with a shield. Shame though, because a rogue would probably rather use a hand crossbow with crossbow mastery since that gives them two chances of sneak attack.

However, it's not a bad item. A party can give these rifles to hirelings, which is exactly a good way to use guns - easy to use for even peasntry.
Also, I guess there are certain times it might be good to be shooting fire bolts with a gun, or you just want to blow up some rock with it.

Technically, they can. Even if the character sheet only mentions Passive Perception, read this bit here. Any time the DM wants the players to do something without rolling dice, you can use these rules to determine it. Now, honestly I fail to see how this is useful for the majority of skills, but it's still there.

Because you can't passively do an active thing.

>Most common class in your group?
Sorcerer

>Least common class in your group?
Wizard and Rogue

It's useful for dealing with retarded players who think that an natural 20 on a skill check can accomplish anything, and also the equally retarded players who think that a natural 1 on an ability check should always result in some kind of humiliating pratfall or other slapstick.

So we know dragons are smart as fuck.

How smart are freshly hatched wyrmlings, though? Like, infant levels? Or are they intelligent out of the gate like some other creatures?

>roll in secret the NPC's perception against the PC's passive stealth
I dunno

I guess it's matter of the DM lowering DCs for stuff a character of their level should be able to do.

Depends on the dragon, first off. Secondly, check the MM. On average, they have 10 or slightly above, which is average human intelligence, meaning a baby dragon is about as smart as a fully grown human. The only one that starts off below 10 is the belovedly retarded white dragons, whose wyrmlings have an intelligence of 5. So they're pretty fucking stupid, but still above infant levels.

Maybe Strahd can deny them that ability, especially with those who pisses him off. Where is their ability to come and go as they please spelled out?

That's more of the 'take ten' rule. In 5e, they'd rather say 'don't take ten, it just fucking happens if it's something you can normally do.'

I read that as fun tier: everything else.

Is there any official ruling on how blindsight interacts with hiding/stealth in 5th edition?

You forgot sorcerers you cuntnugget.

This is the most accurate.

That other user clearly does not know what the tier system means or represents.

Dragons are born knowing multiple languages, so I'd say they're fairly smart.

Anyone know a fun 5e one-shot?

Death House.

Can you cast true polymorph on a willing ally and transform into a dragon or pit fiend, concentrate for an hour so that the effect last permantly or until the ally is reduced to 0 hit points ? It seems silly.

What level should the one-shot be geared towards?