/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General: The Sultan Will Speak To You Now Edition

There is an actual small literary work on how to play strahd. It involves using his scrying and shapechanging abilities to spy on the players. Getting a strong knowledge of how to beat them.

You know you can post PDFs on Veeky Forums, right? Much easier for the reader.

Embodiment of Fire is underwhelming. Prone isn't all that powerful in terms of control. Maybe "a creature repeats this saving throw at the end of each of its turns; it cannot stand up from prone until it has succeeded on a save against this effect" or something along those lines.

What is this Oath's fluff? What are its tenets (roughly speaking)? Why is fire so important to it?

Why tho

Any "unintelligent" creature smart enough to respond to your threatening stimuli from a distance (moving to attack a character shooting arrows or spells from range) is smart enough to move on to the next threatening target instead of what amounts to beating a dead horse.

Animals will likewise do this, as will any intelligent creature regardless of whether you have a "known healer", as if fucking bandits can identify the school of healing magic, the effects of a restorative spell as it stitches wounds hidden by the Fighter's armor, memorizing the spell lists of various casters and knowing that someone who can cast Spiritual Weapon must be a Cleric instead of a Wizard, and so on.

PCs do not take stabs at every fucking creature they kill, and any one of them could be a stealth Cleric or one of his allies could have a healing potion. If the all-knowing, metagamey PCs and their players don't think this is an intelligent course of action, why would anyone else?

Interesting. Do you know where I can find this?

First channel divinity is a bit strong. Maybe tone down the scaling.

The wording on the second channel divinity is funny. It sounds like I could use it even with no eligible targets and get the resistances.

Aura of warmth is kind of OP. It's up to 25 temp HP for free every short rest for the whole party. Inspiring Leader takes 10 minutes and can only do 25 temp HP at level 20.

Holy fire is pretty neat actually.

Embodiment of flame is decent enough.

Well, thinking about it again, I suppose you could have a spell with a target range of 'self' that produces a rock in your hand. It wouldn't target you, but it would have a range of 'self'.

Newcommer to 5e, got handed a premade light cleric, level 5.
What should I be doing in combat? Any specific spells to look out for?

S P I R I T U A L
H A M M E R

So how can the devs possibly disappoint Rangers further tomorrow?

By not releasing anything tomorrow.

I'm eager to see more options for Sorcs and Warlocks. They definitely need a few more options.

I don't really care for new Ranger subclasses right now, I just want the revised Ranger in an official splat, like, now.

>Clerics and Wizards get archetypes out the yingyang
>Sorcs told to go fuck themselves with just two before SCAG

Caster classes are balanced by having their names come last alphabetically, so you have to turn more pages to reach them and wait longer for their UA options to come out.

Sorcs will be next

>Is there more UA stuff coming tommorow?

Hopefully not. I am hoping UA will be phased out soon and replaced with more official options including feats to make the combat more interesting. Once again, D&D is based around class features bullshit, instead of giving classes flexibility to stretch their archetype. So instead they give us predefined archetypes like Champion and Battlemaster instead of letting us build it ourselves, because Merals does not have the competency to design a game like that. As a result, D&D will never return to the glory era of 3.5. The increase in sales is only due to an increase in awareness of the game, thanks to the increasing acceptance of "nerd culture."

They probably have some Rogue ideas to throw at us. They may even have more than the single new Ranger archetype to test out too.

3.5 was the gutter. Glad we've recovered.

...

>Hopefully not. I am hoping UA will be phased out soon and replaced with more official options including feats to make the combat more interesting.

nah, no way man. UA is great for playtesting and phasing out horrible, stupid ideas from the development, and reworking the shiniest turds into actually enjoyable stuff

Are warlock invocations class level or total level?

PHB errata says class level.

Is Warlock 3 for ritual casting/shillelagh/strong ranged cantrip Paladin worth it?

...

>because Mearls doesn't have the competency to design a game like that
Which is it today, /5eg/? Is Mearls the mastermind behind everything or is Crawford the arbiter of all that is?

Next UA will be on january 9, not tomorrow.

Chilchack had a hard life.

>skipping TWO WHOLE WEEKS
They can't keep getting away with it

It's not the WORST idea. It's also kinda cool to be able to use Warlock slots for Smite or use Misty Step twice per rest. The downside is you'll get features like Extra Attack and Improved Divine Smite later than you would otherwise, and you won't get your capstone or Aura improvements, depending on how long the game runs.

How do you deal with a DM who takes too much joy from killing/maiming the PC's? It has gotten to the point where we can't get anything good without half the party getting killed.

start casting silence on his villains when they start dropping monologues

play a game without him

Really? Because 3.5 brought roleplaying back from the brink. The RPG community was 1/10th the size back then so keep that in mind when you consider sales figures.

Because they released 3rd edition to capitalize on the interest generated by Baldur's Gate. That's what got people interested in D&D.

Not 5th, but I'm a complete D&D virgin and recently started playing the video game Baldur's Gate with the core rules enabled. I've familiarized myself with the D&D rules but I'm dying, saving, and reloading a lot. Is this how it's supposed to be or am I just playing like an idiot?

I just use this level 2 companion to solo most enemy encounters simply because enemies almost never hit him. If I involve the rest of my party everyone's toast.

Honestly it doesn't matter. UA is absolute garbage and is an excuse to not release more books and actually playtest anything, since it's not "official."

So that gives the devs an excuse to release absolute horse shit. Like a literal Weapon Focus feat. Which might be more powerful now with bounded accuracy, but goes against the whole "let's not have fifteen modifiers stacked together like in 3.5" idea that was one of 5e's design principles.

And of course, Merals *likes* this feat. In fact, he dumps a more competent feat in favor of this one. Why? Because the feat was a "Strength save or be stunned/prone when hit with a mace" type of feat. Now, Merals correctly discerned that such a feat would slow down play by requiring a shitton more rolls. And might also be a bit overpowered. This is pretty much an objectively correct assertion.

But does he try to fix the feat? Perhaps have it only trigger on a crit? Or on a 19-20? Or require you to take a penalty to do it? Or, hell, even allow it only once per encounter? (You wouldn't even need bookkeeping for that last one, it'd be easy enough to remember whether you'd used it yet).

In other words, does Merals try to take a good idea and work with it and mold it into a finished project? No. He dumps it on the ground, and goes with a shitty weapon focus rip-off that any 13 year old retard could and probably has put in his lame-ass D&D homebrew. And the feat is bad. Not just lame, but fucking bad. And boring. Which may be in line with 5e combat in general, but that's not an excuse.

So, while Merals may not be responsible for all of the bad design choices of 5e, he is most definitely a fucking idiot who should not be designing games, least of all for the most powerful gaming company in the world.

BGmind

Not that guy, and I don't think 3.5 was shit, but I do think it had a lot of problems, and was fairly difficult to get into, specifically because of massive amounts of "trap" options and bloat.
I know many people that had trouble getting into 5e, which is much simpler.
Avoiding that level of customization and options wasn't about competency it was a logical design choice, one they have mentioned multiple times.
If you don't like that, there is still an ocean of 3.5 splats, go play them. That gory era of 3.5 is an old, but treasured memory. Because of it you are missing the current glory of 5th edition, which is considerable. Let it go, friend

Goodness, user, I'm flattered. You worked so hard making this bait for ME?

>Avoiding that level of customization and options wasn't about competency it was a logical design choice, one they have mentioned multiple times.

The logic was that options inevitably led to complexity and imbalance.

This is true, but not to anywhere near the degree they pretended it was.

They also ignored the fact that starting packages and pregens can "spoonfeed" the game to new players.

Their entire argument against it consisted of "3.5 did options wrong, so we're not going to do them at all."

If I have to explain the logical flaw(s) in that statement, then you are fucking retarded.

Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated.

As for the Oath's fluff, it's mostly about cleansing the world of undead and fiends, and protecting those who cannot fight such abominations. Hence all the fire.

It's grinding like all video games. Actual D&D is far different. Try Adventurer's League at your FLGS, you can play the game of D&D without a huge amount of the roleplaying aspect, it's a good way to get into the game.

Not an argument. You cannot respond to my points so you will deny that they exist and create a strawman to attack instead. Standard 5fag operating procedure.

> horrible, stupid ideas from the development, and reworking the shiniest turds into actually enjoyable stuff

Like the moronic Weapon Focus reboot he released, instead of reworking a flail-stunning feat that would have actually made weapon choice an interesting part of the game?

How's this sound for an Oath feature?

>Holy Flame or something like that
>Whenever you deal Fire damage you can instead deal Radiant damage

May I ask what the strawman was?

The logical flaw in that statement is exaggeration. They did plenty of options. Archetypes, feats, variable class features (like Pact Boon), variable archetype features (like the Totem Warrior), Fighting Styles, and spell lists.

3.5 had "more" choices, but the extra choices it had were either bad choices or they weren't really choices at all (if you wanna choose Whirlwind Attack, you gotta "choose" Dodge, Spring Attack, Mobility, and Combat Expertise.

I didn't respond to your point because your points are nonsense noises. The Weapon Specialization feat didn't throw out proning enemies on a hit at all. It just did it in a way that doesn't call for three saving throws per turn.

You also referred to the first version of the feat as "competent".

Also, it's spelled "Mearls".

It's the fact that you're angry about something you clearly didn't read that tells me what you wrote is most likely bait, with a good-size chance of you just being so frothing with anger that people don't recognize how special you are that you can't think straight.

I was just pre-empting the ienvitable statement.

How would you stat something this big?

>They did plenty of options.
> pick one of these three fighter paths

Fuck off.

> feats
> half of which add to ability scores
> only like twenty feats

Fuck off.

>spell lists.
> as if every edition didn't have spell lists

Fuck off.

> 3.5 had "more" choices, but the extra choices it had were either bad choices
> implying more choices inherently means most of those will be bad
> implying 3.5 is the only way to game design
> implying you have to have feat chains
> implying you have to have shitty feats

Yeah, definitely fuck off.

You dont.

Can a changeling not be unwillingly polymorphed?

Oh, god! A /5eg/! I need to go there and say they are doing it wrong!

I'm a new DM running a game for new players. One of my players has a hilarious idea for a character: an arena gladiator with a pro wrestling-like gimmick where he pretends he's a wizard. His "spells" are grapples, slams, and monk Ki moves.

My question: how do you ajudicate a bodyslam or suplex in D&D? I have a feeling its going to come up.

>I didn't respond to your point because your points are nonsense noises.
> It's the fact that you're angry about something you clearly didn't read that tells me what you wrote is most likely bait, with a good-size chance of you just being so frothing with anger that people don't recognize how special you are that you can't think straight.

So there's the "denying the argument exists" and "strawman" that I expected, in the same post, after literally replying to where I called you out for what you were about to do.

Kill yourself. I also don't give a fuck how that cunt spells his name.

> You also referred to the first version of the feat as "competent".

I meant that the idea was a good idea. And it didn't need to be rolled into some shitty feat with a bunch of useless crap, including a flat +1 which this worthless cuck claimed he was trying to avoid with 5e's design.

Oh god! An actual rebuttal of everything I just said! I better respond with an off-topic load of bullshit!

Maybe a special grapple check at disadvantage to throw down for 1d6+Strength damage and end up prone. Or some other shit.

> hilarious

That idea is in no way hilarious, or even that clever. Get over yourself.

You're forgetting about the Banneret. You can also choose several different builds with the Battle Master--support based, control based, damage based, or some combination thereof. Half of the Battle Master's maneuvers are things that would be feats in other editions.

>as if every edition didn't have spell lists
And 5e does as well, and you can use that to customize your spellcaster. If your argument is "it should be more like 3.5", saying "it has a thing 3.5 also had" doesn't really advance your point.

Every feat is self-contained. You don't have to spend four of them to be good at riding a horse. Essentially no one playing 3.5 would take half of the horse-riding feats, say "that's plenty! Time for more customization!" They would take all of the horse-riding feats. Even if they're not in a chain, if you need all of them to achieve the goal "be good at riding a horse", then it's a false choice.

But I really want to

>implying I'm trying to argue with you
>implying you aren't the one off-topic

Fucking rollplayer baka

You only read the parts of my response that would prove you're right and make you angry.

That seems to be a trend, considering it's the same thing you did with the Weapon Feats document.

Why?

...

>Get over yourself.

Literally the most pot calling the kettle black shit I've seen all day.

>shitting on new players

Fuck off, moron.

I've never understood this type of thinking when it comes to RPG's. You're only going to be playing with four or five other people (and if you're fortunate you're going to be playing with your friends) so why in the world do sales and popularity matter in judging an RPG?

I might steal this for a campaign, have the party explore a dungeon that was once part of some ancient empire of giants, and all the coins are the size of a wagon wheel.

>An actual rebuttal of everything I just said!
"Fuck off" is a rebuttal now?

Also, that wasn't me. You might've figured that out already, but then, you've given me no reason to expect that from you.

>One of my players has a hilarious idea for a character
No.

>how do you ajudicate a bodyslam or suplex in D&D?
Unarmed strike + Tavern Brawler, grappling and shoving.

I'll soon need to heal a lame NPC. What spell should do the job? Lesser restoration? Greater restoration? Regeneration seems a bit extreme, unless I hack his leg off first.

I have a player using this with a feature, with a homebrew paladin archetype. It's useful (lets him use his domain spells against fiends that are otherwise fire immune/resistant) but hasn't broken anything.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B_73NA7vK-0OejQ3UFFYdDJuR28/view

What are some good 1st level adventure hooks? The characters are all starting in a good sized port town. The setting is cold, dark and depressing.

I was thinking of having them framed for a crime and forced to work for the mob to avoid imprisonment or banishment.

Probably Greater Restoration. Lesser Restoration is actually pretty limited in what it can heal.

>so why in the world do sales and popularity matter in judging an RPG?

Things that don't sell well, don't get updates, or even additional printings. While technically speaking you don't need anything more than the PHB, DMG, and MM to play D&D, it's still nice to get updates of new, official content, especially stuff like Volo's Guide or the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

When making your product, your first priority is getting people to buy that product, because otherwise you won't be making that product for long.

>Limp. Your speed on foot is reduced by 5 feet. You must make a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw after using the Dash action. If you fail the save, you fall prone. Magical healing removes the limp. (DMG, p.272, Lingering Injuries table)

I guess a regular Cure Wounds would do it. If you want something more, lesser restoration should do the job, as it can end the paralyzed condition.

>When making your product, your first priority is getting people to buy that product, because otherwise you won't be making that product for long.

THat's cool and all but I'm not WOTC. I'm a consumer. If the base system is good enough I don't even need a ton of updates. Had enough of that with 3.5.

To me the only thing that matters in an RPG is how well its constructed and how fun it is to play, because I'm not someone who wants splat overload.

What parts was I supposed to read then?

> discussing 5e mechanics in 5eg is offtopic.

I guess the only thing allowed is constant circlejerking then?

>being a new player means you can do stupid shit and not get called out for it, because we all have to be nice to new players because roleplaying is a special safe place for snowflakes to have their ideas supported, no matter how shitty they are

Fuck off, moron.

Just as a warning, that's straying a bit close to railroading.

>framed for a crime... [trying to] avoid imprisonment or banishment
That part's fine.
>forced to work for the mob
That's what concerns me. It's okay to give your players a specific goal, just don't try to dictate how they'll do it.

Anyhow, it's otherwise okay. As long as there's a reason why they'd be framed.

Other possibilities:
>Town attacked by raiders
>Stumble on crime ring that's bought off the police
>Returning a lost dog takes a turn for the worse

How long has it been since you had a group? A few years now?

> I only read eight words of that post and ignored the rest that highlighted my hypocrisy in greentext

Also

> Also, that wasn't me.

Then don't reply to it like it was, moron. This board doesn't have IDs, how the fuck am I supposed to know?

> Just as a warning, that's straying a bit close to railroading.

What the fuck? Having bad guys use leverage against you, is now considered railroading? I guess we should all run sandbox campaigns where the PCs can effortlessly become bandit bad-asses without interference from the city guards, if they so choose.

You're saying "re-post selections from the thing you already posted, and to which I can scroll at any time, so because I didn't read it."

You must understand why I hesitate to believe you're not trolling.

...

I've been playing with a group for almost four years now. And we did have some new players. Some stayed, some left because roleplaying was not for them.

Nice just-world fallacy that, because you think I am an asshole, I must have no friends and no one to game with.

I try to help new players but if they come up with a stupid-ass idea I'm going to tell them it's a stupid-ass idea.

You sound like the kind of guy who listens to his friends yammer about the dream they had last night for half an hour because you're too much of a pussy to tell them you don't give a fuck about what stupid dream they had.

>reading one part of the post, ignoring the rest, getting angry over a misinterpretation of that one line
You're doing it again.

Limping is like having a thorn or something in your foot that keeps you from walking at full speed. Pretty far removed from someone being lame, i.e. with a limb that entirely doesn't work.

I think Greater Restoration would be best.

>2017
>responding to virtposts

Anyway, what do you guys hope to see in ranger archetypes on the 9th? They've got the fewest in the game right now (only 3) and revised ranger has fixed most of the base class problems, so I'm excited to see what else they add. With hunter, deep stalker, and beast, they've got some of the widest variety in subclasses despite having the fewest, imo.

> t. whoever posted the dumb-ass John Cena character idea.

It's not hilarious, or clever. It's pretty gimmicky and stupid on top of that.

Well you clearly can't be bothered to read the entirety of what I post either, so you aren't any different.

And if you can't sum up the crux of your argument in a single sentence, you don't deserve to be part of an argument.

Not to mention, if you DID have a point, you could have just posted it instead of making an ad-hominem attack.

>responding to virtposts
You're right, I'm sorry. It's a bad habit.

I'm thinking/hoping they might add a version of the Seeker.

Like to see an urban ranger, and an arcane ranger myself

Why don't they delete the dumb-ass archetypes and replace them with feats that let you actually make meaningful choices about your character besides picking from one of several pregenerated paths?

Oh wait, if they did that, the game would immediately turn into a bloat-filled fuckfest like 3.5.

Those are the only two options. So I guess we should just add more lame prepackaged bullshit with a cool-sounding (not really) name like "deep stalker" (seriously that sounds like a bad video game class) instead.