/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

How do I make games fun with fewer encounters per long rest? Neither me nor my group like a lot of combat and we usually get one or two encounters per long rest (they prefer pushing the story forward and roleplaying and combat is a lot of bookkeeping). This makes classes with a lot of skills per short rest (warlock, fighter) less useful and makes the others (wizard, paladin) shine.

I have considered just extending the long/short rest period to week/day respectively. Anybody got any better ideas?

I really want that ability but I forsee my DM getting rather annoyed that it trivializes finding secret rooms and other hidden things. Combined with how they already think Warlock is "OVERPOWERED" and picking that seems like it'd result in rocks falling squid man dies.

Regular half-elf.

it's a rather short range. Don't know how you're going to avoid Strahd with it, considering he has greater speed than that, ontop of his other tricks, like blinding you with magical darkness

plus the fact that he is Strahd and if he got tired of the cat and mouse game, he could probably just go through the wall.

or he could line the walls with so many bats and shit that they'd block out x-ray vision

or he could turn to mist and make you get addicted to huffing him

>Would this work?
All I'll say is I wouldn't rely on it. CoS has done a pretty good job making sure players can't bullshit their way to victory.

What is the official AL stance on wish?

Maybe if you're not really annoying about it and "always have it on", like some dickbag druid spamming Guidance

Dont know of any AL legal use of Wish other than replicating spells. Most adventures don't go past level 15

I know there is a luckblade in CoS but that's about it

genuinely the only thing warlocks are good for besides an invisible respawning scout that can be milked for poison is the fact that they can use medium power effects with great regularity, so as a DM I would personally be happy to let them "trivialize" finding sekrits

Warlocks are probably the best ranged combatants, I'd say.

If they make good use of repelling blast, they're hardly weak, especially if they then also get that new invocation that slows enemies by 10ft. But that requires feylock rather than GOOlock.

Thing is, while that is certainly the edge they have over casters, they both have to co exist with martial players, and a task that can be safely trivialize away from a caster, might be a main feature of a martial who becomes that much more niche than before.

There definitely is something to be said about things like when a level 1 revised ranger dip completely obliterates the entire survival feature of the game

Why is the regular human so fucking boring?

>survival
>a feature of the game
What's it like to have/be a shit DM?

Does the disadvantage that the Instruments of the Bard invoke on charm saves only apply to the spells that come with the instrument and are cast using the instrument? Or any charm effects that the bard casts? I.e. a Tiefling Variant Bard casting Charm Person using their Devil's Tongue but uses the Instrument of the Bard as a casting focus.

I don't know what warlocks would be competing with martials about. Rogues have no room to cry about anything -- ever -- as they're both great in and out of combat, and at least one paladin player I know claims they consistently do more damage against, say, undead than his character did.

>There definitely is something to be said about things like when a level 1 revised ranger dip completely obliterates the entire survival feature of the game

UA is UA, I don't take it seriously, but what the heck is "the entire survival feature of the game?" having to buy food and drink?

Let's say I use Mage Hand to carry a vial of holy water 30ft and pour it onto an enemy. What would be the appropriate roll to see if it misses?

Because human players are spoiled from being the best race around or one of them in every other edition and not used to joining the ranks of almost all other races, being incredibly niche, incredibly irrelevant, or both.

--IF-- your DM allows that, it would probably be an attack roll with disadvantage or a low dex save for the target

Melee spell attack

Charm person has no material components, so you can't use the instrument as a casting focus.

I'm not sure if you can't find some way to apply the instrument even if it's not being used as a focus, though. Does the instrument apply to non-material-component spells?

Seconding melee spell attack.

>--IF-- your DM allows that

Mage Hand description specifically says it can pour out vials. Why wouldn't it be allowed?

>Warlocks are probably the best ranged combatants, I'd say.

Is that including fighter marksmen and rogue crossbow faggots?

because mage hand also says it can't be used to attack.

I get that I can't give it a knife and have it shank someone, but it CAN pour out vials. Do the metaphysics of the universe rearrange themselves to deny Mage Hand its usual vial-tipping properties if the contents can damage someone? Let's take this a step further. What if I use mage hand to pour oil on someone so that I can set them on fire? Would Mage Hand know this, and refuse to our the vial in this case?

Has anyone here looked at Amethyst Quintessence at all?

It's a third party sci-fi RPG using 5e as a base. I'm wondering if it's any good or not.

>Rogue
>More damage than a paladin against a target paladins get a boost against
Just how bad are they?

I'll bring up this rough graph of DPR expectations, which doesn't consider things like crits (Both rogues and paladins benefit notably from crits but it wouldn't change the graph too much) and burst damage (Paladins have the best burst damage in the game)

Rogues are pretty lackluster in terms of damage, but they're not bad. What sets rogues away from other martials to make up for their lesser damage is flexibility and out of combat ability.

Once you can see through walls, no longer the rogue needs to check for secret rooms, check for 'most' traps, check ahead for enemies by stealthing ahead, check for this or that. Because the warlock already knows all of that shit.

Yes. Unless the warlock goes fighter sorlock / sorlock, their damage will be definitely behind fighter and probably behind rogue, but their 10ft pushback ability is crazy. If you use it right, enemies won't ever be able to even reach you to attack you or your party.

If your party isn't mostly ranged, however, that won't be much benefit.

What if you fight something so big it can't be pushed?

would multiclassing ranger into sorcerer be a bad idea

RAW there is nothing that is so big it can't be pushed.

Any sensible DM would have it where big enough creatures can't be pushed, but in that case you simply apply different tactics. It's not hard to trap a big creature in a room or something if the environment is right.

Or, at least, big creatures are only single targets so you can run away from them much easier than you can a hoard of goblins.

Literally why.jpg

>Do the metaphysics of the universe rearrange themselves to deny
Quite possibly.

Mage Hand says it can't attack, and yet at least two people suggested that pouring a vial onto someone would be a spell attack roll. Meaning that they both see it as an attack. Which mage hand forbids.

Presumably his campaign experience was primarily stuff before level 4.

I don't know whether X ray vision is going to help too much finding hidden traps and enemies (as the skill defines them). Overall the rogue player in that guy's game needs to stop being a little bitch. If anyone took Chain Pact, I bet he'd feel emasculated by a tiny invisible gremlin too.

In 5e, what's the difference between melee spell attack 30ft away and ranged spell attack?

What do you want out of your character that you feel the need to take those classes?

Noted, thanks.

The problem is not that Mage Hand can't pour the vial, the problem is it doesn't have enough accuracy to pour it over a moving creature who does not want to get touched by holy water.

A vampire will see that ethereal hand coming over with a vial, will figure out what's going on and dodge out of the way. If I were feeling generous I might make the undead roll a very low Dex save.

#LayTheGorgon

thought it would be a neat gimmick to add onto the character
the dm said the reasoning for why was solid i just dunno if i wanna go ahead with it

What if it's not holy water, but regular water? And I just pour it on the ground. And as a result of pouring it on the ground, an ant drowns. Is mage hand going to scan the immediate vicinity for any life form that could possibly be damaged as a result of its actions, then refuse to comply accordingly?

As a DM I see no reason to forbid pushing back big monsters, its all abstracted into one saving throw, as opposed to in 3e where something like that would probably be, roll a ranged touch, roll a spell resistance check, roll a saving throw, and roll a bull rush.

If you don't like gargantuans being pushed around, I'm pretty sure it being clipped on terrain/other monsters would arrest its movement, by RAW anyway, not sure.

1. ants aren't a definable target by the rules
2. it isn't performing an attack action of any kind
3. dropping a burning torch on a pile of gunpowder isn't an attack action
4. we've been over this shit for the last fucking forty years continuously with hemming and hawing over Invisibility

Many traps feature hidden areas that store parts of the trap, such as boulders. Seeing through those will instantly give away those traps.

Some enemies could still remain hidden, but normally you can't see the enemies until you turn around a corner, and you can carefully analyze the environment for monsters before turning a corner.

I can imagine the rogue would be quite pissed because it's a massive out of combat advantage, that while it might not directly conflict with all of what he does, it's some sort of crazy new UA content that could well seem broken to them. And there's not a lot of broken UA content for rogues.

That said, a lot of paladins don't pick up PAM or whatever and they might not use smites on crits or they might waste their spell slots on other things, or the rogue might have gotten lucky or they might have rolled for stats and skewed damage like that, or there might have been magical items. There's a number of ways a rogue could do more damage, but in a normal situation the paladin should be a better damage dealer.

There is no save to avoid being pushed back. You simply have to hit it. It's kinda a bit bullshit, and there's no real weakness to the eldritch blast fiasco. If it works on gargantuan monsters, you can essentially push-stun-lock a creature into a corner because any time it tries to advance out of that corner you just push it back into the corner, not even legendary resistance can save it.

It makes sense to allow the vial spilling as an attack because its an attack that forms out of the actual intended use of the spell. Mage Hand is a utility and the vial spilling is making use of the utility. It's different than using Mage Hand to slash a sword or punch someone, which is what the "mage hand cannot attack" clause is supposed to prevent

I'd ban anything that wrecked a significant part of a class like that.

As I see it, the most important rule about class balance is that every class should have a niche in the party that does not get overshadowed. If the fighter (for example) has one trick in that he hits things very hard, no one should be hitting harder.

Magic can, technically, do anything the GM allows, so they have to lock down hard on setting those bounds.

I'm not your DM. You aren't going to trap me in hypotheticals. Mage Hand cannot be used to attack. That's how I rule it. Don't like it? That's fine, you aren't playing in any of my games (since i am not running any at the moment), so don't get your tits in a twist. Ask YOUR dm how he runs it. If you are the dm run it how YOU want.

>3. dropping a burning torch on a pile of gunpowder isn't an attack action

how is that any different from dropping holy water on something

how is dropping an inanimate object on an inanimate object different from dropping an inanimate object on a creature with the intent to harm it? Seriously?

Yes. How does whether or not the creature can move change my capability to DROP SOMETHING?

There's a world of difference between "it would probably miss" and "you just can't drop it"

Then the only question is - does allowing a warlock to spend an invocation to at-will see 30ft in all directions through walls going to overshadow many other players?

I'd definitely say yes if there's a rogue who's keen on doing things like checking the environment and scouting for enemies.

Personally I'd rather the ability to be to see some sort of otherworldly realm portrayed upon the current one, which often gives hints as to the surroundings - the warlock might sense an eeire void of otherworldly presence in a holy area, or various ghostly apparitions in an area where many people have died recently, or the faint call of arcane magical power near a magic item. But that's too subjective to list as an invocation ability.

Then yes, its perfectly fine that the warlock can use a limited slot on X ray vision, considering all the rogue did was get uppity and entitled over one (1) skill, Perception. This is the problem with entitlement mentality players -- they hear "we need a rogue in the party, to find traps" they get the impression that only one char can find traps and feel entitled to be the only one who can do it.

>I can imagine the rogue would be quite pissed because it's a massive out of combat advantage,

Imagine if every character class in the game felt as much entitlement over every single skill as the rogue does for his. Imagine if the fighter shit himself with fury because a druid cast Dominate Beast and he wanted to roll Handle Animal. Imagine if the wizard with Medicine had veins bulge out on his forehead and go into nerd rage because his academic training in medicine was obviated by a god botherer saying a prayer and curing a disease or blindness instantly.

Imagine, if you will, a terrifying parallel universe in which all players were as much cunts as that guy's rogue player.

>UA content

then again this is a good point

The player in question found that his smites just couldn't keep up, and most of the campaign was levels 1-3.

You're right, I thought it was a cantrip that relied on a failed target save. Does seem pretty good -- ESPECIALLY because a lot of DMs especially like heavy duty melee focused bruisers.

Oh, wait, I might've misunderstood something, if it's as said and they have to spend a spell slot to do it then it's perfectly fine, because they can't use it all the time.

Most enemies are strongest in melee, so good tactics and staying away has great benefit to the party.

I'm sure it affects a bit more than just perception, because not even perception can do as much as seeing through walls.

But as above, it's not overshadowing too much if they have to spend a spell slot to do it. That's much more limiting, encouraging the warlock not to do it all the time and giving them a reason to let somebody else check sometimes.

fine, i will change my stance to "mage hand will always miss creatures" instead of "no you can't attack with mage hand, stop trying to fucking game a cantrip you stupid sack of shit"

Better?

Finding traps was more of a significant element of the warlock than the rogue in this situation, actually, and the warlock sacrificed more to get it.

>so they have to lock down hard on setting those bounds.

The problem with magic lies in 9/9 casting progression types doing whatever they want with just an expended spell slot. A third rate class like a warlock using one of his precious slots just to be a good scout (when the warlock is almost entirely a class about scouting and shooting) is not unreasonable, just because it involves magic.

>drop holy water
>it lands on the ground and breaks
>drop torch
>it lands on the ground and begins burning

Looking at Artificer for a new character.

I've heard people mention using the level 6 Servant as a mount, thought this was the coolest shit, and came up with this.

>Artificer Alchemist
>Servant is Giant Constrictor Snake fluffed into golem suit
>Take Mounted Combatant
>Use Dodge action on my turn, make enemies attack me instead of the snake
>When enemies are grappled by Constrict hit them with acid vials since they have disadvantage on Dex saves

Is there any reason this wouldn't work? I'd say Allosaurus would be good too, but the snek has Blindsight and that shit is a lifesaver.

no, they sacrifice a permanent invocation slot, just to do what the rogue does with one of his many skill slots but better

this is a lot more significant than a spell slot, because the spell slot use could just let him find traps when needed and switch out

But I should probably add on not to undervalue rogue's place as a skillmonkey.

Given their main advantage isn't damage or being able to stun enemies over and over but instead having super beefy skill checks and good dex for stealthiness, it's hardly comparable to someone overshadowing someone's medicine skill, which is always pretty useless.

I'd compare it more to, say, a fighter stealing monk's speed bonus somehow. Except in this case it sounds like they can only steal it at the expense of a pretty precious resource.

Doesn't require a spell slot.

>I'm sure it affects a bit more than just perception, because not even perception can do as much as seeing through walls.

Its like comparing Medicine to the Life domain, or Nature to the Nature domain, and so forth.

The rogue is upset because something he can do for free is being replicated by someone who spent a whole Invocation slot on. ie. he has literally zero valid room for griping

You can swap out invocations on level up just like you can swap out spell slots.

Either way, being able to do this at-will is an insane level of utility if you go in dungeons a lot, and it really trivializes certain aspects of the game.

The rogue spent an entire set of class levels on being good at skills. If they didn't want to be good at messing about with dungeoneering skills, they could have played a different class.

Monk speed is an important feature of the class and more comparable to Cunning Action. This is just a skill the rogue has. He has four skills. What room is there to complain?

>You can swap out invocations on level up just like you can swap out spell slots.

Unless the warlock thinks that there will be traps at level 3 and no traps at level 4, I don't see the problem.

>The rogue spent an entire set of class levels on being good at skills.

The warlock took 2 levels to get 1 invocation, the rogue took 1/2 of one level to POSSIBLY get a boost to Perception, though I don't think we know that.

What a minor thing to gripe about.

>Better?

I mean, you're no longer trying to claim mage hand is sapient, and judges the results of its actions, and can refuse to follow orders, so yeah.

>stop trying to fucking game a cantrip

What's "gaming" to you? Using a spell for anything other than the most obvious and straightforward purpose?

Now, what about Arcane Trickster's mage hand. If I can stow an object in your pockets without being noticed, I can probably get a vial over your head without being noticed, right?

>Most enemies are strongest in melee, so good tactics and staying away has great benefit to the party.

Its especially good in campaigns which abide by default encounter formulas too.

Schwasbuckler needs to max charisma?

Well, you can attack with things that are not attacking things, such as picking up a chair and dropping it on someone's head

For a "holy water on a vampire" drop with mage hand, maybe I'd rule an improvised weapon attack with your spell casting ability MOD against whatever the thing you were trying to interact with

no more than a monk needs to max WIS

So yes?

>mfw my DM thinks Warlocks being able to do a bunch of stuff at will and stuff like being able to see through Darkness is "really OP because utility". Their favorite class is Wizard.

It's in my best interest to just not bring it up I think.

Well, as the fp-Warlock player, I didn't even know that I could swap invocations. Somehow had missed that.

I have basically specced all of my Invocations to my character's eyes, save for thirsting blade because I'm a bladelock (Was allowed to use a crossbow as a pact weapon). It's basically my character's schtick (Devil's sight, Eyes of the Runekeeperand now Gaze of Khirad).

I am not planning on changing the invocations anyway, to be entirely honest.

>can be milked for poison

>crossbow as a pact weapon

B-but

Eldritch Blast

Rogue having 4 skills and being a "skill guy" is also a class feature. It's not at all comparable to a wizard using medicine. More comparable to like, a barbarian doing something that trivializes one of the wizard's spells.

Uhhh, no.
Why would you think that?

Rogues get four skills, expertise, reliable talent, thieves' tools proficiency, low ability dependence (only really needs con and dex, can put a tertiary skill somewhere for better skill checks) along with that being light armour+high dex giving them good stealth checks for scouting. They get things like advantage on stealth (thief) or bonus action hide actions or moving faster or this and that. Evasion to help them avoid certain traps.
It's easily more than just a monk speed boost, there are several features that help towards dungeoneering that are all made at least half obsolete when you get someone on the scene who can
>Map out all of the dungeon within 30ft, locate all hidden loot and treasure
>Map out the location of all enemies within 30ft (providing enemies count as objects, which I hope they do)
>Map out the location of most mechanical traps built into the dungeon (they'd leave very obvious impressions in the dungeon's design)

And all of this without even really needing skill checks providing no monster is actively hiding, unless the DM's trying to nerf the feature.

Even if the rogue specializes in something OTHER than dungeoneering such as social interaction, I can see them getting pissed at this because to me it looks pretty overpowered as a single invocation instead of, say, 'detect magic at will'.
Even if the rogue didn't always be the one who found the traps before, the warlock's stealing all the glory.

It's pretty retarded of him but with the new UA Invocations it's at least somewhat less so since you can make your hand crossbow into a +3 hand crossbow.

Still objectively worse than EB unless he basically lives inside an anti-magic field.

>Rogues POSSIBLY want expertise

If you don't want expertise, you probably don't want to play a rogue. You probably want to play a monk or something.
If you don't take advantage of rogue's out of combat features, you'll end up pretty weak.

Also, again, it's not just perception. There are several skills you need to scout a dungeon effectively without getting fucked over by everything.

Want to peek around the corner? Stealth, maybe perception, maybe some saves if you set things off, maybe some running, maybe some investigation if you see things...

Want to peek around corner as a warlock? Just ask the DM to tell you everything that's there.

>Religion is Intelligence
>Medicine is Wisdom
Well I find that a bit counterintuitive. Anyway, a cleric is fairly likely to have the same Perception score, and a wizard the same Investigation score, as a rogue who is specialized in either.

>More comparable to like, a barbarian doing something that trivializes one of the wizard's spells.

Again, we are talking about a trifling minor element of the rogue he got at level 1 (1/2 a 1 level ability) vs something he got for 2 levels.

The only grey area is that its Unearthed Arcana japing jack fuckery but its not remotely stepping on the rogue's toes, and we don't even know that the rogue picked Perception as an expertise skill. Even then, Perception is still the most frequently rolled skill around, and would still come in handy for everything that is not Perception to see through a solid object (wut).

Do you lose the spell slot when you use Divine Smite and then whiff the attack?
>when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack
tells me that it only goes off and costs a slot if you hit, but dm insists otherwise

>Again, we are talking about a trifling minor element of the rogue he got at level 1 (1/2 a 1 level ability) vs something he got for 2 levels.

What? Are you fucking for real? I don't think I could come up with a stupider way of looking at this.

Better than that - you don't even have to decide to use it until you know you've already hit.

>Again, we are talking about a trifling minor element of the rogue he got at level 1 (1/2 a 1 level ability) vs something he got for 2 levels.

a wizard definitely has more spells than a rogue has skills.

>Religion is Intelligence
>Medicine is Wisdom
Well I find that a bit counterintuitive.

Agreed, my 2edgy fedora-tipping wizard character who has no use for divine beings has a positive religion score just because of his INT. Of course, I'm the kind of person who thinks a 20-STR, 6-CHA half-orc should be good at intimidating people, but what do I know?

>Anyway, a cleric is fairly likely to have the same Perception score, and a wizard the same Investigation score, as a rogue who is specialized in either.

Yeah, but can either of them scout ahead, peak around the corner without being seen, AND investigate? Maybe the wizard, but it's not going to be ab at-will ability for him.

>It's easily more than just a monk speed boost,

A small proportion of a single skill that the rogue is likely to use. So yeah, its a trifling concern, less than a monk's speed boost.

>a whole lot of stuff

The only thing being obviated is that the warlock's perspective is being able to scout as if he is on a flat featureless astral plain. As with most japing jack fuckery of UA, the ability is horrendously explained and its not at all clear how to determine what effect getting to see through solid objects would have.

I'm pretty sure objects are objects, and creatures are creatures. Both are defined game terms.

>the warlock's stealing all the glory

Entitlement mentality over about one of his 4 skill picks being slightly undermined is not the warlock player's fault, and ideally the DM should ignore that sort of cuntishness.

>And all of this without even really needing skill checks providing no monster is actively hiding, unless the DM's trying to nerf the feature.

What? Bullshit. Why would it negate hiding?

>Why would it negate hiding?

How do you hide behind something that I can see through?

My entire group has trouble roleplaying, myself included. We're a mixture of super close friends and seatfillers and, while I try to roleplay, the sessions usually end up devolving into our inside jokes and simply rolling to do shit. While this still is pretty fun, I was looking for some tips to help "get into it" better. Any advice?

>survival feature of the game
This game has no survival feature. There's just a skill called "survival" and rations listed at 5sp a day.
Even if you ended up stranded in the wilderness, casters can create food and water from nothing.
If someone feels like a big boy wilderness survivalist because they took the 1 level ranger dip it's actually funny.