/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General: Mystic MondayEdition

I get it, I do, but how do these people comprehend paladins in that case? I guess my problem is that I'm insisting on grognards to be reasonable. I wonder what their arbitrary definition of a Good Build is in this case.

For reference, I think mine is fairly good - it's not one that gets mentioned a lot on the online optimization conversations. It's a pretty munchkiny build, don't get me wrong - polearm master and sentinel feats have crazy synergy but it's just so cheesy. That being said, having 20 AC with Blur up and Shielding anything that gets through makes me nigh-unhittable. And when it's my turn I get three attacks at +8 for 1d10+5/1d10+5/1d4+5 and action surge is nasty as always.

But I didn't come here just to brag about my build, or get called a faggot for not using the SCAG cantrips (although I welcome it). Any thoughts?

I'm a bit of an autist, so rather than call the place and ask, can anyone give me the brief rundown of what DnD Encounters are and how they are usually done?

A shop near me hosts bi-weekly Encounters and I just assume they are small, short campaigns with whom ever is going to be playing that night.

Are they with set characters in order to not have leveling issues or are the nights always started with new characters?

Encounters are part of Adventurer's League I believe. You play with the same character each time (unless you decide to use a different one for whatever reason) and you record the XP and gold obtained on a logsheet.

So what happens if you show up with your Lv 7 character and the other people play as a group and are all 17s?

Or you have a Lv 13 and a there are five other people that are between 3 and 8?

Do you think once WC is satisfied with Ranger Revised they'll give Monk (esp Elemental) a helping hand?

>mearls
>willingly making monks better
Not on your life

There are four tiers of play: 1-4. 5-10, 11-16, 17-20. These are usually called tiers 1-4. Most AL uses a website called Warhorn to RSVP seats to tables, and it's there that you can see what tiers are being run and if your character can fit into any of them.

Hit me with more AL questions if you like - I just played an AL adventure earlier today at my FLGS. Alternatively, you can find the rundown at dnd.wizards.com/playevents/organized-play

So, Tiamat is really poorly designed. How would you make her statblock better?

First identify what parts of her you think are poorly-designed, then we can talk.

Very unlikely.

The only well designed bits of her statblock are her ability scores and limited magic immunity.

>Make monk a d12 class
>???
>Done

Thanks! A game shop in my city hosts 5e Encounters on every other Wednesdays but their website doesn't really have any other details.

I used to play ADnD years ago and I thought about swinging by the shop but I only really have a rough understanding of 5e and I only really build Lv1 characters.

So other then Beast Bond are there any good spells Beastmasters can use to buff their pet?

Does anybody have some sort of image compilation or just save file of the most successful Dorf Forts? My dwarfs inhabit an continent sprawling mountain range on the western side of the world, split into a minor clans/guilds throughout based on latitude and depth , so I want to give them really detailed mountainhomes should the players ever go beneath the ground.

>Mystic

Common now... isn't that really just a bard... ?

Someone mentioned the other day a Warlock 5 or 6/Necromancer Wiz X.

Would this actually be worth it compared to a normal Necromancer? I mean extra Animate Deads is cool and all but no high level spells is kinda a major flaw.

Or would WIZ6/WLK X be better?

Oh and I forgot a third option- Oathbreaker/Warlock 5 or 6

So, perhaps wrong thread. But tell me this DM's Pirate beholder. Give me ideas for abilities, stats, etc

Am I doing the math right here?

If I'm a level 3 Goblin Rogue (Assassin), and I surprise someone with a sneak attack and apply Fury of the Small then basically :

My Assassinate ability triggers, making it auto-crit

So my normal sneak attack, which should be a 1d8 + 2d6, crits, before bonus modifiers are added on so

2d8 + 4d6 + Dex mod + Fury of the Small mod?

So my party is about to face Ogremoch as the final boss in Princes of the Apocalypse. Anybody here run this guy? How'd it go? Any pointers?

>make monk a half-caster with limited elemental-themed spell list
Elemental is fixed. I know that loses the ki flavor, but it also puts it on the same power level as AT and EK, and no one really bitches about those too loudly. Either that or give avatar monks a buttload more ki.

Would there be anything inherently unbalanced about allowing a Human Ranger to take a Large creature as their animal companion? Obviously they plan to ride it and use that in combat, but he's agreed not to bitch in the few situations his horse won't be able to follow him in dungeons and shit.

Yep. It seems bonkers at level 3, but Assassinate only triggers once per combat, and you don't really have any other tricks after that, so yeah.

It'll depend on why he wants a Large creature.

If it's to ride, I'd just hand waive it and say the creature's bond means it's used to how the Ranger handles him mid-mount. If it's for the extra damage and mechanical benefits, I'd say no.

If you stat an NPC as a PC, how do their levels generally line up with the challenge ratings? For example, a fighter NPC?

I'm trying to stat up a BBEG for my campaign, and I'm trying to see how it should be done.

I designed a Ranger with a Dire Wolf for that exact purpose, you can make the base Wolf on par with a Dire Wolf after 2 ASIs (one of which you get right after you get the pet) so statwise it's not too big a deal imo, depends how your DM feels about letting you have a mount.

They don't line up at all. PCs/NPCs as "monsters" don't work in 5E because monsters are essentially HP sponges with lame abilities. They're balanced around the fact that 3-5 PCs are going to be wailing away on them every turn.

If you try to use a PC build as a monster against other PCs, it just becomes rocket-tag. Take for example.

If an "enemy PC" goblin rogue backstabbed one of your players and triggered assassinate, it'd be instagib. Players don't have the HP to tolerate optimized attacks on them.

He wants to go for a classic, Ranger of the woods with a bow and a deep connection with his Horse. Another thought I had was to give him the a regular Horse with slight scaling on it's HP and make sure he knows about mount armour.

>a deep connection with his Horse

Abilities:
>Water and Air manipulation obviously
>Freeze Ray
>Ray of Adaption: Polymorphs victims into sea spawn or fish?
>Gold Attractor: A magical magnet the pirate beholder picked up on it's travels and weaponized.

So, basically the normal level 3 assassin.., I don't see why it is bonkers

I see. I guess I can remember shit like that happening back in 3e a lot.

I guess my biggest problem with building the monsters according to the expected challenge is that it really feels like it favours the style of play where you adjust challenges to the PC's level. I like sandboxier stuff more, so I've been kind of struggling with how I could populate the world in a way that feels consistent, and let the players pick their challenges, instead of making it tailored to them specifically.

I guess it's mostly just the matter of having a lot more experience with older editions and not being used to the new one, yet.

And yes, I realize this doesn't really follow logically after I asked about how NPCs match up with PCs. It's just a thought, mostly.

Is this what's wrong with Tiamat and others like her? They're sort of damage sponges but can't hit worth a damn?

What happens if you give the monsters actually decent abilities?

So is Conjuration Wizard worth it? I'm trying to remake an old 2e character who was a Conjurer but it seems rather weak compared to other magic schools.

Hey guys how do I stat a pacifist whose entire character is Matt LeBlanc from Friends?

My cousin is retarded

A lore bard? Maybe a level 1 commoner?

There was an UA for a Path of Tranquility monk, who's specialized in avoiding combat, healing things and whatnot.

Of course, even the baseline monk still excels at pounding faces in. Possibly, a wizard who doesn't have a single offensive spell.

Well, that's part of the hand-holdiness of 5E. If you peel back the fluff and really look at the mechanics, no halfway competent player is ever really in danger, and is essentially a demigod.

TPKs happen.

Hey guys! I've never played 5e but I have my first game coming up soon. I'm a veteran of 4e and I've played a lot of Pathfinder as well. Anything I should know heading in?

You're safe now. You'll never have to play those games again so try not to have PTSD flashbacks.

the fuck is wrong with people kensai is one of the strongest sub-classes in dnd

Hey, 4e wasn't too bad.

5e is lower-powered than 4e and PF, but still enjoyable. What are you playing?

I guess. Kind of disappointing after they talk about how you can totally convert material from 2e or earlier no problem, even though the older stuff pulls far fewer punches and often gives a lot less of a shit about how fair exactly it is.

Still, though, what are some ways to make an enemy (like the BBEG who's supposed to be tough and all) feel like dangerous and nigh-unstoppable? Other than just making them ridiculously overpowered, I mean.

On a sidenote, how competent are the DMG monster building guidelines? Can I just follow them, tweak around what I feel is right and plop that stuff in?

Paladin, Bard, Cleric and Wizard are the best classes. Druids and Fighters are viable with a few meme builds.

Everyone else is ehh. Especially Monks and Rangers.

That's about it.

>in b4 someone wants to defend their garbage pet class

Favorited doesn't mean best user. I voted Tranquility even though I agree Kensai are at that power level where they're fun to play and kick ass, but don't overshadow people.

4e was actually pretty fun. The combat was great, but I prefer to play games in 5e my miles.

guys, give me ideas on how to create an encounter with a flail snail for my 3rd level party. the 10 foot speed sort of screws it over. I will have them going into a abandoned mine teeming with kobolds, and I want to incorporate this monster somehow

The tunnel is flooded with waist deep water. Aside from fucking over halflings, gnomes, and other small dudes, it's difficult terrain, so the party's speed is halved. The snail, as an amphibious aquatic creature, is unaffected.

Don't listen to people like the power level between classes isn't that big when you're actually playing. Just play whatever seems fun, even if it is a shit ranger.

The terrain is treacherous and if they don't move very carefully, they'll fall and get shrekked.

They're fighting in something that slows them down.

The flail snail attacks them when they're climbing down a long way, and thus slow and vulnerable while the snail is just crawling on the wall like nothing.

The kobolds are pushing it around in a wheelbarrow.

Most enemies in 5E :
- either have terrible accuracy and good damage or good accuracy and terrible damage
- have huge HP pools and bad AC

Any party is going to gangbang the enemy. Any dangerous enemy is going to one-shot a player on his turn. There's no real way to balance it out without a lot of railroading or "You need the macguffin to hurt him" kind of solutions, unless you're cool with rocket-tag (I am).

Monster building guidelines are fine but mostly irrelevant as there's already an entire book full of damage sponges to pick from.

Have parties become enamored with rumors of "s-geode" full of all sorts of riches but surrounded by kobolds who are trying to attract a dragon to worship by building a horde. Have, halfway through the players in the dungeon, the kobolds dig too deeply and too greedily, striking what the mine really is: the ESCARGEODE!
Filled with slimes and oozes, the cavern leads deeper into a portal to the elemental plane of ooze/earth.

Get ready to have zero options!

>everything is is ehh
Everything is viable outside of PHB ranger and Wot4E Monks. Bard Cleric and Wizard are undoubtedly the best classes though, you are 100% correct on that count.

Sometimes the simplicity just feels great. I guarantee that you will come to like it more. My prime example has to be 5e's barbarian compared to pathfinder's. The pathfinder barbarian has so much cluttered garbage it's just annoying. 5e understands what every class does and allows them to do it well. It feels like the original D&D, and every class feels unique and like they contribute to the group (except for monks and sorcerers)

Kobolds put all their Tucker Points into a Flail Snail trap that springs at the entrance, slowly pushing them further into the dungeon.The party now needs to both find the treasure they're after, and a way to get past the Flail Snail.

The treasure is a magical salt lick

The players should play smarter. I would've wanted the challenge of facing such a monstrosity and well designed to boot.

Everything from 3.0 onwards removed something that I actually saw a lot of from old AD&D stories and the rulebooks - players taking advantage of terrain and making crazy plans. First time my dad ran a game for me, I defeated an enemy by tripping him down the stairs. I've barred doors to get time to set traps. I don't really see that sort of thing.
I suppose it's because of the Most-Common Idiot factor. DMs didn't know when to hold back, players didn't know how to fight smart, so they made it so you have to work to make a challenge for players, and players don't have to think that hard, just reduce your primary things down to damage per round and dungeon skill challenge utility.
Which is why one guy once screamed at me for putting ranks in a craft skill. It wasn't even his game.

You can actually create what you want and have it actually function well.
4e was pretty good, but you're free from PTSD from the other system now.

I guess I have to think about it a bit and decide how exactly I should do it.

For reasons both good and bad, I came up with the idea of DMing Baldur's Gate to a player who's never played it (I guess I've mentioned it in a couple of threads). It's been going pretty well (we're six sessions in, it's honestly been really fun), but looking at the stuff later on, I'm having to actually think a bit about how I should do some of it. Stuff like statting Sarevok and the like.

I guess I should actually just stop looking at the 2e stats for all that altogether since they're pretty distracting and make me think I should actually consider them in any real way when statting things.

So far, I've mostly gotten by on just using the stuff in the MM and the other books. Baldur's Gate 1 is this weird (but also kind of fun) thing where you have a lot of almost-sandbox wandering, but there's still a main plot and an expected proggression of levels/power. Kind of both, kind of neither.

In hindsight, I maybe should have picked an easier first real 5e campaign to DM. I've DM'd an adventure or two before, but I admit I wasn't exactly prepared for this. Still, it's been a lot of fun and it feels like I'm not fucking up.

>Wot4E Monks

How did WotC fuck that up so badly? Seriously, how? What made them look at it and go "yeah, this is good and competent?"

I had a total fucking novice who's NEVER before played a tabletop game look at the options for his 3rd level monk, and even he thought it looked terrible.

I've been told we're able to use anything legal, but only Volos races (which I'm assuming are like monsters and such?).

The races in Volo's Guide to Monsters are Aasimar, Firbolg (think of the most fucking cliched Noble Native American you can get, now multiply by ten), Goliath, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi and Triton.

If you want something less monstrous, Goliath, Aasimar and Triton are probably the best bets.

Yeah, Volo's races are more monstrous, and some would argue overpowered - save Kobolds, which are pretty underpowered if you ask me..

What the other anons were saying is largely true - unless you purposely build a suboptimal character, pretty much anything you can make in 5e will fall into Pathfinder tiers 3 and 4. Clerics, Bards, and Wizards cat get pretty high in tier 3 and even hit low tier 2, while Rangers and Monks are pretty low tier 4, verging on high tier 5.

Lore Bards are easily T2. Arcana Wizards too, but those are UA.

Hunter Ranger is still 4, Monks except Wot4E are definitely 4 or higher, all Ranger varieties with the newest UA rework are 3 or 4

Yep.

Yeah, the only tier 5s are Beastmaster PHB Rangers and Wot4E Monks.

Can't you still do that in 4e or 5e?
3e probably had mechanics covering it.

I thought they actually adressed the Beastmaster in some UA or something? Gave it some stuff to make it at least viable?

Or was that just some bullshit I've been fed?

They revised the entire ranger class in an UA in September

I honestly feel like the simplicity of 5e is a plus. Means I don't have to navigate a whole mess of rules when my players want to get creative. They get creative a lot, come up with all kinds of plans that have nothing to do with mechanics and utilize the environment in a lot of ways.

If there were actually extensive rules for that, it would feel more restrictive to me. Less is more, in this regard.

It's in the UAs, satan. A bit fucked for multiclassing, but a much better balanced class overall. It actually makes the features feel useful, even though some people complain about "muh specialization", that over-specific bullshit in the PHB is useless far too often.

Care to paraphrase what they changed, exactly? I don't feel like cross-referencing the two versions right now, and I haven't played a ranger or gotten too familiar with it to just eyeball it.

5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/classes.html

cross-referencing should take literally seconds

Monks are already crazy powerful, or at least Open Hand ones are.

Spells are the same. All of the ranger base features are changed from ribbons to actual combat or utility tools/bonuses. Beast ranger now has a pet that scales with level, gets to move and attack in tandem rather than instead of the ranger and can be resurrected easily.

So if we just finished Storm King's Thunder, what happens next? Do we just do new characters

>Oathbreaker/Warlock

Fucking why? I guess theoretically you could get 2x Cha to damage.

And yes, 64 extra skeletons a day has its uses. Usually, those uses are "infuriate everyone else."

Speaking of beastmaster's is there any good feats? I was thinking Sentinel so I can hit people when they attack the pet and going for Sword and Board.

Well since it's already cheesy as fuck you could make those WLK levels Hexblade and be a SAD Oathbreaker with a skellington swarm you damage boost in 10 feet.

>If you stat an NPC as a PC, how do their levels generally line up with the challenge ratings?

There is no correlation.

What makes you think there is something wrong with Tiamat? 356 DPR with bites, claws, and tail, or 163 + 128 with fire + cold breath, 1 bite, 2 claws, and tail, and +19 to hit.

I'm looking for the Race/Class Options. I thought it would be in the MEGA, but I don't see it.

Sentinel with a small race, ride your wolf. The wolf gets constant advantage, but your action economy will be very weird unless your DM fiats you moving and acting in a combined initiative turn. Consider kobolds for constant advantage for both of you because pack tactics

>I guess my biggest problem with building the monsters according to the expected challenge is that it really feels like it favours the style of play where you adjust challenges to the PC's level.

It has nothing to do with it.

And yes, there are indeed monsters that roughly correspond to PC ratios of offense to defense (mages, drow mages, archmages, for example, all have about the same HP of a PC of their casting ability).

There are also monsters even more glass cannony than a PC would be (the CR 7 Warlock of the Fiend).

Nah I've played a beast rider before and it was fun, but I don't want to repeat it. I was going Human and going to take a Stirge as my pet. It can do some weird shit in the action economy because I have control over it and it doesn't say it uses an action to inflict it's blood sucking.

So hit, latch on, latch off, make a reaction attack when I do, latch on, inflict blood drain, latch off, hit and repeat.

>Well, that's part of the hand-holdiness of 5E. If you peel back the fluff and really look at the mechanics, no halfway competent player is ever really in danger, and is essentially a demigod.

Bullshit.

All TSR editions had challenge scaling metrics, right back to 3LBB. The meme of "playin it old skool meant no challenge ratings or proportionate encounters etc" is strictly false.

I mean, I think Tiamat does pretty okay. Even high level characters are going to get duffed up by all those breath weapons and melee attacks. The real thing is that I think 5E, especially at higher levels, just needs more HP - PCs can do shocking amounts of damage to bad guys, and it would make healing more appealing than just saving it all for zombie tanking.

PHB hunter ranger is fine and compares very favorably to a shooty fighter, plus Spike Growth means autowin vs melee and Silence means autowin against magic (as in "you don't get to do stuff, Mr Wizard., you just die").

>Everything from 3.0 onwards removed something that I actually saw a lot of from old AD&D stories and the rulebooks - players taking advantage of terrain and making crazy plans.

That doesn't have anything to do with the edition.

The only Volo's race that's OP is snek. Kobolds aren't underpowered in the least; to the contrary, they have free advantage in virtually all encounters and can give their party free advantage for a round 1 nova.

The only drawback? Str is slightly more of a dumpstat than it would otherwise be.