/5eg/ Fifth Edition General:

Yeah, I figured bard would make a lot more sense, though replacing the instrument with something a bit more fitting, like cards or even the top hat.
What are some good fitting spells/good bard spells in general? I will be lore bard, and will get counterspell and such but what are some other necessities?

My main question was the second one, do s anyone have experience playing an over the top character in a group that doesn't get hella into character? Does it help or is it cringy? We're all new I'm trying to get everyone in a bit more

What are your takes on the UA of the new paladin oaths? Sadly missed the general talk of it when it came out.

Treachery: Stupid OP level 20 ability
Conquest: Boring

Sadly not a good chunk of the campaigns reach 20.

Edgy and only meant for NPCs and idiots who actually run evil campaigns.

edgy bullshit that didn't fit the paladin class at all.

Weak and better to just stick with the original oaths and Crown.

Late to respond, but the idea is that alignment doesn't actually affect those things.

Somebody's not going to say 'This guy's evil, so they're a dick.'
They tell whether or not you're evil by interracting with you.

Probably the only exception is pixies which can make you on touch make a DC 10 charisma save or else they find out your alignment.

With some reflavouring they can work. I made the Treachery Paladins in the Goldpact from Pillars of eternity.

Conquest feels alright for something similar to an edgy Crown Paladin.

Conquest: Plain, nothing awfully special.
Treachery: Almost every single ability is about giving you advantage. Spell list is good. Pretty much a slightly better vengenace paladin. Could've been done better.

So out of all the archetype UAs, which options are the good ones? Or are there too many too list?

My favorite role of alignment is that if you perform actions seriously against your alignment, retribution is far worse and more prevalent, and generally the gods/fate approves more of people doing actions within their alignment.

So in other words, good people performing brutal murders is going to cause revenants and ghosts to form more frequently, evil types are more likely to be given missions by fiends or evil gods and result in more anger if they disobey, while if a fiend attempts to coerce or tempt a good person they are more likely to laugh it off if they disobey (they were merely pretending).

So we got a new guy joining who's a Warlock, my oath of conquest paladin grew up in a place that was pretty much fantasy Gotham because of Warlocks.

What's a good way of RPing my distrust without being overtly adversarial, for the sake of not shitting the group up? Do I just just restrain my PC's urge to subjugate because he'll be a useful asset or some shit?

I've been playing the same campaign for 2 and a half years, and we're only at level 12. We started at level 3. Is this the DM being stingy?

We don't use xp, we level up when the DM says we do.

Question him, keep on eye on his actions and do your own investigations into his motives.Don't go willingly with his ways.

Dominate him with your pungent farts.

Seems stingy. I prefer it when players get experience from various things. Hell even more fun when one player goes out of his way to things and ends up more rewarded in xp without realizing it.

Most Warlocks hide the fact that they are warlocks. I would say it really depends on how he plays his character.

Maybe there is room for character development, with your character slowly realizing that warlocks made their pacts for different reasons, some are good others are evil.

Hm. I suppose. If it's a case of 'acting against your alignment has some weird karma consequences, but you're not told 'YOU MUST CHANGE ALIGNMENT NOW''
And players can switch alignment with some sort of odd ritual somehow. Maybe.

So alignment is a 'This is how you've chosen to live life, don't fuck itup.'

But how do you judge a true neutral character? They might do a bit of everything
But how do you punish an evil character? If you do a good deed as an evil character, does it get no reward, or what?

Not a lot of good ones.
Tranquility monk.
Stone sorcerer.
...I really can't think of anything else.

Charm person can 'win' a combat if you do it right.

>Charm person without anyone noticing
>Guy becomes friend
>Guy then convinces teammates to stop fighting his friends
>You all pass without a fight
However, you'll likely have to do a bit of acting, because they might notice
>Okay, you're saying these guys are your friends, but you only met them just now? Are you sure about that?

I'm about to start up a new campaign, and I'd like to ease back into DMing with pregens. Do you think it's worth waiting for Yawning Portal, or should I just pick up one of the existing modules?

We have a pdf in the mega already. Under adventures.

My group plays with a guy who's literally a diagnosed autistic. He has trouble with things like social cues, reading what is and isn't appropriate, and remembering the rules.

What's the best way to give him a hand, if there is one? He's our friend, so we all try to help him along in our own way, but it occurred to me that none of us are even tangentially involved in a field that'd inform us of how to best help a guy like him to function in a social setting.

>But how do you judge a true neutral character? They might do a bit of everything

Exactly. The idea came to me from ADOM, in which a Chaotic character can rob stores while a Lawful character becomes cursed for so doing, etc.

While in AD&D True Neutral is more brutal (by AD&D standards, typically their Good is more like our Neutral, their Neutral is more like our Evil), IMC Neutral is more "both CE and Neutral are "I do what I want" on some level but a Neutral char has limits. Fiends tend to be more... neutral to them, and likewise, killing a merchant to take his possessions probably will result in retribution, but they can be more trigger happy.

>But how do you punish an evil character? If you do a good deed as an evil character, does it get no reward, or what?

Good and Evil aren't symmetrical: Good characters acknowledge Evil and avoid Evil acts. Evil characters do not normally acknowledge Good (they tend to think of themselves as such or that Good people are deceiving them, etc). Instead, fiends and dark gods get an impression that Evil types are their "property" and expect compliance. They have a sixth sense about whose souls will become their property after death, so, paradoxically, fiends have much less patience with Evil types than Good types.

Obviously they will still kill Good characters where necessary, but they tend to get a vague, difficult to pin down idea that Good types are under some sort of higher protection and that killing them is less desirable, and don't seriously expect compliance, while they expect Evil types to work with them and are likely to lose their shit if an Evil type tells them no. Its not conscious enough that they can glance at a party and say "Oh, you got an Evil dude, how do you like them apples, Mr Paladin?" though.

Veeky Forums I'm really bored.

Is Planescape Torment good? Can I install it and play straight away or do I need to get mods or whatever for it? Also, where would you suggest I get a decent torrent for it?

Cheers for the advice, I think I could see him being on constant guard for a while, refusing to let new guy do petty stuff like take watch or cook food before warming up once he's got a good idea of the motives and background of Warlock.
Also true that he might not be aware that the guy is a Warlock and not some other magic man but I've got a good enough understanding of the "signs" of a dark magic user.

Just see how things go I guess

Just make him play as a wizard and he sounds perfect rp wise.

then you guys try to dm and level people up after every session and give magic items out like candy and wonder when your players get sick of it after a few games and leave because it takes away from the sense of accomplishment when you level up at appropriate times

your dm is good and youre a faggot

>And players can switch alignment with some sort of odd ritual somehow. Maybe.

If the PC consistently acts in accordance with a new alignment, the DM can propose alignment change, for example.

>after every session
>not having a constructive plan
>giving out magic items like candy ever instead of various stages after hard runs in critical moments in the campaign as you close it out

It's like you can't dm or your players are shit.

its the vibe i get from these retards that they would play games like that

>le im only level tweeelve!

fucktard wants his campaign to end or doesnt realize just how bad high level play is

Take your UA paladin oaths and shove it you whiny bitch.

It's good. If you can't find a good torrent or can't find a way to make it work on a current PC, they sell a compatible version for like $10 on Gog.

>fucktard wants his campaign to end or doesnt realize just how bad high level play is
Or maybe he feels like the campaign is getting stale because there's little sense of progression or advancement.

So how is caster supremacy in 5e? I really wanted to go barbarian but I fear being overshadowed by casters.

then maybe he should roleplay or start a new campaign

Oh really? I thought it wasn't released yet. Thanks, user, I'll give it a look when I get home.

Anyone have any thoughts on it so far?

It's not that bad. You do run into situations where casters can skip encounters by flying/scrying/teleporting/turning into birds/turning into gas, but the concentration rules limit them. Martials do more damage, and barbarians in particular are practically impossible to kill.

read the book and use your brain

martials are fine in 5e and the only casters you have to worry about outshining you is bard and wizard and its only outside of combat with a competent player

This is probably a dumb question, but where do I find rules for putting gear on my Necromancer's skellingtons?

It's a meme.
In combat, casters do the set-up, martials clean up. Sometimes the set-up is very effective (all enemies fail a save vs hypnotic pattern), sometimes the clean-up is (paladin smites away the boss on the first round), but the roles are pretty well defined. In 4e terms, Martials are Strikers (some build can hybrid Defend), Casters are Controllers/Leaders.
Out of combat, casters still more variety, and it only increases as they level up, while martials have to rely on skills and magic items.

They're exactly what you'd expect. The exact ports just with 5e rules.

I personally love Sunless Citadel and it's my go to level 1 adventure if most people there haven't played it.

Your DM

But then what's the point of punishing them for acting outside their alignment if you just put them as their new alignment so they shouldn't be punished for it?

It's 'Okay, I'm going to punish you but then your alignment will change after the fact?'
Which is really most punishing to people who keep switching between two alignments, which is probably harsh on morally grey characters.

Fair enough. Was hoping to have something to point to to show him. Has anyone done this? Does it break the game if I give my skellington chain and shield for 18 AC?

Aye, casters aren't going to out damage you. Casters at everything else? Probably. As long as they didn't spec evoker with a spell list of 'magic missile, chromatic orb, witch bolt' or something. In which case they're just useless.

If you care about combat worry about the Fighter absolutely outshining you at everything though.

This is why punishing people for acting against their alignments is stupid. Alignments are just a representation of their actions over time, ie characters who act predominantly lawful and good are lawful good aligned, characters who act predominantly chaotic and neither good nor evil are chaotic neutral etc. The only "punishment" should be if your LG character starts acting Evil, people will treat them like they're Evil.

As long as you kept it to a few skele's I can't see anything going wrong.

I dm SKT for a group that includes a necromancer. From my experience it doesn't break anything.

AOEs are still the most dangerous things for you skeletons. The most effective way to use them is giving them crossbows. Necromancer trade utility and control for dpr and the ability to easily block paths with his skeletons.

Depends.

1. Does your DM make you do the appropriate number of encounters in a day?
2. Does your DM ensure you can't just say 'fuck that' and rest at every opportunity?
3. Are you playing at very high levels?
4. Do out of combat problems often require special abilities to solve?
5. Does the DM not give the martials any interesting magical items/weapons/etc?
6. Does the DM shut down improvised actions?
7. Are the people playing casters really good and know what they're doing?
8. Does your DM allow bullshit to cover, say, a wizard's flaws by taking a level of cleric for up to +10 AC?
9. Does your DM play monsters like idiots and never break the spellcaster's concentration?
10. Does your DM run by base 'You heal 1 HP and then you're up again' rules?
11. Does your DM run moon druids as meatshields at certain levels?
12. Does your DM disallow feats?
13. Does your DM focus a lot on non-combat interaction?
14. Does your DM leave little to interact with in the environment in the first place including cover?

As a general thing, the more you say 'yes' to the more caster supremacy is a thing.

Thanks guys.

Then, there's no point to having players switch alignment. It does not actually do anything, therefore, it's merely a tag that loosely defines a player's idea of their character.

>2. Does your DM ensure you can't just say 'fuck that' and rest at every opportunity?
I think this hurts casters more. A Fighter and Rogue will always be the best when denied rests for a while, followed by Warlock and other Martials.

We've got Drow in the PHB, Svirfneblin in EE, and Deurgar in SCAG.

What other Underdark races should be playable?
Derro, Rockseer Elves, Kuo Toa, Grimlock, Quaggoth?

Skellingtons are crazy powerful if done right. The had parts are the set-up and keeping it away from authorities beating down upon you, and protecting your minions from AoEs.

Globe of invulnerability and counterspell and other spells can protect your minions from AoEs while you command your skeleton army to land 50 attacks per turn on your enemies from a distance, cucking the martials entirely.

For most of the game, martials are going to do much better in combat than casters.

Out of combat, and past mid-levels, casters are going to bend the game over their knee and call it a bitch, if the DM doesn't reign them in appropriately. And by Casters I mean Wizards and Sorcerers. I've seen it suggested a couple of other places to limit wizards to only two schools of magic and limit sorcerers to bloodline-appropriate spells, and I'm pretty eager to try this in my next game actually. As brutal of a nerf as it sounds, you have to consider each and every school of magic can warp reality and break the game in a way martials and half-casters usually can't even come close to, and forcing caster players to play a theme or a specialty is probably good for roleplaying anyway.

Right, yes, it should be 'Does your DM allow the wizards to just say 'fuck that' and rest whenever they want'

I might've slipped up somewhere else too because all the double negatives are getting to my head.

They need to add in fresh races soon as far as I'm concerned. Remaking old content is all good but I'd love to see some new stuff popping up and a new setting. Also if they ever do make a new setting with an Underdark, there better be Dark Halflings.

At this rate 5e is just a fixed 3.5e with nothing unique. Even though I do love the game.

>Sorcerers
>Good out of combat

They have fuck all for spells, and even less spell slots per day than a wizard if they use their metamagic on twinning and such, as well as not having truckloads of rituals like wizards get and having limited spell selection.

Yes, that's what alignment is. A tag that loosely defines a player's idea of the character.
That said, there are magic items that can only be attuned by people of certain alignments, and if you act Evil people will treat you like you're Evil, which can have consequences, but overall it's just a descriptor of the character's personality and actions.

But what if I pick a Lore Wizard and think sticking to one school is for fags

>At this rate 5e is just a fixed 3.5e with nothing unique.
That... was the point of the new edition, wasn't it?

Yeah, I really feel people need to stop the one hour work day by being better in character. I had a party and the Wizard always wanted to leave, rest and come back. I fixed it by saying that I'm not fucking around for a week and going in. Also I'm only sharing loot with people who follow me, so he sat outside, got no loot, no fun and no experience.

He now only asks we rest when he's low on juice and I'm happy to oblige.

I don't completely agree. It is true that Necromancer have really high dpr but you have almost no other spellslots for things like counterspelling left. And unlike most martials taking blows to your skeleton army does make you significantly weaker. The caster also needs multiple days to get to his full strenght again, and you can't make full use of your army in tight rooms or most dungeons. Ontop of that skeletons have a hard time hitting high AC targets, so you have to rely on their crits.

I say that the pros and cons balance each other out.

Does anyone NOT let sorcerers and wizards share spell lists? Aside from some of the difference being downright retarded (Only wizards get waterbreathing, but only sorcerers get waterwalk), it's a well-known fact that the sorcerer spell list is a straight downgrade from the wizard list in almost every respect.

Every edition up until had new content I believe. It's kinda getting stale seeing "One hundred adventures and races on the Sword Coast, coming out with 2 a year".

Seriously add in an adventure with a 20 page writing on a new setting in it and I'll buy it.

>What other Underdark races should be playable?

None of them. Enough with this "moar playable races" meme.

You do not need to be playing a new race. In fact most of these new races, do not need to exist at all. They are monsters. They are literal fucking demonspawn. They do not make for good characters. If you feel the need to play a KuoToa, a grimlock, a quaggoth, all of whom would probably kill each other on sight realistically, speaking, then I ask the question: why? Why do you need to play that? You don't. And it just puts more work on the DM to fit these together.

D&D is not Star Wars. You don't have a freakshow of 200 different races wandering around. It makes no fucking sense for every goddamn kingdom just about to be a new race of people. 90% of the people in the world, are human. Yes, human. Maybe less, and orcs being the second most numerous. After that? Halflings, some elves, some dwarves, some gnomes. After that? Maybe 0.1% of the surface world are the other races. And we're talking stuff the characters actually are allowed to play.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's cool to introduce the new party member as a gnoll member of the tribe the PCs are fighting who switches to their side because he has an actual moral compass. But, just piling on extra playable races to make up for this edition's otherwise-hollow chargen options? No thanks. You are playing wrong. Deal with it.

True, but sorcs still have fewer spells known than wizards can prepare.

I'd almost agree with you if the setting wasn't Faerun, which is entirely populated by snowflakes looking to throw off the oppressive label of their "evil" race.

This is pretty true. I think we already have every Forgotten Realms race that is reasonable to expect as an adventurer (I'd say they haven't done Gnolls yet but that isn't going to happen).

Any other cases of race are small things that will almost never be good or helpful and are pretty much something you should homebrew instead.

>hurr hurr only the races I like should be adventurers; none of the other races could possibly see any benefit in adventuring and getting treasure from other races

Boooooring.

If my party want to be gith spacejammer pirates that crashed into Faerun then that's what they'll get to be. You're just a huge faggot. Who cares if they introduce more races in splatbooks for people to play as? No one is forcing you to use them. You can just keep jerking off to the same old Human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfing LotR trite party endlessly if you want - doesn't mean anyone else is playing wrong.

Don't respond to this guy. He's prone to shitting up entire threads if you do.

Is Mystic OP?

Does it matter? It's a stupid class that makes less thematically than Monks.

In before retards wank about Dark Sun

If you blow all your daily resources it can slaughter a dragon pretty fast
It also has a lot of versatility
Still not wizard/bard tier

How is it being better in character to want to risk your life?

Unless your character has a death wish, it is clearly much, much better to head in, nuke everything, go outside and rest. Anything else is pushing yourself until you put yourself in danger of death.

As such, you need things that curb this behaviour from the DM:
>Entry fees
>Respawns
>Dungeon development and trap laying where adventurers are expected to be

It still doesn't help a lot, but it's honestly something that should have been done considering it's simpler than trying to make a special sorcerer list.

However, the sorcerer list does make it easier for new players to browse their spells. That's what sorcerer is - Wizard Easy Mode for new players.

Resources keep me grounded.

Pretty shitty desu. Some of the higher level abilities are pretty good, but they're essentially a crappier bard/rogue/wizard substitute. If you already have one in the party, they're undershadowed, and if you don't have one in the party, they'd be better than a Mystic.

Some combos are (Animate Weapon?), but in general? Not really.
It's different, but not broken.

When will Violet Fungus be a playable race?

The way it's intended, it's not OP. However it's written so horribly that there are a million ways to exploit it.

And while not necessarily OP, it's a pain in the dick to deal with as a DM, particularly the part where their abilities never have any components and can't be counter-spell'd because they're not spells. (They also bypass any magic-defenses that specify SPELLS like Abjurationist's later-level abilities.)

Also psychic powers is shit that belongs in scifi and Pokemon, not DnD.

How sun sensible would it be?

They seem like babies first homebrew.

"ohh you have this resource! that you can use! that you can make yourself into like an animal! but youre not a real animal, like not furry n stuff, but you can make yourself claws that go SHAAAH! and like you can talk to peoples minds and you can like use jedi powers n stuff! omg and like youre not a stupid wizard you can actually like use armor n stuff and have a cool sword! omg and you can make people be your friends even if they dont want to! and everyone has to do what you say!"

It is retarded desu.

>How is it being better in character to want to risk your life?
My guy's a sellsword. Someone is paying me money to get the mcguffin and I know we can get it without the Wizard because without him we still have me a Fighter, a Rogue, a Druid and a Warlock. So why would we spend a week waiting for him when we can do it in a day and move on to the next job? More money in less time that way.

If there's out of character reason to get it done (Which any player can find one) and you're all very burst happy long rest characters then it makes sense. But a paladin that spends 90% of his time sitting on his ass doing nothing and 10% fighting evil isn't a very good Paladin.

I agree with this user, this shit has to stop.

This... just sounds like a Druid.

Am I the only one who tries to make a character around miniatures that I have?

I'd like a pseudo-werebeast Druid subclass.

Alright, anons, how will Mearls disappoint us today?

This

Moon druids get Alter self at will in higher levels