/5eg/ Fifth Edition General

Give me some good reasons why a bugbear might be non-evil and in with a group of adventurers other than the usual 'brought up by a different race at birth so follows their way of living'

>reasons why a bugbear might be non-evil and in with a group of adventurers
>good

Pick one

He got cursed with an alignment swap

He realized that by not being evil, people are less likely to stick you.

First explain to me why bugbears are "evil"

Because goblinoids only care for themselves

Why does that make someone evil?

The standard bugbear would be doing jackshit most of the day. Why would you want on on your party?

He has above average Intelligence for a Bugbear and barely survives a battle with an adventurer, who then spares him and converses with him, inspiring the Bugbear to stop being a filthy animal and to be an adventurer. Maybe his story arc is "meeting his hero" and being disappointed by it.

If you had a feature that said you can take disadvantage on an attack for extra damage, how much extra damage would make that worthwhile?

Because they generally bully/kill/enslave weaker races and like to beat the shit out of things because its fun

Because objective morality.
If you don't like it, don't use it.

So people say 5e isn't balanced around magic items and you can be as stingy as you want with them without hurting balance.

Is that true? If it is, will I break my campaign by giving out too many?

How do they balance the game around not having items?

Keep in mind when I talk about balance and being effective I don't mean like optimization. As long as shit isn't fucked I'm not big on optimizing.

Objective morality doesn't mean that selfishness is bad.

Disadv is essentially -5 statistically speaking. But then again you would need to factor in the chance of landing a 1 or missing out on a crit because of it.

I don't have an answer for you, but there you go.

It literally does if that's how we choose to define it. Now fuck off and take your bait elsewhere.

Can someone please explain the "new" shatterspike from Tales from the Yawning Portal Sunless Citadel?

Barbarians Reckless Attack equals about a +4.5 to hit. So what's worth taking a -4.5 to hit?

Obviously I'd say less then GWM or Sharpshooter because it's a feature and you can use tricks to gain Advantage and cancel it out. Maybe you can double your damage modifier? So 16 Strength would be a +3, 18 a +4 and 20 a +5. Feels a tad weak though

Siege Sword

Martials need magic items to keep up utility wise. Casters less so.

The balance comes from only being able to "attune" to at most 3 items.

The answer varies depending on the AC of the monster being hit. For a very general proposition, consider the GWM feat. You can take a -5 to attack to get +10 to damage. This is generally considered great.

Disadvantage, when factored into passive perception, is ruled as a -5 to the check. So disadvantage is roughly equivalent to -5.

You can have objective moral theories that don't say selfishness is bad. Objectivism, the one promoted by Ayn Rand, is one such theory.

>will I break my campaign by giving out too many
Depends how many you mean by too many. Giving everyone a couple of uncommon or rare things is fine. Decking the entire party out in legendary and artifacts might cause some problems.
It's also dependant on the party level

>Martials need magic items to keep up utility wise. Casters less so.

Well, there's a reason why there are a trillion magic swords

The only real things to be weary of are things that give a shit ton of AC or bonus to hit. Bonus to hit is a little less of a problem though because you want your players to hit things, generally.

But if your players can never be touched because they have massive ACs, then either you will never touch your PCs, or you ramp up a creatures to hit score to account for it which essentially makes the item worthless.

I say give out magic items, but don't shower them so that they lose value. Try to gauge player interest in magic items and have them genuinely feel like rewards. If you like lots of magic items consider lesser magic items that don't offer a lot of real utility, but they're fun and can potentially have lots of utility if the PCs are smart/the right situation arises.

For example: Bag with a rock - this bag has a rock in it at all times. You can reach into the bag and pull out a rock that fits perfectly in the palm of your hand. As soon as the rock you pull out of the bag leaves your sight, it disappears and another will be inside the bag waiting for you to pull out.

Randomise most of the magic loot. Some people hate it but it will help balance a little bit when the majority of stuff they get are weird utility trinkets.

Most martials will need a +1 weapon somewhere down the line and Spellscrolls for casters.

Volo's standard bugbear would go to the other side of the continent to never see anyone related to or present to their moment of fear and weakness.
If he doesn't, his god will blind him or kill him.
Volo's wise, he HAS to be claimed by another god, but Goblinoids are conditioned from birth to hate any non nature God that isn't their own, so it had to grow in another culture and yadda yadda. Maybe he found a holy symbol of a good god and became a cleric/monk/paladin or embraced the nature and became a druid? Maybe a dark weapon stole his soul from his dark master, making him a Warlock?
It's not "they are selfish" is that if they don't follow their god's will, they will get blinded or killed. And the "service" to them is assassination and martial combat to the death.

The magic swords are the least important things a martial can get.

It's a +1 longsword that autocrits objects and can't be damaged by any mundane objects.

What's hard to understand about it?

>It's not "they are selfish" is that if they don't follow their god's will, they will get blinded or killed. And the "service" to them is assassination and martial combat to the death.
Okay, now we got something:

The bugbear resents what he sees as the divines enslaving him, and works against it, even as he does the minimum required to stay unblinded and unkilled.

What I have in mind is a Barbarian feature, as I'd like a dexbarbarian who makes multiple weak attacks when raging, rather than a few stronger attacks. Something like a dervish.

But are a convenient illustration of a larger point.
Martials are supposed to get magic shit. If your DM doesn't give your martials magic shit, you should be cross

What are the more important things to get? I've always felt that bypassing mundane weapon resistance/immunity is the top priority for a martial, in terms of obtaining magic items

Eh, personally I think the whole "DEX barbarian" idea works better if you give Fighter a subclass that gets a shittier version of rage. Basically give the damage boost and maybe some protective stuff but let it all work with Dex.

I don't think you know what objective means.

In most D&D cosmologies morality is a metaphysical construct that's above humans (If it's generated by the gods then it's technically not objective, see Euthyphro Dilemma).

It doesn't matter what humans say or believe, in most settings the universe says selfishness is evil. So if we're talking about D&D alignments then yes, being selfish makes goblinoids evil.

In our world there isn't objective morality. Ayn Rand's objectivism isn't objectively correct, even if it's called objectivism.
Autists aren't able to conceive of worldviews other than their own which is why they feel the need to do stupid fedora-tipping shit in RPGs, like arguing about hypothetical game moralities or playing clerics of atheism.

items that give you options in the 2/3rds of the game that aren't combat. Boots of Levitation is a good example.

>level 10
>casters obtained custom magic items that give them +1 to spell saves and attacks, among other things
>ranger is still using a standard longbow
I feel bad for them

so i can use it to break doors and shit?
how much HP do doors have?

Depends

Thanks for replying for me, but lets leave him be. I don't want this thread devolving into arguments about alignment.
The simple solution is that if they don't like it, then they shouldn't use it. Even if they'll never be able to grasp this as a solution.

>how much HP do doors have?
5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/rules.html#Objects

Wooden door: AC 15, 5d10 HP (likely resistant to some physical damage)
Iron door: AC 19, 5d10 HP (likely resistant to most damage)

Thanks user. Sword seems ok now.

I don't think you understand what objective morality means.

Objectivism, if true, would be an objective morality, since the principles of that morality are universal.

Contrast Moral Relativism, where the right and wrong of a situation can depend on your culture.

A theory can be Objective in nature, and not known to be true or false. Similarly, a false theory can be Objective in nature and erroneously thought to be true.

in the context of this discussion, the predominant moral theory in the DnD setting could be one of these false theories that is widely believed to be true (in universe). It is still an objective theory, just an incorrect one.

So I'm starting a new game this sunday. I'm going to be a blind mage - ostensibly a neutral abjurer, in reality an evil necromancer working for the bounty hunters chasing the party. DM says he digs the idea.

How can I keep up my facade in case anyone asks why I don't seem to be doing much Abjuring at all? Do you think this kind of stuff could end up causing IRL problems with the other players? I intend to go to their side eventually.

Signs that The Brothers are displeased but not enough to cripple/kill would be:
>The Bugbear is vigorous.
>The dead heads of the enemies slain by his hands scream and insult him.
>The enemy of The Brothers, The God of Fear, blesses him.
>The eyes of the dead refuse to look at him.

What class in 5e is best suited for a dervish archetype?

Tell the players the truth but not their characters.

Either Fighter or Spell-less Ranger

>in the context of this discussion, the predominant moral theory in the DnD setting could be one of these false theories that is widely believed to be true (in universe). It is still an objective theory, just an incorrect one.

Here's the problem in the game the gods of good adhere to the tenants because they are good. Therefore in an objective setting of D&D your argument is invalid because it was written to be a universal truth that was discovered and taught.

If you want your setting to be different that is fine, but in the context truest to the game you are objectively wrong.

Ranger can do it already with the right choices.

Flavor wise, barbarian is the correct option. The poster who responded to you is stupid.

Swashbuckler? Sword College Bard? Fighter?

In the context of the game, good/evil are alien forces, as relevant to morality as Cthulhu would be in lovecraft. Their cults which you just mentioned, are similarly situated.

Makes your initiative worse, and doesn't help one of the most used saves in the game.
I don't see why it couldn't be done for a different flavor, it would make you any better, but if you think it's worth it more power to you.

>Tell the players the truth but not their characters

I do not trust them enough not to 'accidentally' let me die

Hey, if I was to let a player play Spell-less Ranger (which I really want to do, they look cool as fuck and keep the party from becoming too spell-dependent), should I have them use the Favored Terrain shit, or the Revised Ranger's Natural Explorer? It looks pretty powerful, but the player is set on it.

just let them replace dex with str for the purposes of str checks

Oh my god you people are the fucking worst.
Fuck off. No one cares about your stupid arguments about morality.

Natural explorer is much better, and as a DM you won't feel like you need to shoehorn in their favored terrain to make them feel relevant.

tips for roleplaying a knight character?

Do more Abjuring. You're a wizard harry, it's just spell preparation.

Take the Knight option for Fighter, Protection fighting style to save princesses and use a Sword and Shield to hunt dragons.

Buy a horse.

Good is not Nice.

I feel like that would be too much, as they now have all the good stuff from both DEX and STR without investing in STR.

Whenever you're making plans about how to deal with BBEG remember to ALWAYS insist first and foremost that you should dig a moat.

obviously you care!

Yeah, but over three quarters of all magic item in the DMG are amor, ammunition, melee and ranged weapons. Okay, and potions, which are one-size fits all.

... Wow. Those sorts of abilities never fail to amaze me.
That perception one.
1. You must hit.
2. You must crit (It's possible to crit on non-auto-hit numbers, so this isn't included as a part of hitting)
3. The enemy must fail a save
4. The enemy must roll a perception check (This takes an entire action during combat)
5. The enemy must roll on their disadvantage die lower than their other roll.

You know, at the very least you could kick off the save part of it so they automatically have disadvantage.
You know the 'friends' cantrip? Gives somebody advantage on charisma checks against someone. The target doesn't get a save.

Have the bard bang together coconuts behind you whenever you're traveling.

But are there evil characters that are nice?

Do belts of giant strength just make you magically stronger or do they make you insanely ripped magically

yeah, that's a system flaw. The game says 2/3rds should be noncombat, but 90% of the rules are for combat.

Actually, what happens if you have disadvantage on perception checks and your passive perception is tested?

Do you get a flat negative? Nothing?

It doesn't look like anything happens, but I assume the DM is probably expected you a negative.

This is pretty much the reason why my chaotic neutral cultist isn't neutral evil like the rest of his cult.

First off, be a Knight Errant. Much easier than a knight of a court, the DM will appreciate not making those connections to higher status. Second, create a code. It doesn't have to be honorable, it doesn't have to be nice. But make a code that a knight stands by. A knight without a code is no better than a heavily padded bandit. Then, write in a rival knight. It will be some cool shit if you just have another cool Knight Errant running around, who will just throw down and fight you whenever you meet, for fun or for murder.

Finally, do something fun with your coat of arms. Make it a cool symbol, or a funny one, or a tragic one, something that helps flesh out your character if it was to be asked about.

Disadvantage = -5 to passive. Advantage = +5.

crawford says advantage/disadvantage on passive perception is +/-5

Noted. This is designed for a rogue, but having that universal language would be good. So dropping the save would not be too strong? What about the other abilities? Any major issues?

Incredibly so.
Those are the ones you have to really watch out for.

>Fucking Bayaz...

Martials can use 90% of the other items as well for utility and engagement and stuff, it's just that the idea that "level 20 Wizards can throw meteors around but a fighter can only shake a metal stick" is a bit dead on arrival, because by design, no fighter is supposed to go long without getting a "Sword of making bad guys tell the truth about how they lost their virginity when you ask them"

>tfw you DM for a game where the wizard should be playing a thief because they hoard all the magical items

I'm the only caster in our party and I still want our fighter to be the first to get a magical item. I'm scared he'll get disinterested in playing because he can't do much besides stab things with a pointy bit of metal.

Oh, right. I guess this is where the 'advantage is -/+5' stuff comes from when people try to value advantage.
Even though on average it's not normally 5.

It'd hardly be strong.
In the first place, the only real use of perception in the middle of a fight is to locate hiding creatures or other things such as hearing creatures approaching, since you can't be surprised in combat. And, again, making an active non-passive search check is normally an action.
Not only that, but on a character who only gets 1 or 2 attacks, they're not going to be critting very often. So it's already an unreliable source of a very niche debuff, without having to put a save on it.

Other than that it's fine, but it's a bit bland. It's basically 'You're not building your melee rogue optimally, so I built it for you', considering an 'optimal' melee rogue likely uses both mobility (which has auto-disengage on hit) and booming blade. ... Point being, it's not making you do anything you couldn't normally build yourself. Like said, the perception thing is very, very niche.

That said, hiding as part of movement is an interesting ability and likely very strong if that ever comes into play, considering enemies won't even know your location after you hide, yet alone be able to target you with anything. If they go invisible, they could literally walk up, attack somebody, hide and then walk around behind the target.

Oh, but that's just one of the swords, so-

I try to push mine

>"Hey guys, you think I should go for the big guy, or do you want me to run over there and help you wack the minions one at a time?"
>Druid starts metacomenting on strategy
>Interrupt
>Try to put the most earnest face possible
>"Why are you asking us big guy? You're the soldier here, this is combat. *Lead*

Onto the other one.
The charm after crit thing is pretty powerful, but it's only on crits, so that's fine as it is. Though it's a little weird to charm as part of hurting somebody, which could lead to some very unusual duels where if you can crit a lot you can just keep beating down someone while they happily accept your torture.

The extra 2d6 is probably quite strong at the earlier levels but it's not like rogues are powerhouses, so eh.

Then it just goes up to +2, 4d6.

Feels very much just a 'You deal more damage' weapon. And personally I'm not a fan of the 'you deal damage' stuff when you could have interesting story shit, but hey. They published the DMG and it's full of magic items I hate, some of which are very much like that.

I know this will come off as strange but is there anything I need to prepare before I start roll20? I've been a DM since forever and in between sessions I DM for (2 of them are IRL groups), I've always wanted to play and thought roll20 could be a good avenue to sate that (For the record, I'm satisfied with solely DMing for my groups) That said, I have to admit, I'm getting some anxiety cause I'm not sure if I should just try out one-shot roll20 sessions to get a feel of how VTT is since I never done it before.

Roll20 is a horrible bitch of a system and you'll be working against it more than with it.

Use Discord or something for talking, don't try to use the roll20 mic set up.

if you're not the dm it's just plain easy. you have nothing worry about

Alright, great points about the perception ability. Oh just to mention the Exalted forms won't be coming into play till like level 16+ for them, so I'm okay with the hiding ability.

It was meant to be the "You deal more damage weapon" so that's a good sign. Do you think 4d6 extra is too much? How about them paired up? Too much? Too little?

defied the gods once, and the divine retribution it was expecting didn't happen. Mingling with non-goblins is the bugbear's way of pushing its luck, to see what it can get away with.

non-evil
non-good
now if you think real hard, there might be an alignment that is between evil and good.

Which monster races from volos would be most likely to be bards, if any of them were?

Depends on if you want to be a dumb minmaxer or have something fun in mind.

Sneks are the best bards of course, but it is nonsensical for them to be a bard.

Kenku are some of the worst bards but due to their mimicry they can make the worlds best cover band.

Tabaxi, Yuan-Ti, Aasimar, Tritons and Kenku

In that order

Any tips for making a good one shot? My group's been busy with school and work ever since summer ended, and now I'm DMing a quick one shot game with them next Saturday.