/5eg/ Fifth Edition General:

I think his DM is trying to "fix" what isn't the most powerful class in the game because he's seen people who have never played how the Wizard's the best.

It'll make you near on worthless because a Wizards main draw is being versatile so I'd recommend playing anything else.

Ah, an AD&D DM. Stuck in the old ways when they would specialize in two schools, dump two others and be mediocre at everything else.

Don't play a wizard then. Do a Light Cleric, those guys are fun

Ill just go sorcerer and meta magic my way.
I did play a light cleric already that was my last groups only source of offensive magic. It was like radiant wizard lite.

Question: What's wrong with 5e?

Like, nothing seems wrong on the face of it, but adoption is so low. I don't see any obvious problems, and nobody points them out in big edition wars, but people just keep on playing other games that are demonstrably shit, like Pathfinder.

Are there any good ways of making huge invasion encounters not a total slog to run?

obviously depends on the character, for my paladin it was INT, for my bard it was STR, now for my wizard i decided to roll for stats in order so DEX and CON are my dump stats.

I was under the impression that 5E is the second most played edition after PF?

I mean people play the system they're used to because they've sunk a lot of time into it. It's the same reason people play League of Legends even though it's the worst MOBA by a country mile.

Are you basing this off your experiences in the town where you live, your local gaming store, or the internet?

Because if you're basing your idea of the adoption level of 5e on contrarian internet autismos, you may have a skewed viewpoint. People who play in person with their friends overwhelmingly play 5e where I live.

I think your assumptions are wrong, user. 5e is probably THE most played tabletop RPG game right now. The only people who keep playing other editions or Pathfinder are those either stuck in their ways, or with other people in their playgroup who are stuck in their ways and unwilling to try it, mostly under the excuse of "5e lacks options" or "It's too simple", etc.

There isn't a constant bevy of splatbooks to keep it fresh in people's minds and create discussion.

Also we use generals now, so ideas and games don't really spread much.

Can I roll Persuade ( Strength) to seduce people with my muscle?

start by checking the mass combat rules, play it either super epically, with PCs making tons of actions and exploding fuckers by the second, or take it slow over several sessions, but balancing between the strategy and the intrigue, don't let your group settle on a strat, have the battlefield change or something like that.

A lot of the complaints I have personally about 5e is that it falls into 'Not bad but nothing particularly interesting' either. It didn't really take any risks or do much to define itself other than 'I'm D&D'.

It went backwards on many of the really good things in 4e (Healing Surges are the opposite of 4e ones, saves rather than static defences to have attacks against, back to spells per day) so it doesn't even build on it's predecessor other than to run away from it as quickly as possible.

only if they are fags and/or girls.

I'll give you advantage if you write a full paragraph about how gloriously you tear off your clothing just so you can flex.

Anyone who's not into men will instead be intimidated if they fail their save
Your clothing and/or armor will be unusable until repaired

Who else would you be seducing with muscles?

>nothing particularly interesting
This to be honest.

We need a bevy of setting books with awesome new subraces and class specializations. Dark Sun helped fill this niche for 4e, but it was already on top of primal and psionic and dark stuff which was more or less new, at least in how it was characterized.

>The only people who keep playing other editions or Pathfinder [...]
Or people with no 5e in their language. Pathfinder and even 4e are huge in Spain.

Even on the internet people overwhelmingly play 5e.

It used to be CHA but seeing the new UA on downtime and finding magic items relying on Persuation checks I'm starting to think definitely INT

Becoming more interested in making a Bard that exists solely to collect magic items with the most pumped out Persuasion check you can get. A regular Diplomancer

That is absolutely true, just after I pressed "Post" I realized I forgot to say that. I myself live in Brasil, where people are still playing mostly 3.5 and 4e.

The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters per day with a short rest in between. Realistically, campaigns just don't play that way, and power ends up skewed towards classes that have a large resource pool they are supposed to slowly consume vs classes with small resource pools they are meant to replenish with short rests.

Questionable allowances were made to keep things in the vein of pre 4e flavor, so for example we have Sorcerers that just feel like they were meant to use a Spell Points system.

They were afraid of making Dual Wielding good, and ended up making it a straight up mechanically inferior call compared to two-handing 95% of the time.

Hand Crossbows are, because of a Feat interaction, far ahead the best ranged weapons in the game. Said Feat interaction was also meant to make it viable to dual wield melee and ranged, but it doesn't.

They decided to include stat rolling as the basic stat generation mechanic, while barely supporting it - the game is balanced around point buy and the 'default' array, and stat rolling can easily results in gimped characters without a large dose of house rules.

PHB Ranger is bad. Monk is unclear about what it's supposed to be to a player not already familiar with the system. I wont get into the bad archetypes.

There are no effective aggro mechanics, therefore characters who want to be 'tanks' or area control frontliners have to rely on DM fiat or their damage output in order to be threats the enemies would feel compelled to deal with. This makes singleclassed Barbarians trash compared to Fighters and Paladins.

>half
>overwhelmingly
Also those numbers are "play it at all" not necessarily "play it by first choice" as should be obvious by the fact that the first three otherwise make up 117% of players.

Dexterity or Constitution, I usually play casters but Strength is skewed because I cannot physically stop myself from giving every other character the Smithing proficiency, help.

With this many variables, 50% of the games being D&D 5E is still considered 'overwhelmingly popular' by a statistics standpoint, but I guess that's just semantics by this point.

is mystic good

It's not even number one if you consider pathfinder and 3.5 to be fundamentally the same thing. And once upon a time, D&D's latest edition would dominate to the point that nothing else came close.

It's not number one in terms of players, no, but it is number one in terms of games and is only a few percent behind on overall players, I still say it's doing pretty good for itself, but you have a point.

>there's no way to force the NPCs to act like mobs in an MMO instead of like people with thoughts of their own. It should not occur to any NPCs, even those of reasonable intelligence, to kill the wizard or cleric first. Even zombies and other mindless enemies should not attack the first PC within reach, but instead they should go for the "tank" even if he's a rank or two behind because he's "mocking" them and appealing to their nonexistent emotions.

I don't see a problem.

Remember that roll20 campaigns almost never get deleted, even if no one's playing them. So that table is not showing the number of active campaigns at any particular moment, but the total campaigns that have ever been created, including those from before 5e came out.

If these are the worst problems facing 5E then it's a pretty good system imho.

In order:

Sorcerers are fine.

House Rule that you can add your damage modifier to offhand attacks without a trait/feature.

Don't allow feats.

Don't roll for stats.

Use the UA Ranger.

Aggro mechanics are garbage.

>step through a portal into the Feywild
>suddenly this little Eladrin rides up and draws her sword
>she says "What the h*ck are you supposed to be?!"
What do?

What's the deal with Ironmaster? It's got a huge population and is really close to a lot of major Sword Coast cities and yet there's almost no information on it. My players want to visit it in SKT, but I've got almost nothing to work with other than "they don't like non-dwarves."

it's just too far north, and the ten towns are more interesting

I have a rogue (1/2 elf) with these stat ( in order)
6
18
14
8
14
16

in that order... what kinda to subclass should i be

Since we are playing SKT, I mixed between
AT or thief since they seem the most fun with RP, while Assassin and Swash seem purely combat

( not sure if i need a high int for AT)

>h*ck
BLUE BOARD

liar you made up those stats

I'm not arguing if favor of aggro mechanics.

What I'm saying is that 'tank' isn't a role in this system.

And therefore Barbarians have no role. They are shittier Fighters without combat utility.

>Don't allow feats.

This is an awful call because it severely hurts martial effectiveness. Don't diminish their ability to do their one job, or worse, take away the toys they can play with while doing it.

Maybe a scout?

what I rolled
6, 8, 17, 14, 14, 13.

My players are accompanying Augrek on their way to there though. They've been very insistent on dragging along NPCs for every quest they're involved in. So presumably I won't be able to do the whole "kick the players out since they're not dwarves" thing the book suggests.

SKT has references to a spelljammer ship, and OotA has references to the Great Modron March, would this mean Spelljammer and Planescape releases in the future?

Can someone propose a good build for a melee warlock?

I haven't ran SKT but the lore on that city is clear. You can't come in if you aren't a dwarf. But you're the DM so you can say something like "non-dwarves are tolerated but never welcomed, and all non-dwarves who enter the city can stay no longer than a tenday and must pay a sizeable tax"

I think they've been referencing them just for fun. I don't want to get my hopes up for planescape content.

On page 127 of SKT, if you turn the page upside down, the runes spell "Planescape 5e Setting Is Coming Out Winter 2017 -Chris Perkins"

>The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters per day with a short rest in between.
This is the single greatest problem I've encountered with the system, alternative rest mechanics can work for most campaigns but not every one, and the ones left in gaps force DMs to either jump through hoops (base camp towns) or force them to adjust balance on the go for every single day of encounters.

Sorcerer should use spell points but if it doesn't let him keep the progression with other full casters it'd make him SHIT at multiclassing or a complete mess with the warlock, which already is his strongest multiclass.

Crossbow expert is fine, the rest of the weapons just need better things, it's not ok to have a bunch of martial weapons that are absolutely outclassed by even simple weapons, and simple weapons that are worse than anything at all. Every weapon deserves at least some degree of uniqueness and flexibility, part why martials feel so lackluster in general.

>They decided to include stat rolling as the basic stat generation mechanic
Actually, rolling for stats is not allowed in adventurer's league or any kind of sanction play, so even if the PHB seems to suggest the use of rolling for stats, it's not the supported generation mechanic.

UA ranger still needs to be tweaked so it isn't absolutely broken with multiclassing. Monk is fin to some extend, it does what it does just don't expect anything it's not built to do, non-magical stunning is still pretty fucking strong.

Aggro mechanics are complete shit, this isn't an MMO and it doesn't need to imitate one. There could be more dynamic options and strategical advantages for martial fighting but tanks in general are a stupid idea and can be overcome with smart positioning and map awareness.

I-Is this true?

...

I think they've been saying having a nod to the references mean they might actually be doing something with that reference in a future release. So here's hoping.

Kek.

>I'm not saying there should be aggro mechanics, I'm saying there should be a role based entirely around manipulating aggro mechanics

Crazier things have happened.

Marvel just fired a guy for slipping insanely anti-semitic remarks into the background of an X-Men comic

Well, what the h*ck am I?

Has anyone come up with or seen decent Naval rules for 5e? I don't want to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to.

hexblade works. its not great, but you do outdamage eldritch blast with cursebringer and GWM.

no other patron really works for melee without multiclassing for spell slots to fuel your super smite

100 percent true. I just checked.

4e managed it without actually having aggro.

Yeah. There's a couple of BM maneuvers that kinda do the whole 'marking' thing again. They would certainly help make barbs tankier.

What, speaking? Or the "not just rage" abilities

You can be an AT with low Int if you limit yourself to spells that don't benefit from Int, like Sleep and Shield, and you just that nobody tries to see through your illusions. In my experience, though, people who play one-third casters frequently forget that they even have spells. Maybe be a thief or swashbuckler

Begin as a fighter or a non-casting ranger, grab some manouvers, then be a goo bladelock.
Get a free magic weapon, a 1-handed weapon with reach that drops people to 0 speed, and black tentacles for battlefield control.
Fuck their shit up with smites, while never having to be inside their melee range, unless they've got reach too.

What's a good roadmap for a Rogue/Warlock multiclass?

I want to play a "gambler made a deal with the devil" sort of character. Would prefer to lean more heavily on melee than spells.

BRING BACK MULTICLASS FEATS
BAN TRADITIONAL MULTICLASSING
BRING BACK MARKING ENEMIES VIA FEAT
NO DWARVES IN IRONMASTER

Nah

I played a character who was a twin who absorbed his brother in the womb, and his brother was a reincarnated wizard, so that's why he has some innate spellcasting ability. His brothers face was on his belly like in Total Recall and could talk at times and offer Arcana information

In very broad strokes, could you explain me the biggest differences between 5e and 3e? I don't want to read the GM and player books just to find out

>BRING BACK MARKING ENEMIES VIA FEAT
fuck off. "I mark that guy." over and over was/is fucking annoying. Why not just do cumulative damage potential per consecutive attack with a cap for fucks sake.

5e has much simpler mechanics, lower power, more balanced by a mile, has fast character creation, fast combat, absurd multiclassing is discouraged (no more abjurer 3/abjuration specialist 10/initiate of the seven veils 7) and Mask is now chaotic neutral??

But still in a way that didn't make a ton of sense and felt like an MMO. It was designed to play like a system with aggro without having to count each player's individual level of threat toward every monster. It makes monsters make a beeline for the worst possible target by punishing them if they do anything smarter than that.

i wanted to make this one of my character's concept but he was more of a dex fighter than a str one, the claw of acamar does sound fucking metal so i'm torn apart.

can the normal warlock pick up booming blade?

I don't use it but people always ask for it. Calm down don't tell me to fuck off, it's just a discussion you mother fucking dick.

>Barbarians have no role
>Can eat damage and shit it out aswell

Barbarians"tank" by not dieing and killing everything around them

Um, that's not how wizards or reincarnation work in D&D.

Barbarians tank by only existing in your mind because no one one earth plays Barbs. Everyone goes "oh thats cool" then turns the page to Bard and is like "nm this is better" then turns the page to druids and laughs then turns the page to wizard eventually and chooses that

you've found a crucial flaw in my madeup character scenario

Aren't they already trying to bring back marking via classes? See the UA classes.

5e is much less fiddly and has less complexity, at least when it comes to character building and making choices. Most classes have special abilities that affect combat that have some sort of a resource pool.

In general, simpler and more streamlined.

it really the invisible mage hand that attract me

>Aren't they already trying to bring back marking via classes? See the UA classes.
maybe

How to run a better game:

>no vhuman allowed
>no wizards allowed

that's it

What I'm saying, numbnuts, is that Barbarian is a mechanically boring class whose only gimmick is being tough - but being tough doesn't help the party in any way.

They're like shittier Champions. And to crown it they have the worst archetype in the game.

>the worst archetype in the game

Four Elements?
Non-revised Beastmaster?

correct
and land druid

With the feat, or by being an high elf, sure.
There's not much synergy with The Claw, tho, why not greenflame blade instead? You'll deal more damage just attacking, since you can't quicken or twin it, anyway.

Not any of them, if you don't like playing barbarians that's fine, doesn't mean that others don't, you fucking autistic piece of shit.

Barbarians are fine. Rage is a fun mechanic.

Not dying is always useful. So is having perma-advantage on every attack.

It won't come up a lot. Most of the time you can accomplish the same thing with a Sleight of Hand check, and few are the situations where you want to rob an NPC but not kill them.

Could Thay create a flying Enclave out of the Thaymount?

I'm playing in a game that's running PF right now. Originally it was 3.5. Then it was 2e. Now PF. Our game's timeline and system could already compete with Rincewind, so I don't tell the GM to switch, though it would be a lot easier for him to run 4e or 5e.

I think he might switch on his own this month though.

Usually dexterity or strength, depending of what type of character I am playing. Beyond that, I also dump either intelligence or charisma, again depending on the type of character I am making. Right now though I'm playing a Paladin so my lowest stats are dex and int.

Bear totem bearbarian is the worst archetype in the game?
user, did you get your coffee this morning?