/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

5th Edition D&D General Discussion

>Download Unearthed Arcana: Feats for Skills:

>Make sure to fill out the official survey on Unearthed Arcana: Downtime:


>/5eg/ Mega Trove:

>Pastebin with resources and so on:

Previously, on /5eg/...

Other urls found in this thread:


First for downtime is rad and you should consider slowing down your campaign sometimes to allow for its use.

is it wrong i want to fugg elric?

Why did Wizards give the rights of the old modules to Goodman Games? Goodman Games is fucking terrible.

Behind-the-scenes industry relations and bidding wars?

What the fuck is wrong with that thing?

They should've awarded it a company that actually produces good work, like Green Ronin.

Is "Suffering" a good name for a dwarf city?

nah. he was the misunderstood pretty boy before drizzt. He was significantly less popular however, which lead to less significant new players copying him in their dnd games.

That said he was described as a beautiful delicate flower with brooding eyes who gained supernatural strength from his weapon.

He could bone for days and you'd never get tired of those pretty... red(?) eyes.

It's a halfing, they are wrong.

I've only seen the Dragon Age rpg but never really played. Heard it was pretty bad.

Is the rest of their stuff better?

Yeah, they did pretty good work with the Lower Planar books and the Book of the Righteous among others.

But ideally Wizards should be the ones doing the converting, because let's face it the partnership with the other companies yielded less than stellar work.

Is there a good reason not to go Eldritch Knight 3 / Arcane Trickster X? It seems like it could be fun and I can ready a Sneak Attack Booming Blade with action surge.

Staying in melee instead of dancing in and out as a rogue sounds like it could be leathal

My players don't want to take more than a day or two off adventuring.

>He was significantly less popular however, which lead to less significant new players copying him in their dnd games.
>Less popular
>The series that along with Tolkien and Poul Anderson IS HALF RESPONSIBLE FOR DnD ITSELF
>Music still being written about him decades after the saga was complete
>Comics adaptations still ongoing with immense budgets
>Tv series incoming in the next few years
>Less popular than Drizzt

Nigga please.

>Previously, on /5eg/.
People don't know how to read the fucking book

Depends on the city. Translate it to another language, something slavic or germanic, and see how it sounds.

is your setting your DF fort? if that's the case, then yes, that's a really cheering name


Playing a Dark Elf order of the immortal Mystic if I remember the lore correctly the under dark has caused psions to be somewhat more common in their population.

In all my 30 plus years of play very few know of and less read the Eric stuff. Drizzt brought in HUGH numbers of new players over the years. I hate seeing that 5th went out of it way to make the cones not as playable as he was in 2ed AD$D.

>5th went out of it way to make the cones not as playable as he was in 2ed AD$D.
what do you mean?

After the Mystic UA our DM has approved Overwhelming Attack as a 5th level spell for just about any class.
So, obviously, we're talking about playing as Snowwhite the Druidess and the 5 dwarven (halfling) assassins. Or having them as an opposing party.
The warlock might go with a polearm, the rogues will probably pick up the ranged fighting style somewhere along the way, but is there anything obvious that we're missing out on?

Anderson and Moorcock both are significantly less known than Tolkien combined. It doesn't matter how influential they were for D&D, and while the average fantasy fan knows Drizzt Do'urden, only people who actually read a fair bit know anything about Elric of Melnibone. He just hasn't had an impact on pop culture, and the specific subculture is more niche than the relatively entry level fantasy works of R.A. Salvatore. Hell, the entire pop culture section is fantasy inspired music, like Blind Guardian, or just a name drop that could easily be coincidence if unconfirmed.

>Not being a Duergar Immortal
>Not using their natural Enlarge spell in combonation with Giant Form to turn into a gargantuan dwarf and take up a 30x30 space

It's like you don't want to be cool.

I've been DMing for 10 years and mostly dungeons and dragons. I've read plenty of pretty good fantasy books, including six or seven meh books from Gemmel.

I've never heard of Elric of Melnibone.
I've heard of Drizzt many times.

If only from the Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts/shows.


The friends and I are going to give this a shot for a few sessions. I normally think that poisons are a fucking meme but if we can agree on some balanced house rules, they could be useful.

>Anderson and Moorcock both are significantly less known than Tolkien combined
Of course, there's no dispute about that. Tolkien made the basis of what we understand as fantasy today. Moorcock built its antithesis. Anderson comes from a different school entirely that Moorcock based his works from.

>I've never heard of Elric of Melnibone.
>I've heard of Drizzt many times.
You're missing out then.


>like Blind Guardian, or just a name drop that could easily be coincidence if unconfirmed.
Speaking of Blind Guardian, there ain't no coincidence

>I've never heard of Elric of Melnibone.
You just haven't gone digging in the past.
People know the contemporary fantasy authors, but few of the old masters.
Go and read, you're in for a treat.

>Speaking of Blind Guardian, there ain't no coincidence
Yes, i was saying that the music is often an indisuptable or direct reference, but most of the rest of the wikipedia pop culture stuff is
>These people are named Elric
>They said Stormbringer
It's not that they AREN'T or can't be references, but that they aren't part of the general consciousness, similar to all the math references in the Simpsons.

>I've never heard of Elric of Melnibone.
>I've been DMing for 10 years

Del Rey or Gollancz editions
Literally, no excuse for not reading this in 2017.

Is there a good option for an anti-magic character without using actual magic? I don't want my entire thing to be "I fight spellcasters" but would like to be at a bonus while fighting them.

I was thinking Gnome Monster Hunter and taking the Mage Slayer feat.

The other option is Ancients Paladin with a different Oath on it for roleplay. Issue is that aside from the aura none of the other abilities fit well and the DM doesn't like changing things mechanically.

Monks eventually get proficiency in all saves, so casters can't just target their weak saves. Although monks also use "magic" depending on how you feel about weeaboo anime-ninja ki powers.

Monk's one of my favorite classes but I really envision myself wearing armour on this guy and using a sword and shield. I'm still annoyed they gave us Scout and Cavalier in the kits of old and no Wizard Slayer fighter.

I'm not missing anything and Monster Slayer's the only Fighter that gets anything that fucks spellcasters right?

>Yes, i was saying that the music is often an indisuptable or direct reference, but most of the rest of the wikipedia pop culture stuff is
Having a look at the pop culture link on the wikipedia article, it's a pretty direct list with almost no wiggle room except for maybe GoT and FMA.

>Is there a good option for an anti-magic character without using actual magic
Is counterspell suddenly not a spell? No? Then I'm afraid it's still a caster thing.

Alright, are there any Half-Casters that have access to Counter Spell?

It's a sorcerer, warlock, and wizard spell. However Bards, Wu-Jen Mystics, Arcane Trickster Rogues, and Eldritch Knight Fighters can all pick it up via class features that allow them to learn other class's spells.

I think the "Wizard Slayer" thing is rather hit or miss in subclass concepts. It's a bit of a thin concept, and both mechanically & thematically I don't know if there is ENOUGH to make an entire subclass about it.

But I might be wrong. What are great features you'd like to see, in 5e design, for a "wizard slayer" ? Apart from the already existant Mage Slayer feat, and the disadvantage on concentration checks ?

I just rolled a rogue for the first time with really strong starting stats.
I am really tempted to go arcane trickster because mage hand legerdemain shenanigans sound fun along with having some useful cantrips early.
Should I commit to arcane trickster or would it be better to just take the magic initiate feat?

I was about to be rather upset and give up, but I was just checking and Redemption Paladins get it and a couple of other spells that are pretty good against Spellcasters.

I think I'll go for a Dexterity Redemption Paladin and refluff it.

Off the top of my head it would be something like casting Counterspell once or twice per short rest, resistance to spell damage, eventually getting the Yuan-ti ability, being able to detect magic, dealing extra force damage when you break someone's concentration and maybe even being able to cause an aura of anti magic at high levels.

I guess I'd personally not just give them the spells and instead give them a similar ability that's slightly stronger or weaker.

Also because they're fond of Superiority Dice on Fighters I imagine the Counterspell, Dispel Magic and Magic Detection would all be that. Most likely with one that just increase your damage as well.

Reminder that the Silence spell also shuts down alot of casters, it's the Cleric/Bard/Ranger answer to arcane casters.

If I have my players choose their starting stats from a number of pre-arranged arrays, what should the sum total value of a given array be?

Silence is objectively worse though.

27 point buy

Debatable, counterspell works once, silence lasts up to 10 minutes.

Yeah... it's pretty much worse though.

69 (15,15,15,8,8,8) for the min and 75 (13,13,13,12,12,12) for the max. The more 'optimum' the built, the lower the overall stats.

Why don't attacks from things such as a Red Dragon's tail move the PC's x number of feet after being hit?

Am I missing something here? I feel like this would add to the impact of you getting hit and make combat more dynamic and interactive.

The nominal spread is 72 (15,14,13,12,10,8)

Nothing is stopping you from adding STR/CON saving throws on those attacks against being swung across the room by the hit

Oh, for sure, I was just curious if this was a thing in previous editions. I've DMed and played 5e, but only played 3.5 otherwise.

Because people who know how to fight avoid getting knocked around by bracing for impacts or relaxing into them to avoid being thrown.

That is a thing you know.

>Paladin's can't bow smite.

At first I thought it was because they could 600 foot bow smite... but anyone else can use their super burst damage with a bow. Is there a real reason or are they just trying to force the idea Rangers use bows and Paladins use swords?

Silence has definitely not the same usage than Counterspell/Dispell magic, and it's also a ritual... I don't think they're comparable. It's just a different tool.

Alright you got my creative juices flowing. I'll try to put something together in the afternoon. Seems easy enough.

The only thing I hate with these "superiority dice" fighter archetypes is the lack of fun features after 7th. Like, 10th 15th and 18th features are only Improved Superiority Dice and Relentless... The latter being pretty shit.
I assume it's balanced with the Fighter scaling with extra attacks... but it's hard to fit every thematic features in two subclass features, if you go the superiorty dice route.

Rangers can use melee good

Sure, against things maybe a size category above them, but I'd find it hard to believe even in fantasy for a human fighter to hold his ground against the swipe of an Ancient Gold Dragon tail.

Yeah Rangers work fine in melee but they can't pick up GWF and their high level special spells are all Archery ones. They don't get any "You can make two melee weapon attacks as a bonus action".

That's what it looks like.

Thanks, bros. I'm thinking of having some arrays that are plain but stable (8-13 range) and some that are extreme (5-18). It will be interesting to see what players choose.


Also, outsiders, how do you use them?

It was in 4e.
But then almost every attack had some sort of secondary effect in 4e.

Other then multiclassing UA is this a good idea.

Champion 3 / Horizon Walker X, I want to be able to make an awesome burst round with 6 of teleportation and 6 Greatsword Attacks.

What constitutes a "small knife" from the urchin background? A dagger?

What's a better reason for an Eldritch Knight to have his powers;
>being soul bound to a witch he killed
>having traded his soul to a deity?
Other better suggestions much welcome.

Anyone have a good idea for a Minotaur Fighter? Mechanically I plan to get Shield Master and shove everyone prone before smashing them with 1d10+5+2 attacks.

I'm just wondering what a good background would be.

I'd assume a knife for cutting, with a one sided blade

Both of those are really Warlock-y backgrounds. Eldritch Knights mostly get their power from studying like Wizards, so reading a book and learning.

That's just my interpretation though, do whatever.

Well those are quite dark. Why not just say he was assigned to protect a wizard during a battle, became his squire/servant and ended up learning a few tricks in his service.

That's the actual phb interpretation

Why is OSR art so much cooler than modern day art?


You went full warlock/antipaladin.

>being soul bound to a witch he killed
Sounds more Sorcerer

Depends on what he means by Witch. If it's an average spellcaster living in the Forest cackling to herself, he's fucking nothing.

I think it could fit both Warlock and Sorcerer but because he killed her before absorbing her power it would make sense to be someone with at least basic weapon training.

They've gone and muddled sorc and warlock anyway

Sorcerer fluff is really all over the place. In my games I make it blood.

If the power is from your parents, ancestors or you've had a magical element exposed to your blood, you're a Sorcerer. It's something in you that doesn't go away.

New player here

I know Eldritch Blast is best used by a Warlock, but I think it'd still be a good damage cantrip for a Sorcerer. Could I do better, or does that work?

>mfw a player makes a warlock of the great old one because he doesn't want to make a pact with an evil entity

it was his first time playing and pretty much everyone in the party found it somehow difficult to make a back story so I wrote them all.
his was that his character grew up rich kid who wanted to be a man at arms but as he grew up he lost intrest and decided he wanted to take up magic, but seeing as he up until now had no practice and didn't want to study for years and years to become a wizard, he looked for a quick way to gain power and accepted power from a cultist he knew nothing about. his patron is a world eating cosmic entity that seeks knowledge, people can assess parts of it's knowledge, by linking to it and the entity won't really know as he is connected to so many beings but if someone linked to it was learn of something the entity didn't know of he would travel towards the planet they inhabit at a modest light speed to consume the entire planet for it's information.

his character arc was understanding the responciblity he has and whether the risk is worth the power.

>tl;dl: demons and devils are evil, the great old ones are evil incarnate.

What the fuck?!

Elric is the blueprint behind literally every edgy superhuman anti-hero out there, either directly or indirectly. He's the archetypal angsty teenage power fantasy.

Well its not on the sorcerer spell list so you would need to waste an ASI to get it as a pure sorcerer. Its not much better than Firebolt so isn't really worth spending a feat on.

If you want to use it then it is best to just dip 2 levels into Warlock to get the invocation.

It technically works, but without a couple of levels of warlock you'd basically be spending an ASI on magic initiate for 1d10 force damage. It's better than the 1d10 fire damage firebolt gives you, but whether it's worth the ASI is another matter. Personally I'd be more inclined toward a warlock/sorc multiclass as the agonising blast invocation gives you +cha to every eldritch blast attack, and EB scales by increasing the number of attacks you make with each cast (so that by level 17 you're throwing out 4*(1d10+5) force damage, assuming you hit with everything).

...Demons, Yugoloths and Devils ARE evil incarnate. The GOO pact is basically described as "Who knows".

5e purposly misleads and leaves it unformitive so people will look it up and see that they fucked up if avoiding evil beings were their intention.

aren't you familiar with lovecraftian lore?

I mean, one of the examples in the book for wild magic is someone getting exposed to Limbo through a planar portal so it doesn't have to be ancestry specifically. At some point i'm gonna make me a pyromancer who just accidentally into the plane of fire and lived somehow. No lead up about where he got his powers, he just gots em.

>>being soul bound to a witch he killed

>aren't you familiar with lovecraftian lore?
From our perspective, most of them are evil but by their own morality they're doin nothing wrong. But the problem is that most people don't actually know great old ones or elder gods so guys like Yog-Sothoth, who have no discernable rhyme or reason, are construed as neutral.

Oh yes, but I'm taking issue with your las sentence.
GOOs might be evil, or not, or literally be above that, but unless you make them titanic fiends they aren't evil incarnate. They are more like inevitable living cosmological disasters.

Anyone knows of any fey in that lives in the underdark?

If they can't have both, is it better for a melee Cleric to start with 16 STR or 16 WIS?

I see Great Weapon Fighting feat a lot around here.
Is it really good? Is it the most damage a Barbarian can do?

Okay, back the fuck up.This shit needs to stop. The idea that Tolkien and LotR were the largest influence on D&D, that they are somehow archetypical examples of D&D clich├ęs, or that it was the reason for D&D's creation is bullshit. Tolkien's influence--not on D&D, but on the players--has been one of the primary causes of suckiness in D&D for decades.

Let's hear it from Gygax himself:
>Obviously, Professor Tolkien did not create the whole of his fantasies from within. They draw upon mythology and folklore rather heavily, with a few highly interesting creations which belong solely to the author such as the Nazgul, the Balrog, and Tom Bombadil. All of the other creatures are found in fairy tales by the score and dozens of other excellent writers who create fantasy works themselves: besides Howard whom I already mentioned, there are the likes of Poul Anderson, L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, Fritz Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, A. Merritt, Michael Moorcock, Jack Vance, and Roger Zelazny -- there are many more, and the omission of their names here is more of an oversight than a slight.
>In the creation of Chainmail and Dungeons & Dragons the concepts of not a few of such authors were drawn upon. This is principally due to the different aims of a fantasy novel (or series of novels) and a rule book for fantasy games. The former creation is to amuse and entertain the reader through the means of the story and its characters, while the latter creates characters and possibly a story which the readers then employ to amuse themselves. In general the "Ring Trilogy" is not fast paced, and outside the framework of the tale many of Tolkien's creatures are not very exciting or different.

In fewer words: Lord of the Rings is slow and not that inventive. It was one of many influences, and not the greatest. Making a game in the style of Lord of the Rings would suck.

Halflings are hideous. I'm tempted to make a paladin that's hell-bent on exterminating them.

Also what is the coolest race and why is it Tieflings?

>Nature cleric


Fuck, is that the plot to the movie? Never seen it.

+10 damage per hit is huge, if you can reliably make those hits!

I'm playing a Minotaur Forge Cleric though...

Is this nigga serious?