/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General

I truely think Battlemaster is the most overrated thing possible. I don't get it. I find Barbarians more fun because at least their limited ability makes more sense and effects a whole combat rather then one attack.

Caster I agree. Druid is also fun a hell.

Gish I don't mind Sorcerer getting abilities and Paladin has very specific roleplay requirements. Honestly with all the options we have now there's a way to build any flavor of Gish so they don't need to make anymore.

They already have, what could I do

Is Revised Ranger stupidly strong?

Primeevil awareness seems like the perfect ability, complete tactical recon up to 5 miles, 1 minute cast, no resource ??, and also that shit with animals, and adv on initiative and vs people who have yet to act, it seems fucking awesome

So in a setting where dwarves essentially have iron bones, would giving them resistance to bludgeoning damage, but electrical attacks and spells having advantage vs them/dwarves having disadvantage vs electrical saves be balanced/reasonable?

Obviously someone else has been doing this for decades and they are trying to intervene. They're a powerful wealthy investor and keep hiring hordes of bounties hunters to take the party out and retreice the peices for him.

So like, samurai jack I guess. Hell, could even make the shadow dragon the antagonist because he doesn't want to be controlled.

Don't, tell your player he can';t be an undertale character.

You must go further. Is the power of the sword well known? Maybe some other groups or cults start showing up more often the closer they get to completing it. Or better yet, if there are notorious big guys have them plausibly find a way to impede your parties progress. I'd say straight up have them jack the sword and have the party find a new solution but that might be too dickish.

Battlemaster IS overated, yes. However if I'm playing a character who's spent their whole life training in the ways of physical combat, Battlemaster is the only class that lets me pull off tricks like disarming or tripping an opponent without taking a huge penalty for it.

If I want to play a martial, I want some cool tricks at my disposal that reflect my skills and experience with martial combat. It's a shame that none of the other martial classes in the game really let me do that...

Like I said, combat maneuvers should be something all martials get, just like all casters get spells.

Don't forget making all humanoids your favored enemy. The amount off stuff you get at level 1 is absurd, it needs to be spread out so you can't multiclass and just get 1 level in ranger and get a ton of free shit.

>Which class/subclass is the most fun to play?

Martial: Open Hand monk, just knocking shit around, being able to take hits and the end all save or die.

Caster: Dragon Sorcerrer, allready equiped as a full elemental-caster and has free mage armour so you can play it as a Dex based Gish as well.
Thematic if a bit lacking in features due to sorcerrers only having metamagic as their main class features.

mordenkainen's disjunction
Throw bigger stuff at them. Powerful wizards, traders, and archeologists have the peices and don't know what they are.

Do they role play at all, or are they just murder hobos?

>Druid is also fun a hell.
I have played a wealth of characters, and nothing beats a moon druid.

Pretty much just as good as a land druid, but with the ability to turn into a beast of your choice, which adds an enormous amount of flexibility to your options.

It is amazing how much fun I've had with my two moon druids. I thought I loved my Paladin and bard, but damn, the druid just overwhelms you with options, to tye point where I cant see myself picking anything else unless I have to, or have a cool concept I want to try.

My current favourite is an Elf Moon druid. Fights using a Longbow, supports with magic, and transforms into something if things get too close, or a now just isn't a viable weapon in the current fight.

What would be the best option for a Spear fighter who uses the spears both at range (throwing) and up close?

Baron Blackthorne, lavishly wealthy Human nobleman who has spent his life and fortune hunting the sword, as he believes it was originally wielded by one of his ancestors.

Sends hitman of increasing difficulty at the party and actively searches for pieces of the sword

Definitely a vampire sorcerer too

I made a reply in a different thread the other day and have been getting progressively more worried about my situation. How would you guys go about converting a Binder and/or an Illumian from 3.5 to 5e?

Except they can do those things and casters get better debuffs but martials can do them all day long. Plus Barbarians and Rogues do them better then Battlemaster at the cost of damage.

Really it comes to the fact people ignore this.

"This section includes the most common contests that require an action in combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The GM can use these contests as models for improvising others."

If you want to punch the Wizard in the throat to silence him for a turn, the DM should work with you. If you want to try and smash a shield with your Warhammer, the DM should work with you.

Really most of the best things you can do are included in Grappling, Shoving. Personally if a player wanted to shove someone into a barrel I'd give them damage on top of the movement from the impact.

Really the issue is too many DM's treat environmental hazards as really weak and in white rooms shear damage output will always win.

I wouldn't, scionics are stupid and terrible.

Uhh do you have the spear master feat

Neither of those are related to Psionics though, and UA has its own Psionics doesn't it?

>Binder
Reflavored warlock (with the invocations and spells being bound spirits) or a reflavored mystic.

>Illumian
Making races in 5e is one of the simplest things to homebrew.

No UA allowed I am afraid.

Yeah I have never seen a GM not allow all sorts of actions like this. My GMsaid that Battle Master options get the superiority die on top of the manoeuvre, but without needing it (except in a few select cases), because most of the manoeuvres is something everybody should be capable of.

Oh, sorry, jerk then. I thought I remembered both those things being scionics related.

>the DM should work with you

There's the problem. Most DMs are not familiar with the rules enough to even know that Disarming and a lot of other variant attacks/actions are even things. Most DMs are not as open to a lot of more creative actions martials can take. If it's not explicitly spelled out in the rules or it's not something they directly had planned, it's not very likely to work well.

I've run into it a lot because I like to try to play creatively with my character by using items or the environment and it ALWAYS ends up being a waste of an action at best or an active detriment to my character at worst.

I'll throw a pot of oil into a campfire that's surrounded by goblins and it won't do any damage. I'll throw a grappling hook to grab a shark that has less Strength than me and have to make a contested check to not be pulled in by it. I'll have to roll Athletics to lift something that's less than half of my lifting capacity.

My DM isn't even a bad DM, he just doesn't know a lot of those rules and he doesn't consider that stuff that I enjoy.

It'd be kinda cool to have some sort of table for level appropriate improvised action damage and effects, just so when I improvise an action with the rogue I don't deal like 1d6 fire damage.

Continuing off the last thread this is what the weapon starts as and I only have plans of upgrading it twice. How does this sound? After 20 living creatures are slain with this weapon the weapon will become +2, will reveal Azathoth's holy symbol, and will gain the ability on the wielder's command to blind the wielder. Then need to slay 5(?) more living creatures while blinded to reach its final state.

Seems cool.

It does feel like it needs a lot of effort. Even 5 kills is difficult, and the meta gaming part is problematic.

If the player is not aware of the amount of kills required, being blinded feels like a huge detriment that may or may not be worth it. If he is, it could spark a lot of negativity if he isnt given the kills, as he really needs them asap. You'll probably need some resources to help him not have a permanent disadvantage.

Pull also need to figure out what the necesarry kills are. If it is just kills, you'll likely end up with players restraining the enemies, tying them up as a helpless prisoner, and THEN blind him to give him the kills.

You'll need to do something extra to avoid just hampering the user, with the promise that it *might* be worth it later down the road. If this is intended for a Warlock, even more so, because a Warlock isnt exactly the most efficient fighter in the first place, and further hampering him isn't good for his overall contribution.

Exactly. You don't need to give all martials dice. You need to give them actions.

Same as those skill feats that gave you actions. If you want to intimidate someone and frighten them for a round in melee, you shouldn't need a feat because anyone skilled at intimidation should at least be able to try it in exchange for 1 attack.

They really should've made "If a player wants to try an action that's not here, figure out a check for it" right at the front of the combat section. It's the kind of thing that people play the game for over video games.

That could actually be a good idea. I'm more of a fan of letting players try these actions as one of their attacks. If a Rogue wanted to throw a flask of oil or drop a chandelier on someone I'd probably let them Sneak Attack on it. It's inflicting your normal damage + a 1 turn status effect, not OP at all.

How do you handle multiclassing in your games? Is it simple as a player saying they're going to take a level in x class? Or do you put more into it?

I have to deal with one shitty player who tries to pull bullshit 24/7 and really doesn't get into the game. He treats it like skyrim or some other video game. So the restriction in my games is that you have to have an in character reason to want to multiclass and you need someone willing to teach you.

Spear would probably be Monk or a Cleric. Tempest Cleric would be thematic.

i dont allow multiclassing whatsoever

its never been a problem at my table

>That could actually be a good idea.

I wonder why D&D hadn't done that before.

It did. In 4e.

Classes are just grab bags of abilities.

4e's issue was it wasn't at it's core in anyway related to D&D (More so then 1e, 2e, 3e and etc.).

If they called it something else like "Heroes of the Nentir Vale, from the makers of D&D" it would've done better.

Also it had it's own mechanical faults and the style of combat wasn't for everyone. Personally I dislike having my at-will powers when most of them could be called actions. Fun game but the core gameplay isn't what most people look for.

What's a good, unusual way to tackle a Dracolich?

We're a team of 6-7 at level 5/6 and we'll have some support, but the DM has been a dick all campaign and keeps sniggering about how we're going to suck against it, and I want a decent way to go about killing the thing.

>classes are just grab bags of abilities

But shouldn't your abilities fit your character?

Variant human Shadow Monk 6/Battlemaster Fighter
Grab the Spear mastery feat.
Grab the Lunge and Precision maneouver and make melee attacks from 15ft away.

If you can give me a good reason why you're taking the level I'll allow it. Even if you retroactively make up "I was always a fan of magic and studied it a little in my free time, finally got some basic spells working" it's fine.

As long as you can give an answer when Bill asks since when can you cast spells.

It's all in presentation. 5e's classes are literally on the same level as 4e essentials, except with a lot of the good ideas removed from the core system.

But I decide what fits my character, no?

If I envision my character as a magical knight, I would be just as justified with going EK as Bladelock, as Paladin/Sorc or AT/Bladesinger multiclass, depending on the specifics.

Stick to the core Rules until you understand them.
To make a playable skeleton take a human and give him some mostly cosmetic traits.

I do want it to require a lot of effort, but you do have a point about the metagaming aspect... hmm It's not made for a warlock it's made for anyone who would attune to it and reach the designated kill count, at the moment it's in the hands of the party TWF assassin. I'll keep thinking about some ways to buff the upgraded version, the final version gives blindsense and might do an extra 1d6 acid damage.

Neither the DMG nor the PHB have rules for what statlines hirelings are supposed to have, just costs and determining loyalty.

I'd use the NPC profiles in the back of the monster manual, but they're all over the place in terms of CR that I still don't know what the equivalent of an "average" mercenary hireling getting paid 2gp a day looks actually like.

if you have to justify your multiclass you shouldnt be multiclassing lol

multiclass builds are always abusive a mechanic and therefor should be banned in any sensible game

>if you have to justify your multiclass you shouldnt be multiclassing lol

>If you have a reason for thing, you shouldn't do thing

You sure sound like a wise individual

It only becomes an issue when dealing with multiclasses into Warlock, Paladin, or Clerics for me as these require some RP reason to me and I usually ask why would their character want to do this.

It worked out once with the party Barbarian... then he double-crossed the party and joined the BBEG so now they hate him.

Don't be a petty bitch.

I tried to play a martial Warlock noble. His background was that of a stuck up, superiority complex asshole, who tried to become a Paladin, but ended up as a Warlock. I got to level 3 Warlock, and said I planned on taking a couple of levels of fighter. The GM flat out said "don't power game, it doesn't fit your character" - despite the original goal for the character was being a fucking Paladin.

Maybe, just maybe, you just jave no idea what you are talking about. So shut the fuck up, and dont restrict your players "just because", because you are actively ruining character concepts with this kind of bullshit.

Disallow UA multiclassing, obviously, but not standard PHB classes. If some asshat is pulling out 7 books and UA PDFs to make his character, then you can start questioning his choices. When he is sticking 100% to the PHB, you are just screwing with your player for no good reason.

Once again the biggest reason most people dislike 4e. Not everyone's the same. Personally I much prefer the way 5e handles checks, combat and bounded accuracy but I'd still play 4e over 3e any day.

4e had some good ideas for things but I think 5e does a lot better at keeping things manageable by the DM.

Also one of the main reasons people will not be fond of multiclassing Sorcerer Paladin over EK is because while they fulfill the same concept one's a balanced option and the other's a really good option. It becomes harder to balance encounters around a character with the burst power you can bring to the table.

Not to say you shouldn't ask but if a DM tells you no then there's a real reason he said so 99% of the time.

I was playing a rogue
I wanted to multiclass fighter and used my character's previous military training, and my newly begun adventure leading me to retrain as the excuse.
Later, I got a wizard girlfriend in game and decided some cantrips would be useful, also the level 2 divination thing, so I began to study on the road.

As a player I try to make it fit, as a DM I wouldn't really care how they do it, mechanics are for fun and it's all part of the particular character's plan for power anyway.

Are you actually retarded?

>multi-degree careers are always abusive of a system and therefor should be banned in any sensible career

My party is just muderhobos who never even kinda RP, all we do is kill stuff and search dungeons

I'd say scale it with the party and the costs. Skilled hireling, make them CR equal to average party level, maybe -1. Unskilled, half party level.

I don't know if that works out well, but it feels reasonable.

Except... it's an optional rule. Your character there was fine and really your DM shouldn't have shot it down but ask before hand if he's fine with it.

There are plenty of broken things you can do straight out of the PHB and if a DM wants to not have to examine every character sheet then he might say "Guys it's easier if you don't multiclass so I'm not allowing it". It's safer to assume you aren't using any variant rules unless you ask beforehand.

OK

>The GM flat out said "don't power game, it doesn't fit your character"
I love this. Its pretty rare to find a DM who's willing to run the game and your character for you.

How is your campaign user

Not going to lie. That character sounds like the worst person to adventure with and I can't imagine any situation outside of being forced the party would keep him around.

Your build was fine, but when you actually describe your character as an "Asshole" over "Hard to get along with" then there's an issue.

Except the Arcane Trickster was allowed a level of Wizard. So I think it was fairly safe to assume I could pick a level of fighter.

And even then, yeah, it is an optional rule, like feats, and point buy. If you mean to tell me you aren't using any optional rules, alright, you are the most boring GM ever. If you are using a ton of other variant and optional rules, but arbitrarily disallow multiclassing, you are being an annoying little faggot. The only thing this accomplishes, is being annoying to your players. Nothing else.

>Also one of the main reasons people will not be fond of multiclassing Sorcerer Paladin over EK is because while they fulfill the same concept one's a balanced option and the other's a really good option.

Sorc/Paladin isn't any more OP than EK. Hell, EK gets action surge, making its burst often better than the paladin's. And he doesn't miss out on/delay ASIs and multi-attacks

Most of the time people see a multiclass and assume it must be stronger, when instead many times it's just a different approach. Paladin/Sorc is much better at using spells offensively than the EK, whose best use of spells is using them defensively. That's all.

ur such a bitch lol

go to reddit and give ur sob story there no1 here gives a fuck faggot

Been on pause for a couple of weeks across Easter. We're not murderhobos, but our DM is awful. I think we're about to have the big final battle - trying to work out how to kill a dracolich at lower levels. Any murderhobo tips?

>background
Reading comprehension, yo.

He got a hell of a lot more humble when he made a pact with a fiend, got thrown out and cut off by his family, and was forced to live on the road.

He was still a noble whose backstory was pretty much "I was training to be a holier than thou paladin". His asshole attitude was the reason that didn't work out for him.

He had also been using a Longsword for the first 2 levels, despite not being proficient in it, to work towards the goal of getting a class that actually made him proficient.

It really sounds like you want to be playing something other than D&D to be honest.

>ur
>lol
>reddit
>no1
I am actually getting cancer reading your posts. Holy shit, stop posting you subhuman thrash.

No, it annoyed you because one DM made a mistake. I personally allow everything but the DM was probably not familiar enough with the system to judge power levels.

Plus the it's the DM's game. He's taking time out of his life to do it and has to do more work then other players, there's nothing wrong with running a game the way you want when you're the one making it. If you really dislike his rules then simply don't play at his table, no one forced you to.

Also from a fluff perspective how is the level of Fighter adding something to your Warlock Pact of the Blade doesn't?

The real issue with Paladin and any fullcaster is the amount of smite damage he can do can be overwhelming. The trick is to make wider groups and it harder to take long rests but when people aren't as confident they have the right to say no. Once again if you don't like their rules don't play with them

Hey at least the New Favoured enemy feature should be left as is.

>The real issue with Paladin and any fullcaster is the amount of smite damage he can do can be overwhelming. The trick is to make wider groups and it harder to take long rests but when people aren't as confident they have the right to say no. Once again if you don't like their rules don't play with them

I'm not the guy you think I am. I'm an unrelated user.

Paladin multiclass delays multiattacks/ASIs/Channel divinities/Auras for smites advancing faster. It's mostly a fair tradeoff.

It wouldn1t be enough for me to not play with the group if they banned multiclassing, if I liked the group, but it would annoy me if their justifications would be shitty.

>le epik grammar man

kys faggot

Exactly. It's trading versatility for the ability to do some other things.

Just when you hit for 1d10+4d8 damage and then 1d4+4d8 newer people generally think you've made the most OP thing ever. Without realising that's all your best resources gone. Once people know what they're doing they should realise that.

It sounds to me that he's been roleplaying his character while his DM was being a fag who only selectivley applies his own standards towards players he doesn't like.

It's a That DM situation.

Strong? Yes. It's a top tier class now and some things need to be weakened. It's not the most OP thing out there though.

There's a skeleton race on page 282 of the DMG.

>Also from a fluff perspective how is the level of Fighter adding something to your Warlock Pact of the Blade doesn't?
Not "a level" - several.

It adds martial abilities. It makes him more durable, and grants access to combat manoeuvres at level 3.

It adds a lot of options and makes him a proper fighter. The idea is to keep them mostly even, likely ending in a 11 Warlock 9 fighter.

Or that was the intention anyway, until the GM shit on it for giggles.

I screw with my player because he's a 500lbs lying, cheating bastard who thinks he's playing skyrim. He's a lard ass who doesn't RP, wants to make edge Lord characters and play out his fantasy of being a 6'2 blonde nordic faggot. So when he comes to me and begs to be an oath breaker or multiclass into a bunch of retarded shit or lie about the rules I tell him to get fucked. He's only at the table because me and the other players get a laugh out of bullying him.

That works fine. What I have a problem with is someone saying they're an established fighter and then suddenly they decide they want to start taking levels in druid. Why? I ask "because I want to shape-shift dood" the fat cunt replies.

Your DM does sound like he was pretty shit but just keep it in mind and make sure to tell the DM before the game if you plan to multiclass. If he says no then you either play something else or find a better DM.

Hey 5eg, is the Rock Gnome's Tinker trait overpowered? My DM said it was and wouldn't let me use the music box option until I multiclassed bard. I tried to counter with "does a dwarf need to be a fighter to swing an axe?", but then the DM simply stated that dwarfs were banned at the table because they were worse than kender.

super new to the game and already stuck on creating a character, could someone explain how hitpoints work in very very simply? preferably explain everything in this image such as what hit dice are an how to level up hit points?

Either you're a troll and just dicking around (It is that time where you all wake up) or your DM's a shit and leave the game.

You first sempai.

I at first thought the DM was insane, but the players share the DM's opinions and a couple of them DM for other games, so I thought I was the odd one out. Maybe I'm the only sane one. I don't know.

They're all retards. Like should have a carer retarded.

read the book

When you create your character, you have hit points equal to the highest roll on your hit die (in this case a 6) plus your constitution modifier. When you gain a level in a class, you gain another hit die, roll it, add your constitution modifier to the roll, then add that total to your hit point total. For example, your wizard has a d6 hit die and a CON of 13. at 1st level, you have 7 hit points (max roll + CON mod). Then you gain a second level in Wizard, so you now have 2 hit dice, both of which are d6s. Roll your new hit die, and add your CON mod again. Let's say you rolled a 3. 3+1 from the CON means an additional 4 health putting your new max hit points at 11.

>The real issue with Paladin and any fullcaster is the amount of smite damage he can do can be overwhelming.
How can you be so wrong, while still being sort of right?
The issue isn't the smite damage - fuck thy mother, get one of the smiting invocations and you'll smite for WAY MORE DAMAGE - but the number of encounters per day.
Any full caster will dish out outrageous damage, if he can just burst everything out in one encounter. As a martial, the PalaSorc can step back to martial fighting, but that's weak, and only good for throwaway encounters, like a cleric can just bless+cantrips and still be a valued member of the team encounter after encounter.

Check the fullcasters'privilege, keep to 6-to-8 encounters per long rest, with 2 short rests in between, and those smites won't be 'too much', they'll be used only on crits or in critical fights.

Fuck dude! Is that a motherfucking Undertale reference!

At lvl 1 the class determines your HP and thereafter each level you gain in it you get HP as the class perscribes.

Example:
You play a Monk with a +2 Con modifier.
The Monk at lvl 1 has a HP of 8+your Con modifier which is 10 HP in total.
At lvl 2 you add 1d8+Con mod HP Or 5+Con mod HP to that.
So if we go with the 5+Con mod method you end up with 17HP at lvl 2.
Repeat this simple adition each time you level up.
If your Con goes up by a +1 modifier you retroactivley UP your HP for each level in that class by 1.

Hit DIce are the dice you roll when you rest to recover HP.
The type of die depends on the Class (1d6,1d8 or 1d10) and their number depends on the ammount of levels you have in that class.

i dont get it because i dont play faggot trash games

kys undertale fag

Unrelated to the question, but the topic is interesting.

Who actually rolls for HP?

I usually run it as you gain the stated number + con mod. After a rather unfortunate situation where we had a Monk with more HP than the Barbarian, we settled on that instead, to avoid having that kind of situation again (the Barbarian literally never rolled above a 2 on his d12, which Really adds up in the long run.

great, explained it really well, thanks man

You roll for your HP, but I can understand houseruling the average plus CON especially after something like that
No problem

our dm has only run max hp and its worked well for us

There are several meme shit tier feats.

Elves has Always Strike First from WHFB.

>A paper tiger Barbarian

The player can choose to roll the HP die or take the perscribed HP.
So you can risk it rolling that 1d12 or take the 7 HP as perscribed in the class description.