/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

Out of the Abyss is really fun with a group who plays it correctly.

Can you set up roll20 to use an isometric grid?

>Are you still playing with alignments?
Does anybody anymore?

>tfw you roll 14, 13, 12, 12, 11, 10
>tfw you are stuck with a 15 in your main stat and no dump stat to play off for characterization
>tfw it doesn't matter because you're playing a Loremaster Wizard

I honestly picked it because I wanted the knowledge expertise.

>train for years at something
>only 10% better than someone who has never even tried it
>5e fags will actually defend this

>Friday evening
>posting on Veeky Forums about a game you don't even like
>shitposters will actually defend this

Are you saying Obama is 10% better than Trump?

Well what's the task?

Not an argument. And I play 5e every Thursday night.

This assumes there is no DM to adjust DC properly depending on who is trying or to arbitrate the results of a succesful roll

>adjust DC properly depending on who is trying

That's the function of a bonus, moron. A task doesn't get easier because someone competent is trying to do it, someone competent is more likely to succeed because of their competence.

Stop coming up with bullshit to justify the game's shitty math. What you are basically saying is that a dragon should have higher AC against commoners because they don't have proficiency in fighting.

>train for years at a little bit of everything as Bard2/Rogue11
>Can literally never fail DC15 tasks

In which room?

It doesn't matter what the task is. If it's a DC 10 task, it's a DC 10 task. If you are proficient, you get a +2. So if you've trained for most of your young adult life on swordfighting, you are only 10% more likely to hit than some commoner who has never touched one in his life.

>He took it like a man and got good scores

Say you want to do a three year long campaign and the DM doesn't do much to get characters killed very often. Whatever you end up with you might well be stuck with for 3 years. Well, better let everybody have their time in the spotlight, right?
So you take point buy.
But then this one faggot insists on rolling 4d6d1, and naturally ends up with high scores that are impossible for you to get on point buy and he pulls out whatever MAD class he wants to play that's usually offset by the fact it's MAD. Except they just negated that downside by pure luck before the game even starts.
And say you're playing a fighter. At level 6 and 10 you're getting an ASI. This ASI barely allows you to keep up with this guys scores - this guy has essentially just stolen your level 6 and 10 featuers while getting their own class's level 6 and 10 features.

Sure, you can just suck it up and not complain. But why should this even happen in the first place?

So now it's 'Be inferior or roll stats and risk being even more inferior to worsen the problem'. Or, I don't know, they lessen the point of rolling stats at all by gauranteeing you at least standard array. All you've done is lessen the effect of rolling for stats by half by chopping off the bottom half of the roll distribution yet leaving the top half of the roll distribution on top.

Not really, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

I mean, you've got apparently parallel lines that -- without bending -- meet and then separate.

How many fucking dice did you roll? Usually it's either 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest.

Especially with 3d6 there's only a 1 in 216 chance of rolling 18 (plus 2 from your racial bonus I guess). Multiple 20s across the board seems really unlikely. Although I don't think it matters that amazingly much, the difference between +4 and +5 is really not so huge. The difference between +2 and +3 is comparatively more important.

That said I'm not a fan of stat rolling either. It's fun to get lucky, but it's also very painful to be the poor sap who's stuck with 3 penalties and a measly 14 for his main attacking stat.

Alignment has no mechanical effect anymore and is only there precisely because it's a enormous sacred cow

Rolling for stats made sense for older editions because they were nowhere as attribute-focused as 5e, and the difference between getting either a 10 or a 16 was insignificant and unlikely to ever come up unless it literally barred you from playing a certain class

Well a commoner has literally +0. A level 1 Fighter, so someone who's trained a bit will likely have +5 after Strength. So he's 25% more likely to hit and his attack will be dealing an extra 3 damage on the average longsword hit of 4.5.

At level 1 you're meant to be barely better then a peasant, if you want to start off as a skilled swordsman then you should be beginning games at about level 4-5.

>"wahh user's character is better than mine :^((("- you

It doesn't. fucking. matter.

If you can fix it without any effort whatsoever, why are you trying to start the shitflinging this early on the thread?

That's not how the numbers are in actual play, you blithering retard.

If somebody can't succeed at something, don't let them roll.
If somebody is gauranteed to succeed at something, don't let them roll.

Use proficiency as a means to say 'Yes, you can roll this' sometimes - proficiency being a requirement to be able to make the roll in the first place, though untrained people can try something more makeshift.

>Rolling for stats fags continue to defend their practice not by giving any reasons it's good, but attacking people who don't enjoy having to put up with their shit when someone really insists on rolling for stats

>But why should this even happen in the first place?

Because some people are objectively better. Deal with it. Don't like it? Don't play in the campaign.

> and he pulls out whatever MAD class he wants to play that's usually offset by the fact it's MAD. Except they just negated that downside by pure luck before the game even starts.

Oh so you mean the shitty classes like Monk and Ranger are actually going to be viable? Oh, poor you! You can just play a wizard and be better than him in every way anyway, but clearly he is the problem.

>Well, better let everybody have their time in the spotlight, right?

The spotlight is a meme and has nothing to do with your scores. If being 5% worse at hitting and having a bit less damage, is ruining your time in the "spotlight", then you are just a shitty roleplayer.

i had an idea to use legos as miniatures, seems like it would be way cheap and you could just make areas and shit super easily, then remake them into something else when you need to

im sure im not the first, so do you guys know a good place to buy them cheaply? shipping to the UK

My own personal gripe with ability scores is it completely leaves my characters effective ability to luck.

If I want to play a campaign and devote time of my life I want to be having fun. Rolling presents the issue that there's a chance of having completely useless stats, compared to point buy which has 0 chance of that and can still be roleplayed fine. There's no real reason to use rolling for a serious campaign.

Strength isn't the issue here. A commoner with 16 Strength from moving hay his whole life would negate that advantage.

The point is that pure training only gives you a 10% advantage over a novice.

I use pointbuy for dungeon crawling and roll for my stats for roleplay.

FIGHT ME YOU FUCKING NERDS

>It doesn't. fucking. matter.

It. Does. Fucking. Matter. Stop typing like Tumblr you immature autistic. And if by "fix" it you mean lower the DC arbitrarily for no reason, why not just raise the starting proficiency bonus. You're telling me if you take two men with Strength 10 and have one practice with longswords for 5 years and the other sit with his finger up his ass, the first guy will only be 10% more likely to win than the first? Seriously?
>That's not how the numbers are in actual play, you blithering retard.

Oh really? How are they in actual play? Because a charming titty dancer with 17 Charisma can out do your level 1 character who spent years practicing singing, just because she is pretty and charming. Explain how that makes sense.

As human you could already have +2 to 5 stats with point buy leaving 2 of the 27 point left to make you not retarded in the last stat or use it to get a 14 stat

You use lego to punish the players by using it as a walk of shame, if they use their phones at the table or are being disruptive.

Legos are fucking expensive, just go to Denmark and buy from there.

Also source on pic?

Wow, you're shitting on the GURPS and on the D&D 5e thread simultaneously. I'm not even mad by now. I'm eager to see you on the WoD thread.

Man, I sure wish I had the energy to completely lose my shit over absolutely nothing, purely out of my own choice and initiative.

Because you're level 1, eventually that goes up at higher levels when you become someone who is actually skilled and is increased by your extra attacks.

Also the fact a PC has higher HP and they aren't meat points, so just because the commoner "hit" just means he made a kinda successful attack that took effort to dodge.

If you decide to look at the pure math it sounds retarded, in play though a level 1 Fighter being able to be overwhelmed by 3-4 commoners is perfectly reasonable.

Except there is no rule forbidding a character without proficiency from making a roll, except in the case of Survival. And again, in combat everyone is entitled to a roll. You're saying a character who spent years training with a longsword is only 10% better than a dirt farmer commoner? Cause that's what the 5e book says.

>Not playing low level 5e for that sweet sweet lethality and players roll for personality traits and stats but they can choose their background

>Oh really? How are they in actual play? Because a charming titty dancer with 17 Charisma can out do your level 1 character who spent years practicing singing, just because she is pretty and charming. Explain how that makes sense.
Because she spent time practising dancing and charm? It's literally her living.

>Because some people are objectively better
If imbalance is a good thing because it 'represents how some people are better than others', why did they even bother trying to balance classes in 5e? Of course, the classes aren't truly balanced, but they tried to keep some level of balance.
>Shitty classes like ranger and monk
Ranger isn't awfully MAD because wisdom really isn't too important.
Monk still has a role.
Barbarian is a good mention, as for most relevant levels they have the best DPR output. They also have damage resistance, but with good stats they also end up with an AC as high as 20 without a shield. Probably more like 18 if they just ended up with 18 in con and dex though.
Paladins are also notably one of the more powerful classes in the game.

>If being 5% worse at hitting and having ab it less damage is ruining your time
Think about it. With a -2 modifier over someone else, that can quite often be failing 20% more often. That's 20% more often than this other player the DM will say 'No, your idea fails' or 'No, you don't get information' or 'No, you don't deal damage' or 'No, the enemy resists your save and your plan isn't going to work now'
And why is the DM doing this? Because at some point a year ago you all rolled some dice and they decided you would be the one who should have their attempts rejected more often. So now the party asks Mr. Better Than You to do the checks.

i was thinking more like jsut buying a bucket of old ones (from like the 90s or something), and just picking out what i need from there

Why don't you just use something like BECMI then? Just as easy to learn, achieves the same results more effectively, and you don't have to ignore most of the system's content

>You're saying a character who spent years training with a longsword
Level 1 characters have probably had years of light training, were self-taught or spend at most a single year of heavy training.

What the fuck is the 1st level char's Cha? Give all the information and stop being a biased piece of shit.

Tell us how the bard character is outdone by tittty mctits.

----
It's how bounded accuracy is and is meant to represent the fact the party can contribute more or less equally to any situation.

Not the guy your talking to, but I never thought of level 1's that way...

I just assumed they were freshly trained employees with 1 weeks worth of training.

There's a suggestion in a rulebook somewhere that you should sometimes require a player have proficiency, i.e. for the help action. Skill checks are mostly the DM's domain anyway, so it's not like it needs to be set in stone.

When it comes to combat, the diffference between a master swordsman and a novice swordsman is more in abilities such as 'extra attack' or whatever.

From what WotC gathered, most campaigns are low level anyways and never reach higher levels so that content was designed knowing it will likely be ignored anyways.

Oh fuck you're not an autist who plays the same campaign for years, are you? Why don't you play an actual superhero system because that's clearly what you want to be playing.

Why does the thread today have so many angry opinionated faggots?

Rolling for stats is actually perfectly fine in high mortality games. You get to roll for stats more often and all that, and you're making character ideas more often so the stats might help when you're running dry on ideas.

What really irks me is rolling-for-stats-fags bringing it into games where characters don't die for the entire campaign or so.

The point it that 5e unlike some older editions starts a low level character as very fucking weak, which is awesome if you're like me and prefer a world where goblins can still be a threat for more then 2 levels. Some people don't like playing characters who can be killed by simple creatures and in that case either another edition or starting at higher levels are better.

>it completely leaves my characters effective ability to luck.
So does rolling the action.

Did you get btfo'd so bad and so hard in that other thread by peeps telling you that it's not as big of an issue as you think it is and came to whine and screech on this thread several weeks later?

Is that why you're posting?

Why are you power-fantasy "I must be heroic" munchkins so easily butthurt?

Yes, but once you do rolling for stats and rolling for action, you get a one-off decide at the start of the campaign on who gets the loaded die and who gets the normal dice and then the guy with the loaded die has the loaded die for the rolling for action the entire game.

I just told you an earlier edition can achieve roughly the same results in tone as low level 5e play and you got incredibly fucking defensive.
>BECMI
>"I must be heroic"

Level 1 characters *are* skilled you stupid fuck. They aren't commoners. They are capable of taking on city guards singlehandedly. They have trained for years to be as good as they are.

>Power fantasy "I must be heroic" munchkins
Who, the rolling for stats fags? I can see that, considering
1. Rolling for stats is the easiest way your DM will give you high starting stats
2. You get to be more powerful than everyone else
3. It's the best for metagaming - pick a MAD class if you get good stats, pick moon druid if you get bad stats.

>Because she spent time practising dancing and charm?

Not a requisite of 17 Charisma.

Solve this by getting the DM or you being the DM to give the players magic items off the bat.

Otherwise if you want higher powered fantasy in 5e, remove the three item limit and include all the item slots from the previous editions.

Bing badaboom.

>They are capable of taking oncity guards singlehandedly
>And then a peasant with a sling comes out and scores a crit and one shots them

>What the fuck is the 1st level char's Cha?

Does it matter? Why does being prettier make you a better instrument player? Yo Yo Ma is one ugly unlikeable motherfucker but he's a better cello player than anyone in the world.

No I'm back because you fags still ahve no argument.

It doesn't really matter because they only are 10% better at fighting than that commoner anyway.

>Telling facts is getting defensive
We all know who is defensive here. You're not fooling anyone.
That only really applies for dumbasses who say "if you roll low you can reroll"
Honestly a -1 or -2 in the d20 system is not that big a deal. Literally the only people who think so are the minmaxing munchkins who think a -5~10% success rate on a specific category of rolls will ruin their fun like Bounded accuracy was the best thing to happen to D&D

Except the commoner rolled for stats and is now 10% better at fighting than you

David vs Goliath the Dungeon Bugaloo!

If she has Cha 17, that's already far far above the norm.

Even the 8d8 CR 2 bard from Volo's only has Cha 14.
is a piece of shit.

>WHY DON'T YOU GO PLAY A SUPERHERO SYSTEM THEN???
>I'M NOT DEFENSIVE YOU'RE DEFENSIVE
You're a barrel of laughs user

Thus proving my point even more.

>Even the 8d8 CR 2 bard from Volo's only has Cha 14.

That still negates the proficiency bonus.

Speaking of Mystics:
---
Mystical Recovery
Starting at 2nd level, you can draw vigor from the psi energy you use to power your psionic disciplines.

Immediately after you spend psi points on a psionic discipline, you can take a bonus action to regain hit points equal to the number of psi points you spent.
---
I imagine this doesn't work for powers that are used as a reaction? You can't Bonus Action when it's not your turn, right?

Except you can make a character with 17 cha using standard or point buy and picking a race that has +2 in cha.

That seems logical to me inspector user.

It does matter because you're autistically flipping your shit and when you get called out to make a concrete example for comparison you shirk like a fucking coward. Because you actually have no fucking argument.

See the bard from Volo's with 8d8 and is a CR 2 wth Cha 14.

No, you did get btfo'd too damn hard and only decided to screech and sperg out several weeks later.

It's not 5~10%. When you consider the mathematics about DCs and such, it's more like double that.

If it's about attacks, then it multiplies - +strength gives both damage and hit chance and a +2 modifier to strength over +0 can make a difference of 50% more damage.

On a monk, you're getting:
>Better dex save
>Better AC
>Better hit chance
>Better damage
>Better initiative
>Better stealth and other dex skills
>Better deflect arrows
From increased dex alone, and when you translate that to combat effectiveness that is vastly more than '5~10%' when you consider stealth can help them get a surprised round, initiative can help them potentially get an extra turn in combat, AC/saves/deflect and so forth can keep them alive for longer and all of these means they'll make more attacks of which deal more damage and have a higher hit chance...

Really though, the worst thing is overshadowing other players. Most good stories have even the seemingly weak and lame characters be good at something the others aren't.

>8 hit dice
> CR 2

This edition truly is fucked, isn't it?

Can you further elaborate?

So it's a character versus a 1st level character? Then there's really no issue there.

Only if you're an autist.

CR isn't directly related to an equivalent hd, you fucking retard.

It's like the CR 12 Archmage that spellcasts like a 18 Level Wizard!

>Bounded accuracy was the best thing to happen to D&D
>only get 20% more likely to hit during your transformation from a novice to a god of war
>despite spending years learning to sword fight you never get any better at defending yourself
>constantly getting hit by low-level gnolls even at level 14+
>being proficient literally doesn't matter because a slight difference in stat completely negates it until level 5

I reread and realized I was confused my bad, the complaint is that a npc is almost as good as a level 1.

Carry on

>Forgetting that HP exists and that you have way more HP at a high level than at a low level
Well, sure

>CR isn't directly related to an equivalent hd, you fucking retard.

No, it's directly related to the shitton of damage characters deal in this edition. Which is part of why PvP is literally nonviable and making an NPC with class levels literally doesn't work.

5e isn't even a system, it's an overly contrived video game that completely breaks down outside of its strict requirements.

>it's okay I never learned to fight with a sword, I have plot armor that lets me get bludgeoned to death with a two ton club over and over and suffer zero ill effects

Yeah good point, it's not 5e that's shit, it's D&D in general.

Are you a retard or an autist?
So taking the bait, the 20th fighter has 2x action surge, 4 attacks and shit coming from their archetypes.

Don't be severely autistic.

At what point do rolled stats become "shit", and what kind of party makeup would a different character that rolled good stats be better than you at everything?

The cha 17 is beyond the norm as an npc. But hey whatever helps that autist look like an autist.

When two characters with similar roles have differing stats.

Two fighter parties are awfully common, but also barbarian versus fighter or fighter versus paladin or sorcerer versus wizard or whatever.

It doesn't even have to be one player. It can be everybody in the party being better at you at some thing.

Also, don't forget. Some players simply play better than other players, so an unfortunate player who also plays badly / goes for suboptimal choices is going to be practically trash canned.

At least if everybody had balanced stats, you could take a suboptimal option and still be relevant.

>Treating hit points as meat points
>Not treating them as your ability to to keep fighting

Do people really do this?

I made a custom feat. Could I get some feedback?I mean tell me how bad it is.

pastebin.com/raw/2GUaa6LW

Npcs with class levels are viable, there's no stopping you thinking they aren't but we can't stop a retard who is attempting to think. So points for trying.

Points also for the bait.