/5eg/ Fifth Edition General:

According to the book you cast the spell on it for a year, then again it has that distinction in the spell itself so you'll have to get DM approval iirc.

You can succeed without being 100% optimized, but that also gives reason to why make an alternative so people can play whatever and still succeed.

Sure, you can succeed without being optimized, but being optimized makes it easier.

Ease of play doesn't make for a good character, though.

So we're in agreement then of making an alternative for those allergic to not being optimized glad we got that sorted.

>I deal one point less damage and hit 5% less!
>surely, this'll lead to all sorts of interesting roleplay opportunities

1d4chan.org/wiki/Stormwind_fallacy

>Part 3 of Phandelver takes a fuckton of time to get through with a moderately-tame group
>Part 4 is basically "jerk off a bit and win"
Did I do something wrong? I thought I had more content to work with, but my players are more/less steamrolling the entire thing to the point we'll be done probably next week. I tried raising hps for enemies, making npc interactions a bit longer, etc. We've only gone about 5 sessions. Also
>Might need to make another map before next week for the next part of Phandelver
>Can't draw worth shit
>[Dread intensifies.jpg]
My players aren't elitists or anything, but I'm still green as a DM and don't want to fail them.

Anyone have a list of mundane or low-magic items that are better than regular equipment but not too strong for a level 1-2 character? I'm running out of ideas

So I only saw this in the other thread but someone was talking about how to improve/balance Two Weapon Fighting.

What if we give it the same treatment as GWM and Sharpshooter? -5 to attack with both weapons, but in return you make two melee attacks with one Attack action, and can apply your attribute bonus on the off-hand attack?

In theory it should come to about equal to the -5/+10 that GWM and Sharpshooter give, but might be a case of, "rolling too much die + too much math" for the game.

Well then if they want to play a certain race but are afraid to just let them know that being very slightly less effective doesn't mean that they'll be useless. You can even offer to make encounters a little easier if you really want to.

As long as it's the player that wants to play that race. The way the OP question was worded it seemed like it was the all-too-common situation where a DM is whining about players wanting to only play the most effective characters all the time.

If you mean mechanically, you're right, not necessarily, but I don't think there's a character ever that couldn't have been more effective with higher stats.

If you mean from a roleplay perspective, the mechanics of your character and the fluff and roleplay can be almost 100% separated; an optimized character doesn't mean the character can't have a personality.

I gotchu, senpai
also, see: lordbyng.net/inspiration/

Rereading I can see how it was taken as such but it was not my intention. I'm after a solution to open up options for people who put optimizing over anything else.

No DM should be trying to force people into races, I just want to make it an option.

>good character = combat effectiveness

But that is incorrect, though. The ability to roleplay a non-v.human/half-elf is indeed infringed upon by the optimized aspects of class, race, feats, and related crunch.

And for that matter, the optimized non-combat aspects of a character would include:
>no family/close-friends
>no negative history
>reputation that permits good faith lending/purchasing/cooperation optimal for campaign/class

The claim "you cannot be optimal and roleplay" is not what is being argued, it's "you cannot be optimal AND be varied in your roleplay" since your options are severely limited.

One of our players who always without fail plays Paladins is going to DM tonight for the first time , so we're all coming in as Paladins ourselves.

Starting at level 1,so are DEUS VULT or should I múlticlass out of this Meme as soon as possible?

Arigato, user-kun

You need to be a bit clearer about what you mean, but I was that user that made the spreadsheet.

> -5 to attack with both weapons, but in return you make two melee attacks with one Attack action, and can apply your attribute bonus on the off-hand attack?

This is really unclear. You can already make two attacks with one attack action, or do you mean make an attack with each weapon for each attack you'd normally be able to make?

I think that's increasing damage a shitload, especially when you take shit like hex or hunter's mark into account.

I might be wrong, though. I do really like the idea.

Right, it's done. The 5e Guide to Sex, like I threatened.

FEATURES
>13 pages; brevity and simplicity were considered paramount
>Seduction rules
>How long you last in bed
>Effects for satisfying people in bed
>Big ol' crossbreeding table
>Pregnancy rules (including contraceptive and abortion option
>Brief (2-3 sentence) description of how each published race deals with sex, some of whom get new racial traits
>Each of the 12 PHB classes gets 2 sexual class features, one which is mostly fluff for sex, the other of which grants a tangible benefit for getting it on to everyone involved in the sex (and encourages a party to have orgies, basically)
>New ways to use existing PHB spells for sex

Enjoy, ye perverts of /5eg/

>74
>Plate of Haggis

This is without a doubt the grossest l, saddest thing I am ever going to fap to

10/10

Like I said, the worst part of it all is that I don't ERP and have no particular desire to ERP. A thread from a few weeks ago just got me thinking about it, though, so rather than letting it fester in my head, I wrote it up.

I just rule at 11th level, if you have extra attack, you make a 2nd attack with your bonus action.

1 Bard, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand.
5 Bard, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand.
11 Bard, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand.

1 Valor Bard, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand.
6 Valor Bard, 2 Attack, 1 Offhand.
11 Valor Bard, 2 Attack, 2 Offhand.

1 Barbarian, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand.
5 Barbarian, 2 Attacks, 1 Offhand.
11 Barbarian, 2 Attacks, 2 Offhand.

1 Fighter, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand.
5 Fighter, 2 Attacks, 1 Offhand.
11 Fighter, 3 Attacks, 2 Offhand.
20 Fighter, 4 Attacks, 2 Offhand.

...

So what's your favorite monster?

...

I mean it like this:

A level 2 Rogue with 2WF is dual-wielding two daggers and looking to shank a fool.

They can either use Attack action with one dagger and then Bonus Action stab and lose out on attribute bonus.

OR

Use the new 2WF -5 option to make two dagger attacks with one Attack action, and gain attribute bonus damage on the off-hand dagger.

Next example:

Level 8 Slayer Ranger is going longsword + dagger (using it like a parrying dagger) and sees an opening (ally Wizard has had a Hold Person take effect on a foe).

They can either: use their Attack and Extra Attack action to make two Longsword attacks and then bonus action Dagger stab.

OR

Go in with the -5 and make a total of four attacks (Longsword + dagger for one Attack, Longsword + dagger for Extra Attack).

It might be OP when you take into account Hunter's Mark or Hex, but that would then only apply to classes that can grab those spells or go for Magic Initiate.

The biggest fear I have is a level 20 Fighter getting this, meaning they can potentially make 16 Attacks in one turn. But at that point, a level 20 Fighter going Omnislash on a foe is probably worth it.

Depending on the way people point-buy, that would actually fuck them more. It's not a straight 1:1, because getting from 14 to 15 is 2 points. Also, they wouldn't be able to hit 16 in a stat.

I'm actually rather impressed with the effort that went into this.

Though
>Humans not breeding with literally anything
that's basically their DnD super-power.

Ah, okay.

Like I said, sounds very interesting. Run the numbers, maybe?

I'd also suggest that, as with GWM, this idea be tacked onto the existing Dual Wielder feat.

The feat is already almost irrelevant, aside from the +1 AC, which I think is balanced when compared to the other half of GWM, the bonus action attack on a crit/on slaying something.

Animated armour or animated constructs in general.

Had the party run through a haunted house themed area that had plenty of them and they almost always got caught out.

First was when they found a massive greataxe secured to a stand at the top of the staircase, above a suit of matching armour.

As soon as they touched the axe, the armoured knight suddenly shoved the barbarian back over the bannister causing hefty fall damage and obviously taking him out of the fight for a turn or two while he scaled the stairs again, then suckerpunched the wizard.

A little later, they found four more suits of armour standing around a hallway to immediately start smashing and crashing them preemptively, then as they entered the next room the animated flying swords flew out of the scabbards and started to backstab them.

One other room the rogue went into alone, only to find the door magically lock behind him and left him in a duel with his most challenging opponent yet. An animated broomstick.

Due to insane rolls, he grappled and pinned the broomstick but could never hit it with his shortsword even with advantage, the broom however with disadvantage was consistantly bopping him in the face over and over while the party tried to blast open the lock on the door.
On an unrelated topic of monsters, how cheeky and or cliche would it be to include hints that the bandits the party are investigating are offering a haul of their bounty to a dragon who lives in the low mountains nearby and expects a tithe from them, and then they find out that the dragon has arranged for a pair of trolls to help defend the bandit camp.

For the party to find the trolls with a rather mottled brownish red skin and short curved horns, and eventually demonstrate a hearty resistance to flames and the ability to belch forth fire themselves.

You just hit on the most retarded part of 5es design. Not only is there a stat cap (which is fine) but the ASIs are higher than in any previous edition and more prevalent. So it's like standing on a stepstool in a low ceilings room and jumping on a fucking pogo stick. ASIs have the +2 to one option to give instany gratification to the skyrim normies that are now wizard's main market. Also we can't have racial stay penalties brvsyse wizards made the game too dependent on ability scores so now that racist and so rolling for stats doesn't even work anymore cause if you start with a 20 strength you can never get stronger and even with standard array you hit the cap by level 8 at the latest.

Just did the math, and it comes out below GWM, which makes sense.

I like this idea a lot.

I think if we change PAM to only worth with quarterstaves being wielded in two hands, and add this -5 thing to Dual Wielder, it'd be pretty balanced.

Shit that is right, at best you could make a slightly more robust character.

Humans will attempt to breed with anything.
Dragons, while able to breed with anything, might not always be willing to make an attempt.

I think the numbers will only appear obscene if we apply them to a Fighter that's level 11+, but sadly I don't have a program to run the calculations, and I don't have the time right now to do the math by hand.

I suggested it mainly because I was hoping someone else could run the numbers, or if we were lucky enough for DPS chart user to show up and throw it in their DPS calculation.

You're thinking dragons. Humans are pretty fertile, but not universally so (the 3.5 Book of Erotic Fantasy, which was used as a touchstone for this, similarly has humans fertile with many but not all creatures. It was actually less permissive than my table, though - humans in the BoEF aren't fertile with bugbears, dwarves, gnomes, gnolls, goblins, halflings, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, or minotaurs, and are only "maybe" fertile with centaurs)

>I'm actually rather impressed with the effort that went into this.

Anything worth doing is worth doing well, if not necessarily seriously.

The biggest potential outliers in damage with that change (in my opinion) are:

- Hexblade or Bladelock with Hex and/or Haste active.
- Ranger with Hunter's Mark and/or Haste active on them.
- Paladin with Hunter's Mark and/or Haste active on them.
- Level 11 Fighter with Haste active on them, blowing Action Surge.
- Level 20 Fighter with Haste active on them, blowing Action Surge.

Just to be clear, that's-5 on every attack you make that turn, right?

Yes.

So in the first example (level 2 Rogue) it'd be a -5 to both the Rapier and Dagger attacks.

For the second example (level 8 Ranger) it'd be a -5 to all four attacks (2x Longsword, 2x Dagger attacks).

That was probably me.

I was also considering removing GWM and SS -5/+10 feature, making the extra attack a crit/kill of GWM baseline of combat, as the -5 becomes trivial late while the +10 is too good to pass, making it obligatory to use it if you want optimized combat.
I also thought on making other features from feats baseline, like Charger, Defensive Duelist, PAM's Attack of Opportunity, Mounted Combat, Shield Master's shove.

But talking about TWF, I'd be ok with the offhand attack being free. The damage output of 2 scimitars would be higher than a greatsword.
2 Scimitars (1d6 + PB + Ability Score + 1d6 + PB) vs Greatsword (2d6 + PB + Ability Score)
The trade-off here is that you'd need to hit both attacks and crits with the greataxe/greatsword are better.

With this, you make technically balance TWF vs 2HF, as it doesn't force the expenditure of the bonus action.
Until extra attack comes, which opens the discussion of the extra attacking with the offhand.
Granting extra attack (i.e. 4 attacks at 5th level) damage-wise doesn't seem that much, the only problem someone pointed out is that Versatile weapons become weak with the change, so you'd need to buff their Versatile damage or something.

The problem with this is that the bonus action competes with Bardic Inspiration and Rage/Frenzy, not to mention Rogue's Cunning Action, it's too high a cost versus just equipping a greatsword and not having to worry about the trade.
Offhand attack as BA still makes it bad on every class but Fighter.

Offhand as free action:

1 Rogue, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand (+ Sneak Attack, + BA)

1 Barbarian, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand (+ BA)
5 Barbarian, 2 Attacks, 2 Offhand (+ BA)

3 Berserker Barbarian, 2 Attacks, 1 Offhand
5 Berserker Barbarian, 3 Attacks, 3 Offhand

1 Fighter, 1 Attack, 1 Offhand (+ BA)
5 Fighter, 2 Attacks, 1 Offhand (+ BA)
11 Fighter, 3 Attacks, 3 Offhand (+ BA)
20 Fighter, 4 Attacks, 4 Offhand (+ BA)

>even if you are a druid
Top zozzle mate

Really though, the saddest thing is that this is probably the best-written homebrew I've seen in a while (including UAs), and I'll probably be saving it.

Yo my dudes.

Is the extra damage die of the Orcish Fury feat doubled for crits?

Hang on before you do, slightly revised version with minor spelling/formatting corrections here and there, plus cover art.

...at the risk of tooting my own horn, I am GOOD at making these little additions to the game...Expanded Downtime Activities, Previous Adventures, the Vampire: the Masquerade Monster Manual...

>Compatibility chart, gestation chart, etc.
This looks awfully familiar. Is it stolen from/inspired by the one from the Book of Erotic Adventures?

Also, I choose to believe there is an error in the human/halfling compatibility entries, because Alfie wouldn't lie to me.

That's why I gave my suggestion, because I think it'd be ok for level 1-4, but it's when we get to level 5+ that the math gets wonky.

And I am hoping some user can save me the time on the math.

I mean, as things stand, my biggest fear is someone taking this to the extreme of Champion Fighter 11/Vengeance Paladin 9 when they have Haste buff on them (Concentration from Wizard or Bard or some such) and Hunter's Mark (Paladin maintaining Concentration) and they want to nova something.

That means Oath of Enmity (advantage on all attacks vs. one foe), 8 attacks with their main Action (Attack, Extra Attack #1, Extra Attack #2, Haste Action), then going Action surge for another 6 attacks (Attack, Extra Attack #1, Extra Attack #2).

Oh, and blowing divine smite on every one that hits.

For argument's sake, let's assume every single attack hits but no crits occur, and they just blow their load. Not including a magic weapon, and assuming 20 DEX, going Rapier + Dagger, that's 14d8 piercing + 14d4 piercing + 80, then 23d8 Radiant damage (three 1st level spell slots converted to divine smite, three 2nd level slots converted to divine smite, two 3rd level slots converted to divine smite).

Like... I'm pretty sure that much damage could kill three Tarrasques in a row.

I'm sorry, the +80 number should be +140 (28 x 5).

It was inspired by the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but changed to suit my own personal tastes (such as halfling/human and dwarf/human interbreeding being possible, and goblinoids being folded into a single entry rather than three different ones), as well as to fit in races that appear in 5e but not in the BoEF (tabaxi, kenku, etc). The gestation chart is a mix of the BoEF and the older Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

Everything written is of course adaptable to your own particular setting.

Anywhere I can find the rest of your shit?

>Just run the first proper session of a new campaign. 5E
>Made it clear it was a wilderness hex crawl, old school in style , fairly tough.
>Players on board.
>Cleric player constantly holds back his character , on his phone for most of the session, little interaction.
>We get to the final combat of the session , 4 velicoraptors ambush them.
>Cleric still stays way back while party fight.
>Party are fighting two velicoraptors. >Two more circle around to attack cleric.
>Cleric fights them
>The two raptors attack him , they manage to hit with their claw damage for ten knocking him out.
>Players finish off rest of velicoraptors.
>He fails a death saving throw. Strike one
>One player tries to stabilise him. Fails. Two strikes
>Another player with advantage tries. Fails. Three strikes.
>I give him one more roll for his 'god'. Fails
>Player dies.
>Doesn't seem to care that much, rips up his character sheet, building another.
>Another player is angry and upset with one.
>Another isn't that happy either. Lots of jokes they'll all be dead soon etc.
>Feeling DM guilt. Did I goof?

Death is a bitch; fuck her and get over it.

>Cleric player constantly holds back his character , on his phone for most of the session, little interaction.
>Doesn't seem to care that much, rips up his character sheet
You should not play with this person.

Fuck it, I'll post 'em. I got nothing better to do.

INCOMING:
- Action Dice for 5e
- Expanded Downtime Activities
- Magician Kit for the Rogue
- Adventuring History
- Mesopotamian Pantheon

depends, are the strikes due to the helping players failing or did the cleric fail his death saving throw on his turn?

If the other players failure resulted in his strikes, that's bad, only his rolls will count against him.

Adventuring History is one of my more favorite ones, personally, since it encourages people building 6th level or whatever characters to remember that getting to 6th level takes a LOT of XP, and it needed to come from somewhere. Simply being trained by your dad the captain of the guard or whatever isn't going to cut it.

Nah, everyone knew what the deal was going in.
A GM can do a lot of emotional manipulation to make sure the players are having fun, indeed.
But, for the best fun, the players have to be aware of this and play into the manipulations.

Not to mention, everyone has baggage from real life that they bring to the table, and the days when everything in the game goes wrong. I've seen games where experienced RP'rs just couldn't "get it up" that day and it made the atmosphere fall flat, and days where everyone is rolling ones and critical moments, leading to multiple sessions of buildup and planning to go to waste.
These things happen bro. You were upfront and honest about how it was going to be, and you delivered. If they don't like it, they can talk to you or walk away mate. Unfortunately, many just walk away... but eventually you'll find a group of folks who didn't walk, over and over, and it will be magical.
Hang in there, those days are rough as a GM, but just think about how you can sidestep or correct the problem in the future, while still maintaining your standards, and you'll do fine.

>TL;DR
You didn't fuck up, they did, and they just realized it. Don't sweat it, just work on making the next game fun.

This one is good for a lark. Basically it's expanded Carousing options, but also includes tables for philanthropy or research...as well as a table for special weird events.

As a warning, these tables heavily emphasize randomness and could easily result in you getting screwed over at lower levels. But that's part of the fun. You need to go into this document with a very 1e/2e mindset.

>Plot twists

I was with you till that

>You swing your maul at this creature and connect with what should be a bonecrushing hit, but the creatures flesh seems to be strangely resilient and the hit doesn't seem to effect it as much

>ok, so your attack does hit, but this creature is resistant to bludgeoning damage, and so the damage is halfed

New DM, not sure which I should ve doing?

This was just me trying my hand at something I've wanted for awhile in D&D - essentially a spellcaster that doesn't actually cast spells. Not gonna lie, Now You See Me had just come out so I really wanted a way to play a kind of action-magician.

number 1

or number 2

or both.

And lastly, a Mesopotamian pantheon, along with some details for a Mesopotamian-type setting. Nothing special, but I like it.

Good thing you can still feed that back to Wizards, isn't it?

So don't run with plot twists, then. Anything I post here can be modified or truncated to fit your particular play style at your whim.

start with one, offer a roll (perception, arcana, survival, nature ect) end with two

First normally, second if you're playing with people unfamiliar with video/tabletop or autists

pls respond

>Class-based sex abilities
>Wild Style
>DEUS VULT
My sides can't take this

Notes:
>Typo in bard inspiration dice paragraph (should be "can't grant DICE")
>Cleric/Ranger/Rogue advantage is of unspecified duration
>Fighter Prowess should maybe be number of times based on str/dex, whichever is higher?
>Tantric Knowledge: does "number of times" mean "number of 10-minute periods" or "number of sexual acts"?
>Pass It On: only sorcerer cantrips? Needs to specify

Oh hey, I already downloaded this one a while ago.

I was kind of hoping the Conan references in the Barbarian section would get a rise out of people. Pun totally intended

Thanks for the corrections! Implementing them now, and if/when I post this again, it'll incorporate them.

Your writing isn't bad. Have you tried making monsters/bestaries?

I did make the character rolls go against him . I was trying to make clear divides between success and failure. But you're right , he should have made saves in between their rolls which would have greatly increased the chance of him not dying.

Probably too late to retcon that but will do it in future correctly. Live and learn.

Thanks bro needed to hear this.

Anyone got the breeding chart? I need to check on dragonborn and drow.

>Dominate Person

Just open the PDF, it's like page 2.

I don't trust myself to balance things well, which is why I generally limit myself to additive features rather than creating wholly new features (with an exception being the Magician kit).

I did once make an entire monster manual, but it wasn't for D&D, it was for Vampire: the Masquerade. Basically the company that makes VtM has its head stuck up its ass and avoids printing generic vampires whenever possible out of some kind of artistic vision that each vampire should be lovingly crafted with a full backstory and so on.

Me, personally, sometimes I just want to fill a bar with a bunch of Brujah licks and their ghouls, or have stats ready when my players decide they want to eat the pizza delivery guy, or whatever. Thus, this.

If it makes you feel better, I caught the Aladdin reference.

Chart says DragonbornXElf= No (at dms discretion)

If I follow that chart, my wife is a warlock or a dragon cucked me. Going to kill all dragon just in case.

I thought you wanted to know because of a character you planned to roll up but it being you having suspicions of your in-game wife's loyalty makes it much better. I laughed.

>Player dies.
You guys might be taking things too seriously.

You're a new DM running LMoP. You shouldn't be worrying about your drawing ability, you should be worrying about your ability to describe surroundings in an interesting and accurate way. Maps are secondary to that, because you're not going to be running premade adventures forever.

In a society of Dragonborn formed on the basis of their pride in their draconic heritage, which colors would be most suited for defending the homeland rather than conquering?

I figured Reds would be more war bound, but what about protecting the walls?

I let them play what they fucking want

I never fail to laugh when this happens...

White and brass are ideal. The common dragonborn are mixed color and should be treated as breathless lower class.

For defensive dragonborn, either Green/Black due to natures of hiding and swimming, or Dragonborn with line-based breath weapons for the increased reach of attack.

Bonus points if Dragonborn are more like knights and nobility and live alongside Kobold Serfs.

What class and archetype is captain Jack Sparrow?

>Bonus points if Dragonborn are more like knights and nobility and live alongside Kobold Serfs

They capture them from their homes and take them back to cities in their empire to live there as common folk against their will. That way the kobolds are forced to hunt and trade within their borders.

not that guy but i will most certainly be using this, thanks user