/5eg/ - D&D 5th Edition General: Larry Elmore Edition

Compere Mr Elmore's still sexy but much more conservative version of Goldmoon.

>May you never forget your father's face.
Long days and pleasant nights, friend.

I've got an ASI and I don't know what to do, /5eg/. I'm a Sun Soul Monk 6/Hunter Ranger 4. STR: 10 DEX 16 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 16.

I'm vacillating between Sentinel (combined with Horde Breaker would be a possible 6 attacks per round), Tough (for 90hp), Martial Adept (Riposte, Disarming strike) or just up Dex or WIS.

So confused... what do?

>Level 10
>Still haven't maxed dex
Get on this, now.

I'd go for DEX increase, simply because you're probably going to start finding it harder to hit things soon.

Why did you multiclass into Ranger to begin with? Extra damage along with Hunter's Mark?

I wish our group had someone who could draw.
We made a deal that if the party makes it to the end then we'll just commission some art from someone. Six players plus DM so it wouldn't even be that expensive if everyone pitches in.

Oh shit, I understand the Stream of Annihilation. Everyone everywhere who died and who was raised will die within 30 days. Because Acecerak seriously fucked with something involving necromancy.

This is fucking cool.

That's always nice when you can find someone like that.
Speaking as someone who's worked with artists regularly and has one as his best friend, they are like the absolute laziest people in the world when it comes to their creative work though.
Regular jobs they're fine about, but actual drawing is something else.

I was out of the for a while (left at lvl 6 and came back just at the end of 9). Basically for the sake of the fluff the DM came up with to explain the absence, I wasn't able to be much of a Sun Soul. Also yes, hunter's mark, cure wounds, d10 hit dice.

FUCK. Was that today?!?

You want drawings done of the characters?

And depending upon how detailed you want it, that stuff could be pretty affordable. In most cases a color bust shot from most artists would be like 20-40$ USD a person.

I'd ask what the fuck Acecerak is even doing in Faerun, but honestly when you get as powerful as that guy you kind of can get to other worlds pretty easily.

Depends on how the campaign goes. Maybe if we're feeling like it we'll commission a big group picture with all the player characters and a few key NPCs.
If we can agree on an artist to commission from that is.

Considering letting everyone get either a free feat at level 1 (and just remove variant human), or make feats not take up your ASI.

Hmm.

>make feats not take up your ASI.
That's a bit much.

Is it, though? Stats still can't go beyond 20 without items.

The first stream was today, yes. There's still more games/announcements on the stream tomorrow, and that's probably when they'll officially announce Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

I just gave everyone a free feat of their choice at level 5, a free skill feat at level 10 and they'll get another free feat at 15.

Give them a single free feat alongside their ASI at 4th if you want a powerful party. Keep everything else about the game the same.

I was panicking until I remembered the D&D channel didn't require a subscription to watch past videos.

>Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Neat.

I kinda like that. May steal it, actually. Thanks.

What's that supposed to be, anyway,

We'll find out tomorrow.

>Xanathar's Guide to Everything

it's not confirmed, but they do have a wood print looking thing of the cover for it hanging up on the set, which is what is making us speculate about it being the other announced product.

Ideally it'd be a thing for players to have, and probably be something akin to SCAG, where it has a bunch of archetypes from the other planes out there, maybe includes the Artificer and Mystic from the UA for a public release, and have some generic fluff about the other planes and how they've shaken out so far in terms of 5e stuff.

All we've got is a tease, of what can be assumed, of the limited edition cover that's hanging on the wall. My guess is something like the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, but written in more of a Volo's Guide style.

>maybe includes the Artificer and Mystic from the UA
Definitely not. They just put them in the DM's guild for further play testing.

To go along with it for those unawares of who Xanathar is, he's basically a Beholder crime lord in Waterdeep, who's been operating in the city for several centuries.

I know some user mentioned that he was related to Planescape in some fashion, but I don't know if that's true or not.

It's possible that if the book is sent to the publishers for final proof reading and printing in Winter 2017 for a release in Spring 2018, they could get enough feedback in the 5-6 month period to work the kinks out.

And honestly, Artificer is in a fine spot, it's the Mystic that needs to get some balance done to it.

I know who Xanather is, and I in fact know that the last Xanather wasn't even the original one, it's just that a "guide to everything" is a pretty vague term, heh.

So what would be the best option for a Jackie Chan style monk? I know Drunken Fist is a thing, but I want less that and more improvised weapons and the like. I want to make a man who would be a terror in a ladder factory.

>Artificer is in a fine spot
Huh?

You don't think the Artificer is balanced? What makes you think that it isn't?

>balance
pic related

Open hand, tavern brawler, and the ervish language.

Oh boy, here we go.
>All of alchemist's attacking options target dexterity save. Anyone who played a cleric for a week will tell you that this is terrible.
>Speaking of alchemist, the only thing that improves about you is your damage dice. All the options that are available to you in the end are available to you in the beginning, there's no progression or improvements.
>Gunsmith also has troubles with his gun, but they are more related to it's snowflake status.
>Mechanical servant is overpowered on the level you get it on, then becomes useless almost immediately. I also call into question the decision to give an alchemist or a gunsmith a robot in the first place. What was the though process here?
>Your class features can literally be destroyed or stolen, forever, without an ability to replace them.
>Every class gets something cool on level 11, except for artificer.
I can go on and on about the problems of this class.

Please do.

...

Plane shift requires a forked metal rod attuned to a plane of existence.

- How do you attune a rod? Do you have to be in that plane?
- Are they common? Rare? Nonexistant?
- How many rods is an adventurer expected to have?

Making zombie dinosaurs in Chult.

- Depends
- on the
- setting

This basically. See page 46 of the DMG.

Since Resurrection/True Resurrection doesn't require the whole body, just part of it (like a finger), would it be possible to cut off the finger of a corpse, resurrect the individual from the finger, and then make/animate an undead creature from the rest of the remains?

For Resurrection (and maybe True Resurrection) you have to destroy an undead creature before it can come back to life, but what about creating an undead from the spare remains of a person who's been restored?

In my game, one of the PCs was killed by vampire bite. The player's took the body to an alchemist "ally" who used only a lock of hair to resurrect the PC. In return for the resurrection the alchemist asked for the rest of the body as payment under the guise of wanting to harvest it for alchemical components (the PC was a rare race).
The alchemist intends to complete the ritual to turn the corpse into a Vampire Spawn and take control. What should happen according to RAW/RAI?

Well there goes my campaign concept. Tomb of Annihilation includes possible alliances with a tribe of grung. Back to the drawing board I guess.

Let's talk about the thunder cannon. It's a firearm that deals 2d6 damage and is described as "punching through armor with ease". Speaking of which, it costs 15 times less than plate armor.
Now, logically, what would follow is a revolution in warfare. Every army in the world would be equipped with thunder cannons - a weapon much better than both a bow, and a crossbow. Fantasy as we know it would end.
Except... It won't happen in your 5e game, and not only because your DM won't let guns phase out conventional weapons. It's because gunsmith is physically incapable of smithing guns. He gains one at level 1, yes, and he can make a replacement if he ever loses it somehow - but he can't mass produce them.
Why? There's no reason why. This is why I called artificer's gun a snowflake weapon with snowflake rules.

>All of alchemist's attacking options target dexterity save. Anyone who played a cleric for a week will tell you that this is terrible.

I agree, but these are things that can be changed/balanced, or they add in new ones (throw a flask, force a CON save or take poison damage or cold damage, Blind a foe, etc., etc.).

>Speaking of alchemist, the only thing that improves about you is your damage dice. All the options that are available to you in the end are available to you in the beginning, there's no progression or improvements.

You do get more flasks to throw as you level, and the Healing Drought is always going to be a strong healing option.

>Mechanical servant is overpowered on the level you get it on, then becomes useless almost immediately. I also call into question the decision to give an alchemist or a gunsmith a robot in the first place. What was the though process here?

To me, I think they wanted the servant to actually be it's own archetype but couldn't balance it in time for the first release, so they just let you get a "free" familiar.

>Your class features can literally be destroyed or stolen, forever, without an ability to replace them.

I'm pretty sure the class says that if the magic items they make are stolen or destroyed they can re-make then at 1/4 the cost and in like a third of the time.

>Every class gets something cool on level 11, except for artificer.
This is a valid argument. For me, I'd say something like a "flask launcher" for the Alchemist, so they can fire flasks up to 60 ft. away, and for the Gunsmith either new, elemental ammo or they get Extra Attack, and can reload their gun mid-shot and not have to use their bonus action to reload it.

I would say so. Resurrection brings the soul back to the body. Animate dead just fills them with necromantic vitality.

>You do get more flasks to throw as you level
You pick your best 3 early on.

Then you just slowly add the shit ones to your list.

>but he can't mass produce them.
Citation needed.

>I agree, but these are things that can be changed/balanced, or they add in new ones
You literally just said it's "fine as it is".
>You do get more flasks to throw as you level
Yes, but will it feel like an improvement? You will be able to choose more shit that you could already pick at level 1. It's like cantrips. And most of those cantrips don't even scale! They're as good at level 1, as they are on level 20.
>To me, I think they wanted the servant to actually be it's own archetype but couldn't balance it in time for the first release, so they just let you get a "free" familiar.
You've just said it's in a good spot and fine as it is. No changes needed, release now.
>I'm pretty sure the class says that if the magic items they make are stolen or destroyed they can re-make then at 1/4 the cost and in like a third of the time.
Actually, no, it doesn't say it at all.
>This is a valid argument. For me, I'd say something like a "flask launcher" for the Alchemist, so they can fire flasks up to 60 ft. away, and for the Gunsmith either new, elemental ammo or they get Extra Attack, and can reload their gun mid-shot and not have to use their bonus action to reload it.
What happened to the good spot?

So you'd prefer it if the Gunsmith had to do something like the Gunslinger archetype that Mercer brewed up, where they get a "Tinkerer" check and have to spend time and money making their guns, and then have to pick from a list of guns for cost to make and time spent making them?

Flask improvement and an 8th spell aren't cool, but they're something.

[SPOILER]Nice Quads [\SPOILER]

I would prefer if they didn't insert guns into settings that neither have nor need them just becase Mercer and Paizo did it, but we can't have everything we want, can we.

It's just that. given you have to destroy the undead in order to resurrect an individual that is currently undead, it seems like the soul is being tied up in some way from being undead.
So it seems like making an undead version of some who's currently alive should be impossible?

>but we can't have everything we want, can we.

My group has a Gunslinger.

He comes up with some odd invention and if he puts in the thought, and passes the checks, he gets to do things that reflect the fact that his character is a blackpowder snorting maniac of a dwarf.

The burden of proof is on you. Look at artificer's class text and find me anything that implies that gunsmith can create thunder cannons in any other circumstances than losing his. You won't find anything like that.

>>The PHB doesn't have rules for making ice skates, so you can't skate on ice.
Thank the gods I don't play D&D with you.

The undead knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The necromancy subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the undead from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

Not him but
>The PHB doesn't explicitly say my Fighter can't walk through walls

There are some things mundane or simple enough to be taken for granted, like being able to ice skate or play a ball game. Other things, like mass producing incredibly powerful, inexpensive class-centric weapons, are less mundane and cannot be taken for granted.

Speaking of artificer and snowflake rules, alchemist's potion pouch has a lot of the same problems that thunder cannon has. You take a potion out of your limitless supply of them, and you have to use it the exact same turn - or it doesn't work.
I understand why it exists - it's to give alchemists an attacking option to use every round, while preventing the tactics like "Let's sell my infinite flasks of alchemist's fire" or "Let's load my infinite flasks of alchemist's fire on a cart, and then blow up a mountaint with them", and personally, I can suspend my disbelief.
Some of my players and DMs, however, can't, and alchemist's pouch provoked even more complaints from them than thunder cannon.

You're right, my sentence was needlessly convoluted.

Is this from somewhere btw?

But the whole thing about the, "no guns" argument is that by the 1500s we were starting to see very early forms of guns showing up in Europe, and for a time the two co-existed. It's only after technology improved and further refinement of guns that we saw them overtake armor and we got the Britich Redshirts and crap like that.

So for me, if some wackjob is lucky enough or smart enough to invent a gun that doesn't blow up in his face, good on him. It's gonna cost a shit ton of money to keep working, but it's possible.

And most fantasy games tend to want their "technology level" be in that Renaissance-era. Guess what? At the earliest that's in the late 1300s, but most consider it to be the mid 1400s and at it's height in the 1500s.

Compare the stipulations of the Thunder Cannon to those of the wizard's Transmuter's Stone.

No, I'm just brilliant.

But the thing is, thunder cannon is already pretty much a flawless firearm. More powerful than a crossbow, slightly more expensive, doesn't blow up in your face, can be reproduced in three days. You talk about technology improving, but the technology is great and refined already.

What would you make the attunement process consist of?

it's a "flawless firearm" because it uses Magic to not blow up in the Artificer's face!

Most early guns had like a 1 in 9 chance of exploding due to imperfections in the making of the barrel or over-packing it with gunpowder.

And my guess is that the Artificer themselves doesn't want their gun design to go out into the wild, because of the fluff around the class; they're semi-crazy inventors who are experimenting with mixing technology and magic together in new and exciting ways. They're also implied to be perfectionist to a fault, which is why they probably have built-in "fail-safes" if their gun is stolen, to prevent someone else from pirating their design.

If you want to have there be a villain Artificer who wants to make guns be usable by all, then use the Tinkerer and Misfire rules that Mercer made for the guns he sells, and that his personal gun doesn't have them because he's using the money to get everything perfect for his gear to work.

Depends on where you want to go. Let's say it's the plane of fire. You would have to do one of three things: 1) find a portal to the fire plane and attune a rod there. 2) Find a library and study the process over a course of a few days. 3) Find a group of druids who specialize either elemental fire magic, or planar transportation.

It seems weird that you can't cut off a piece of a zombie and resurrect the original person from that, but you could resurrect an individual from a finger and then make a zombie from the rest of the remains.

Why is it that in one case the soul seems to be tied up in some way by the presence of the undead, but in the other the soul is not?

Also, if a character were to die while their zombie-doppelganger were still animated, would you not be able to resurrect them, since there is an undead version of them around?

>You talk about technology improving, but the technology is great and refined already.

Artificers do really need a way to get +1 etc guns. Since they make their firearm but have no access to making + items.

>Is this from somewhere?
It's from a bullshit speech about convoluted missile guiding systems.

that is the problem with artificer.

gunslinger is so much better because it takes into account misfire, maintenance and repairs while allowing customization.

>It seems weird that you can't cut off a piece of a zombie and resurrect the original person from that
I'm not sure that I would rule you couldn't. The old body would remain a zombie and you would clone it with the finger and insert the (willing) soul.

Yeah, when I first read Artificer, I was surprised to see the Gunsmith section. It just doesn't seem to fit.

>REE GUNS RUIN FANTASY

do all of you fuckers run campaigns in westeros or something, jesus christ

Looking at Trip attack for Battlemaster

>When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to knock the target down. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and if the target is Large or smaller, it must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, you knock the target prone.

What does it make a Strength saving throw against?

A bit early in the morning for such vitriol, isn't it, friend?

That seems like a perfectly valid ruling, but I don't think it is RAW/RAI exactly, given the wording of the Resurection spell.

>"You touch a dead creature that has been dead for has been dead for no more that a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead."

Unless a finger severed from a zombie is considered a dead creature that isn't undead, but then that hardly seems what was intended.

Maybe read the whole section first before running to the internet.

Battlemaster Maneuver DC
8+Prof+Str/Dex

>and that isn't undead
That bit wasn't in the description in my spell sorter. Good to know.

Thank you sir.

That's what the internet is here for. To show my why I'm stupid.

and the construct is a clear sign of that. Something nailed on for both archetypes yet its doesn't make a whole lotta sense. gunslinger and alchemist should be their own classes, each with archetypes.

like this

The Save DC is 8 + prof mod + Str or Dex mod as per page 73.

Since many maneuvers require saves they put the DC in one place along with where it explains the dice, rather than writing it out everytime

...You know what, honestly, it is. Here, let me ask instead, are there any good homebrews for guns out there? Arcane Artillery went a little overboard especially with their custom class, and the DMG ones are a little out of whack.

>I would prefer if they didn't insert guns into settings that neither have nor need them
Guns have been in the Core for D&D at least since 3e.

Thats a really dumb argument. Hell, they're not even out of place for the rough historical period its generally modeled after.

True Resurrection doesn't have that bit though, but does require a "free" soul.

It's High Noon somewhere in the world...

Anons, please don't be lazy and leave feedback on artificer and mystic. Registration on DM's Guild takes just a minute.

dmsguild.com/product/213032/Unearthed-Arcana-The-Artificer-Class-5e?src=newest
dmsguild.com/product/213033/Unearthed-Arcana-The-Mystic-Class-5e?src=newest

Oh, okay. That's the spell I was looking at.

Not anywhere that matters.

the DMG guns are slightly overpowered, if you tone the damage die down by one size it's probably fine. At least, for the antique and modern firearms.

I personally treat the futuristic ones more as a Wand of Necrotic/Radiant Damage with X changes and no way to recharge them for anyone that doesn't know a level 13 Wizard.

>To show my why I'm stupid.

"I give my thunder cannon to the dwarf. Oh, look, I no longer have a thunder cannon, I guess I have to make another."

It doesn't require attunement. There's even rules for training people to use it, since it likely requires a dedicated proficiency (I don't believe it's stated to be a simple or martial weapon so even the fighter's "simple weapons, martial weapons" proficiency wouldn't apply). You can just give it away, and make another if you're so inclined.

The thing that makes the artificer shit isn't its balance as a class, it's the fact that it defines its whole own set of completely arbitrary rules for crafting its items that just don't apply to anything else, leaving the game's own rules for crafting as shit. That and the alchemist's concoctions being a magical fucking pouch rather than actually doing any alchemy at all. It's thematically shit, ignores problems in the base game, and shouldn't be in there at all - but balance wise, it's probably fine.

>Be cleric
>Leveling from 1 to 4
>Can't damage anyone with Sacred Flame, because everyone has a high dexterity save
>Get to level 4
>Get to pick a new cantrip
>Toll the dead, a 1d8-1d12 necrotic cantrip targeting Wisdom
Finally. All will fear me and rejoice.