/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

What are the monster's motivations to fight? Maybe consider making a few notes on that when planning an encounter so it seems more purposeful than "oh, now seems like a good time to fight".

Multiclassing with barbarian and becoming the ultimate martial.

Depends on the monster and how the players do it. One of mine tried to intimidate someone to not by simply rolling for it but crap like that isn't going to fly.

Bailing when the big strong fighters fuck everything up and put you in mortal danger

Cunning Action. And if you're a thief, Fast Hands and Second-Story Work.

But seriously, Cunning Action was my most consistently useful class feature.

Also this.

OP isn't black.

Why isn't OP black.

>Make EB free for Warlocks
>Give Agonizing Blast for free at 2
>Give the "Core" Pact invocations for free at certain levels
>Let Bladelock do the CHA attack meme if with one-handed weapons and a fighting style, give shield and medium armor prof.
Hey look I fixed Warlock.

You forgot:

>short rests assumed to take place after any encounter, with the rule of thumb being 5-10 minutes of catching your breath. Consecutive encounters don't allow for short rests.

>ban warlocks
Hey look so did I.

Okay, cool. I was planning on making a Goblin Wererat Rogue.

>screening roll20 candidates
>"my character was from a monastery, bandits killed his sister, so he draw them to his monastery and easily killed the four of them, then he was ousted because they had a rule that you couldn't kill in the monastery grounds"
>"k man, we can work with that. But you're lv1, it wouldn't be so easy to kill 4 armed bandits at once"
>"what if I was, like, way stronger before and in addition to being ousted they cursed me with this goat tattoo in the forehead, making me lose my powers"
>"this can work I guess"
>"and the curse also makes people I like die, so I left my wife and children, and my brother-in-law relentlessly hunts me for that"
god fucking damn, it's just fucking lost mines, not an epic world-threatening story

Bladelock invocations should just be part of the rules for pact weapons. It's ridiculous how little you get for the blade pact that Book warlocks can be better bladelocks by taking Shillelagh and can take Find Familiar to also get the benefits of Chainlock.

Nah I don't think that'd be needed, since with this Warlocks wouldn't need those spell slots as badly to be competitive since they could round thrmselves out better with Invocations instead of being taxed on them as bad.

Maybe make quick resting an Invocation on it's own though.
>Eldritch Juice-up
>Prerequisite- level 8 or some other arbitrarily high number to avoid dips
>You can spend 5 minutes in a state of deep meditation to gain the benefits of a short rest. While you do so you are blind and deaf, however can be awoken by taking any damage or by being shaken awake by an action. You can use this ability CONmod times per long rest.

No, short rests on 5 minutes fix a whole lot of issues with 5e.

Which battlemaster manuevers are good? Which are trap options?

>can take Find Familiar to also get the benefits of Chainlock.

No, you don't. This is a meme perpetrated by people who don't realize how good shapeshifting, speech capable, dextrous, familiars are.

Chain lock gives you advantage on everything, because the imp can take the help action on anything you can do. An owl can't help action with a persuasion check, because it couldn't theoretically persuade anything for instance.

An owl can't help you with an attack safely, because people can just shoot it. An imp can turn invisible and help you.

An owl can't help you put all your ball bearings back in the jar, because it doesn't have thumbs.

An owl can't talk to people (and doesn't have decent bonuses in deception and persuasion).

And on and on and on. Normal familiars only provide about half of the benefit of a Chain lock familiar.

>Why not pick pact of the blade for a quick and easy +5 AC boost and jack shit all else while you continue to EB spam everywhere because EB is still better?

Commander's Strike & Distracting Strike varies in usefulness depending on the party
Disarming Attack varies in usefulness depending on the DM
Don't like Feinting Attack because it uses the dice before the hit, even if you do have advantage
Lunging Attack doesn't seem great outside of meme reach builds
Goading Attack doesn't seem great when menacing exists
Everything else should be fine

and Sweeping Attack is also bad

Does anyone know what dead goblin god the Nilbog is supposed to be?

Congratulations, you picked the combat Pact and are better at combat.
Book and Chain are utility pacts, Blade is the combat one. It should be no surprise it's better for combat.

By original design, ALL pacts are intended to be utility.

Pact of the Blade is no exception.
It's just they then threw a couple of extra invocations on blade pact that allows you to fight differently (But isn't really a combat buff so much as combat utility in being able to both blast and use weapons)

The contrast between 'straight-up boring combat upgrade' and 'fun utilities that can sometimes prove useful in combat but it's mostly out of combat' is too much, and it's a big design flaw with third edition or pathfinder or whatever D&D where you get to choose 'You COULD be better at doing your role.. Or you could get +2 to persuasion!'

It's not quite as bad as the above as warlock's role isn't tanking, but it's still something I believe should be avoided.

Are we getting a July UA?

10th
WotC was closed this week or something

One of my favorite fixes is letting the blade pact weapon turn into tool kits. You're proficient with pact tools.

They closed down to march in the Pride Parade.

Always get tier:
Precision
Riposte (if melee)
Trip

Situational tier:
Commander's Strike (depending on your build and party disposition, ie giving a second Sneak Attack to rogue).
Disarming
Pushing

Very situational tier:
Goading
Menacing

Trash tier:
All the rest

90% of the time, the best use of your Maneuvers will be Precision, Trip, and Riposte. This means that some of the defensive ones, that would be good at early levels, are pointless since you'll get them too late to matter.

My main problem there is by using that you can become proficient in any occupation possible. Stone walls? You're now a mason, and know about that shit. Sword? You're now a blacksmith and know how to tell if it's magical.
That's not super incredibly strong but it feels like it serves to ruin anyone who decided to pick up tool kit proficiencies for flavour. That one dwarf smith-mason-brewer is now outcompeted by someone who has never done it in their life.

So I'd allow it to become any tool kit needed, which is kinda big considering tool kits can be pretty heavy, but not give proficiency. But you can still try to use them.
That works well enough if the DM encourages creativity with items and inventory, but requires a fair bit of player thought.

The other thing mentioned was something more like 'you're guided by an otherworldly force to create your things and what you make is fiendish/whatever, and you don't really know much about what you've made'. So if you used it to make a magical sword, it might have some fiendish detriment property you don't know about.

>supernatural hero makes deal with devil to get proficient in crafts.

I don't see a problem with it. If you really feel like it's a problem, the proper solution would be to offer a path to expertise in crafting for the guy who got his stuff legitimately.

I can't tell I forgot your joking or not, please tell me you are

Yo man, devil deal tools that can only make cursed items would be flavorful as fuck.

...

If you do proficiency properly, 'proficiency in all tools' is seriously like saying 'You know fucking everything'.

Want to know how X is made? If a blacksmith should know it and you're proficient in blacksmithing tools, you should just automatically know it.
If it's some ancient artefact sword? Maybe not autosuccess, but the blacksmith should stand a better chance.
And so, proficiency in all toolkits can translate to 'proficiency in everything that is made'. You could even say you should know about owlbears because 'owlbears were made from some wizard cock-up' and you can say 'I'm proficient in magical biological tools and I deserve to have a good chance at knowing how to create an owlbear'.

It's just silly.
That's why I recommended the second thing where 'the devil makes it for you with your idle hands'. It's the pact doing the work for you, not just implanting your brain with all the ancient knowledge about all crafting you'll ever need.

Of course, the DM could just say 'No, identifying this golem is an arcana check I don't know why you think your magical-golem-building tools should contribute to this' but that's ridiculous. Specific proficiency should always override lack of a general proficiency.

How would you go about enchanting weapons? As part of my EK/sorcerer's progression, I eventually want to learn how to place enchantments like lightning on my sword through runic inscriptions or something.

>Want to know how X is made? If a blacksmith should know it and you're proficient in blacksmithing tools, you should just automatically know it.

Yeah, a blacksmith would know how to make mundane objects. A guy who sold his soul for that knowledge would too. I don't see any problem with this.

>If it's some ancient artefact sword? Maybe not autosuccess, but the blacksmith should stand a better chance.

A blacksmith would not know how to make this, and neither would a guy proficient in blacksmith tools.

>And so, proficiency in all toolkits can translate to 'proficiency in everything that is made'. You could even say you should know about owlbears because 'owlbears were made from some wizard cock-up' and you can say 'I'm proficient in magical biological tools and I deserve to have a good chance at knowing how to create an owlbear'.

Can you identify specifically the tools necessary to make owlbears, so that you can summon said tools and gain proficiency in them with your pact weapon feature? No? No proficiency for you then.

It's silly because you're being silly user. But that's a personal problem.

>Can you identify specifically the tools necessary to make owlbears, so that you can summon said tools and gain proficiency in them with your pact weapon feature? No? No proficiency for you then.

Also, it should be noted that there are no such tools in the game. Toolkits have a table just like weapons do user.

> A guy who sold his soul for that knowledge would too.
Pacts aren't necessarily selling your soul, especially since you're already a warlock.
And it's not just mundane items, but everything beyond that. Like I said, 'everything that has ever been made'.

>A blacksmith would not know how to make this, and neither would a guy proficient in blacksmith tools.
That's shit DMing to say 'While you're trying to figure out this sword, it dawns on you that you know nothing more about this sword than that idiot next to you who has never made a sword in his life'.
A blacksmith is more likely to have heard rumours of magical swords. A blacksmith is more likely to know what the placement of a rune means, even if they don't know the rune itself ('A rune on the pummel is usually something intended for the sword-bearer'). If someone went to having a flavourful blacksmith backstory and then you give them nothing in return for it, that's shit.
I'm not saying he's gauranteed to know how to make it, but he has a better chance than anyone else.

>Can you identify specifically the tools necessary to make owlbears, so that you can summon said tools and gain proficiency in them with your pact weapon feature? No? No proficiency for you then.
You're limiting players to only toolkits found in the book?
That's narrow-minded.
What if a player wants to be an X-maker, but there's no tools for making Xes? Oh no, it's not in the book, such things don't exist.

>ever entertaining the thought of working there
dropped

>I want to use a katana
>The katana is an improvised weapon 1d4 because it's not on the table and it's just a lump of metal

If you want to impose table-based restrictions on the blade pact/tool pact then fine, because that's what I'm arguing for. But there are better ways to restrict them than a way that implies other types of tools/weapons don't exist.

>What if a player wants to be an X-maker, but there's no tools for making Xes? Oh no, it's not in the book, such things don't exist.

If the player wants to make owlbears user, I would probably let them roleplay out an extended sidequest to gain the knowledge, gain the laboratory, and gain the funds to do it. That doesn't mean the pact of the warlock has to include something as vague as "owlbear tools."

>You're limiting players to only toolkits found in the book?

For the warlock homebrew fix I made? yes. If they think of something reasonable, I might let them go beyond the table, but "owlbear" tools, or really, any of your insane concerns, are not reasonable. So it's not really a problem.

>That's shit DMing to say 'While you're trying to figure out this sword, it dawns on you that you know nothing more about this sword than that idiot next to you who has never made a sword in his life'.
>A blacksmith is more likely to have heard rumours of magical swords. A blacksmith is more likely to know what the placement of a rune means, even if they don't know the rune itself ('A rune on the pummel is usually something intended for the sword-bearer'). If someone went to having a flavourful blacksmith backstory and then you give them nothing in return for it, that's shit.
>I'm not saying he's gauranteed to know how to make it, but he has a better chance than anyone else.

No user, someone who has done extensive magical or historical research would be more likely to know about how to make the magical part of a magic sword. The blacksmith would know more about the sword part. Luckily, we have skills for this already in the game!

Actually, with improvised weapons, you're instructed to find the weapon they're most similar to, and use those stats, with 1d4 as a fallback option. I'd probably make the katana count as a longsword mechanically, but I'm open to others.

have you even read the rules? Or are you doing that "pretending to be retarded" thing?

Reminder that
1. You're one of like two people here who care, and
2. Inclusivity is the opposite of a safe-space, and you are a special snowflake.
Also,
>Implying they would have hired you anyway

Thinking of running LMoP (first time DM'ing) for a bunch of new players.

Any tips?

>That doesn't mean the pact of the warlock has to include something as vague as "owlbear tools."
You've stated all tools as part of the warlock pact, so why wouldn't it have the tools and proficiency required for such a thing?

The whole point of tool proficiencies is that if the player has them then at least some parts of the owlbear making process should be easier if they wish to do it themself, i.e. stitching together pieces of bear if it's part of their proficiency. If someone wanted to be a biologist/surgeon as part of their backstory I don't see why it wouldn't apply in that case.

>but "owlbear" tools, or really, any of your insane concerns, are not reasonable. So it's not really a problem.
You're taking it too literally.
'Owlbear tools' are whatever tools are required at the time for that part of making the owlbear. You need some funny alchemy shit? you get alchemy shit out. You need sewing equipment? You can get that. Generally, most tools are already in one of the tool sets, but I don't see why you wouldn't allow a tool that can normally be obtained for.

>The blacksmith would know more about the sword part.
That's not wrong but also considering the entire thing is a sword that's implying they know more about the sword in general.
As I said, they might not be able to identify the magic, but logically they can reach conclusions that others wouldn't be able to make.
Unless you're running a low-magic campaign, it's reasonable to expect everybody to have

... some level of experience with magic.

Who's more likely to have had a guy come to them with a magical sword for them to look at, the blacksmith fighter or the regular fighter? That proficiency bonus is what sets the blacksmith slightly ahead of the normal fighter there.
It's not a 'gauranteed they'll know it' thing, it's a 'more likely to know it' thing.

>have you even read the rules? Or are you doing that "pretending to be retarded" thing?
You have to realize that tools and such are largely the domain of the DM's decision, as is crafting.
You're given common examples of tool kits but very little described about what you can do with them because it's open to the DM. And if the DM thinks it's sensible that blacksmithing tool proficiency applies to blacksmithed things, then all the more power to them for making the tool kits more relevant.

I am going to DM a new campaign this Sunday with a couple of friends, not my first campaign with these people, but a new one. Anyone got any good ideas for a world, overarching story or beginning? I have some tidbits, but nothing close to a good idea.

Random quest ideas or weird stuff is also welcome. I love weird stuff.

I NEED TO DM IN 10 MINUTES AND I HAVE NOTHING PREPARED WHAT DO

Shame on you for not preparing.
Just do Lost Mines of Phandelver.
Or improvise something.

Provide alcohol and wing it. Once everyone's had a few drinks you'd be amazed at how much improve you can get away with.

>The whole point of tool proficiencies is that if the player has them then at least some parts of the owlbear making process should be easier if they wish to do it themself, i.e. stitching together pieces of bear if it's part of their proficiency. If someone wanted to be a biologist/surgeon as part of their backstory I don't see why it wouldn't apply in that case.

If, in the quest to learn how to make owlbears, the warlock learns that stitching is required, then being proficient with sowing is going to help him. But before doing the quest, they won't know if stitching is required. So where's the problem?

Let me answer that: the problem only occurs if you assume that being proficient in a craft automatically gives you all knowledge of that craft's applications. Which is insanity. Knowing how to sow doesn't mean you know what to sow. Knowing how to make a sword doesn't mean you know about every historical magic sword. I don't think we'll ever agree on your particular brand of insane conclusion jumping.

That's the best state to be in user. Turn your DM's guide to the page with improvised monster numbers. You can improvise everything in a fair manner with these.

WING IT

ROCKS FALL. EVERYONE DIES.

deck of many things

>Level 1 "boss" encounter
>8 Monodrones and one Duodrone armed with a Shortbow
>If the PCs kill the Duodrone the Monodrones can't receive new orders and continue whatever the last one was, if "Attack" they'll attack until their target is unconscious then stand idle or attack other monodrones, if "defend" they stand guard and only attack in a 10ft square but otherwise take no actions, etc.

How dangerous is this? I'd rather not have a level 1 tpk, so like this the party could survive even if everyone but one person goes down (or theoretically everyone if they al passed their death saves, waking up to idle Monodrones standing where they were when they got KOd) as long as they kill the Duodrone (there will be hints all over to do this in the event PCs don't know about how Modrons work)

GOOD LUCK

>Let me answer that: the problem only occurs if you assume that being proficient in a craft automatically gives you all knowledge of that craft's applications. Which is insanity. Knowing how to sow doesn't mean you know what to sow. Knowing how to make a sword doesn't mean you know about every historical magic sword. I don't think we'll ever agree on your particular brand of insane conclusion jumping.
That's fucking ridiculous.

The very idea of proficiency in tool kits as a background is you know your way around the subject. Your knowledge doesn't just suddenly stop when it's conveneint for the DM.
A blacksmith would know what to blacksmith to get around a problem.

Do you ever go to an engineer and they say 'Well, yeah, you've got a problem, but you should tell us how we should fix it?'

It's not insane to jump to the conclusion that - gasp - the engineer knows something about the applications of engineering.

Sure, a sewer might never have made an owlbear before, but they would know that they can sew together corpses or living beings. Whether they know enough about owlbear sewing is a different thing and that's what the whole point of rolling in this game is - it's hit or miss whether your character will know because it's not standard knowledge. You don't say to anyone with arcana 'you've never seen magical swords before so you automatically fail all checks'.

If my concentration is broken I don't lose a spell slot, but if I end my concentration early I do lose a spell slot right?

Also should I get Sanctuary or Shield of Faith?

If you kill the Duodrone one of the Monodrones in its' unit is automatically upgraded to a Duodrone, that's how Modrons work.

Also, how many players are in the party? Being outnumbered is really dangerous in 5e, even with shitty low level mobs. If it's like 5 or 6 it won't be very hard, but for 3 people that would be a very difficult fight.

Oh, and, also, if you're saying 'tool kit proficiency doesn't give you any knowledge' then sure, you're agreeing with one of the suggestions I made - that an otherworldly force helps 'puppet' you in order to make the thing even if you don't know much about it or how to make it afterwards or much about the subject.

You were given an idea of what to make, and it made it for you.
But that isn't what proficiency should mean.

A fighter who is proficient in swords can not only hit things with swords, but knows their way around the concept of a 'sword'. They might not know how to make one, but they can tell the proper weighting of one.

You expend the spell slot as soon as you cast the spell, whether your concentration is broken or not. You can't just free cast spells by maintaining them for a minute.

This depends on how many players you have. My gut tells me it won't be a fun encounter. General rule of thumb is to keep the number of active combatants at any given time in an encounter to less than or equal to the number of players.

>Sure, a sewer might never have made an owlbear before, but they would know that they can sew together corpses or living beings

"I know that I can sow corpses together"
"therefore I automatically know if the sowing of corpses together is required for making an owlbear"

No.

I'm running it as "the nearest Monodrone IN MECHANUS gets promoted" to avoid this.

Oops, the second portion of that post should be in response to this moron:

Also 5 players with a "balanced" party composition

So i would like some help in dealing with my party. It is an Adventure League game (specifically we are in Dead in Thay in TftYP) and my party is just steam rolling everything. The party consists of: Firbolg Moon Druid, Dragonborn Moon Druid, Orc Druid (Just joined so I forgot to grab what type of druid), Goblin Red Dragon Sorcerer, Human Divination Wizard w/ Lucky, Tiefling Paladin of Vengance w/ PAM, Half-Elf Valor Bard, and an Assassin Rogue / Hunter Ranger (Who is extremely murderhobo and extremely lucky with his stealth, initiative, and attack rolls). The party is all between Lvl 8 and 10, averaging out to 9. All the Druids have Staffs of the Woodlands (thanks to White Plume Mountain), the Sorcerer and the rogue have a Wand of Fireball and a Wand of Lighting Bolt, and they have a flesh Golem Companion.

So basically, How exactly should I scale this adventure for this party? I don't want to make every fight a grueling death-match where the party is burned out (Though I do want the Bosses of the dungeon to be that tough, especially the last one), but I don't want them to become bored with easy and pointless encounters they steam roll with ease either. I used Kobold Fight Club, but I think that their expectations for the party is lower that what they can actually handle with relative ease.

WHAT WOULD AN OUTLAW BAND OF COW RUSTLIN DIAMOND HUSTLIN GOBLINS BE CALLED?

>"therefore I automatically know if the sowing of corpses together is required for making an owlbear"
Not what I fucking said.
I'm advocating for 'you would have proficiency on the roll to know since it's within your field of work'.

Then no, I wouldn't run that encounter, mostly because it probably won't be any fun. Try to change it so you have 5 monsters, and no more.

Lame

That mechanic is the only interesting thing about Modron fighting. It forces players to turn normal strategies on their head and clear out the the least threatening enemies first to avoid turning them into stronger ones.

The first time my players encountered Modrons the Assassin immediately blew his load on the Pentadrone and was fucking pissed when the rank up trickled down the enemy line. It was great.

Green Dust Devils

Sanctuary. +2 to AC could be useful, but there are probably going to be much better uses for your concentration (e.g., Bless).

>If your concentration is broken, the spell fails but you don't expend a spell slot

I must be an idiot but I don't understand what they mean by this if what you're saying is the case

Rogue - Veeky Forums, can get expertise in int skills and know even more about arcana than a wizard and general utilitarian. Also arcane trickster. Rather than brawn goes for weak points.
Barbarian - Veeky Forums, I don't even need to explain it.

Barbarogue - /fitlit/.

Discuss.

Why would knowing you can stitching corpses together user give you any insight into whether stitching of corpses together is necessary for owlbear production?

Consider a universe where owlbears are made by breeding. They have nothing to do with stitching. Your character has only heard of owlbears in legend, but thinks maybe they're stitched together. So he learns how to stitch in his background. He hasn't spent any time studying owlbears. Why should he have any sort of advantage on knowing how owlbears are made over a guy who doesn't know how to stitch?

At this point, you're not going to convince me you aren't retarded, and personally, I'd love to see you argue this in front of any DM, that your character should have access to meta knowledge because they took an unrelated crafting proficiency. Can you record your next session and upload it to youtube?

We're confusing two types of concentration.
* There's concentration required to maintain certain spells. If your concentration is broken before the duration is up, you're SOL and lose the spell slot.
* For spells requiring multiple turns to cast. If your concentration is broken while still casting, you don't lose the slot and can try again.

Is there an official class tiers list for 5e?

Given the sneakiness and thief backgrounds to rogue, it's clearly /r/

OFFICIAL 5E TIER LIST

>Tier FUN!
*insert classes you like*

>Tier not as fun
*insert the rest of the classes*

If you are in the middle of casting a spell that takes several actions, are forced to make a Concentration check, and you fail, you don't lose the spell slot.

>Player wants to cast Astral Projection, which takes an hour to cast.
>Player begins casting
>20 minutes into the casting time, Player is sufficiently distracted
>DM calls for a concentration check (Con saving throw
>Player fails
>Player is forced to stop casting Astral Projection, does not gain any of the spell's benefits/effects, but the spell slot is not expended since the spell didn't go off.

It's pretty easy to run, the first cave is actually pretty deadly until they are level 2. The castle my players wanted to take it over and keep it. And didn't like the doppelgangers so I switched them over to drow. Don't throw them all the side quests in phandalin at once. Keep it natural. Also the dragon is super deadly make sure it actually talks to the players or it might wreck your party.

There are two applications of Concentration at work here.

1. Long Cast time - concentration to continue casting, you use the spell slot when you finish casting the spell, which is also when the effect of the spell begins.

2. Concentration spells - Spells with the concentration property are usually cast with an action or bonus action, the effect keeps going until you reach max duration OR someone hits you, forcing you to make a concentration check or end the effect early. In this case as well the spell slot was expended as soon as the effect began.

So in summary, if the effect of the spell is active your spell slot is GONE. The Longer Casting Times will almost always be applied to ritual spell casting which is something you don't do if anything is around to hit you 90% of the time.

Damn, this list is fucking great.

Thanks bro

>Why would knowing you can stitching corpses together user give you any insight into whether stitching of corpses together is necessary for owlbear production?
It means there's a chance that you've heard of people stitching corpses together and then reanimating them or anything like that. You're more likely to have heard of it than someone who doesn't do that with the same other proficiencies and stats.

>Consider a universe where owlbears are made by breeding. They have nothing to do with stitching. Your character has only heard of owlbears in legend, but thinks maybe they're stitched together.
Okay, so two guys, identical except one is a sewer, decide, 'Maybe an owlbear can be stitched together?'
Both roll the exact same number from luck.
Who is more likely to realize 'actually, I don't think you can stitch an owlbear together?'

The flaw you're making here is that you seem to think that characters are assumed to not have any knowledge, when that's what the point of rolling is - to determine whether you have the knowledge. If both of the rolls above were high enough, then they've both heard of owlbears. That's when the one who has stitching has a higher +bonus from proficiency because they then know the evidence to tell whether or not owlbears are stitched or not, whereas the other guy only has a vague idea of sewing.

>because they took an unrelated crafting proficiency.
How in the holy fuck is knowing whether or not something is stiched unrelated?

>Top Tier:
Bards, some variety of Wizards

>Good Tier:
All casters, Rogue

>Okay, but you clearly enjoy repetitive tasks a little too much tier
Martial classes not otherwise mentioned

>Shit
Wot4e Monk
Berserker Barbarian
Champion Fighter
Ranger (non-revised)

Note that if your campaign is especially oriented around murder hoboing, martials all jump up a tier.

Fuck meant to quote

no but it's something like this

1. bards, wizards and druids
2. other casters and rogues
3. fighting guys
4. rangers probably

1 meaning powerful and really versatile, 2 meaning versatile and kind of powerful, 3 meaning good at hitting things, 4 meaning ranger

Maybe Tailors aren't very prone to gossiping about necromancy? Oh you stitched any bodies lately? No? Well neither have I, that's something only Necromancers would be doing, just because it involves a needle and thread doesn't mean a tailor would know anything about it.

>The flaw you're making here is that you seem to think that characters are assumed to not have any knowledge, when that's what the point of rolling is - to determine whether you have the knowledge. If both of the rolls above were high enough, then they've both heard of owlbears.

No, the flaw you are making is assuming that crafting can substitute for an appropriate knowledge skill in a field unrelated to the crafting.

"Hey, DM, the religious guys use clothes right? Can I use my stitching proficiency to figure out whether god is real?"

I'm in a similar boat. I have a new player and others that played in my previous campaign.

I'm starting my campaign that the party gets ambushed traveling to a small village. They'll be ambushed by bandits and which will get them learning combat. They bandit will retreat into the woods to their camp. They can follow them for more combat and rewards or continue to the town. The village they'll be heading to will be provide the players with rumors about a cursed town to the north(hags) a few sidequest at the village, a tower appeared to east of the village where people are entering hoping to claim what's at the top or they can head to the major city to the east.

They're also free to go off map and I'll just make some shit up on the spot. Though my players know to follow the breadcrumbs because they'd rather find out what I plan than have me improv.

>Menacing
This is amazing against any brutish enemy that isn't immune to being frightened. Give them disadvantage on everything.

Channel Divinity is neither an attack nor a spell. Does it cause Sanctuary to end?

fucking rip in pieces rangers

thanks guys