/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

By "unplayable" you mean "not nearly optimal enough to satisfy my autism"?

"We thought it'd be funny"?

Im just curious as to whats in line with the PHB stuff

"We already have a thing that basically does this, but here's this new thing, and Whoops it does it way better than anything else does that thing."

The PHB stuff is all over the place. Some of the stuff in the PHB is practically better than anything in UA, and some of it is more gimped than anything the UA has put forth.

I want to do a Barbarian/Ranger. Right now my current plan is to go Barbarian 2/Ranger X. Be a Hunter and take Horde Breaker and Whirlwind.

I figure the Advantage whenever I want is neat and I can use Rage to run against large groups of enemies where I'll need protection and to be slaughtering people by the handfuls.

Otherwise I'll play like a normal Ranger who's slightly tougher and can get ADV whenever.

Sounds like you are building a set of mechanics rather than a character.
R20 player I have to assume?

It's not that bad. The new version gets dueling and you can use your weapon as a casting focus, and all you really lose out on is a decent 14th level feature being replaced with another decent 14th level feature and knifey-spooney bard action getting cut.

So valor bard is the only choice now, neato.

Alright boys next question. What are the dragonborn class best for? Class, campaign, etc.

The actual character idea is a Mountain Dwarf Ranger who was exiled. trying to find a fun angle on the Dwarf who gets angry and can find his way through caves really well.

/5eg/ is rarely good for rp'ing ideas, so I only come to see if anyone has any good mechanical ideas. If you've got any ideas on how to spice up an otherwise stereo typical Dwarf I'd be happy to hear them.

Will Roll20 catch me if they see me using maps from the mega link? I'm fairly unfamiliar with the system and was unsure if that was ok to do on R20

Not every character with Anger Issues has to be Barbarian, desu.

Well you lose the second attack. And in order to get a second attack you need to expend your bardic inspiration die which your team also relies on.

>trying to find a fun angle on the Dwarf who gets angry
You are taking a 2 level dip in Barbarian for mechanical purposes of dealing/resisting damage.

you need to spend an inspiration die to use a blade flourish OPTION. You can just blade flourish without the extra option and still get the two attacks each turn, and 10 movement speed too.

Helps add to the flavor I feel. The idea of being able to sprint in unarmoured, frothing at the mouth and completely forgetting his spellcasting just seems fun.

The other option was going to be a Battlerager with a dip into Ranger for the skills at tracking and navigating, but the crowd fighting skills is something I do enjoy.

I won't lie that I'm trying to satisfy mechanical and roleplaying aspects of the game, both tactical combat where I get to do cool shit and playing a character alive in the world are fun to me. At this point I'm happy to hear other ideas about mechanics or fluff, but I'm currently going with a Barbarian 2/Ranger X Mountain Dwarf with TWF.

How often do you play more than seven levels in a campaign?
Try to be honest.

Is an Oath of the Ancients Paladin as close to the 4e warden class as I can get?

Also, fuck you Wizards for getting rid of the Warden. Being fucking unkillable was my jam.

But there is literally a Dwarf only barbarian class

You could just go Druid and refluff wildshape as your character getting Hulk mad.

The movement speed is useless unless you kill the creature you were fighting. Also there's no way that you flourish without an option, because when you flourish you have to select an option.

And your point is?

Out of the 3 campaigns I've been it? One I got to 14 (LMoP into a homebrew one, my first game), one I got to 12 (I think this was a modified Out of the Abyss) and the other one fell apart in one session because a guy sent threats to the DM.

That last one was my first and last experience with Roll20. This game's going to be the same DM that did LMoP into the homebrew one.

I'm curious about all the questions though.

My last character was a Land Druid. The one before that was an Enchanter Wizard. Just wanted to mix it up this time.

I was going to play a Sorcerer in the game that fell apart but the hour of playtime I had as one wasn't very entertaining.

>Blade Flourish
>Whenever you use this option, you can also use one of the following Blade Flourish options with it.

CAN, not MUST.

>"Whenever you use this action, you can also use one of the following Blade Flourish options as part of it."
>can

I didn't ask you what level you reached, I asked you how many levels you played.
I never assume someone who's 12th level started at 1st. Around here, it's usually not the case.

The LMoP one started at 1 because we were all new, the other one started at 3 or 4.

Seriously what does this all have to do with anything?

>Being fucking unkillable was my jam.
Thats always up to your DM, he is holding your lives in his hands.
But if you're asking "is palading a tier-1 class" then yes, yes it is.

Satisfying my curiosity, really. I offhandedly assume that people who "build" characters like arena Battle-bots are just larking about for a few levels on R20.

Alright. Well you seem the sort who focuses more on characters then mechanics, got any good ideas for why a Dwarf could be exiled that isn't too cliche? I know very little about Dwarves in D&D other then what's in the PHB.

Different user here, offering up my two cents.

Family did something bad/taboo while the dwarf was a kid, grew up in the "outside world" without ever knowing what his family did, found that he was pretty at ease with being outdoors and leveraged that into getting his way back into the mountains and finish his Ranger training by going back home and getting familiar with the rocks in his home lands. He gets pissed if anyone finds out his last name or starts insulting him based on things he wasn't responsible for.

In my 6th DMing session using an optional rule where the bonus for strength is +1 hit/ +2 damage, rather than +1/+1.
(3 of the 5 players are Dex-based, the Barbarian and Champion are not. 33 total game sessions into campaign.)

So far, I'm very satisfied that it "balances" Strength and Dexterity as stats, and I enjoy how generally speeds up combats, and raises the danger level. Of course, monsters that rely on STR for hit/damage get a bit of a CR boost, but that's not hard to accommodate.
It seriously extends the usefulness of some otherwise low CR types that otherwise would be of little threat.

Well, it helps you tank magic damage like nobody's business, and you've got some respectable control effects and area spells. Plus, as far as unkillable goes, you get a survive-at-one HP trick and a regen captstone.

>champion
Its a single subclass that should be universally banned at any table, there can be exceptions for others but not this one.

Wow that's actually something, i'm just so used to unforgiving and taxing games. That's wild thanks guys.

r8 my Goliath Barb RP I'm currently playing lads

>Spent nearly all his life in a village that has great relations with a nearby Human village
>Work for them doing manual labour for good coin like most of his people do
>The Humans provide logistical aid, as well as building and infrastructure (as much as can be expected from a small village)
>Notices a lot of the Humans and weaker Goliaths seem to be weak of the soul also
>From his own observations he comes to the conclusion that the more he works his body the more he will steel his soul
>As he gets older he is not as easily drawn away by women and other seductions, so he concludes it must be working
>Decides that the body is the temple of worship, and perfect of every muscle will bring him enlightenment to some degree
>Left the village at the age of 20 to challenge the body, climb bigger mountains, lift greater weights, and spread his conclusions on self enlightenment
>This is clearly wrong in D&D, the soul and "Will saves" and such are clearly outlined on how to get them
>Hope someone challenges it on him in a session so he can have a growth of character or a crisis of confidence

the crunch

>His "Rage" is a self induced adrenaline rush where he pumps himself up mid fight
>Totem Barb
>Each Totem he takes is him specialising on a part of his body to hone
>First feature: Eagle - Core muscles, greater control of the body
>Second feature: Bear - Upper body workout, pump some iron
>Third Feature: Eagle - Work the lower body, become the ultimate Olympic athlete

Pic related is me. If you're in my group and you see this pls no bully

So my DM wants to try his hand at homebrew and asked me to help balance his idea for a Frost Elf sub race
Besides the base elf shit, we got:
A) +1 Con
B) More arctic version of the Goliath's Mountain Born

Having trouble thinking of anything vaguely useful in combat that doesn't send it straight into DandD wiki tier, these guys are meant to be kinda like Eskimo / Viking elves.
Pic is what he sent me as inspo, also considering less optimised +1 to Strength instead for a little more leeway.

A little-used route is making a decision in dealings with another race that is "fair" to them, but not advantageous to the Dwarves. Dwarves stereotypically keep their word when you can get them to give it, but they generally make every decision based on "what's the absolute optimal for the Dwarves."

So making some pivotal decision (say destroying a dam to reflood a valley, collapsing a tunnel network to preserve the delicate (and valuable) underearth environment of some other race, would put you at odds with the Clans.

>From his own observations he comes to the conclusion that the more he works his body the more he will steel his soul
What's yer Wisdom?

Why, though?

Gioliaths can't grow hair normally.

"Something, something, not optimal, meme" I am assuming.

>how do these set of mechanics sound?

>Sounds like you are building a set of mechanics rather than a character.

You don't fucking say?

Sounds like his level 20 class feature will be to suck himself off.

Because its the reason why battlemaster ended up being so shit, the maneuvers as a whole were balanced against such an ebic feature as improved critical, and the only reason Champion exists is so people new to the game could play something extremely basic. Basically a whole fucking class (not counting the UAs) had to be sacrificed in order to make a game more accessible.

You know, I don't want to sound like a dick to people who approach 5th Edition like Vidya Gaems and trying to "win" the game,
But I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons (and other RPGs) off and on for about 33 years.

And none of my fond memories of the game revolved around "That awesome rage-whirlwind build with advantage".
Find a group of decent people.
Try to find a good night to reliably play 2-4 times a month.
Relax, be imaginative and have fun.

So little of the true enjoyment of TTRPGs comes from autistically micromanaging your mechanics and planning your "build" to level 20.

And that's fine, I personally agree with you. Not everyone will though and they way they play the game doesn't hurt you in the slightest.

I can't really agree with your analysis.

Battlemaster weak? Please!
And frankly, i would appreciate if we had more simple, 'beginner' classes.

>Implying i can't do both

DM running the campaign with the Champion here.
I increased the Crit threat to by one on the Champion (I don't allow multi-classing btw) and slightly modified the 7th level ability.

The inclusion of multiclassing (and assumed automatic use of it by players) did 10x as much to deform class balance as any particular subclass.

Yes but it makes for dreadfully boring threads.
There are boards like Giant in the Playground where people will eagerly dissect "my awesum build guize" and you don't even have to pretend that there's some fluffy justification for it.

Use an inflection and soften your "t's" and "r's" then refer to everything and everyone as cunts. Huzzah you're Australian.

11, 9 int

>the maneuvers as a whole were balanced against such an ebic feature as improved critical,
You do realize that Battle Master *always* outpaces the champion in combat, right? Even with the improves critical, that small increase in average damage from extra crits is useless compared to having extra dice per short rest.

At 4d8 per short rest, that's +18 damage per short rest, at 3rd level.

With the expanded crit range, at 3rd level with a greatsword you're dealing +0.35 damage per swing on average. That means for the average damage bonus for champion to catch up, you'd have to make *52 attacks* before a short rest. And that is just simply unlikely to happen, and the disparity becomes larger at higher levels.

You might want to take "Resilience, WIS" before you start bragging on your spiritual superiority.

Dragonborn is best for the trashcan for being a garbage race.

That's fine, some humans have Afro hair. Just a different part of the world Goliath to me

Champion should've been +1 Attack, +1 Damage and +1 Crit. Going up to +2 later.

This, the RAW Champion is considerably weaker than the Battlemaster, and that's assuming you are playing the Champion with a weapon that's absolutely optimal for crit damage.

That's the thing, he doesn't have anything too special in that regard, but he believes that he does. He will probably be proven wrong in the campaign, maybe multiple times. He is wrong about his beliefs, but those are the ones he has at the age of 21.

You enforce encumbrance rules.

You let them sell the stuff but at a highly reduced price( 1/4 of base cost) depending on the context and only if they can find the right merchant via an investigate roll. Most merchants aren't looking to buy tattered stinking Orc hide and shitty goblin spears. This isn't an MMO or Diablo.

I just give them 18+ crits initially, and have it improve from there.
It's never been a problem over 8 levels (6 of them Champion).

>The inclusion of multiclassing (and assumed automatic use of it by players)
This.
IMO true multiclassing should be a UA option, and "splashing" instead handled by kits or 2e style Dual-classing, hell I'd evne go af far as to say if you MC you should lose class specialisations.

That's good then.

Honestly the UA expertise Feats pretty much completely remove the "need" for multiclassing for anyone but munchkins and people building "lel meme characters" like Wrestlebarbarians.

I also have a "Climber's Kit" tool proficiency that allows for climbing based on Dexterity, whether it be second-story tools or nekode or actual climbing gear or however you wish to define it.

Sheer free-climbing sans gear remains a function of STR/Athletics.

why is variant human the best race

and why is drow the worst race

Drow's good in a lot of settings, Sunlight Sensitivity is all fine in Barovia

free feat
can't go outside without SPF 1000 sunscreen

Keep in mins MC is a every level option while feat specialisation is a 1/4 levels thing.

Because too many people take the most "optimal" feat at 1st level.

Because they want to discourage the tide of post-Salvatore gish Dark Elf players.
It got to be like all the douches who showed up to costume parties dressed like the Crow (or later Heat Legend Joker).

And?

I'm currently doing a Polearm build for my paladin. Currently at level 7. Do you guys think I could dip into sorcerer or warlock at all? Or should I just stay straight paladin?

(Yeah, I'm a little new at this. )

Well basicly having to kill 300 goblins in order for a.. Cleric to learn how to pick a pocket feels rather stiff.

>The inclusion of multiclassing (and assumed automatic use of it by players) did 10x as much to deform class balance as any particular subclass.

Thirding.

Level by level multiclass was a mistake.

People want to multiclass to either A. "Do bitchin damage bro" or B. Be super-competent at a skill.
(mostly A)
Specialization before 5th level isn't THAT impressive to begin with, and you'll be too busy trying to stay alive lvls 1-3 to worry about being flamboyantly awesome at some skill.

Multiclassing is an Optional Rule that is also a mistake in a system that offers a nice selection of archetype sub-classes. It forces the developers to consider every new class and sub-class through the prism of "How big of a pain in the ass will this be with multiclassing in AL?"

>Get the go ahead to play a Mystic
>Make character sheet, fill out each individual ability as a spell (using roll20)
>mfw looking at my spells page and having 28 spells ready at all times for just about every situation

IM HYPE FOR VERSATILITY BOIS

>Literally only one of them directly deals damage though

Mystic class is literally a rubber pacifier for the most autistic players.
And that's fine.

>"I can literally sit and review my 28 options and giggle to myself while everyone else is focusing on being novel or interesting."

>weak
I didn't mention anywhere that I consider it weak, I said that its shit and its shit because its boring and maneuvers can't even remotely have a comparable effect on the outcome of the battle as a well-timed spell can. Why? Because it's not a core feature of the class. The core feature of the class is more auto-attacks and more feats, assuming your DM even allows feats. And that is pretty shit design in my opinion.
>And frankly, i would appreciate if we had more simple, 'beginner' classes.
I see no benefit in that. The game is already streamlined enough.
And its still yawn-inducing to play, literally "left mouse button: the class".
I never said it was perfectly balanced, but maneuvers were still designed to be more or less on the same level with Champion features and the same can be said of EK and its piss-poor progression.
Maneuvers are underwhelming in terms of damage, and the control effects like menacing strike and disarm are just meh. They're not a core feature of the class and are just a weird side-dish, and instead of something full-fledged like the spellcasting system you get a couple more attacks than other classes and more +stats, which is again pretty fucking boring. At this point I'm almost convinced the amount of crunchy fun you can get out of the class is proportional to the amount of pages said class has dedicated to them in PHB, spell-lists included, since its basically just more options. Question: why do spellcasters get a whole section of the rulebook dedicated to them while martials dont? Why is there such a disparity in terms of content that martials and non-martials recieved? Please elaborate.

>muh autism
u rite tho. I just like that I can be a beefy tank AND have a shitload of out of combat utility.

I'll giggle like a little bitch and like it!

Some people don't require a page of options to enjoy themselves in a game that's at often roughly half roleplaying.

Our Champion is a shieldmaster/sentinel who does a lot of knockdown shoves (setting up advantage attacks for crit), and he uses his good Dex and Str to attempt a lot of situational tactical maneuvers that aren't "hard manuevers" per se.

Fighting in dungeons and dragons, (particularly Horde fights) are often not the most exciting thing in a particular evening, unless your DM is a meek non-roleplayer who's running vidya gaems.

You're an evil man, if I were you I'd at least gimp myself a bit by having a mediocre stat array or something like that. Mystic is a well-designed class but numerically its a bit imbalanced.

There are pages of combat feats that your average caster would not touch.

The Spellcasting section covers the spells available to six full caster classes and two half caster classes.

If you need to have a craptillion options to "have fun" then play a caster. Some people don't need a crowded character sheet to be effective and have a good time.

Or C build a character that falls outside/between predefined kits and classes.

You're trying to build a clever mechanics stack.
You don't have to pretend you are being curtailed from "that one awesome concept for a character I had" because you aren't.

I was thinking of playing a wizard whose magical experiments had mutated and twisted his body so much he covers it behind plate armor.

I mean, technically I guess you could just have a wizard that wears plate armor without proficiency, but it'd kinda suck, better if I take a level of life cleric. Fits with the "cancerous" theme too.

>but i dont NEED content to have fun!
That is a tough position to argue with, but would having more for the sake of balance hurt? I mean one could oversimplify the spellcasting rules so that they take only 5 pages or so, but would that make people happy?

>but i dont NEED content to have fun!
Some people want to be Conan, a bold warrior who punches camels and carries off princesses, and doesn't have a golf bag full of different weapons or a half dozen swashbuckler maneuvers to sort through EVERY GODDAMN TiME YOUR TURN COMES UP STEVE!

Why would you not use a Holocaust Cloak?