/5eg/ - D&D Fifth Edition General

Do Boots of Striding and Springing allow me to move grappled targets at full speed?

No. Grappling someone is not encumbrance or heavy armor.

I did, but at first thought it seemed too strong. But now that I stopped to think about it, they can't just switch spells everyday like Clerics and Druids so it should be fine to put True Ressurection there.

There ain't much variety in 9th levels spells. I was thinking of giving Weird to Archfey as well. It would overlap with GOO, but they already have 3 spells overlapping in their Expanded Spell List so it shouldn't be a big deal. Do you think Weird is a better fit?

I think Wierd is a pointless level 9 spell.

>Not valuing spells by how much they fit the character you've created.

Weird would fit with the Archfey as well, but if you want to keep them all unique then maybe Storm of Vengeance?

I think you underestimate the frightened condition

>If you have to use houserules to make it work, it's not homebrew, it's a houserule.
If you're changing an option or a mechanic, it's a houserule.
If you're adding an option, even if it's designed around a houserule, it's homebrew (but again, it relies on that houserule).
If your homebrew relies on houserules, you probably won't see it used if you publish it, but that has nothing to do with asking for feedback on it.

>Homebrew is supposed to be usable by others.
Maybe if you're publishing it on your blog or putting it up for public use. But if you want to publish your homebrew along with the houserules it relies on, go ahead, just don't be surprised when other people don't feel like using it.

>If people give you actual reasons and you say "I'll houserule around them instead of fixing them,"
If you're trying to make a major change to the game for the purposes of your campaign (such as large-sized PCs), houserules will be inevitable.
If your suggestion for "fixing" someone's homebrew for their own campaign amounts to "Give up. Use this shitty substitute or nothing at all" you would have to be retarded to expect any response other than to have your conclusion be discarded, even if your criticisms (the valid ones anyways) are noted.

>Stop publishing your homebrew.
Well, I mean, I haven't published it. Who publishes a rough draft of anything? I was looking for feedback on a first draft of an option for my own campaign, in order to make it work without being broken.

Though if I did publish a piece of homebrew about playing large creatures, as pointed out, that doesn't work in 5e without houserules. So I would then publish those houserules at the top of the document, and explain that they were required, and why that was the case.

Keep this shit in the other thread, it's not archived so you all can keep screeching at each other by yourselves while the rest of us move on

Storm of Vengeance fits the nature part of Archfey, but they're mostly about being subtle and playing with the mind and emotions, so I think it would be a bit dissonant with the rest of the kit.

What is it and where do I look at it so I can give you an opinion?

I think it's not unreasonable for people to not care about a homebrew they can't use. I understand your need for feedback, but:
1. People have no motivation to review something that won't apply to them, and
2. People don't know your houserules, which makes it hard for them to review your stuff in context.

Those are some good points. I mean, I included the houserules that were relevant in that first Ogre-post, but yeah, people aren't going to be too interested in homebrew theyre not going to use.

God damn it, why can't /5eg/ just be a thread used for discussion of 5e and answering of questions? Why the fuck do these autistic 30+ reply arguments dominate each thread? It's literally 3 or 4 faggots going back and forth until the thread dies. Sometimes the autism even continues on into new threads.

What about 5e stories? What about discussion of rule exploitation? What about answering of obscure questions? What about unique builds?

Be the change you want to see user

I want to make a Druid 1/Long Death Monk X V.Human with PAM. The idea is I'm now a Monk who can use Wisdom for literally everything I do.

Anyone got ideas on how to build this or some fluff ideas for a Druid/Death Monk?

>5e stories
Stories are system-agnostic.
>discussion of rule exploitation
Not helping you be That Guy

>obscure questions
>unique builds

>Someone says something, asks something, or mentioned their homebrew.
>Someone else starts an argument over it.
All arguments last forever and kill threads on Veeky Forums. The only answer is to not be the guy who starts flinging insults and starting an argument, and then gradually change the culture so other people stop doing it too.

IE .

But good luck user. that's an uphill battle.

Please find something better than "I can cast clone every day for the rest of my life". Maybe Mind Blank. Maybe Antimagic Field. Maze is a classic. It's not the theme, it's the application.

Why don't you start a fucking discussion instead of relying on everyone else to create the thread you want?

Be the change by not being a little bitch.

Continued from last thread:
Playing wizard next campaign, want something unconventional; any ideas?
Current ideas are tattoo spellbook madman, low int, minotaur, and geometer.

don't take a single spell that does damage except for a cantrip or 2. Instead, go for utility and support overload. Max battlefield control to make your GM shit his pants and create better encounters.

Are the powder weapons in the DMG balanced for normal play?

Yeah, kinda. What's the best tank feat?

>clone
Leave that to wizards.

>gnu

As long as you rule CBE doesn't skip their Loading rule yeah.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B9p7DxYuE-3VQWRpNGQ0ckxLcTQ/view (just lifting from a quick google, I can see if I can find a straight pdf or something somewhere)

Warlock supplement, basically. From what I can see, it actually looks pretty damned interesting (but I've not had time to really dive hard into the small details). Came to my attention as being among some of the 'better' homebrew like blood hunter/shaman/pugilist, but while those I hear are talked to death on here (well, outside Shaman), I don't hear anything about it.

Thematically, I would imagine a Twilight Druid would work well with a Long Death monk.

Enchanter. I never saw anyone play Enchanter Wizard. Not even once.

How much of a trickster should a young copper dragon be?

I'm thinking of having a copper dragon selling essentially cocaine because it makes humans do funny and outrageous things.

Is it reasonable that he would be ignorant and do this with no ill will?

Why are some DMs caught up in disallowing the UAs?

Lore Wizard

Because it's not play tested or official content, and has some blatantly broken stuff (or things that become broken via multiclassing being allowed, which UA is fairly explicitly not designed to do).

I don't see a reason to blanket ban it, but yeah, I can see the argument.

Because it's still not fully released and balanced. Right now I believe that it even says on the wizards coast website that it isn't 100% ready. I do believe that they will be allowed in the coming months when they release the next book.

Should I be scared?

>I DM a weekly game for 3 players
>one of the players have had some rough times lately and he hasn't been able to play
>suggests that we should have 4 players so if one can't come we can still play
>everyone agrees
>one of my players asks if he can invite his friend that he always tells about my campaign
>I don't know any player myself and inviting a complete newbie to a lvl 5 campaign would be a nightmare so I agree
>my player calls him right away, he told me the new guy wants to play
>what's his name?
>"Lettuce"
>What, no really no stupid character names
>no user, his real life name is lettuce

So I am going to play with Mr. Lettuce.

Maybe move Mind Blank to the Undying and give the Archfey Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting?

Blood Hunter is needlessly complicated (like all of Mercer's 5e homebrew), and pugilist is not sufficiently different from monk to warrant a whole class.
That said...
The Compendium of Forgotten Secrets seems reasonable enough. I haven't read the whole thing, obviously, but a brief skim shows that the features aren't too convoluted (for the most part) and the designers kept design principles in mind.
The invocations run a bit on the strong side, and the access to powerful combat familiars is something I'm not sure about and probably wouldn't personally allow.

> Some people still shouting that Mystic is OP
why?

Dragons, even metallic dragons, are pretty cruel and possibly evil.

He wouldn't care as long as he finds it funny. Hell if they keeled over dead by the end of the week he wouldn't really care. Just a human is all you know, easy come easy go.

A young copper dragon should be an extreme trickster. But he should also be good, and he isn't an idiot (hatches with int 14, apparently), so he'll probably figure out that addictive drugs are bad for people pretty quickly.

Because they were never intended to be anything beyond playtest material, and not every DM is obligated to participate in the playtest.

I would ease him in with some rp since I assume your friend would talk about that the most.

After he gets used to rolling the dice then do some combat, but idk how combat heavy your campaign is.

Because my setting's worldbuilding doesn't have any place for mystics

Yeah, those are better. Thanks again famiglia.

Reminder critical failures can be done properly.

Do not apply critical failures where they make no sense. The fighter will not let go of their sword unless they have oiled their hands for some reason. The nat 1 will just be a miss in that case. The circus guy with +10 acrobatics should not even be rolling in the first place to balance over a rope unless conditions make it harder, such as the rope being oiled down. An arrow will not accidentally hit anything but someone standing in the way of the target or grappling the target or such unless something could potentially throw off the archer's aim or the archer is a shit archer. If there is a fragile object in the room and it's clear the players aren't specifically avoiding it, the players might end up hitting that instead, which could potentially affect the situation i.e. a barrel nearby starts to leak after a hit or a ming vase shatters.

Critical failures serve three purposes:
1. To remind players that there are potential consequences for recklessness.
2. To introduce a dynamic element to combat where attack results aren't just 'you hit/you miss', such as the aforementioned 'ming vase in the room breaks' which is much different to 'you shoot your friend in the back'.
3. To provide that moment of tension when the player rolls a 1. It's not just 'oh, I missed' but 'What's going to happen?' Natural 1s in such games often draw the attention of the whole table.

>Dragons, even metallic dragons, are pretty cruel and possibly evil.
The fuck you on about
Metallic dragons were unaligned in 4e and good in every other edition ever, including this one. They can be greedy and proud, but they're not cruel.

Ironically, my setting does, but I'm waiting for them to be balanced and fun.

>that OP image
I'm going to run a session for the Council of Waterdeep in RoT. Any hints or advice on how to portray 10 different NPCs at the same place, all with different characteristics and priorities?

Maybe I should have put 'better' in stronger quotations there; I know that they certainly aren't perfect, but they seem to pass a populus enough test and are generally viewed to be meeting a niche that isn't *quite* eked out base classes and subclasses.

Just pure curiousity; what's the concern with combat familiars? I stumbled across this while thinking of making a Warlock, and part of the curiousity I've got with it is just the pure ... Giving a bit stronger thematic sense to things, and giving more variability than being an eldritch turrent. I admit I've not delved too much into the familiars, but I could see them as being potentially a useful way to mix up how warlocks handle situations (and give chain more of a reason to exist).

I bet he'll turn out to be a great player. Dudes with weird alternative names always turn out great in my experience.

>Dragons, even metallic dragons, are pretty cruel and possibly evil.
Metallic dragons are not evil under any circumstances

Also note it's generally good to remind players that, say, 'Oh, fighter, your hands are still oiley' or 'Firing into melee is slightly dangerous but it'll probably be fine' or whatever. You're reminding the players there's an extra risk factor that might crop up on a natural 1.

The problem most people have with critical failures is they're usually 'randumb' and the players have no way of anticipating the stupidity that could happen due to them.

Cool idea, but I'm still going to play caster instead.

New DM here, I'm having trouble with designing areas with a divination wizard in the party. In the most recent dungeon, the whole thing was easily scouted out by arcane eye. They also have clairvoyance in their spellbook, and I know there are more "see through walls" or locate spells in higher levels.

Do you guys have any recommendations or suggestions with handling spells like these?
1. I don't want to design things under the assumption that the player is going to use this spell, as it basically would mean the spell is required. I don't want the player to feel like their spell is "useless"
2. I don't want the spell to trivialize a dungeon by letting the players know where everything is. Part of the fun is not knowing what's around the next corner.

I know arcane eye can be stopped by solid walls, things can't go through planes, etc.

Is there anywhere I could find crit fail ideas like these?

I really fucking wish people did that more. I know with my DM, critical failures have so far ended up being:

- Shoot friend in back with arrow
- Skid on your ass into melee instead of coming in swinging
- Characters wild swing accidentally cuts open their herbalist kit, spilling it everywhere. Buy a new one.

Shit is .. Too much for a 1/20 chance. If people want extremes like that. Buuuut, my DM likes to have things happen in a fairly white room situation. Annoyingly.

illusion?

Chain has a good reason to exist - the utility of a tiny, invisible scout, which is pretty damn versatile. In general, warlock pacts give utility rather than combat strength (pact of the blade doesn't count because it doesn't give either).
Other than that, maybe it's just my personal prejudice against player characters having combat pets in general, which is preventing me from weighing their balance appropriately.

I wouldn't say ANY circumstances (unironically depends on setting), but it's certainly very, very rare, even in settings where it's possible.

I see what your saying but how should I make it so he negatively affects a local village enough so that a group of adventurers have to do something about it?

I don't really like how the lair affects it's surroundings .

Arcane Eye and Clairvoyance both create invisible things, but there are a lot of creatures that have truesight.

It would require you houseruling, but if you make the arcane eye count as the user's eye, it'd be a real shame if the arcane eye locked eyes with a Beholder or a Mind Flayer Psion who knew what they were looking at.

And that's fine, but there's still a possibility to fuck up some spells sometimes. None of that wild surge shit, just that if you want to target your fireball at a very specific spot so that 5 enemies are just on the edge of it and one ally is just out of reach of it, you might have to make some sort of check to get it exactly on target. Normally there shouldn't be any such check, however. A wizard may still take skill checks or use spells to make skill checks (such as with a mage hand) or various other things, as well as magical items and effects getting in play where a wizard is more likely to get fucked up by antimagic of some sort.

The point being that while a wizard may choose not to cast firebolt and hide away and not get killed, they're not completely exempt from the possibility of consequences if they ever decide to get out of their safe zone.

The Arcane Eye may not be stated to have any health, but if something can see it, there's nothing to say that they can't grapple it or trap it in a jar or something. After all, it can't go through solid objects.

I'm not really sure, but you don't really need a table.
You just need a circumstance that enables a critical failure (rather than inventing a circumstance such as there's suddenly a pool of grease under you and you slip) and then you can say 'because of X and you rolling a 1, Y happens'
And players should be able to agree that it's fair.

Just wait until you make 3 or 4 attacks a turn. Or even worse, with disadvantage.

I would say that 'good' critical failures are going to be fluid to the environment. Examples given in other threads outside of what was stated here was things like damaging support structures, or to reiterate that post, introducing environmental complications ("your arrow punches a hole through an oil barrel, and it begins to seep across the floor" - now the footing is potentially murky, but you're also fighting on top of a flammable substance. Or maybe the floor has given way, or what ever have you).

It's things that aren't "oh your character suddenly fails at what makes them so special, in a way that's hilarious to *everyone else but you*", and more creating dynamic situations.

Thank you, the commentary is appreciated. I've yet to actually play a Warlock, but I never ended up evaluating chain much (mainly just looking at Tome because ... Tome, or Blade because I am weak to the meme, apparently).

Though I have had a peculiar urge to play a blind/deaf/mute Chain Warlock who uses Voice of the Chain Master to interact with the world. Except would likely need Raven Queen just to make it so that it's not "Oh, hey, your familiar was caught in an AoE, you now have Disadvantage to everything."

Something seems fun about a crippled man on a path for vengeance, having his words squawked out by crows.

Do we know any of the plot hooks or recommended classes for Tomb of Annihilation?

We can assume at least a Paladin or Cleric since it involves undead.

We can assume a Wizard since it's full of various hard puzzles.

Furthermore, it plays up the idea of non standard races and diversity in Chult. But are there any bonuses/penalties to playing them?

Reposting to get some more opinions: homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJMbkZIU-

Just give feedback like:

>Neverember didn't like that
>Mellandrach wasn't impressed by your failure
>Lady Silverhand appreciates your effort

Don't actually attempt to play 10 different NPCs, the backstory is pointlessly complicated, focus on the leaders.

What happens if an immovable rod in the earth and press the button?

Doors. Passageways with curtains. Dispel magic. Glyph of Warding. Truesight.

>Something seems fun about a crippled man on a path for vengeance, having his words squawked out by crows.
Idea stole, thanks.

It comes undone.

So if you're hanging off of it and press the button you fall along with the rod.

Traps are hard to spot via Divination, them knowing the layout may lead them to false confidence and forget that traps are a thing.

Also doors, Arcane eyes can't go through doors or similar obstacles they need a gap to go through.

Illusions in general, or just creatures that would naturally be hidden while sitting around in the room such as spiders or snakes, or creatures that appear as other objects, such as a roper, animated statues, oozes, animated plants or even the classic corpses that rise as zombies when disturbed.

Creatures blessed with non-detection do not show up to divination spells, so maybe that room that appeared to have three bandits in, actually has three bandits and two bandit-mages in.

Also, creatures with the ability to see invisible things will be able to notice the arcane eye. Maybe one of the bandit leaders has a lantern of revealing mounted on the wall burning with a blue flame, allowing one of the guards to go "Eer boss there is a little floating eye here, what do I do?" "I don't know, put a bucket on it for now."

Of course, don't always shut down the Arcane Eye. It's a pretty high spell slot to invest into scouting so having it shut down every time will just frustrate them, a player in our group used a Shadow sorcerer who frequently used the darkness spell to take cover in while shooting cantrips or blind enemy archers. Of course soon every encounter either had a few blind-sense enemy, or an enemy caster to dispell magic. Another player had a net-fighter who would disable high-value targets instead of dishing out flat damage, but soon enough every encounter had an extra pair of goblins who seemed to be on exclusive "Net-slashing" duty to defend their boss, even fights that seemed odd to have a pair of lackeys around for.

Our game is just Nat1 is a slight fumble, you lose your reaction and bonus action until your next turn, giving enemies a chance to maneuver around you freely, and maybe costing you an attack.

Ok but with how fast the earth is spinning how does a tiny hut work if its immovable.

I've played one. Hypnotic Gaze is seriously the most fun at-will ability you will ever have, I used it all the time outside of combat.

On a purely thematic note, I frown at the fact the *sadist* derives cruelty from *masochism*.

Outside of that:

>Roll 1 hit die to get Cruelty points
Are you *spending* the hit die? I feel like that should be explicit in the words.

>You can spend these points to fuel various skills. You start knowning three such features: Hamstring, Butcher's Brand, and Bloodwalk. You gain more features as you gain levels in this subclass.

I was confused for a moment, since wording made me expect it would be like Battlemaster where you have X number of abilities to choose form, but can only select a small number of them, gaining a greater amount as you gain in levels. You're not selecting features here, so that kind of feels superfluous - you can likely just say "you can spend these to fuel your abilities", basically, without detailing "for these three maneuvers which you immediately see after this and are explicitly given to you at that level, and following levels.

>You can spend 1 Cruelty point to mark target enemy as a bonus action for 1 minute.

Wording seems weird here again.

"As a bonus action, you can spend 1 Cruelty Point to mark an enemy for one minute"

Bloodhound is neat. I almost would prefer to see it as a bonus to track an enemy YOU have wounded, just to make it more personal to the Sadist.

Stepping out though, so will check the last bit later. I personally feel like the capstone for Sadist seems a bit strong.

The temptation to make a flamboyant homosexual wizard with hypnotic gays...

This, also information can sometimes be a bad thing. Our diviner found a barricaded room with some pale looking figures laying on the floor around a trough with crusted layer of dry blood. The figures on the floor were clearly vampires.

So before we entered, we had a bunch of buff spells ready, protection from undead cast, holy water prepared, we drank potions to top up health before we took them on, knowing vampire spawn to be tough and there were at least five of them in there.

We open it up and.. They are long dead, corpses starved and withered because there is no visible difference between dead and undead but resting via scrying orb. So we wasted some resources, time and effort.

What's the general consensus on mage slayer? Any particular good or fun combos with it?

By all means, take it. Personally I was planning to make the character as a variant human Haunted One starting with Observant, because that means you (and by extension, your familiars, who you can see through at any distance, and one of which is going to be a Imp shape shifted to a crow - or ideally just 'it's a crow that can use imp statblocks, because thematics' - means it can turn invisible) can read lips.

And you get an ungodly Perception score now because of how Raven Queen crow works. Never was quite the intention (wanted more to have a GOO, and play up the creepy of having a raven cough up an eyeball to peer around while you're looking through it), but if your character is legitimately blind without its familiars, you're going to have a bad time, and raven queen lets you bypass that by making it 'part of you'.

Mage Slayer is great for grapplers.

The gladiator's thing where it has a creature drop something seems really out of place and the unarmed d6 seems like its stepping on monks.

The Beast Knight seems broken all to hell
>Mark of Feather no opportunity attacks if land a hit
This is half a feat.

The Sadist seems very underwhelming while also having a weirdly op action
>Flayer's brand The first attack made against a marked target has advantage

Which one?

Left.

Does anybody actually do right?

The right 100%. Moe important number gets the bigger box

Don't care. I have players doing both.
Left is more traditional, which is comfortable for people who have played for decades.
Right is more functional, because .
But the difference is so minimal that it really shouldn't matter.

I don't get Barbarogues, how many levels of each class should they have and, if they use Strength, how the fuck do they get decent armor?

Immovable Rod and Tiny Hut are immobile relative to the area around it. If the planet spins, the rod spins with it.

The whole thing is that it moves along with the ground its on. Its not immobile in the aspect that it's glued to that one spot.

I do. Never made sense to me why people do left when the modifier is so much more important.

Barb 2/Rogue x
Barb 5/Rogue x
Rogue 4/Barb x
They get decent AC by wearing medium armor.

I know every character I'd ever play would roll with a brace of pistols the second I could afford them. not just because it looks awesome, but because 1d10 at those ranges means I'm always a threat no matter if I'm out of spells or if the enemy is flying. I can always reach out and touch it with some legitimate punch.