/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

just remember that there will almost always be a lull at some point, it just happens. If the highs are good and at least twice as frequent as lows, you're doing fine.

how the hell should we know what you find more fun?

I was tossing up, and wanted to hear which way you guys would prefer. I've never played a paladin or a fighter before.

Could you make a weapon attack cantrip, ie booming blade, as an opportunity attack?

If you have warcaster. That's explicitly part of it. Otherwise, no.

No, but you can if you have the War Caster feat.

Ah, thank you kindly.

our opinion is irrelevant, what if i find weak builds more fun?

Thank you kindly.

Tome of beasts from kobold press
Ravenloft bestiary from DMs guild

What if you find having spells more fun than maneuvers and actually answered the question instead of being obtuse?

and what if someone else finds maneuvers more fun than spells? Then we're right back to where we started.
ask OBJECTIVE questions, not SUBJECTIVE

I know you might not want to hear it, but there is always the option to tell them you really don't feel up to the challenge, or at least ask for more time to work out what happens next.

Whatever YOU find more fun.

>Paladins
>High AC
>Decent health
>Decent saving throws

How am I meant to challenge the party's Paladin when we only do 1-2 combats?

> Wizard can become a dragon with True Polymorph
> Draconic Sorcerer can't

Why is this allow?

how about by doing MORE combats?

Because wizard chad doesn't share any of his spell bitches with the beta casters

Kind of what I'm hoping to avoid, but that does answer my question. Maybe D&D isn't the system for me.

>Kind of what I'm hoping to avoid,
why?

Target his squishy allies instead

Throw a magic user in there. Don't be afraid to intentionally counter players, if you don't they're gonna blow through fights without ever thinking tactically

>then we're right back to where we started

That's for me to decide, since I asked the question. People ask subjective questions all the time. When I say "which one is more fun" it should very obviously be taken to mean "which one do you, the reader, think is more fun."

I'll keep that in mind, thank you!

I think I can manage, it's just worrying, honestly didn't think I'd enjoy DMing so much or feel so good when they told me they had a great night.

I ended today's session with a clear objective, hunt a fleeing evil wizard down. Think I can stall them with smaller quests and town roleplay before they get stuck into the next part.

Hardest bit is gonna be thinking of more fun twists. For both sessions I had them tracking down and getting to a evil wizard who has been harassing townsfolk. All the mobs referred to him as a wizard as did prisoners.

Turns out he was just a goblin with a magic staff (given to them by evil wizard they're chasing) who dyed a potato sack blue to look like wizard robes. They enjoyed that as much as I did writing it.

We have a larger group than usual, so combat is especially sluggish. And we're not really a dungeon delving sort of group.

Tougher enemies. Enemies that actually use tactics instead of acting braindead, separating out individual targets. Hazardous terrain.
Don't be a little bitch.

If you're running a low-combat game, you could benefit from using the Gritty Realism rest variant or something like it. That way, you will chip at his resources over several sessions instead of letting him and the casters unleash the full can of whoopass every single combat

let me blow your mind right now:
One session does NOT have to equal one adventuring day.

I've said it before and I'll say it again! Goblin phalanx! It fucking works!

Go back to plebbit

if you're running it in a white room, out course it's going to be shit. Get better.

how about, instead of all this deciphering, you state what YOU find fun, then we can tell YOU which would be the better fit

Is stoneskin worth a level 4 ss? would it be better balanced as a third?
Could an additional benefit make it worth a level 4 ss

How do you deal with minmaxers multiclassing? Or rather discourage people from multiclassing when it is not for flavour?
I outright banned multiclassing in my game until after level 10, but now my friend is DMing and he allowed it from the start and made a house rule about warlock spell slots not working for non warlock features/spells. Now this only fixed part of the problem, the minmaxer just went for sorceror to abuse metamagics.
We tried talking to him out of multiclassing but no luck, personally i do not care as much, just find his attitude towards making characters a little annoying, but my GM seems very frustrated about this.

Stoneskin is fine as 4th level, resistance to martial damage is pretty good, especially for casters. Are you looking at it from a ranger's perspective, because that'd probably be why you think it's so weak.

you could start by minding your own fucking business and let others play how they want to play.

Let's do a class tier list, but in terms of fun.

>God Tier
>My favorite class

>Shit Tier
>Your favorite class

The optimization discrepancy between low and high optimizers isn't all that wide this edition. Nothing is broken if you optimize or don't.
You lose something when you multiclass.
As long as you justify multiclassing it should be fine.

Maps already made, can change anything you want. Been good to me.

But yeah, be less autistic.

>Fun tier
All classes, whatever you find fun

I enjoyed bladelock with the UA invocations, knocking things down and hexing things, plus the extra attack invocation made combat interactive enough to be fun, and the roleplaying related to the pact was enjoyable as well.

Why are you only allowed to attune to three items?

My DM just said straight up before we all made our characters:
>Homebrew setting, Sorcerors and Warlocks don't exist
>No multi-classing before 5
>A multi-class has to be justified by in-game events
>You can tell me what you want to multi-class and i'll work in a plothook for it
>Don't expect to be able to fully optimize your characters 100%
If it's your game it's your rules, just make sure to communicate clearly what your restrictions are, and be willing to meet your players halfway on some things.

I always did it in that the players had to describe to me how or why they're character was what they were.
For example: A person was allowed to play as a Sorcerer/Warlock because their backstory included them being abducted to the Faewild while a baby, thus impressing magic into their being.
Another player wanted to do a Sorcerer/Paladin but his only justification was that his quest for good ignited some latent power in him.
The difference is how much creativity and work goes into it. If you want the big pay off in the game, you have to work on thinking out of game too and about their character's development.

in that case, battle master would probably be more "fun" for you.

See how easy that was?

Bards > everything else > champion fighter

Balance reasons

>banning sorcerer and warlock
Your DM is autistic and a retard.

to avoid the christmas tree effect of 3.X

Puts a reasonable cap on magic items.

He didn't ban them because he dislikes them mechanically, they just don't fit in his setting. No one wanted to play those classes anyway so it's not like it causes any problems for us.

Does he realize banning multiclassing before 5th is actually going to promote powergaming? You're ensured that power spike when you get that 5th level class feature.

What does it balance though? And why the number three?

Is that something along the lines of magic items on every part of your body?

Also why does it take a short rest to attune?

would be nice to get earlier as an EK
and it sure would feel bad to get unlucky on the concentration save and waste a 4th level ss if someone hits the caster. 1 volley of arrows would probably do it

The Rule of Three is a big part of D&D multiverse lore. Most things come in threes.

What do people think of UA ranger?

>what does it balance though
Having too many magic items makes a character overpowered.
>why does it take a short rest to attune
So you can't just pop magic items off and on like a fucking video game equipment slot.

>Is that something along the lines of magic items on every part of your body?
Yes, "so many magic items you light up like a christmas tree"

>Also why does it take a short rest to attune?
so that players can't freely swap between powerful items as the situation calls for it.

how many DM's even pay attention to attunement though. It's like ammo or weight, I wouldn't be bothered

Do dragonborns display draconic behaviors based on their heritage? What would a blue half-dragon/dragonborn act like?

Counting to 3 is pretty easy

What spell is legit for Amazing Bardic Superhorse? Produce Flame and Melf Minute Meteor are Target:Self. Can I make a flaming horse?

Depends on the setting.

Is that really the only reason? Would it break the game to still limit it but allow more attuned items?

Yeah I get that but why a short rest? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to take longer time for stronger items (potentially a shorter time as well if it's cursed/willing to be with you) and shorter for relatively weak things?

Speaking of ammo... What's the best way to track that shit?

...

>Yeah I get that but why a short rest? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to take longer time for stronger items (potentially a shorter time as well if it's cursed/willing to be with you) and shorter for relatively weak things?
because 5e only has short and long rests and having attunement take a long rest would be fucking ridiculous.

>Speaking of ammo... What's the best way to track that shit?
paper and pencil you fucking goober.

Use a d20 or two and keep them on the amount of ammo you have

yeah I guess your right
I'd still probably forget tho

2d10 would also work for this

Wouldn't it make sense to just have something like 'Attunement 10 minutes' in the item description? And I think some items should take a long rest to attune to.

speaking of 2d10
who else likes the idea of using 2d10 instead of d20 for the optional bell-curve style dnd (recommended is 3d6)

I meant as a dm but that is a good idea

>Skill checks
>Disarm
>Grapple
>Reach
>No save spells like Darkness
>Save or suck spells like Polymorph from a Sorcerer
>Force them to run around playing nurse to the squishes
>Have your combat have stakes and a story line rather than just being WILD ENCOUNTER APPEARS

I guess for monsters you can just have them start at like a d12 or a d6 depending on what you want them to have ammo wise, would also make it harder for your players to guess when each one is running out. Maybe even randomly roll out their ammo.

or, instead of having to clarify for every god damn item, they can just make it a short rest.

You know what you never hear about? People complaining about the bard/ the Bard player.

No one complains that it needs to get nerfed like the wizard, buffed like the Sorcerer, fixed like the Warlock, crucified like the fighter, dumped at higher levels like the rogue, draws autistic fedora like the druid or the Cleric, or needs to be avoided entirely like the monk and ranger.

Go figure that.

Well with that logic why not make all spells last for a minute at most?
All I'm saying is that it is perfectly logical for different items to have different Attunement times.

50% of what a bard does is help other players, so people like having one. The other 50% is fucking things silly.

because some spells are not functional for that duration, item attunement doesn't change function by having a standardized attunement time, and as was said before, they don't want you swapping stuff shit in and out.

and if you've bothered to look, most "weak" magic items don't require attunement at all.

5e minimizes granularity and tends to have fairly simple rules. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing it in that fashion if you so choose, and you're welcome to do so, but it's done that way because it's done that way. We don't have a design document to explain the reasoning .. but it's inconsequential.

I'm aware of these things. All I'm saying is that Attunement to me would make more sense if it had varying times associated with it.
Most artifacts for example, shouldn't just be an hour. That should be something like days of dedication. I guess I understand why they do this (for simplicity), but I have similar gripes with how long rests fully heal, restore all spell slots, etc.

> but I have similar gripes with how long rests fully heal, restore all spell slots, etc.
do you even LIKE DnD?

ya know they have a ruleset that makes taking a long rest next to impossible in dangerous situations.

Then use the gritty rules.

Or use your own rules.

Others said Tome of Beasts which is good, also in the vein of monster manuals check out Fifth Edition Foes by Frog God Games.

I am aware and I do employ these, I was just wandering why they chose a blanket Attunement time and offered no optional rules for something I think deserves optional rules

Yes? It's just I don't think things should be that easy.

You say that but holy shit does my party treat me like a rancid "hangers on"