/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

Too late™
Some spell just need requirement like being proficient in using martial weapon.
Good morning, I am going to sleep now. Dragonborn should have been a +2 Cha +1Con race.

>design a spell called blade wind strike
>for a class whose archetypical user is a bow guy
>and a subclass that can't play it with your official "one supplement allowed rules"

I already knew crawford was retarded, but it is nice to have confirmation.

Are you retarded?
The archetypal ranger poster boys are Drizzt and Aragon, sword wielders. And the +1 book is only for AL players.

Drizzt is the iconic D&D ranger, and he has dual wielded since before it was mechanically an option.
The source "ranger" was Aragorn, who used a 2 handed sword 90% of the time.

What would you say the HP, AC and other defensive properties does a mundane shield have as an object.
Immunities: Poison, psychic
HP: 20?
Resistant to everything?
AC 19
Damage Threshold 15?

Shit objects are hard to figure out.

The ranger archetype has since changed. 90% of the time in media, a ranger is a bow guy. It's the shitty range class in the mmo.

Give examples; Legolas is a fighter, not a ranger. The MMO is no basis for anything, autist.

Your bias isn't universal. Most people don't play MMOs, and the most standard MMO is WoW, which features the Hunter.

Why is that archetype not archer. Ranger are cool strong and never afraid of the wild. Ranger can wrestle a bear and be friend it at the same time.

Looks like 5etools Paladin is fucked up, doesn't show the level 20 abilities.

Wood shield: AC 15, 10 (3d6) HP, resistance to bludgeoning and piercing damage.
Steel shield: AC 19, 10 (3d6) HP, resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and fire damage.

Both immune to poison and psychic damage, of course.

Placement of level 18 aura is in level 20

Practically invincible if being held
If on the floor it'll break because we can assume you have enough time to break it

yes, that's the point.

How to rp as LE cleric?

Honestly I'm uncomfortable with statting shields, with those stats a level 5 fighter could break the shield right out of someone's hand in a single round. Just leave Tham as armor accessories.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(character_class)

Bow play is emphasized, because a bow is a more traditional hunting weapon than a sword. People still bowhunt to this day (and far fewer use swords), which has probably helped to shift the arcehtype from aragorn to what it is today.

Well, I've already changed it to use melee weapon attacks instead of melee spell attacks, so I feel like I've done my part.

Roll up a better character who's actually a team player instead of being That Guy.

Actually read, autist
>their preferred martial arts weapons leans towards practical-utility:archery,knife fighting,stick-fighting,axeplay,spearplayandswordplay.

Just checked around, and found very few classes called ranger.

World of Warcraft has one, and it has a beast master, archery and a melee build as options as far as I can see. Not sure what weapon choice the beast one uses, but I assume you can pick whatever.

I call bullshit on your "rangers are typically bow users". I think you are mistaking the name for having anything to do with range.

>That Guy

Pretty sure I am not CE or CN m8

>Bow play is emphasized, because a bow is a more traditional hunting weapon
Rangers are rangers first. They are not necessarily hunters at all, even if a lot of them have a tendency to overlap.

A Hunter specifically goes out to kill shit. A ranger does not, and rarely does so unless he has to.

See the image, Sir Autismo.

Don't fall for the 'Give me money for healing' memes.

Earn the trust of your party, convince them along the way that your god isn't so bad but don't hide that you worship some evil god. Just don't openly preach the god to people who'll kick you down and arrest you.
Make the party depend on you so that later you can have them help you with whatever goals you have.

Basically psychopathic doctor who doesn't tend to kill much himself but makes sure to point out that everybody else in the party is way more violent than them.

Also it's not impossible for an evil character to make friends or come to like anoyne in the party, either. However you do things, remember that the most important thing is you're ultimately working together with the party, even if you have some disagreements sometimes.

You are not above screwing people over, but you care about your religion and certain standards. You are chill with others but you do go to the extreme for your goal while others don't. Hell use your god as a protection for your actions.

>missing the point this hard.

Holy fuck am I glad I'll never be in a game with you. Not only do you unironically play an evil character, but you don't understand when people try to tell you why evil characters are bad for a campaign. Holy shit.

I have always seem Rangers as the more "Nature guy who keeps shit in balance, and makes sure no one fucks it up, and keeps an eye out for anything that shouldn't be there". Basically a kind of scout.

Probably because I assume the name "Park Ranger" originates from that concept. You likely wont find a lot of park rangers who regular kills animals.

Not bad playing a bow using horizon walker so it doesn't effect me but still not bad.

Nice.

My Bladesinger is going to love it.
>Nothing personal kid

It makes me want to let my players pick swordsage and have fun

>Implying Evil-Anything isn't destructive to party cohesion and enjoyable sessions.

Eww, you're one of those people who thinking playing a "lawful" makes it OK, aren't you?

Yes

Honestly, you should probably replace "Neutral" with Chaotic Evil as well, unless you're using it to refer to animals or something.

For reference
mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/930617849407664128

>Implying you can't have an evil person who loves his fellow adventurers and would willingly die for them
I don't think you understand what evil means in D&D.

The "Evil bad guy sacrificing himself for a friend" is among the oldest tropes in the book. Evil doesn't mean "LOL RANDOM BACKSTABBINGS ARE FUN XD"

...

Why is 9th spell exclusive to full caster? Would it be broken for half caster to get it but with less weaker spell slot?

>Honestly, you should probably replace "Neutral" with Chaotic Evil as well, unless you're using it to refer to animals or something.
???

True Neutral is LITERALLY used to describe the common man.

>tell you why
They just told user that it's bad, not why.

And as a matter of fact, lawful evil characters can be nice to have in even a good campaign. You could have a devout cleric who's actually kindhearted but preaches and acts out an evil god's will because of some reason, and the evil god's actions don't actually interfere with the party.
You can be that one guy who's just as much a member of the party as everyone else but who carries out the dirty work when the otheres are too squeamish.
You could even play a cleric who has converted over to following a neutral/good god for atonement, trying to slowly remove the things that were forced into them in their lifetime of servitude to an evil god.

Of course, the main problem here is that chances are user and anyone playing this shit will probably either A) Edge it up hard, B) Not cooperate with the party, C) Not understand what 'lawful' means or D) all of the above. So I don't blame a DM for turning shit like this away.

Do explain the terrors of LE.

What the fuck are you talking about?

No thinking creature can be true neutral. Debate me.

Read the book faggot.

Actually you'd be surprised. Park Rangers kill animals that injure humans. To a lesser extent, they also have to control the ecosystem to protect other species, so sometimes they'll take steps to kill things.

If a park ranger carries a gun, the gun is far more likely to be used on an animal than a person.

But that's more of a druid thing in the fluff. The term ranger originates from the practice of ranging, in your post, being a "scout". A ranger carries light gear, essential to survival. A bow and an Axe are more typical ranger weapons than a sword, which is impractical in the wilderness.

I have linked my consciousness with every living creature.
I am now truly neutral as I embody all existing opinions.

Checkmate.

No.

Next.

>And as a matter of fact, lawful evil characters can be nice to have in even a good campaign. You could have a devout cleric who's actually kindhearted but preaches and acts out an evil god's will because of some reason.

Sounds like a retarded AF character who makes no sense at all.

>regular humans are not lawful

Stop sucking dick and read, faggot.

The sad part is, this is the kind of thing people who play evil characters ACTUALLY believe.

It's like all those retards who keep pushing the "good necromancer" meme and then throwing a bitchfit that they keep getting kicked out of games or never invited to begin with.

That is where they lie. I play exclusively evil character and have not done a single bad thing. Except for leaving my group to die as they were to stupid to retreat with a strand of each of their hair, bargaining with a goblin and then going back on my word and kill him, and dine and dash.

Many people follow gods because that's what their family did and that's how they were raised. That's the basis. Considering we see it in real life, I wouldn't say it makes no sense.

Lawful evil is the best alignment though, if you're forced to play alignment.

Left to their own devices, "regular" humans would not self organize into states. It takes a special class of human, the "parasite" to convince "regular" humans to organize into states.

>alignment chatter

Haven't seen that in a while.

>Typical DnD universe
>Everyone knows gods exist
>You're a good person who likes doing good things
>"Yeah, I'm just gonna follow this evil god who advocated rape and murder.

I dunno, still like a retarded as fuck character.

>Not being a devout to-the-book zealot
>Not being essentially a lawful good but 10x cooler
>Still probably less edgy than the rest of the 'good' party members

Why would you not follow literally ANY other god instead of the evil one?

Fuck the edgelord justifiers are out in force today.

...

How fucking boring would a neutral party member be.

So where do these special humans come from, and why are regular humans so willing to maintain organised society?

Lawful evil is great. Have you never in your life needed a lawyer for something? As long as you pay that guy, he will do whatever it takes to win your case.

Proper lawful evil can be exactly like that, but in combat too. The guy's a stickler about his paycheck, but he saves the party's ass again and again, and he doesn't waste time worrying about stupid stuff, only results. In a dangerous world like most D&D settings, even the most selfish bastard will realize that there's safety in numbers and backstabbing the party is a one-way ticket to dirtnapsville.

If you stop to think for half a second about why a lawful evil person would join an adventuring party, it's really quite simple. Avoid needless edge, look out for number one, maintain integrity so you've got a good reputation for the next group in case this one dies while doing something dumb.

Where does any genetic deformity come from user? Random mutations.

Considering the variety of pantheons anything can fit.

>Be a race that is naturally good
>At some point, one of the member of such race was forced into cult shit, evil god worship and all that, the details aren't too important as long as they're there
>They have a child
>They pass on their beliefs
>The child is inherently good, and hasn't grown up enough for the evil to really be properly ingrained. Has a good and caring nature, but struggles to make moral sense of many things due to indoctrination, doesn't see a problem with [evil act] even though they themself don't feel like they'd want to do it

>Why doesn't a muslism in a muslim family praise Jesus every day?
Gee, user, I don't know. Maybe Jesus told them not to?

Another thing to fix with houserules I guess.

In real life people follow their religions because they believe their religions to be good and proper and right.

DnD is a world with objective morality and anyone who deliberately acts evil is retarded or actually for-real insane because mentally healthy people don't act evil just to be evil.

Next weak justification, please. Wrecking you edgefags is too easy.

Only among casual morons who think the "range" in "ranger" refers to ranged weapons.

And the second half of the question?

retard.

Kind of amused by the reactions due to just asking how to rp as a LE cleric.

Thanks

status quo.

Wait until you start asking what counts as evil alignment. Is the paladin that kills a baby that he thinks will destroy the world with 100% certainty evil?

...

It'll be chill beans until some shit goes down and starts messing with their homes.

Don't evict wizards or druids from your village, there's a possibility the entire village was built with Mirage Arcane. Over the edge of the cliff that you couldn't see.

>In real life people follow their religions because they believe their religions to be good and proper and right.
It's also embedded in their tradition and sometimes even their way of life. You might disagree with some of the parts of whatever holy book, but when everyone else around you follows this god too and wears this gear and you wake up to holy babblings every morning and the entirety of the rest of your family expect you to follow in the same light, you don't really have a reason to think of not following that god.

Evil gods often have ways to force people into their religion, if they don't have races dedicated to it, or they offer power or such. The evil god may well be offering clerical power in return for their worship, and usually you won't get that level of clerical power anywhere else. You can't just go up to pelor and say 'Hi can I sign on to be a level 8 cleric? I didn't like my old employer.'
I mean it could work, but it might also not work and also everybody you used to know now will shun you.

Isn't LE just the guy who is chill with the party but does things bit too extreme to enemies?

Or is that just LN.

So people are in general inclined to follow the first person that suggests they organise into states and then maintain the state-driven status quo for centuries, but lawful isn't a regular human choice?

Depends.

I had a Bard player once, who mainly acted as a Minstrel, playing music and cheering them up, and advertising for the party and their feats, and keeping a comprehensive record of their adventure. Refused to make decisions, and was only along for the ride to witness the heroes make history. Really just neutral, no moral decisions was taken if it was at all possible to avoid it.

It got kinda weird when the Bard kept insisting to have only been along to witness the entire thing, when the Bard was just as valuable, if not more so, than the other party members. It was played so well, it almost felt like a GMPC I didn't control, at times.

Considering some of the advice was literally "RP as a good person who's evil just because" can you really blame them? People who play evil characters tend to be some flavor of retarded a majority of the time, and drown the people who actually execute it correctly.

It isn't good or evil inherently. Good/Evil, Law/Chaos are opposite and objective forces in D&D. If that baby is an orc, it's a good act. If that baby is a good or neutral aligned creature it's more likely evil.

>posting the boneheaded 2e AD&D description
People knew that was bullshit 25 years ago. It's still equally bullshit now.

Why does Shadow of Moil require concentration when Fire Shield does not?

I know a park ranger who has killed 6 animals in 10 years.

Yeah it could happen, and it does happen. But it is rare. They have collectively put down 11 animals in 2017. Among 8 park rangers, that's very little.

All evil characters can be chill with the party. CE is quite hard to justify but there can be reasons such as 'This party goes around killing shit just like that because despite being good/neutral they're all edgetards! I love them! I want to see them try to make moral choices with retarded looks on their faces as they can't comprehend what it means to kill! Power is corruption!' and all that. Basically a guy who isn't actually a murderhobo but tests the paladin and the rest of the party's will.
It'd probably still be obnoxious, but it's possible.

Again, though, 9/10 and especially with CE it just ends up being 'I backstab you I evil'

Try this from 5e Faggot.

Because it also has weaker darkness built in which is a concentration spell. I suppose.
It's probably good for long-distance combat in dim light since most darkvision has a limited range.

Because shadow of moil causes you to be heavily obscured.

My last evil character had been raised wrong by hags, as a joke. He had been taught he was the true king of a minor power, and had "proof", and that presenting said proof to the reigning king and challenging him to a duel would let him take the throne. Paladin, oath of conquest, became an oathbreaker when he was defeated, corrected and taught the true history of the place. His final act before becoming an adventurer was slaughtering the hags.