/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General:

how do I start the import script from 5e tools?

>I would remove a race that is explicitly DM-only, and only usable by players with DM permission, from the DM-only monster supplement book

Nice

You prefer other races feats.

Despite that everybody seems to use it anyway because LOL LOOK AT MY BROKEN OVERPOWERED BUILD THAT USES OPTIONAL SHIT CONTENT AREN'T I CLEVER

>For fuck sake if I could go back in time and change one thing about 5e I'd add in more big titties.
FTFY

Some racial traits are better than or impossible to replicate with feats, and some characters need feats very little.

Your dm did the sane thing and lets you choose stat bonuses (+2/+1) for your character, and gives everyone a free starting feat.

If I wanted to implement some old school experience gathering via recovered loot and treasure, do you think I should also just use a standardized (one xp table for all classes) version of old B/X experience growth? Say 2000 -> 4000 -> 8000 ect ect. Or better yet, whats the expected treasure gold value gain vs the xp gain from monster slaying?

You play anything that isn't a martial or a no-feat martial (monk, barbarogue)

>barbarogue
for what purpose?

It's a team game, learn to play as a team.

First time playing a tempest cleric, what spells should I grab? Also is is a bad idea to run around with a mail for shits?

I kind of want to see other anons homebrew pact ideas.

>Post your homebrew pacts. Bonus points if they work seamlessly with existing patrons. Hard mode: Core patrons.

Just use fucking milestones.

lmao, at lower levels arguably, at higher levels casters overwhelm everything with reality altering powers while martials... Are badass, admittedly, but not in the same scale.

Because you want to be a thug rogue / dex barbarian / a barbarian that doesn't need feats to keep up / a two-weapon barbarian / a grappler?

If a member of my team is going to be deadweight by picking fighter, he's the problem, not me.

Forest Gump is a fiction movie user. You don't stick retarded white boys on the football team and justify it by "team game". You don't stick fighters in the party with wizards and attempt to justify it either.

How are fighters dead weight?
You're the problem by literally being Forrest Gump without any of the charisma, the teamplay or coherency.

Why do you need Rogue to be a two-weapon Barbarian

fighters are deadweight unless you're playing 99% combat, in which case switch to 4e.

A fighter in 5e is replaceable by conjure woodland beings, and leomund's tiny hut.

I disagree.

Fighters can and should be memorable characters. Laius from Dungeon Meshi springs to mind as the de facto Team Leader. What he lacks in reality bending or agility, he makes up with courage, quick thinking and knowledge.

If a character is lacking, you should first consider if you are the problem and not the character itself.

Are you actually playing 5e? Or do just want to look like a retard anyway?
Have fun juggling spell slots, concentrating on spells and then being literally useless because you blew them.

But sure engage without fighters and see how far that gets you.

Conjure woodland beings is a concentration spell, you fucknugget. If you don't understand how this could be a problem, you're a detriment to any party and the problem is you.
This is made doubly so without martial support.

B-but my characters are always interesting cuz they are all half-drow wizards who were curses by a fox spirit.

>Fighters can and should be memorable characters
I agree that they should be memorable. I disagree that the system helps them to be memorable. A wizard has the mechanical tools to be memorable. A fighter does not. This is going to tend to create situations where the wizard steals the spotlight from the fighter, especially at higher levels. I've seen it happen a lot, as a DM.

The other problem is that fighters are just mechanically boring to play. No matter how much you spice up the battlefield as a DM, the fighter is going to be doing the same thing every round over and over again. That's 100% intended with this system, and it's hard to get away from, unless you spend your entire time DMing coming up with obvious ways for the fighter to do more damage than attacking EVERY TURN.

Between the two, I've seen players ditch martials for casters in games that I've played in, and games that I've DMed. Usually around level 7 or so, the realization and character boredom starts setting in.

Dex barbarian is dumb cause no reckless attack, and you don’t even need rogue for grappling either since there’s a feat in Xanathar’s that straight up gives you expertise on a skill.

>A wizard has the mechanical tools to be memorable. A fighter does not.
Give examples.
Note as a caster you have spell slots to worry about, concentration spells to note and you're left vulnerable without martial support. But good luck surviving without any martial support because you're a retard.
By all means replace the fighter and see how far that actually gets you. But it doesn't sound like you play, it sounds like you theorycraft.

>The other problem is that fighters are just mechanically boring to play. No matter how much you spice up the battlefield as a DM, the fighter is going to be doing the same thing every round over and over again.
This is you being a failure of a DM, it doesn't sound like you are spicing the battlefield at all. It just sounds like you have a preconceived idea of what a fighter should be doing.
Have you actually played with any fighter other than champion fighters? You realize that battlemasters and EKs exist right?

>Between the two, I've seen players ditch martials for casters in games that I've played in, and games that I've DMed.
Why does this smack of you being there forcing them to play something else, especially with your fighter bias.

>By all means replace the fighter and see how far that actually gets you.

Very far it turns out. I know I've played to at least 15 from 3 in a 3 caster no martial party.

Underdark Campaign
no Darkvision can be a bitch if your DM actually uses light and darkness alot

What casters? How long was the campaign? Was it only a three player party?

druid, bard, warlock
to level 15, over the course of a year. Ended after we killed the BBEG.
yes.

I've done that. Took the darkvision spell at level 3

I apologize, I meant it as things for dungeons, rooms, and the like.

If the Fighter is always doing the same, that means something is going wrong. Not all the game is the mechanics, and furthermore, if the rules don't let you awesome up your players, here is the sage DM's advice that never fails: fuck. the. rules.

I know one guy who was forced to fistfight an Orc due to circumstances, and the DM awesauced it up so much he ended up taking a level in Monk because it was so well described and awesome.

Also, Casters should be treated with the utmost suspicion in most settings by most of NPCS. Here's why:

-Clerics and Paladins are very strongly religious, hell, they are the very hammer of their Gods, and that should make it that unless dealing with people of the same faith people will see them as the equivalent of a real world religious fanatic armed with a gun.

-Wizards can't stop prying at the rules of reality, and to top it off, they are essentially walking living weapons. How would you feel if someone walked in with a rocket launcher and a grenade belt into your favourite restaurant? That's how people should feel when close to Wizards and/or Sorcerers. They're capable of obliterating people with a word, should they wish to, so if I were a random person and I saw a Wizard I would keep them under very tight scrutiny.

- Warlocks are people who literally sell their their souls for power to the highest bidder, and shouldn't be trusted.

- Druids are weird hippies who worship trees and don't give a shit about other affairs.

- Bards are sleazy bastards looking forward to sleeping with your daughters and trying to cheat you in your local game of chance, who are untrustworthy by default.

Of course, some societies may be more open towards magic and its applications and of course in their own circles they should be welcome, but almost everyone else has plenty of reasons to be suspicious and discriminate them, out of fear and because they are alien.

And archetypes?
Sounds like your DM had to go easy on your party.

What are some extra examples of the accomplishments a character with the “Folk Hero” background could have to their name that still fits a first-level character?

How long was a typical combat?

>fuck. the. rules.
The same advice applies to 3.5e when dealing with caster/martial disparity you know. It doesn't change the fact that there is caster/martial disparity in 3.5e, nor does it change the fact that it exists again in 5e.

think of what most Folk Heroes do: fight monsters, brigands, etc, perhaps find an artifact of lore in their town, read up on a few legends for inspiration.

There is disparity, but it's not as fucking ridiculous. There will always be some classes better than others at certain things on paper. However, the gap in competence is not as massive nor it matters that much when storytelling anymore.

Any changes/improvements that you would recommend to my homebrew monster. Bonus points for recognising my inspiration.

probably 5-10 rounds.

moon druid
lore bard
tome fiend lock

Rallies the peasants against a bandit gang, slew wolves preying on livestock, fetched the cure for a contagious illness, introduced crop rotation, drank a Orc chieftain under the table making the horde go away in shame.

>to 10 fucking rounds!
That's fucking long as fuck in terms of combat. Combat in 5e is meant to resolve relatively quickly.

Planning on putting together an old lady Glamor Bard whose 'performances' are sham fortune telling. The only problem I'm having is: What's a method of divining that lets you retain some degree of mobility?

Don't be this disingenuous, fighters in 3.5/PF can be made completely useless I those editions. In 5e, the fighter classes are actually contributing party members.
It seems like you're still playing with that mentality.

in* those editions, fuck this phone.

See, I think it is a serious problem with the edition, especially after having played other games and seeing things done correctly. It certainly isn't present at level 3, but at higher levels, it's huge.

The fighters in 3.5/pf were always able to do damage and carry things for the casters. Same as 5e. It's just that in 5e, they're able to do more damage than casters. That doesn't fix their complete lack of things to do outside of combat, or how boring it is in combat for them.

There's no sensible reason to go beyond barbarian 5 if you're using two-weapon-fighting

Not them but fighters are essentially, almost always, a one-trick pony. They do damage. That's it. That's the start and end of them. There is nothing more to it. It's not awfully exciting. You can do other things as a fighter, but you can't do anything any other class couldn't do in that respect.
I wouldn't call that dead weight myself, but I can understand the sentiment.

>dex barbarian is dumb
Unarmoured defence. Also losing reckless attack and rage damage isn't a massive deal, especially if your strength isn't much less than your dex.
>there's a feat that gives you a skill
Rogue's expertise is just one of many benefits.

>The fighters in 3.5/pf were always able to do damage and carry things for the casters.
Not really, 3.5/PF completely unnecessitates fighters completely. In 5e, fighters are actually useful. Case in point is your ridiculously long and drawn out combats.

Again, have you only played champions, there are other fighter archetypes you know.

>there are other fighter archetypes you know.
Battlemaster gets one rarely useful out of combat feature.
Eldritch Knight gets some spells, but most of them are only combat focused.

Both are still gonna be useless for most of the game.

So what SHOULD fighter do but fight?
There only so many things to climb up, lift over their head or shout down.

Just by only looking at PHB fighters alone, and not other martials, there are EKs and battlemasters. These classes bring more to the table than purely one trick pony damage.
I can understand if people only ever play champions, but that's simply not true.

What class is best if one of my main goals is at-will flight? Obviously I don't want to just take a broken ass flying race, but I'm not seeing many ways to get flight easily.

Tempest Cleric, Dragon Sorcerer and Storm Sorcerer are the only ways I can see myself getting it without concentration.

Ok.

Slew a beholder.

You could always make a Protector Aasimar if you don't mind rest recharges on your flight, that way you have it at level 1.

Fighters are also durable as fuck.
At level 1, caster classes can take 1 - 2 hits from any appropriate monster threat.
Fighters will take 2 - 3 on average. Not having that threat of "I could die the first time I'm hit" is a huge bit of security.

This obviously matters less and less with each level as HP bloat becomes a thing and casters get access to magical protection but honestly if you're playing 5th beyond level 5 or 6, you're doing it wrong.

A 20th level Paladin with 20 CON and 20 CHA and with Proficiency in CON saves has a CON save of +16. He can at max get a 36 on his CON save

DC
10
15
20
25
30
25
40

So he can at max go 6 days with no ill effects and get 1 level of exhaustion on his 7th day. He will die on the 12th day.

The record holder for going without sleep (with no stimulants) is 11 days and 25 minutes. A 20th level Paladin with max stats can barely go longer than some random highschool student without sleep AT BEST I.E ROLLING 20'S ON EVERY SAVE

The problem is scaling. Wizards leanr how to warp reality as they level, why not let fighters become effectively super human? Slash a sword with such speed you create an energy wave or some shit?

It's a double standard. Either bring wizards back down to reality or let everyone be ridiculously powerful and keep scaling past level 5 flavor wise.

Level 17 wizard: wow, I can literally make anything happen with the wish spell!

Level 17 fighter: wow.. I can slash my sword the same way I use to!

See the problem?

What would armor made from the metal of this creature do? I'm thinking a combination of adamantine and mithril armor + a resistance or something along those lines?

Fighters have a 5% chance be KO'd when something attacks them at first level, same as every other character.

Nothing, because according to Crawford mithril and adamantine armors are just magical enchantments. You may as well make a t-shirt that grants resistance, crit immunity, and stealth skills from common hemp.

Look to myth and legend, the things that fighters are supposedly supposed to emulate but fail horribly.

They can move land with their strength.
They can split arrows with their precision
They can outrun the wind.
They can move with grace while blinded.

warlock can do it with concentration, but still at will.

Honestly as someone who finds Fighter's fun, Battlemaster is lame as fuck. It's abilities will half the time either be spent on "I do slightly more damage and trip him" and "I turn a miss into a hit (maybe)".

Eldritch Knight is really fun and people underestimate how good giving disadvantage on saves is at level 10 if you have even a 14 in INT. Especially with action surge. Cavalier is also fun quite simply because it does something no one else in the game aside from Ancestor Barbarian does, it actually works as a tank.

>tfw you want talk to about whips, so you make the thread
>tfw it just devolves into yet another unoriginal casters v martials memeshitfest
Even on a day of thanks giving, life is suffering.

I feel like one of the bigger missteps of 5e was making superiority dice exclusive to Battlemasters, coming from someone with a lot of experience playing and enjoying martials in this system.

Battlemasters are a great archetype with a lot of opportunities for customization and strategic thinking. I’ve played a Battlemaster Fighter from level 1-18 and never once wished I had spells, because I was constantly pushing, disarming, and frightening foes during combat.

On the other hand, when I first tried the system, I played a Chanpion Fighter from levels 1-8 and it was a miserable slog by the mid-levels. Limiting “does interesting strategic things” to a single comba archetype seems like some pretty counterintuitive design, and I’m not sure why it ended up the way it did.

Barbarians are fucking baller no matter what archetype, though. People who complain about martials being boring as a blanket statement haven’t played enough barb.

And in fact some people have claimed to go twice that
Yeah but if the Wizard gets slashed by the fighter 8 times with action surge he is fucked

small ranger medium flying pet

question though, if you're gonna get flight as a class feature, what OP broke about a race that "pays" part of it build budget to do so?

Do you only solve out of combat with spells and not through skills and roleplaying?
Which one for the battlemaster?
The EKs also get abjuration spells, but there's no one saying EKs can't take something like friends.

Should have made a interesting point then.

>EKs
You cast shield and absorb elements on yourself to last longer so you can do damage longer I guess
or enlarge person or haste to do more damage
that's around about it
you don't even get rituals and they discourage you from taking utility spells
>BM
You can get advantage on attack, make another attack as a reaction, add a roll to hit, do extra damage
.. Basically just attack more and do more damage
There are a couple that help negate damage so you can stay alive and do damage longer
Aside from that, there are a couple of minor crowd control abilities like fear or disarming but these are relatively minor.

I think it's somewhat fine as-is. If you want to be a bland 'hit shit hard' guy you can go fighter. Feats can spice it up a bit. If you want to be an animu fighter, you play a gish or a monk.
Of course, late-levels are imbalanced because of caster supermacy, though.

>d10 hitdie, +3 con mod
>compared to most casters having d8 hitdie, +3 con mod, typically
Wow, +1 hp/level, so tough
Wow, heavy armour, shame they can't use a shield because they're using a ranged weapon / heavy weapon if they want to do their job right and the cleric has more AC than them
Shame the wizard takes a one level dip of cleric to have 21 AC while you still have 18 AC because you're trying to do damage
shame the barbarian has resistance to all fucking damage

Shame that all casters with polymorph and moon druids can just soak HP with their abilities anyway

I don't care about pvp, I care about the fun of leveling a martial and feeling relevent as the game goes on.

Every two levels wizards feel a power surge with new spell levels. Fighters... keep rolling to swing their weapon every level with no new ways to play to improvements to systems they already have. Battlemaster was a great idea, it just needed to be expanded upon.

Fighters can do a lot, user. Just read up on legends and myth, most were more than just warriors but also wise, just, courageous. How memorable you are isn't tied to pure mechanical goodness, as well.

When in doubt, remember the Riddle of Steel.

>They can move land with their strength.
>They can split arrows with their precision
>They can outrun the wind.
>They can move with grace while blinded.
I would like to see fighters return to the old fighter bonus feats to let them do shit like that.

Wizards get to warp reality a limited number of times per day and they are fucked. They're also limited by concentration spells, if these are effectively disrupted they lose that spell completely.

The fighter is slashing with such speed because you get action surge.

>People who complain about martials being boring as a blanket statement haven’t played enough barb.
This is very true.

Honestly the only martial with issues is Fighter. Paladin gets a ton of cool stuff plus spellcasting, Revised Ranger is fun especially with the new subclasses, Rogue's always good, Monk does a lot of interesting things even if it's damage it meh and Barbarian is just pure awesome.

It's really just the class designed to be a generic fighty dude is boring as shit. Which isn't a surprise honestly, hopefully we get skill feats soon so that they can at least use the extra ASI towards some utility.

People who play fighters love that. LOVE IT

They love just rolling a bunch of dice to hit and they love taking a ton of damage/being missed and surviving

A wizard can warp reality several dozen more times per day than a fighter can action surge though.

?
What the fuck are you on about you mongoloid?

Most monsters at first level are doing 4 - 8 damage per hit.

Your mage with 6 HP has a much higher chance than 5% of getting downed.

My fighter with 10 HP is absolutely going to take at least 2 hits.

But they still get the option to limit reality. Wizards have an unlimited number of ways to play their class and have fun with a variety of options.

Fighters get to swing a weapon. Maybe twice or thrice a turn!

Didnt they develop it specifically for that though? I remember seeing a post about how people wanted just a point and click fighter that was simple to use.

How many of those were "Fighter(tm)"s though?
Remember you're putting a specifically constructed class up against the entirety of literary character that ever swung a sword at stuff.

I believe that is Champion.

>Barbarians are fucking baller no matter what archetype, though
How? You are just a worse fighter until you rage then you get resistance and +2 damage, it's boring af

In the open playtesting period, fighters had once per turn superiority die. It was awesome. It was a general fighter thing. Of course, since the only people who cared enough about DnD to join a playtest were the grognards still stuck with the dead 3.5, there were complaints

"I just want to hit things with my sword crawford san"

And so, the superiority die were taken away and gutted, and remade into the battlemaster class, which despite being a fraction of it's former fun, is still one of the most fun fighter archetypes.

Naturally, all the people complaining switched to wizard and bard when the official game came out, their mission accomplished.

Yeah, I don't know what he's talking about either, barbarians are championfighter tier.

What happens 5% of the time someone attacks something, user?

>arguing the validity of fighters specifically at first level.

>starts talking about level dips
>starts talking about a 4th level spell
>starts talking about casters putting their highest attribute in Con all so they can still not have as much survivability as a Fighter.

I guess martials are destined to always be glorified summoned monsters with basic attacks. It fucking sucks. I'd love to play a fucking fighter or just a martial that feels like I have options and not just "HURR DURR I SWING WEPUN LEL"

Oh wait Shadow Monks exist and they are a fucking blast.

>he plays with the "le epic critical success and failure" meme