/5eg/ Fifth Edition General

>Forcing this shit to require goddamn plot hooks

You're needlessly aggravating the players and demeaning their characters to 'doesn't even know how to go shopping for things that are an essential part of their career'.

It's a gateway and there's a price to pay, yes, but don't overcomplicate it.

>character concept
hexblade/warlock that has a gun as his pact weapon.

Does Warcaster remove the need for a focus? Because that's the way I'm playing it.

No, it does not. It only allows you to perform somantic components while your hands are full. Such as casting spells that require hand gestures while using a sword and shield. You still need a component pouch or casting focus.

What's up /5eg/,
Is an Assassin/Shadow Monk multiclass viable? Or is it hampered? Is it fun?
Was thinking 3/3 for starters, probably leveling Monk from then on...

You have practiced casting spells in the midst of combat, learning techniques that grant you the following benefits

You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage.

You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.

When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.

>actually I need to make getting a pearl a ploto hooko
>a plot hook
>for a PEARL
If that "plot hook" is anything more than "No, sorry, you'll have to head to [CITY NAME] to get one of THAT quality." You're being an asshole.

good point, it's not like they don't have half a dozen plot hooks anyway.

in any case once they're 3rd+ and have other shit to worry about it will only come up if they lose all their shit or it's a big consumable

says nothing about focus. just tattoo your focus on your forehead dummy

Never had any. I have an idea at any time that I want to try usually, then eventually I get a game and I play it and then I come up with some new idea to persue for the next game I find.
Currently either a 'counterattack' abjuration wizardlock or a grappling barbarogue sounds like fun, though.

Yeah. If they want it earlier than that and aren't prepared to give up basically all their spending money for it, maybe it's worth giving them a plot hook for their 'starter' levels 1 & 2.

>Missing the point this hard
>Gating your players off from things they think they should have access to without just fucking telling them you don;t want them to have it yet

That DM detected.

I try to ignore the ones with no set price. I'd never ask players or expect to be asked to track them. Most of them are wackier than I like my RPGs, chicken feathers for Fear and sesame seeds for Passwall. Not to mention they're extra bookkeeping.

Spell components are a bit like languages. They can be interesting if you're going to make them important, but if they're there when the scene isn't about them they're probably just going to get in the way of the interesting thing.

The easy but not very interesting way of doing this is just refluffing a handaxe as a spear.

Still 1d6 damage and the same thrown range, but with the light property for dual wielding.

My reasoning was that using the focus is (at least in my case) a somatic action, something like blowing my viking-style horn, so for simplicity's sake I just removed the somatic action of having to raise the horn. Though I suppose I could play it as my "Use object action" and just sheathe my sword and pick up the horn as the same action? I dunno. Being a sword and board valor bard makes things a bit harder. Or I just say I use my voice as my focus or something, since my bard doesn't really play instruments anyway.

>tfw when can't make based penis-gun my pact weapon because he's sentient

The problem here is that the way you fluffed it allows players to cast spells when they've been bound or stripped of all their gear (such as a focus or components). It essentially allows casters to do their spells just by thinking about them, and makes them impossible to "disable" in any meaningful way. It's the exact same kind of bullshit that's wrong with Mystics as a class (among many many other things).

You need an instrument but you don't need to actually play it, I'd let you use your voice of course, but you'd need to do some hand movements for bravado that would require your hand to be empty, as if you were holding an instrument. Hand economy is serious business, I'm in crippling debt over here and the bank is one final statement away from foreclosing on my digits.

With dual wielder your could dual wield a lance and shortsword, but only while mounted. I don't think it would break anything if you were allowed to do it unmounted though, and you would actually have a reason to switch which weapon you were relying on depending on the range the enemy was at.

Somatic OR material can simply be summarized as:
If it's a bonus action, you can't then use your action to attack if you're sword+board, usually.
If it's an action, it doesn't matter unless you have two things that must stay held (A grappled creature and a shield, for example). You can just assume you've sheathed the weapon and took it out again next turn.
If you're using a two handed weapon, you have a hand free for all intents and purposes.
If you're actively looking for reaction attacks and use an action with sword and board, it may become a problem if your weapon isn't out.

So basically it barely matters, but it's nice to consider for fluff reasons.

Unless I went into Cleric or Fighter. And I'm not really into clerics. And all fighter really gives me is the multi attack that the one user was pushing.

>exact same kind of bullshit that's wrong with Mystics as a class (among many many other things).
I don't really care about mystics being in or out of the game though they don't usually seem to fit the fantasy setting, but doesn't what you've just said apply to monks as well?
>Monks can always unarmed strike even if you bind their hands and legs up, technically, so aren't they just bullshit?

my *that player* basically told me she would already have it at level one because of grandpas vorpal sword reasoning and has consistently rewritten her background around all my "that's not feasible" "doesn't work like that" etc. about four times.

so yeah if making a point about the pearl makes me that DM when "sorry not yet" hasn't worked, then I'll be that DM.

the irony I guess is I've already told them everything about the one and only magic item they have so I don't even know what's up her butt except she thinks she knows and deserves absolutely everything.

>Monks can always unarmed strike even if you bind their hands and legs up

WAT?

Headbutt

Well, can't she just buy it with her starting money?

Get creative. You can do more than just punch and kick.

If they have a bite attack it counts.

the focus it the horn warcaster means you don't have to blow it

how is this difficult

>I'm in crippling debt over here and the bank is one final statement away from foreclosing on my digits.
Didn't know I was this deep in shit
>but you'd need to do some hand movements for bravado that would require your hand to be empty, as if you were holding an instrument
Keep in mind that this is with the Warcaster feat take ninto account as well. So would not a hand movement with my hand wielding a sword suffice here? That way my focus is my voice, but it has to be channeled through my hand movements, but I don't need an empty hand, but can wave my swordhand using the warcaster feat, and if I'm tied up and couldn't swing my arms then couldn't cast spells?
You say this as if it's obvious but the rest of the thread don't agree with you. But yes, that was my reasoning as I said in the post you replied to.

>Tie monk up completely, even put a latex suit over them like some mad fetishist to make sure they can't do anything
>Call Big Good Guy on the phone
"I have your friend hostage. Bring the macguffin to me at-"
>Monk flies through air
>Critical headbutt to the face
>Stunning strike
>Stuns
>Bludgeons BBEG to death with brutal pelvic thrusts
>Big Good Guy arrives to find a completely bound monk and a bloody mess that was once BBEG

Can anyone tell me if a minor artifact like the Deck of Many Things can easily be destroyed by something like a fireball? Have one player who is obsessed with ridding the world of the Deck.

>brutal pelvic thrusts

>but I don't need an empty hand
Still need an empty hand if you want to do a S only spell, you can only do SM spells with your sword/any other foci hand.
This is RAW but fuck any GM that actually forces you to do that.

>no cute girl OP

Boo!

Did you just assume their gender?

how would Warcaster fit into this? Or are you typing this with Warcaster in mind and if I didn't have Warcaster I couldn't sheathe a weapon and pull out my focus using only an action?

No, he assumed their cuteness. I assumed his gender. I am now male.

I once had a similar situation, not nearly as severe of course
>Be mostly magical group in FUCKMAGICSTAN
>Get captured by local authorities
>Be put in FUCKMAGIC wagon, chained up
>My character is PF Brawler (5e wasn't out yet, please don't judge)
>Fucker is shit talking us
>Mumble something under my breath
>Fucker gets in my face, taunting me about how I can't cast my spells in here
>Headbutt this guy right in his smug, prick face
>Crit the attack roll
>Completely lay this fucker out (did like half his HP in damage)
>They beat me into unconsciousness to stop my roaring laughter

I'm writing a Christmas one-shot for my group, and just before the small dungeon at the end of it they are going to be given an option to rest with a faction of rangers and druids in the wilderness. What's a small encounter or activity they could in this area to make it more than just a rest stop?

If it helps, the rangers/druids are preparing a festival to celebrate the winter solstice.

Warcaster is irrelevant, much like how the grappler feat has completely redundant clauses in it. Honestly the only good part of warcaster is the reaction attacks and the concentration advantage.

Taking out material components from a spell components pouch and using them uses a hand, but it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic comonents. As such, if a spell has M or S or both, it uses one hand.
However, if an item you're holding is used as the material component (such as a shield with a holy symbol) you can use that hand for the somatic component, too.

Technically you might need to 'draw' your instrument but if you have problems with that you can just use a spell components pouch.
I don't recall voice being an instrument and thus a focus, by the way, just in case.

I'm always confused as to the proper use of Arcana checks.

Could you use an Arcana check to discern that a monster you're fighting has an aura of magic resistance?

>Still need an empty hand if you want to do a S only spell,
not with warcaster?
>You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
So I don't need an empty hand. And SM spells only require me to keep the materials on my person, so it would essentially work the same as a somatic spell. The issue comes with the focus spells.

Technically Warcaster means you can handle your material components with your sword. Or you can fluff it to make sense, but lets stick with "DnD as a computer game with rigidly defined rules", it's more fun for online discussions.

(You)

who needs that when you can have

Hornitar (patent pending!)

Oh, just to clarify, yes, warcaster does exempt you from the excessively specific cases I mentioned here So it's not useless, but it's not really why you get warcaster.

Have the Druids ask the party to collect supplies for egg nog (or just whatever alcohol you want to call it) might interest any characters who love a good drink.

>Technically Warcaster means you can handle your material components with your sword.
What the fuck are you smoking? You could handle somatic components with your sword but you would still need a hand free for material components. It says so right there in the part you highlighted.

Fuck third post
Just realized warcaster doesn't stop you from needing a hand for material components
So pretty useless desu

>doing that while being restrained and blinded

Nah.

RAW, it's possible. You can make unarmed strikes with any part of your body, essentially.

>pretty useless

Warcaster is only amazing for Paladins and Clerics, since they can have their spell focus as a symbol on their shields while still wielding a weapon in their other hand.

>Clerics
Why do they have a weapon in their other hand?
Just use a cantrip.
Or, cast your bonus action spell and then pull your sword out and make your action attack.
Or, make your action attack, put your sword away then use your bonus action spell.
Or, use your action spell after putting your sword away and pull it out when you actually need it next round.
A cleric doesn't really care.

As for paladin, paladins firstly don't really have enough spellcasting that needs warcaster, they secondly don't have much need for the other aspects of warcaster unless they're concentrating on bless since they usually won't have booming blade and thirdly your standard paladin uses a two-handed weapon anyway and thus already has a hand free.

In fact, if they're using a material component with the shield, they don't need warcaster OR a hand free.

>monk flies through the air while restrained
>speed is 0
>jumping costs movement speed
Nah

you know players either get class money OR starting equipment right, not both?

the few gp they get from background is not enough, not even pooled (well not now that I pickpocketed the tabaxi)

Is their target within 5ft?
Then they can make the attack.

Now I think about it, last time my DM gave me maximum money from rolling for money.
With that, you can buy a 100gp pearl and the spellbook you need.
And you can always ask for some money you'll give back to another player.

blinded is disadvantage tho

my players had a pretty fucked up autist in one of my one shots and are forever scarred about pooling their gps

My mind is full of fuck but if I understand it correctly:

With warcaster I can use a somatic only spell by swinging my sword arm and channeling the spell through my sword.

Any spell including a material component, be it only M or M,S require a FREE hand to hold up the component.

Sheathing my sword, pulling out a component and casting the spell would all be possible with using an action.

Using a spell as a reaction by virtue of Warcaster may require my hand to be free instead of holding my weapon and then sheathing and then casting the spell, as the DM, if a cunt might find it to be too slow.
Same goes for bonus action spells and then after that using an attack, and I assume, when using Battle magic, a late School of Valor Bard feature, I might not be to perform this (Cast a spell as an action and gain free attack as bonus action) if I have a sword and shield and again, the DM is a cunt.

Did I get that right?

Well then that's not the part that isn't RAW, now is it?

>In fact, if they're using a material component with the shield, they don't need warcaster OR a hand free.

Nope.

There's a section of the Sage Advice pdf that talks about how you can only use the same hand for material and somatic components if the spell actually needs both. So if you have a weapon and a shield, but want to cast something with VS components, but not M, you can't use your shield hand to cast the somatic components.

>MOREWHORES.jpg

>Sheathing my sword, pulling out a component and casting the spell would all be possible with using an action.
This would include Focus spells also, I'm assuming?

Multi attack is okay. Two chances to sneak attack a round is kind of nice, and that's not ALL it gives you. A fighting style for more AC or damage, shield and armor proficiency, action surge for those turns where you REALLY need to get something done, extra HP, and some low level archtype bonuses. If you take 6 levels you get an extra ASI, though that's a pretty serious commitment and your sneak attack dice will suffer.

It's not bad. Fighter's a pretty good class to multi with just about anything honestly, Action surge, extra hp, and shields are all really nice. If you don't like the fighter or the cleric mc, and you don't want to dump wisdom so that you can multiclass into Bard while still keeping your Dex/Con at okay levels, you could just play straight Rogue. There's nothing wrong with straight rogue after all. You could go monk too.

I thought of a build like this with main focus on whips.

But it is?
What explicitly stops them from making an attack against a target? Restrained doesn't do that.

So is restrained and all that. You can still attack.

>There's a section of the Sage Advice pdf that talks about how you can only use the same hand for material and somatic components if the spell actually needs both. So if you have a weapon and a shield, but want to cast something with VS components, but not M, you can't use your shield hand to cast the somatic components.
Yes, exactly, so warcaster is mostly irrelevant.
The only times it crops up are when you're using both a weapon and a shield (not such a big deal for a class that works well with two-handed weapons and a class that doesn't need weapons), if you're casting a spell that has somatic but no verbal components, and also that you somehow then need to use two object interactions in one turn, which isn't usually the case.

>Is rogue multiclassed with any class that has extra attack vaible
Yes

You only get sneak attack once each turn.

I think he's saying you have two OPPORTUNITIES to get sneak attack

Not just when it's consumed?

It's an extra opportunity to get sneak attack in case your first try misses. Useful in a similar way twf is useful on rogue

I know that, but if you miss that first attack then multi-attack means you'll have another shot at the damage.

You need a component in addition to your focus if it has a cost or if it's consumed by the spell. See the screenshot here

Your whole scenario revolves around something that has less than a 1% chance of happening. It's a retarded fantasy that's never going to happen.

I've been having my friend who's playing a UA beastmaster have their animal companion act on their initiative.
Am I doing something wrong? Is this too powerful? They're still 4th level.

It revolves around:
>You being tied up
>Someone walking within 5ft of you

That's literally it. Considering you're tied up, people will gladly walk within 5ft of you, and they need to get close to you to do all sorts of things such as tie you up in the first place.

It has the same chance of happening as a caster being tied up, really, which goes back to the original post -
'Mystics can cast even when tied up. That's bullshit.'
'Are monks bullshit because they can fight even when tied up?'

No, why? Are they tearing up shit?

>Critical headbutt to the face

Why lie about something so easily checked? Attacking someone while restrained and blinded is suicidal.

I've tried this before in a dying thread, but this one is fresh.

What are some good features you could use for a background that aren't ones in a book?

>a mundane pet
>a specific cantrip
>a voucher for free drinks at a specific bar
>textbooks on a specific subject that give you advantage on history rolls related to it
>one of those new common magic items
>character is extraordinarily hot and can sleep with basically anyone with a minor cha check
>a horrific facial scar that gives disadvantage on persuasion checks but advantage on intimidation checks
>you're an Olympic athlete and have +1 to con or strength
>you do shipments for your dad's business and so have access to a wagon and shitty donkey
>a single battlemaster-like maneuver since you used to be a wrestler- your signature move

>Attacking someone while restrained and blinded is suicidal

You have never played dungeons and dragons with anyone if you think that would stop fucking any player.

Not as bad as me who let's my bladesinger player automatically put his familiar directly before him in initiative so he always gets advantage on his first attack.

>everyone roleplays as a suicidal madman

Wew

Playing a awakened mystic is it even worth it for me for to use my long bow (playing high elf) when I have my talents.

My bad. Thank you for the suggestion. It's going to be done on stat array, so I'm probably going to do a lot of ranged fighting to cover my low constitution. So fighting style is pretty good for me. I might try arcane archer out.

would appreciate a reply, don't leave me hanging Veeky Forums ;_;

even with disadvantage, 3-4 attacks a round can still do some damage. Besides, what's the worst that can happen? The BBEG kills the monk? If he was going to do that, he wouldn't have gimped him up in the first place.

Any DMs here used Tales From The Yawning Portal? I'm a first time DM and I've had it recommended to me.

Case in goddamn point.

I'd personally rule it that if you were attempting to cast a spell using your weapon as a focus, but the spell still required a component with a GP cost, you would just need to have the component on you and wouldn't necessarily have to interact with the component to get the spell off.

I personally don't find spellcaster players annoying enough that I need to limit their actions with nitpicking, and besides that I'd suspect there aren't all that many spells that a character with war caster would want to shoot off that required those interactable, GP cost components anyway.