/5eg/ 5th Edition General

How would you handle a very important enemy/boss casting greater invisibility to escape, and then rolling a nat 1 on his Stealth check?

I started getting all friendly with the bad guys and tried to convince them all to give up and join our side by making them realize how futile this whole thing is and how it'll actually be better for them to betray their evil overlord.

Though there was no success, it was more in character and better executed than when sober

>Do you guys like playing support?
Loterally the best.

Bards, high Charisma Paladins with OoA, Clerics... literally the most satisfying thing I know.

I wouldn't have the villain even have to roll to escape, especially if he's using Greater Invisibility to do it.

If you absolutely had to go with rolling and he Nat 1'd, I'd still let him escape but have him leave behind a clue or something as he does.

Even with advantage? Fluff/description aside I'd just tell them the position he ended his turn at (assuming the nat 1 makes him fail, because good stealth bonuses are a thing and so are blind parties) and see what happens next round.

>Do you guys like playing support?
It's nice to not have to roll dice to see if your shit works or not. It gets kinda shitty if the DM makes the enemies play smart though, because they'll be on your dick ALL THE TIME trying to break concentration or take advantage of your low durability (if you're not a cleric).

Both good suggestions for different situations, will take note.
Appreciate it anons

>Concentration
>Durability
Play Paladin

Literally the best support in the game.

I'm a newfag DM and it's a level 4 campaign, so the numbers are on the low-ish side. As for possible wiping tactics, I did install a lever (guarded by a non-horde enemy) that starts rolling an Indiana Jones style boulder down the stairs they descend right before this encounter. I just figured that, without many AOE options, it might be easier to just roll them all into singular, amorphous enemies. As for the enemies themselves, I was thinking low AC, 5 HP, and 1d4 damage. Given that there's dozens of them, and if they were individual then they'd only be getting rid of one tick of damage each spent attack, and without big AOE damage from the party, I figured those d4s would add up and it could melt people.

>be DM
>running open ended campaign for a bunch of friends
>keep knocking the one player down
the first time was just a matter of dice
>every time after has been on purpose because I think it's funny

Best DM right here.

I've only got to play support for like 3-4 sessions across two groups

>Pick up cleric
>Actively tell team I don't plan to healbot, only when needed
>Use command/hold person to save other casters
>Guiding Bolt to give rogues free backstabs
>Bane to give the martials some extra dodginess
>Silence to cock over enemy casters
>Aid for extra damage buffer zone
>Recently used Grave Cleric- Path to the Grave to alpha strike down a boss encounter with the barbarian
>Overall, reduce a lot of overall damage

>Get told every session "I'd feel a lot more comfortable if our cleric actually healed."

Being cleric is fun, but suffering.

Slap your party in the dick

Lumping them has some disadvantages. Since health is shared, theoretically multiple enemies can die from a single attack, and it can get silly, in your example if you have an archer with +4 to damage roll, if he crits and rolls max damage, he'll kill 4 enemies with 1 arrow (20 damage). Another thing that makes things hairy is debuffs, you've got to make up things on the spot if they have debuffs that can't target whole group. Then there's also the problem of how you handle the damage, if you have all rolls separate, there wasn't much reason in lumping them in the first place, if you lump the attacks as well, somebody in the party can get a surprise 20d4 (or 40d4 if you accept crits) damage in his face.

Dunno, I'd use individual enemies in this encounter personally.

Hey guys I need some help:
I am going to start a game this sunday and currently my party is 2 fighther, a hexblade warlock, some homebrew knight and a dude still undecided.
What class should I recommend to that dude?

Official Bro Level by Race:
1. Dwarf
Usually an older player because Dwarves are not in vogue anymore. Experienced in DMing, combat, and role playing
2.Half-Orc
Dude just wants to hangout and smash things.
3. Human
Grab bag
4. Dragonborn
5. Half-Elf
6. Gnome
Quirky dude. Pretty much just one personality
7. Tiefling
You’re going to eventually have to talk about his heritage which has been done a million times
8. Elf
Meh
9. Halfling
Nigga’s gonna steal from you and hoard loot, bro
—Power Gap—
8999. Human (Variant)
The power gamer that will never admit they're a power gamer

I'm doing a campaign where the players visit different planes / dimensions / places through portals so that they can adventure in diverse realms instead of just one place

What are some cool places the adventurers can romp through

When is it appropriate to use one init roll for multiple enemies? Or should it never be done except with a mob?

Bard or Wizard. Or Storm Cleric.

I always roll one initiative for enemies, lol. Unless there are multiple group of enemies that are also hostile to each other, or there's one boss massively stronger than all the other enemies, in which case he gets his own roll.

Hiveminds only. Just roll initiative beforehand.

Been blind drunk a few times. As a player, I mostly stopped playing the game and started talking to two old blokes on the table next to us in the pub. They bought me a couple more pints, then my only interaction in the game was to occasionally say "I stab the thing".

As a DM, I handed out some reasonably OP items I later had to dial back.

Would Hexblade still be a busted multiclass if Warlock was an INT caster? I'm thinking the typical Wizard would be hesitant to trade high level spell slots for EB power, and EK usually aren't MAD to begin with since they don't use save attack/save roll spells too often. I'm not sure, but I feel like a hexblade dip wouldn't turn AT or Bladesinger into monsters either.

You could build custom swarms based on the animal swarms in the MM

Regular earth, possibly in the future. Or Syria.

I wouldn't mind people taking huge chunks out of hordes; that was actually what drew me to the idea, so that they're able to do sizable damage before they get eaten alive by bony piranhas. Also, I plan on dividing it into groups of 5, so that the merged groups would look like 25 HP and 5d4 Damage, with a rule that for every 5HP lost it loses a damage die. There'd be like 4 or 5 of those in the fight.

I understand your concerns, though. I guess I'll run a mock-encounter, see how it goes.

>Start a group
>Surprise them with a high level horrorish campaign inspired by Curse of Strahd
>3 Paladins and a Wizard
>Paladins halve magic damage and has obscenely high saves, makes them immune to charms
>Literally untouchable group of destruction, steamrolling through everything
>Cant touch them with their AC or their saves
>Just spamming save for half to do at least some damage
>all 3 paladins pick up shield master feat to reduce damage to 0 on a successful save
>Wizard never has to worry about dying, because 3 fucking Paladins with lay on hands
At least the role playing is good. Basically a nerdy "little sister" wizard with the 3 big "fuck off" brothers who stomps the shit out of anyone who tries to oppose them. I just wish I had some way to challenge them without going stupidly overboard with the CR.

Other DMs, how do you scale up weaker monsters? I was thinking about not giving them health and just having them die after they either get swamped or cause enough trouble.

I was for the Warlock being an INT caster before the hexblade UA, it fixes a lot of problems and brings more diversity to attributes (now charisma is the most used mental stat by casters).

context sensitive HPs are good. Mostly I find an enemy of the CR I want and just reskin it though.

My PCs are kind of green but I have them at 8 to have some toys to play with class-wise, so I want to use classic "fuck you" monsters like mimics and oozes but scaled.

Is there a new UA soon-ish?

Hexblade dip would make Bladesinger fucking retarded, and AT completely fucking busted. ATs are already stupidly good, but that would completely destroy the balance of the rogue subclasses, which is already heavily skewed towards the AT.

But who gives a shit, Hexblade multiclassing is retarded as it is. It can only be fixed by making the core feature only work if you are single classed hexblade.

Bump up the damage, hold the health off in the way you mention, give it a bonus multiattack or higher spells.

I generally find it's easier to dial higher CRs back than dial lower ones up though.

Thanks anons. Saturday should b fun

How come none of the races save for the UA eladrin have the 4e style "get +2 to one ability and either +1 to this ability or that ability"? Closest is the half-elf, but those points can go anywhere. I liked that, made races more varied in what classes were optimal for them.

How do the Inured to Undeath Necromancer feature and the Create Homunculus spell interact?

The Infernal variant Tiefling from SCAG gets +1 Int and either +2 Dex or +2 Cha.

>be in a party without any supports at all (unless you consider tanks supports)
>have no issues
>no one ever complains
Alternatively
>play a game where people ask for a Cleric
>for some reason I'm meant to be the Cleric?
>pick War Cleric
>hit shit harder than them
>'I could use a heal'
>'I didn't bring healing spells, you just said you needed a Cleric'

>human not top
>older players = fun players
You're a heretic who sides with boomers. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Bane?

Or you could just like... not be an optimizing tryhard. Maybe actually have to roleplay out how some things are difficult for you race in certain roles or professions?

Versatility is the Human's niche, giving it to all the other races defeats the point.

UA Ranger

>Dragonborn not dead-last
Please quit your job.

Yes, i'm playing neutral knowledge cleric now. It's very enjoyable by being the team support+skill monkey+lore whiz. A few more level and i can use planar ally and divine intervention to pit my enemies with their enemies at opposite alignment.

Isn't killing multiple enemies with a single attack more or less normal? I think it's mentioned in the DMG that any attack can cleave (although it may be that it's limited to melee attacks).

My DM houseruled it so that any attack can cleave as long as it makes sense mechanically. ie if you're slaughtering multiple goblins with one arrow, it'll only work if they're in a line. If you're cleaving with your greatsword they'd need to be adjacent.

It's not hugely gamebreaking I think.

>Variant Human bad
Elf is literally cancerous overplayed-tier. Variant Human is the only reason some builds can even function properly pre-12, and if you genuinely think you should have to play to levels campaigns rarely get to in order to play fun builds, you're retarded.
I play a human because I like being generic, but the default human is absolute trash-tier and Vuman is the only reason it can even remotely compete with shit like Elves, Half-Orcs or half the midget shenanigans.

Is it too much to give out feats or powers as rewards?

Like, if I have a fighter PC in my group, would it be too much for a wizard he saved to give him an old scroll with a combat maneuver detailed on it? Maybe let him use that maneuver with a penalty until he pulls it off successfully enough times?

Is healing spirit good enough lategame where you can just upcast it instead of having to invest in life cleric?

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, it basically works like regenerate, but without the high spell-slot.

It's not gamebreaking, I only mentioned it as 'silly' - potentially immersion-breaking (1 arrow quadrakill).

Could easily be fluffed as shooting a few quick arrows into a horde though, its really not that bad

Feats are really strong in this game, and Fighters get tons of feat opportunities anyways.

But it depends on the feat I think. You could also just choose one aspect of a feat and give him that, or a magic weapon that grants him that benefit.

magical weapon sounds really good, gives them a chance to get familiar with it but still feels temporary and I think they'll appreciate it more.

>Is it too much to give out feats or powers as rewards?

not at all - special powers make the best rewards.

What’s wrong with Dragonborn players?

...

>"""powergamer"""
Sorry mate, I want a fun, useful build over a shitty "roleplay" character. If I'm going to play a game for a long period of time, potentially years, it's going to be a character I love the mechanics or goal I set for myself with it, and often Vuman is the only one that gives enough flexibility.
I can apply roleplay to my character after I make my build, but I'm not going to have fun building a shitty Dwarf just because 'muh roleplay'.

Thinking of making a bard/rogue starting at lvl 2. Should I take the first two levels of bard or rogue or one of each?

after smoking a few too many bowls for a pre-session smoke, I ended up watching one of the shitty resident evil movies instead of prepping for the session. we started about two hours after we planned to

session went fine otherwise.

This is a team game about killing shit. Why would I want to be the flat tire of the team and hold people back because the D&D devs are married to entire races being warriors or wizards or thieves and thus being a Gnome warrior is an exercise in futility or GM pity?

You are a prime example of why I'd rather play with normies from Reddit than any fa/tg/uy.

>Do you guys like playing support?
5e is the first edition where I've been a player.
When I don't DM, I generally end up being the party face, so I mostly play bard or a rogue with reasonable charisma.
Maybe that might count as support, but probably more in the social and exploration aspects.

I just get a tired of combat from DMing that I like to explore non-combat options as much as possible.

I've never tried cleric, but am now I'm thinking about it. Any advice?

>optimization is bad
I can roleplay my character just as well as you by making a good backstory for it regardless of its stats or core mechanics. But if you aren't optimizing your character - which doesn't just have to be pure damage, pure healing, anything - you're likely a detriment. It's one thing to play shit builds, roll for stats, etc, in a oneshot or a small three-session campaign. It's another when I might be playing with you for a long period of time and your stubborn desire to 'not be optimized because you need shit stats to roleplay' might get us killed, you're not someone I want to play with. I can be the most bullshit optimized character known to man with perfect damage, but outside of combat there's nothing stopping me from being a good roleplayer/storyteller/whatever you consider necessary.

what spread do you hope to end up having by endgame? it really depends on what you're going for. I can't imagine you're dipping bard for any reason other than to skill monkey so you must be dipping rogue. in that case, go rogue 2 and then straight bard. it's gonna suck early on having to delay your spellcasting by 2 levels, but bardic inspiration and song of healing are solid enough utility to where it's not so bad. plus the mobility from cunning action and the skill monkeying from expertise will be nice and worst case scenario you have a bit of sneak attack damage to fall back on.

later down the line one you feel like you're caught up in the utility department, one more level of rogue wouldn't be bad for swashbuckler and +cha to initiative.

Why? I think the race ability modifier shit is stupid and in the way of roleplaying and rollplaying. There's way better ways of handling it (tying modifiers to class, tying modifiers to culture, just letting people choose what stats they want).

Because nobody but a fa/tg/uy spends more time trying to autistically re-write the entire game over a tiny gripe than they do actually PLAYING it.

I like the game, I just think this rule is stupid.

To add to this, optimizing doesn't even have to be playing an amazing build. You can play a shitty concept that does stupid garbage, but as long as you have proper stats, are building properly towards your niche goal, and didn't just dump all your Con to be a "lolrandum sickly guy xDD", you're still a valid member of the party that likely pulls their weight. To not be optimized for your goals means to potentially a weak link, and no one wants to deal with someone intentionally not pulling their weight.

Yeah, that and 9000 other rules. Now give us your spiel about how Created Food and Water ruins the game.

I was gonna end up doing 13/14 bard and 6/7 rogue I think. Going swords and swashbuckler

>tfw Grapple Tank
Does tanking and providing advantage count as support? I’m pretty useless in groups, but I lock down singular opponents

I would definitely recommend toning down the rogue levels. Though the two extra expertise at 6 is tempting, it's most definitely not worth sacrificing that much spellcasting at the later levels and the rest of your levels, while they'll be decent, will not serve you too well in terms of your role as a support. If you're dead-set on taking that much rogue, I'd recommend 6 rogue/14 bard so you can get your second magical secrets.

>If your race doesn't give you a +1 you are as useless as a flat tire and a detriment
So what you guys are saying, is that you can justify yourself without hyperbole

It's support in that you're opting to CC over damage, but it's not the 'buff everyone in the party and never attack' kind that most people class as such.
You've got patrician taste, though. I've played Zangief so many times it's not funny.

I kind of agree actually. Maybe not completely - it makes sense that half-orcs are on average stronger than halflings. But make the impact lower. Have races convey a maximum of 1 ability score (plus maybe a negative modifier - ie half-orc could have +1STR/-1INT), and have backgrounds add ability scores. After all, if you've been strength training all your life it makes total sense that you'd have gotten stronger, and if you've been studying all your life it makes sense that you'd be smarter.

It'd get rid of the stereotype that nearly all rogues have to be halflings and nearly all wizards need to be elves.

"not be an optimizing tryhard. Maybe actually have to roleplay out how some things are difficult for you race in certain roles or professions?"
>have to roleplay
>optimizing makes you a tryhard
You talk hyperbole and them immediately use it yourself. The way he wrote his post implied that it's bad to optimize and/or that you should roleplay rather than optimize.

Finished up a kinda one shot dungeon last night. The final boss fight was storytime. Just wanted a cool ending. What's your opinion of that in one shots. Still shit move?

Cleric in this edition's weird because there are enough subclasses that the cleric can fill the void of anything needed. As mentioned before War/Forge cleric can fill the role of a martial, Sun/Storm(?) cleric can fill the role of a blaster, Knowledge/Trickery cleric can cover rogue/bard roles, and there's the Life domain for just being a healbot.

Probably doesn't bear mentioning, but clerics can prepare a whole new spell kit on long rest. Gonna be necessary if you can see what your GM is up to.

A lot of crowd-control spells are saving-throw focused, so better hope you have a high DC or some means to manipulate disadvantage on their part if you want to utilize them.

Aid is a pretty rad spell since it lasts 8 hours. Pretty good if you're doing a classic dungeon crawl.

Got rogues on your team? Hold Guiding Bolt will make them your best friend since its not only 4d6 damage but gives advantage on next hit, so you can tag-team damage with the rogue and just barf out damage.

Knowledge cleric is pretty solid if you want to explore non-combat ideas since they can use their channeled divinity to gain proficiency in any skill/tool, can gain 2 'expertises', and have a means to manipulate people by default.

One of my dream games is the "God Squad," with clerics filling the role of every other class and having something dumb like wizard/sorcerer as healer.

From a game design standpoint, thee is no practical difference between a +1 and a +2 in racial ability modifiers, nor is there a difference between a -1 and a 0. This is due to D&D having odd-numbered scores do nothing but even-numbered scores give a boost.

For example, using the default array, a +1 can still turn a 15 into a 16. The fact that it's not a 17 doesn't really matter because D&D doesn't distinguish between 16 and 17.

Likewise, a -1 INT doesn't make a half-orc wizard worse at wizardry, because he just puts his 15 in INT and so has a 14 - which is mechanically identical to a 15.

It does matter down the line when taking feats or ASIs, I'd argue. My druid's starting scores had an odd Con and Wis stat, and so I was able to bump both up with one ASI.

But that's a more niche issue and I get the general gist of what you're saying.

First, that was not my post, second and more importantly, while "he did it too" is not hyperbole, I wasn't literally asking for anything that wasn't one, ideally it should be something that carry some weight outside of kindergarten

I said your post was hyperbole, not his, which I should have clarified better. Saying 'you can't justify yourself without hyperbole' when what was said wasn't hyperbole in context, and was a completely logical response, is hyperbole in itself.
Writing more in a post doesn't mean it's an exaggeration. I could have just as easily said "I can roleplay as well as you even without an optimized build, they aren't mutually exclusive", but I'd rather just be thorough about telling him why he's wrong. You can play a completely shit build but still be optimized to make the build work. But you can't make a build that isn't optimized, regardless of your core concept, and guarantee you'll not be the equivalent of a flat tire - especially if your justification for such is 'roleplay'.

What kind of cleric? forge/war is good frontline, knowledge is good for downtime activity, the rest for normal support. Consider having resilient (con) as feat, because after a while DM will make enemy targeting you constantly, even the stupid one. Also learn some lore, your choice of alignment and deities will affecting your later combat capabilities.
Grave is my absolute favorite, path to the grave is very useful for any kind of enemy.

I asked this question yesterday but I think I've managed to flesh the idea out Abit more. I'm thinking of making a ranger/cleric Van Helsing type, would grave domain and favored enemy undead be good for this or should I go war cleric? Also, should I go for Dex or strength for flavor?

War Cleric with a greatsword.

>path to the grave is very useful for any kind of enemy.

holy shit, it breaks immunities? am I reading that right? that's insane.

>Not using bless

I don't think it breaks immunities. It breaks resistances definitely, but based on how the wording is in the book, it sounds like it just adds "weakness: x" to the target. Looking at it from a mathematics perspective, you would just be doubling a value that would have no effect on the target.

For one attack, which used your entire action, and then it ends. Pretty much the only time I can see it be consistently useful is if you're fighting a golem before the entire party as magic weapons. Outside of that, you get more out of just hitting the enemy yourself.

I dig that, I could just wear heavy armor then too so I'm not too mad. Should I worry about int or Cha for better nature or persuasion/intimidation checks? I'm thinking of playing him as the stalwart firm but fair type