/5eg/ - Fifth Edition General

So I'm pretty new to D&D but I've noticed that the "Backgrounds" in the PHB seem to almost be a hindrance to roleplaying. Everyone will just pick a background based on what skills they want to add proficiency in, and then never touch on it again.

Anyone else feel this way? Or am I just playing with bad roleplayers? Even the DM seems to think character backgrounds are just added flavour and will never integrate them in the story.

Considering you can customize and pick ANY skills you want for any background.... Yes you are playing with bad roleplayers.

Druid or Wizard are your best summon bots in the game, but no matter what you'll have to wait to be able to do any summoning at all, unless you really like familiars.

My group make very specific background for their character and then just pick whatever background is closer to it, also if I remember correctly the PHB has rules about making your own personalized background so picking skills is no excuse

It entirely depends on the DM. My campaigns are really RP heavy and I always require my players to make backstories that fit their background and hand out small EXP bonuses and inspiration for RP related to their background. Keep in mind D&D is a horrible game when it comes to integrating your character's backstory into mechanics and is a really heavily combat-focused system, so if they play the game for the dungeon crawling thats entirely valid. This aint no Burning Wheel.

>Implying familiar is not the best kind of summon in the game

Are they actually viable or do they lag behind in comparison to other classes? I assume their main advantage would be what mentioned, which is action economy and easy flanking bonuses.

Ghost sex

>easy flanking bonuses.
Wait, your DM is using the flanking rules?

I get the feeling you're very triggered people criticised a guy for starting PvP

My answer is that one of the parents was a warlock of the GOO but that works too

k

He's just smashing two infuriating things in the few past threads together to make a joke.

Yes so that he can wipe us whenever he wants by sending enemies twice our number :^)

It seemed really forced to me but I guess I can try and believe that

Well that could easily still be the case, it's just the parent came back for one more night of intense sex and somehow managed to knock up the other. Best of both worlds m8.

Is necromancy considered evil because of some superstitious moralfaggotry, or does its practice literally corrupt the caster/torment the dead?

Backgrounds are malleable, and you can make your own. You're probably playing with bad roleplayers.

Depends on the setting :^)

Forgotten Realms and/or Eberron since those are the two most campaigns I have seen use.

Depends on the setting.
But consider a world where the souls of people can be forcibly tormented for information or bound into shambling bodies or persist in a tortured existence with no escape. Doing that to someone is violating them in a way that is literally a fate worse than death.

Undead creatures are bloodthirsty monsters 99% of the time. It's their natural state. So creating those creatures is considered evil, or at the very least, irresponsible.

This. I took Charlatan as a base and modified it to help get a background set for my character who is essentially a snake oil salesman.

It's up to the DM to make backgrounds matter in the game. It's a common mistake to look at them as just extra proficiencies and not something that fundamentally shapes the origin and destiny of the entire character.

Undead are constantly spreading anti energy and fucking everything around them, basically undead are radioactive

I personally like a setting where nobody really likes necromancers but undead are still going to happen without them and they are the people best equipped to go handle them when they start shit.

in 5e RAW, yes. Animate Dead is considered an evil spell. It isn't bringing the spirit back from beyond the grave. Instead it's reaching to the negative energy plane and pulling unlife from it and animating a corpse that, save for your control, would murder all life it can reasonably find.

>it's "moralfaggotry" to want the dead to just rest in peace without being forcibly drafted into the fucking skeleton war

What a slut

Genious

I mean - so are a lot of animals but I doubt taming a wild big cat and having it as a companion will be seen as evil or irresponsible. As long as its a reanimated heap of flesh without its soul being tormented I would see it as a moralfaggotry complaint.

Right, so the energy that keeps them alive after reanimation is what is considered "evil" in this case since it comes from a plain that contains this type of evil magic.

As I said as long as no soul is involved you are just turning something useless into something more useful that can be used as a tool. The negative energy leaking into this world aspect of it is an issue I was unaware of, though.

Pretend that you are a vegitarian and you find it horrifyingly repugnant that people raise farm animals in factories in order to slaughter them for meat and other industrial products.
Now imagine there's an alien intellect that wants to do the same thing for humans, raising them in squalid pens in order to slaughter them and use their dead corpses for drudgery or bind their souls into hellish artifacts.

yes the energy is what is considered evil. It also has sentience and purposefully will try to destroy life around it. So raising the dead frequently can be considered evil because you keep pulling in malevolent forces into the material plane that are only being held back by your will and whim

With all the planeshift things Wizards has released, is there any chance they'll release a planeswalker class?

Your best bet is the next book

You know I'm pretty sure people get slaughtered for parts for medical reasons not infrequently these days.

>I doubt taming a wild big cat and having it as a companion will be seen as evil or irresponsible

>have "tame" man-eating tiger which will kill people without remorse if I ever loose control over it
>"maybe you shouldn't be able to own a man-eating tiger"
>"wow fucking moralfag"

in 5e no spells are considered evil by RAW, that's 3.5 talk.

Asking in new thread:

What are some good words to say when using the command spell? Things that will achieve a consistent result.

>or does its practice literally corrupt the caster/torment the dead?

The Complete Book of Necromancers had rules for this. It's not something that's explicit in the rules of 5e, though you could certainly roleplay it out.

I want to know this too. I'd do it myself but I'd like to know if someone's taken care of it already.

Sorcerer 4, Sorcerer 3/Rogue 2, or Rogue 3/Sorcerer 2 (taking classes in no particular order)?
>You know I'm pretty sure people get slaughtered for parts for medical reasons not infrequently these days.
Yeah, and that's called a human rights violation, you fucking moron.

I dont know man, I cant think of any medieval fantasy type person who wouldnt look at the guy with the tiger following him around and not think thats pretty sweet.

This seems like a setting specific issue.

Confess

>being an organ donor is a human rights violation
thinking.jpg

Spells don't have alignment tags but creating undead is singled out as an evil act if you do it too often (it's implied that doing it occasionally is alright, or at least won't bump your alignment down by itself).

...

I mean, a nuclear reactor would also kill everything if it was left unattended, but while attended an undead is a tool, there's no reason it should be evil if the proper safety procedures are put in place.

>slaughtered
Apparently you can't write OR read.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but does anyone have any maps of boat decks

Maybe butchered would be the better term. Or dressed possibly.

I figure it's just the kind of thing that disturbs the peace of spirits in the afterlife, even if they're not directly involved (pic is from an FR comic).

Organs are transplanted, provided, or recovered, you fucking illiterate. Butchering and dressing are both terms applied to meat for consumption.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at with that. Animals are exempt from humans rights because they can not understand or reciprocate them entering in a "social contract". Sentient life who we could communicate with could understand these values, and we could reciprocate whatever attitude they show us.

Now, outside of these simple rules of reciprocation we have a lot of social taboos. Some of them can be thrown away because they are useless and retarded, some of them serve a purpose but people are unaware of what it is (for example, people could be against same-sex incest, and you would need to explain the practical reasons why that is wrong without needing to lean on the argument that its just icky).

Now, if there are no negative consequences for anyone if you just raise the dead and use them to fight off something dangerous, the only argument against it being that its "icky" or "wrong", then you shouldnt care about moralfaggotry. If there is legitimate harm you do (spreading disease, attracting more evil forces, tormenting souls, etc), then there is more meat to the argument and you need to consider the pros and cons.

Are you talking about how a doctor will let a patient die for their organs if they're an organ donor? I remember when I got my learner's permit, I agreed to be an organ donor. My mom flipped shit when she saw. Told me that a doctor would in fact let me die so that my organs could go to people who needed them to live. Made me promise to not sign up for it again when I got my license, and I didn't.

Is that actually true?

Summoning is always viable. The summon themselves are pretty strong, especially with the bonuses of some of the summoning subclasses give them. Additionally, its just always really strong to have units that can act as blockers, take up space, set off traps, fly you around, etc.

If your DM is willing to put up with gay shit, you could use the druid to summon 8 pixies who an all cast polymorph on your entire party then turn invisible. That, however, is almost certain to get some rocks dropped on you, so beware.

How can someone be framed for murder in a court where Zone of Truth exists?
>I didn't kill them.
>*ding!*
>You're telling the truth. You're free to go.

...

Could you elaborate more on this druid strategy, friend?

What do you call it when you skin an animal then? Or remove parts for taxidermy?
No I just mean if you die they will cave you up like a slice of ham so they can get at those still working organs. Never mind what they do with the bodies they use to let people practice surgery. Letting people die so they can take your organs to save someone else seems to be defeating the purpose a bit.

...

>Not playing an Abhorsen style heroic necromancer

Modified memories.

>Letting people die so they can take your organs to save someone else seems to be defeating the purpose a bit.
Well, you could get a healthy heart, kidneys, and a liver out of a young male. So that's four lives that could be saved by letting one person die so you can get their organs.

>Story-wise, time for giants to become antagonists
>Can't have more than one giant in combat without TPKing the party
What do, Veeky Forums? What kind of minions might giants have? Specifically, frost and fire giants? Although hill giants are even more difficult.

You frame a mute.

>Player tells me that he may have implied to a friend that he could join our group
>Said friend is in one of my classes
>Asks if he can play
>Gets mad at me when I say that I'd rather not go above 5 people, especially in a game that just reached level 10
Why do people think they can just invite people to join a game at the DM's house without asking the DM first?

Still seems unlikely to me but you never know what goes on in burgerstan.

It is simple, but highly effective.
>level 7 druid
>conjure woodland beings
>summon 8 CR 1/4 pixies
>each pixie casts polymorph and uses its superior invisibility ability to fuck off while you and your party goes on a rampage
>if you are level 8, this means you could become a trex
Again, very likely to make your DM murder you.

RAW, the DM decides what you summon.

>What do you call it when you skin an animal then? Or remove parts for taxidermy?
Skinning an animal is the name of the act of skinning an animal, via the definition of the term. Removing would be an appropriate term for removing animal organs during taxidermy. If there's a more specific technical term, I wouldn't know it. This shouldn't be that hard, but what should I expect from the general that produced a guy arguing that the sun didn't produce sunlight?

Have you paid tribute to the qt flat chested goddess in your campaign yet /5eg/?

this but 100% unironically, actually

The spells that the players have access to are not all of the spells that exist. There might be an evil wizard behind the scenes with a Fuck with Zone of Truth spell prepared.
Or just be a very good liar or have a ring of mind shielding.

Can I cast minor illusion on moveable objects to disguise them as something else?

Is this your newest bait shadfag?

All deities in my setting are male, as are 90% of heroes and leaders because I'm a huge sexist.

Hey man, you can argue about the correct terms and words all you want but at the end of the day people are still getting carved up and having their bits pulled out legally.

>keeps trying to push pedoshit on people
It's gotta be Shad, just ignore him

>flat chested
I worship a Harvest Goddess, so she's got some real dobonhonkeros

One of my players wants to use Transmute Rock to turn a section of wall into mud and then have the party pass through it.
I feel like I should forbid this since Passwall is expressely bunked in the Tomb of Nine Gods.

Thoughts?

At least you admit it, user.

...

You don't get to say "Slaughtering someone for their organs (for example, to be sold on the Chinese black market, which is by the way illegal) is the same thing as donation by an organ donor." and then come off as something other than a jackass who doesn't know how to phrase their sentences.
Eat shit.

Is it even possible to write a non-main charactery/mary sue backstory for a draconic origin sorcerer?

Shun the nonbelievers, for there is only one justice in the realm. Flat chest leaves no room for dissent or dishonor.

Most places, in most settings, won't have that sort of spellcasting easily available.
And if it's a setting like Greyhawk or FR and they're in with organized crime then they might have a magical trinket designed to bypass or avoid being at the mercy of Zone of Truth.

Which is why men are superior to women and are the world leaders and most venerable gods. Well said, user.

You know I bet necromancy would actually be a pretty big benefit to medical professionals. You could certainly simulate a surgery much easier and more accurately.