>>46164847
Going off this. How do you determine when to use Investigation over Perception?

I would allow a player to start making preparation for lichdom with arcane caster levels, or even with the Ritual Caster feat. However, depending on what route they take, I might put various restrictions on them. For example, I might require an Eldritch Knight to make their phylactery a set of armor, as per Pathfinder Grave Knights, or a bard trying to become a lich might be required to spread a particular legend to the four corners of the world.

>>46168077
hand over control of their character to me the DM

>>46168274
I usually do it based on what the player says. If the player says "I want to go check out the desk, see if there's anything hidden there." That would be a Perception check. If he says "I want to look at the dead orc, see if I can figure out what killed him" he would roll an Investigation check.

>>46168274
Perception: the character is trying to find or notice something.

Investigation: the character is making a deduction or scrutinizing a specific object, location, or person.

Largely it's a function of how quickly they're trying to do it.

>>46168921
What do you use to determine if a player can find a trap or hidden door?

Like "I want to search the door for traps" or "I want to look over the crack in the wall to see if there's a hidden door."

File: 1343179713163.png (194 KB, 575x558) Image search: [Google]

194 KB, 575x558

>>46168077
>Character is well on the way to becoming a lich
>I'm only level 9
Feelsgoodman

I actually don't know the specifics.
my DM has acknowledged that he's pretty aware of my character goals, though, and has plans involving that.


Most likely I've got to get the hand and eye of vecna for a far better chance (already come across the eye) as well as stealing a ring that can cast wish once, after it's been used.

I'm probably gonna have to fuck over the party at least a little, maybe something that ends up having them hate me IC forever.
Pretty standard lich stuff.

>>46168942
>I want to search the door for traps
Perception

>I want to determine how the trap functions
Investigation

>>46168274
Investigation involves not just seeing but understanding what you see.

>>46168944
That's actually super cool. What are your IC reason for becoming a lich?

>>46169012
That makes sense, actually. So he determines that there is a trap with Perception, but he doesn't know how to disarm it unless he then rolls Investigation?

>>46168274
going by the PHB (page 178)
investigation sounds active while perception is passive.


Perception also sounds more sensory based

>>46168921
With the Observant feat, you gain a +5 to passive Perception and Investigation.
Passive Perception I understand but what exactly would be passive Investigation? From what I understand, the whole nature of Investigation is that it is not passive.

>>46169124
You get +5 to passive perception, and +5 to normal investigation.

>>46169162
It says Passive Perception and Passive Investigation.

>>46169073
Actually, the Observant feat gives a bonus to the passive checks of both Investigation and Perception, so both can be active and passive.

To think about it in extremes, we have the Monk with massive Perception. He is able to spot every little fault and crack that could be evidence of a trap or secret passageway. Unfortunately, he has no idea how to disable or open it. His buddy who couldn't see a door in front of his face but has massive Investigation comes along, his Perception buddy shoves his face in front of the anomalies, and the Investigation guy traces it to figure out what they do and how to disable the mechanisms.

Perception, active or passive, is about seeing what's around you. Investigation, active or passive, is about connecting the chain of clues of what is seen to find out more than what is visible.

>>46169040
Basically. Investigation is the art of putting the pieces of a puzzle together, in this case determining how the moving parts and features of the trap work, which lets you guess at how to disable it. Investigation is also useful for when the trick isn't finding the clues of a scene, but for figuring out how those things are clues instead of just random elements.

To use vidya as a reference, consider The Witcher. Using the Witcher sense is effectively using Perception. Once you've seen the highlighted item, what Geralt does when you interact with it (studying the pool of blood, footprints, or whatever else) is Investigation.

I hope that helps you figure out when to use one or the other in your games.

>>46168274
Here's how I do it:

>Perception lets you know if something exists
>Investigation lets you figure out how something works: how does that door open? does that trap shoot poison darts or crush me? how do I break into this house?
>Investigation (and insight and survival) lets you know more about the thing that does exist

The last one was for free

>>46169210
My friends and I mulled over the mention of "passive investigation" for a while and ended up concluding that it was just weak design.

There isn't really a reasonable way of defining how a PC could passively investigate/search/comb an area, but which wouldn't simply be a better fit for passive perception.

File: Iraedia.png (2 MB, 3082x3615) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 3082x3615

>>46169038
Drow in the pic, entire family got wiped out because politics, made into a tool, repeatedly sent on what's essentially suicide misisons.

I want lots of magical power and undeath so one day, a fuckton of time from now I can find the house that ruined me, and do horrible awful things to them.
Lolth dislikes me, so there's that waiting for me if I end up dead in a normal situation. I want to avoid that.
Also, it's an OotA adventure ATM and I've died once from having my head cut off, and had bad, bad experiences with demons during that short time and in general.
I just want to live, period and (taking from the OP here) my boggart would also 100% be my own corpse.

Though, I've discovered how easy it is to get away from other drow if lolth doesn't hate you enough and everyone thinks you're dead. I might end up just secluding myself somewhere.
haven't figured out what I'll be doing then, though.

>>46169124
Technically every skill has a passive, which is how the DM is, or rather should, determine when you fail or how long it takes you to accomplish a task without rolling.

Need to climb a small cliff but there's no chance of failure and no danger associated? Why roll to see if you fall on your butt without taking damage, or if it takes your character an hour; just use passive Athletics.

>>46168077
In order for my characters to become a lich, they need to kill a certain quantity of innocent things and have effigies of them (such as an innocent humanoid child's heart, unicorn's horn) and some symbols of all that is good. (Such as a cleric or paladin's holy symbol and a naturally good artifact) Player must proceed to smash all of them in the center of a blood ritual circle in the middle of the night, then kill themselves with the strongest spell possible.

The next night, lich.

>>46169352
>There isn't really a reasonable way of defining how a PC could passively investigate/search/comb an area
People passively investigate all the time. I'll give you an example.

I work at a grocery store. If I go in for a second-shift day, head into the back and see loads of empty pallets, I already know the first shift crew has done a lot of work. If they look more tired than usual, it's no stretch to see that as confirmation; I can imagine we had a big shipment last night. This is a passive investigation, because this is a natural conclusion and not something I actively think about. If I go in and see a lot of banana boxes are in the back unopened, I can assume we haven't sold that many today, since we usually get about half the boxes done each day by the time second shift starts. It's basic reasoning and putting things together from independent clues, and you don't really think about doing it, but you do it. That's passive Investigation.

>>46169352
There isn't a way of defining how a PC could climb a wall passively yet passive Athletics is a thing.
I think "passive" in this context mean "no need to roll" and is used to define how (and if) a PC is capable of doing something when there is no danger or stress or the DM needs to keep things secret.

>>46169526
So Perception is noticing the empty pallets or banana boxes or what have you are there. Investigation would be coming to the conclusion about the state of the store/your coworkers based on that info?

>>46168077
If my player wanted to become a lich, they'd have to go through a lot of steps to get there. They wouldn't have to be evil-aligned, but it would literally make it a hell of a lot easier, what with deals with Orcus and Faluzure.

1. Someone or something that knows how to make you a lich. It's a well-guarded secret, and unless you can make friends with a lich, a god/archfiend of undeath, or a death-interested GOO, you're out of luck from the start.
2. 120,000 gold and a few years to burn. The ingredients to create a lich are incredibly expensive and/or rare, and the player might have to go on quests for them.
3. A phylactery, obviously.
4. The ability to prepare/know and cast 9th-level arcane spells. Mystic Arcanum counts.
5. The souls of mortals you sacrifice. If you want to avoid becoming evil here, I'd recommend buying out classified ads like "Tens of thousands of gold available for your heirs for the price of your life and soul!"
6. Finally, drink a poison mixed with necromantic energy and die. Your soul will be drawn into the phylactery.
7. If you want to go deeper, what kind of lich you want to imitate, if any--Acecerak, Larloch, Aumvor, etc. Each of them will take millions more gold and centuries of research.

>>46169974
Yeah. Mind you, these would be super easy DCs; it's hard to miss a stack of pallets or to not come to the appropriate conclusion, so pretty much anyone should be able to get these passively. But they serve the purpose of showing how passive mental skills work.

>>46169974
Yeah, I'd say thats a pretty good description.

Do old school 2e PDFs exist?

>You try to look for traps
>You roll a 1
Is this a;
>I looked and think there is nothing there
or
>I got distracted by something I better look again

>>46170169
"Hey guys, I think the room is cle-" *click*

>>46170169
Definitely more of a "you don't notice anything unusual".

>>46169974
Perception might be noticing the glint of a wire before you step through it. Or feeling a soft breeze of air through murder holes with arrows trained on you. Investigation would be looking at the walls for the source of any traps (ie the wire or holes)

ITT one shittily designed feat gets people excited about coming up with unhelpful distinctions between things that aren't actually different, resulting in two different skills overlapping when they otherwise shouldn't have.

>>46170238
Going off this, we can use smell as an example (for someone who has Keen Smell)! They passively Perceive that there is the sharp tang of oil hanging in the air and there are faint indentations in the stone. Passive Investigation tells you that oil is flammable and, in concert with the holes, means this is a trap that spouts fire. Active Investigation then shows you how to figure out the mechanism necessary to disable said trap.

>>46168274
The easiest way way to handle it: Perception is general, Investigation is specific.

Perception finds a hidden cache of papers and other goods. Investigation shows they are uninteresting ledgers and inventory.

Perception shows that a room is safe and the deal may be of interest. Investigation finds the key in a secret compartment in the desk drawer.

>>46170146
yes

>>46170351
Basic application of logic is still based on the player having a brain of his own. Otherwise the GM would have to routinely stop gameplay to ask for an investigation check to have the PCs apply basic logic, and if they failed they would hurr durr

Curse of Strahd scan news?

File: IMG_3030.jpg (2 MB, 2642x4887) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2642x4887

Any tips for Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer?

I was thinking of going variant human and taking the Elemental Adept feat to boost my bloodlines element. Is this a good start?

Do you know better setups?

>>46170609
How do I obtain them?
I need that Diterlizzi in my lidfe

How do you handle contests between NPCs?

>He grabs her and throws her to the ground.

Or:

>He tries to grab her...
>[Failed Strength contest]
>...but doesn't manage to throw her to the ground.

And before you say it's the DM's call, how do you handle this with PCs?

I get not planning a specific storyline, but even level 1 PCs can break out of that DC 17 Strength check rope they're tied up in. And after level 3 or so, any PC can take down a few run-of-the-mill guards.

Most 5E players would probably object to

>He restrains you and takes you to the jail.

without some kind of check. So how do you do it? Or if you think that's unfair, what do you do instead?

>>46171318
Between two NPCs the DM can do anything he wants.

>>46171318
Between NPCs?

It happens however I want it to happen. Taking into account, of course, the relative strength of the two in the contest they're attempting.

Between PCs? The same way I would handle if between a PC and an NPC. If the NPC is trying to knock a PC out, they might get a surprise attack if the PC doesn't expect it, but they're in combat now.

>He restrains you and takes you to the jail.
Unless there is an overwhelming force that the player has no way of overcoming (ask the player what their plan is, and they say "I just smack them all, yes, all 300 of those kobolds") then there's some sort of contest.

>>46171318
Between NPCs, do whatever you feel is right. If you want you can throw in checks but it'll slow everything way down.

For players, you're rolling that shit with normal rules.
A guard wants to restrain a player who doesn't want to be restrained? He'll have to actually grapple the player and possibly knock him out - you do this by dropping the player to 0 HP with a melee attack as per pg 198. Otherwise, a grappled person can be dragged as per pg 195.
A lot of people stop resisting even while conscious after they get punched in the face a few times, though that is a roleplay thing.

>>46171077
>dat sneaky butt

>>46171200
DMsGuild
OSR general

>>46170169
5e doesn't do the whole critical fumble thing unless you houserule it in, so it's probably the former.

>>46170169
RAW? You pass or fail the check, depending on modifiers.

With an attack roll, a 20 always hits and scores a critical hit. A 1 always misses.

This does not apply at all to ability checks or saving throws. Please stop houseruling it in. A 1 can be a success and a 20 can be a failure.

>>46171994
It's a perfectly fine house rule. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but stop sounding so jaded. There's nothing wrong with extending critical hits and failures to other checks.

>>46171994
>A 1 can be a success and a 20 can be a failure.
If either of these are true, you honestly shouldn't have them roll to begin with, at least when it's up against flat DCs. You end up wasting everyone's time.

My buddy is going to be running Curse of Strahd for us in a few weeks and asked us to roll characters - I've played some other RPGs but never 5e - thinking about rolling a halfling cleric (life domain) - bad idea or alright idea?

charsheet anon, if you you are around, would it be possible to get a death domain cleric reference sheet?

Cos scan when?

>>46172059
It's specifically for attack rolls. Attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws are different things by design.

You CAN get a lucky stab in on that dragon with your dagger. Sure you're clumsy and you aren't proficient with daggers, but you spot a weakness and deal 6 damage! Good job.

But if you try to bluff the dragon into giving you all his treasure and you GOT A NATURAL 20, fuck you, that doesn't matter. He's not giving you his treasure. "But I got a 20!" is the worst player excuse ever. Luckily you can make up for it with, "But I only got a 1...", "Don't worry, you have +6, and it was DC 5. It's not an automatic failure."

People say not to give monsters class levels but what about NPCs? What if you plan on having many of these custom NPCs?

>>46172247
>"Don't worry, you have +6, and it was DC 5. It's not an automatic failure."
Why is he rolling at that point if it is literally impossible for him to fail?

>>46172268
I would recommend finding something in the MM that's close to what your NPC's stats and abilities are and extrapolating from there.

>>46172268
u wot

You can stat NPCs up with class levels. The MM and the DMG say to do so if you want. Plenty of the official adventures do.

>>46172292
>Why is he rolling at that point if it is literally impossible for him to fail?

Because otherwise you're revealing the DC.

"DON'T WORRY, THE LOCK IS TERRIBLE! YOU CAN'T FAIL!"

Just let them roll, apply their modifiers, then resolve it. What if there's some magic zone of anti-lockpicking?

"Uh, I know I said the locks are easy, but uh, roll this one, okay?"

It's a problem I have with 5E and new-style games in general, but at least the rules-as-written are consistent. Stick with that consistency. There are rules on succeeding at tasks if you spend enough time to do it, and I'd actually be pissed off if a GM just said, "Yeah whatever, you pass because I feel like it, not because it was a challenge with a set level you automatically pass."

>>46172268
It's not worth the trouble.

Use an appropriate stat block from the MM's NPC appendix and adjust them slightly as you see fit.

>>46172371
>Because otherwise you're revealing the DC.
I have to question why you're having a player roll against a DC of 5 for something he's naturally good at and proficient in.

I'll say it again, if there's no chance of failure, if there's no consequence for rolling low, the player should not roll. That means the action they're taking is so rote or pathetically easy the character could do it without applying any real effort at all.

Don't give your players DC's they will succeed at on a roll of a 1.

>>46171588
I saw there was a reply, only to find there was a lil' butt hiding there.

Anyone bother to ever make a sensible map of Castle Ravenloft, either from I6, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, or more recently CoS? It's an isometric nightmare.

>>46172442
There are situations where you don't want the PC to know that it's an automatic success or failure. Making them roll means they don't know if they succeeded because of their high skill, or because of the ease of the task.

Admittedly, this won't likely come up often, but it is technically one reason that you might require a roll against an absurdly low DC.

>>46172442
Because they could fail.

They don't know that unlocking that lock or breaking down that door is easy until they try.

If they repeatedly try over a period of time and will eventually succeed, there's a specific rule for that.

But the players and their characters aren't psychic. They don't know it's a dilapidated wooden door on its last hinges until they try to barge it. And hell, they made actually fail, who knows. DC 5 from the +4 Str barbarian might always be a success, but what if the -1 Str wizard gives it a go?

This seems to be an argument not about refraining from making players roll for low DCs, but simply not making low DCs. I can't imagine why there would ever need to be a DC 5 anything. DC 5 is, like, tying your shoes or something.

>>46172442
Ir consider that there might be degrees of success?

>>46172268
It's a lot of fun, and adds to the uniqueness of encounters. You have to find a way to generate and read the sheets quickly though, otherwise it drags combat down.

>>46172512
Tying your laces would be more like DC 2. A DC 5 lock might be something that a troll would make. It doesn't exist to actually keep people out, it exists so it slows them down and makes them make noise.

>>46172512

You can tie your shoes routinely. DC 5 is busting down a door before they added hinges or a lock. Maybe it's just too heavy for you.

So I'm gonna run a druid through Death House. Was thinking of going moon circle eventually.

Will the spoopy house make being a bear terrible? Like will I be an actual detriment to the party?

Should I just go for land instead and bury these spooks six feet deep?

What are general thoughts on homebrew material? I feel like its fine if you go over it witj dm/player in advance as to whether its reasonable to include.

>>46172501
In that case, just describe to them what they're fiddling with. If there's a lock with DC5, tell the rogue that it's an alarmingly simple lock, so much so that he doesn't even have to get out his Thieves' Tools to be crack it.

>>46172505
>Because they could fail.
But they can't. They succeed on a roll of a 1.

>They don't know that unlocking that lock or breaking down that door is easy until they try.
That has nothing to do with rolling. The player tells me he's going to do something, and I tell him what happens. He finds out how easy it is once he does it.

>If they repeatedly try over a period of time and will eventually succeed, there's a specific rule for that.
That also has nothing to do with rolling. Why'd you bring it up?

>But the players and their characters aren't psychic. They don't know it's a dilapidated wooden door on its last hinges until they try to barge it.
Why not? If they take a look at it, they could clearly tell that the door is garbage and it would be pretty easy to break open.

>DC 5 from the +4 Str barbarian might always be a success, but what if the -1 Str wizard gives it a go?
You don't make the Barb roll, but do make the Wizard roll.

>>46172530
That's a good point. Unfortunately, there's no mechanical benefits to just barely succeeding vs. succeeding by a large margin. It's either a success or a fail, regardless of how you fluff it.

>>46172606
It's invariably unbalanced shit, either totally garbage or way too strong. It makes other players upset (generally, not always) and causes friction as a result. Use with care, if the whole party + gm doesn't mind then whatever, but it's almost always going to be bad.

>>46172613
Why is it possible for a player to succeed 1/20th of the time if they're attacking dragons, and fail 1/20th of the time in that same situation? Why is it not possible for the same logic to apply in skill checks?

I understand the current rules, but the houserule has a good justification. it makes sense given other rules in DnD.

>>46172613
>But they can't. They succeed on a roll of a 1.

Depending on who attempts it.

>That has nothing to do with rolling. The player tells me he's going to do something, and I tell him what happens. He finds out how easy it is once he does it.

And he might roll a 1 (+5) for a DC lock. Or he might roll a 20 (+5) for a DC 5 lock.

>That also has nothing to do with rolling. Why'd you bring it up?

Because it's there, in the DMG? You can eventually succeed at picking the lock, given enough time.

>Why not? If they take a look at it, they could clearly tell that the door is garbage and it would be pretty easy to break open.

Then they roll dice for it and succeed/fail, or they use said rule in the DMG.

>You don't make the Barb roll, but do make the Wizard roll.

That's bullshit. Both roll, the barbarian succeeds if he succeeds, the wizard succeeds if he succeeds. Stop making up rules.

I need a gargantuan sea creature that a party of level 9s can take on and be reasonably assured of living. It needs to be something extra-planar, though, so a demon/devil/aberration/etc.

Any lore? I like my monsters to be as lore-friendly as possible.

>>46172589
Play whatever makes you happy bro.

>>46172677
Aboleths. Second monster in the MM.

>>46172652
I'm sorry to say you've completely lost the conversation.

>>46172666
>Depending on who attempts it.
Not in the example given. I'm arguing only for a character who has an innate bonus large enough to either match or exceed the DC.

>And he might roll a 1 (+5) for a DC lock. Or he might roll a 20 (+5) for a DC 5 lock.
Indeed. So what's the point in him rolling if he cannot fail?

>Because it's there, in the DMG? You can eventually succeed at picking the lock, given enough time.
And it's irrelevant to the conversation.

>Then they roll dice for it and succeed/fail, or they use said rule in the DMG.
If the big guy with +4 Strength and proficiency in Athletics steps forward, he doesn't need to roll. That's the point. He can literally push it open without applying effort.

>That's bullshit. Both roll, the barbarian succeeds if he succeeds, the wizard succeeds if he succeeds. Stop making up rules.
I'm not making up rules. I'm giving a suggestion. It's needless rolling and bogs down the game.

>>46172624
I must disagree.

Some, perhaps even most might be shit but there's always a few gems in the junk.

>>46172693
Actually, an aboleth is the BBEG, so can't do that. Yet. The players have a ways to go before that gets revealed.

>>46172093
Alright idea. Lucky and Brave will serve you well, Dex bonus kinda wasted with Heavy Armor Prof, although I'm sure you can pick up a decent weapon.

So far in my 5e table experience, Life Cleric seems to be one of the few cases where you can actually heal in combat with your action and not have it be a trap because you can semi-consistently heal someone for more than they took, and deal decent damage with a few good spells (Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians mostly).

Have fun, enjoy Barovia

>>46172247
And people in fantasy can't have strokes of luck or unluck when performing feats other than just attacking things? A lot of times, I just wouldn't allow my characters to roll if they weren't proficient at a skill. Secondly:

>but if you try to bluff the dragon into giving you his treasure

This is a stupid example. The dragon WOULDN'T give up his treasure, under ANY circumstance. A dragon CANNOT be persuaded into that and would likely rather die. Since I'm sure you'll use some other example to back up your belief, I'll file the majority of other examples under the "Have no skill to roll" and "impossible request" sections. If it isn't appropriate for the character to make a natural 20 or 1, he probably shouldn't be rolling at all for whatever he's trying to do.

>>46172613
There can be mechanical benefits.

Disable a trap- success on a 15+, on a 20+ you can scavenge parts, on 25+ congratulations you can rewire the trap to trigger differently and it hits the next enemy.

>>46172715
>So what's the point in him rolling if he cannot fail?

What's the point in them NOT rolling if they cannot fail? And as a double answer to your previous question, maybe there's some enchantment that makes the check more difficult, but the player characters don't know about it yet.

In fact, there you go. I've answered all your questions with one example. You're in the Dungeon of Tougher Doors. I'm not telling you that shit, you have to figure it out.

>>46172770
Sure, but there's no precedent for that happening in game as it stands. That would be a homebrew rule that you would make everyone aware of before the game begins.

>>46172786
>What's the point in them NOT rolling if they cannot fail?
Needless rolling. There's literally no point.

>And as a double answer to your previous question, maybe there's some enchantment that makes the check more difficult, but the player characters don't know about it yet.
That has nothing to do with this. If that's the case, the DC isn't easy enough for them to auto-succeed, in which case they need to roll.

Good job proving my point entirely. A DC so low the player who attempts it will auto succeed isn't worth having in the game. So you make it harder.

>>46172734
I'm giving that example because the typical DM would say,

>Uh, give me your roll!

rather than say

>Sorry, you magically know it's impossible to bluff the dragon. I'M THE DM AND I SAY SO! YOU CAN'T EVEN ATTEMPT IT!

>give me your roll
is the obvious out.

So then a player gets 20, then what?

>Wow you were amazingly lucky! This 1,000-year-old dragon agrees to give you his entire hoard! I'm a good DM so I'm improvizing, despite it being something a dragon would never do! Thank god for this house rule!

No, fuck off. That dragon would try to kill the PC.

Let players try impossible shit. Let them fail. That's part of being a good GM and conditioning players to be good players. You can say it's INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT, but never not let them try, if they really want to go through with it.

>>46172821
>Needless rolling. There's literally no point.

Then you're telling the player there's no point.

Say it's a DC 5 Strength check door.

>Don't roll, there's no point!

They come across an identical door.

>Uh, roll for this one. It's not enchanted to look weaker than it is, I swear!

As a player, even if this is not the case, I'd feel pissed off. Let me roll. Don't just tell me it's something I'm guaranteed to pass. What if it's a trick? A trap? Magic? What if there's some side effect? Don't tell me it's simply a rubbish door I can ram down no problem. I either roll for a check, or I take extra time to knock it down.

>That has nothing to do with this. If that's the case, the DC isn't easy enough for them to auto-succeed, in which case they need to roll.
>A DC so low the player who attempts it will auto succeed isn't worth having in the game.

Then you're telling them. Good job proving MY point entirely.

>>46172876
>Then you're telling the player there's no point.
To roll? For this particular door? Sure.

For your other door? No. Because it's not identical. I don't see where any of this argument comes from since I'm telling them the previous door was so wear they could easily push it open, but this one isn't. They don't know why.

And why are you describing what you imagine me saying to them like that? It's almost like you're trying to convince yourself you're no a fucking retard or something.

>Let me roll. Don't just tell me it's something I'm guaranteed to pass.
I don't. You say "I want to knock the door down". I say "You walk up to the door and ram into it. Surprisingly, it gives way without any resistance at all." I'm not telling you anything about it's structure or if there's magic or a trap (even though an Athletics check would reveal none of that, I'll have you know), only that you can easily knock it down since that's what you did.

If there's a side effect of trap, those go off. Again, they aren't relevant, at all, to your attempt to knock down the door.

>Then you're telling them. Good job proving MY point entirely.
You should try to rethink your position on this after getting some rest. You should be in bed anyway, school's starting tomorrow.

>>46172840

I didn't say even a natural 20 would result in success, or that you had to tell the player it was impossible necessarily. A good DM would tell them, "okay, roll and let's find out," and after they made the nat 20, and to the player's surprise at the dragon's refusal, you inform him that there is no possible way, even with great effort, that the dragon will give up his treasure.

The point is, you as the DM need to decide when natural 20 and critical failures apply, and if you're house-ruling that they apply to other checks, then you should apply it to as many things as possible. Even strokes of miracle and luck aren't enough, and that is essentially what a die-roll applies to the game.

If you really can't see that D&D is a set of abstract rules to be interpreted and manipulated by the Dungeon Master, for the players' enjoyment, don't tell me to fuck off. You fuck off, and find a different hobby that doesn't involve you projecting your opinions onto another's game experience.

The guy asked ,"What do I do in this situation?"

Your answer should have just been, "RAW, the text doesn't say you auto fail with a 1, but your DM, like many, may be instigating a house rule that says otherwise," instead of you being a cunt and telling all of us it is badwrongfun and it needs to stop.

>>46172955
>To roll? For this particular door? Sure.
>For your other door? No. Because it's not identical.

Look, you set the DC for the door. Maybe you decide it's a really decrepit door. DC 5. The PC says what they want to do. They roll. The barbarian gets a 19, boom. In a parallel universe, the wizard gets a 3. Barely moves from its hinges.

Why not let them make a check? This is how the rules work. My original disagreement was that natural 20 should not be a success on ability checks, and natural 1 should not be a failure. But you still roll. Because there MIGHT be a chance of failure or success, from the player's perspective. Maybe that door has an arcane lock. Maybe that fairy's blessing gave them extra luck. "You don't have to roll" is stupid bullshit if it's a stuck door or some other obstacle. What if they choose a character who might fail to ram down that door, and it attracts a wandering monster? Every character should have to roll, even that one that succeeds on a 1. Maybe he still has the curse of sucking-at-door-ramming from the previous dungeon.

>>46172962
The natural 20 thing is how this started.

If you're going to houserule it, I'd recommend taking a leaf from other new-style games and giving a boon or a setback. You still fail at opening the door, but you crack that adjacent wall, revealing a room to the east. You manage to smash through the weak trapdoor, but your natural 1 means rats are now after you. That kind of thing. Don't ruin the core mechanic of the game.

>>46173059
I was merely stating an example of the house-rule's use in argument of the other anon's opinion that it "needed to stop." The rule could be as complex or simple as the DM wants to make it, but I hardly think mine ruins any core mechanic, or that the critical system is a core mechanic in the first place.

My overarching point was that he needed to stop telling people what is wrongfun, and I was merely defending the ruling that is extremely common among separate game tables.

>>46173059
>boon or a setback
This is how I like to handle it.
For example, in the dragon situation:
If you get a Nat 20 the dragon still won't give you his gold, but your confidence has impressed him. If a fight breaks out with him he'll take it easy on the party, seeing what they can do, instead of just killing them.

>>46173059
>Why not let them make a check?
I've already answered this, several times. This will be the last, so read carefully this time.

Because there's no point. If the player has a flat bonus that makes it such that he can't fail, whatever the bonus may be or wherever it may come from, why should he roll? He shouldn't, because his roll does not matter. He succeeds regardless.

>My original disagreement was that natural 20 should not be a success on ability checks, and natural 1 should not be a failure.
I agree entirely. Because they aren't unless houseruled. Natural 20s and Natural 1s only apply to attack rolls in 5e.

>What if they choose a character who might fail to ram down that door, and it attracts a wandering monster? Every character should have to roll, even that one that succeeds on a 1. Maybe he still has the curse of sucking-at-door-ramming from the previous dungeon.
Holy shit anon. Let me break this one down.

>What if they choose a character who might fail to ram down that door, and it attracts a wandering monster?
He rolls. Because there's a chance of failure.

>Every character should have to roll, even that one that succeeds on a 1.
He doesn't roll. Because there is not chance of failure.

>Maybe he still has the curse of sucking-at-door-ramming from the previous dungeon.
Then he doesn't have a bonus that is higher or equal to the DC of the challenge. Therefor, he needs to roll.

>Maybe that door has an arcane lock.
Then the DC is not a 5.

>Maybe that fairy's blessing gave them extra luck.
Then their bonus to the check is higher than it normally is. That means they might auto-succeed on the check, and if that's the case, there's no point in rolling. If they aren't auto-succeeding, then they roll as normal..

Have I helped you any here? You keep repeating the same thing, like it means anything in the context of this discussion without realizing that the "what if's" you're suggesting change the circumstances that have been clearly outlined.

Looking through CoS
I haven't found any npcs that sell weapons or armor. I suppose that makes sense because why would Strahd let people equip themselves. How does a lvl 1 fighter get plate though?

CoS update
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1NCWj32mMA4

>>46173194
There's one guy in Barovia that sells equipment, but technically not weapons or armor. I make it so that he does, but with the same x10 cost multiplier

There is also a couple in Vallaki that sell items at 5x the cost. I suppose I should do that with both of them.

>>46172821
Well I recall degrees of failure being a thing from 3.5 so it's not exactly *unheard of*

I think it's a fun addition to carry over.

>>46173148
I don't think it's badwrongfun and obviously you can do what you want with your game, even going against the core mechanics. But the core mechanic is the way it is for a reason, and I think it makes sense.

As a player, when I say, "I try to ram the door," and the GM says, "You don't need to roll," I feel cheated. Same goes for, "I search the room," "You don't need to roll, there's no treasure," or, "I check for traps," "You don't need to roll, there are none."

That's bad GMing. Sorry guys. Let players roll. They fail if they fail. They succeed if they succeed. Whether it's a DC 5 brittle wall they're smashing down, or DC 25 hidden treasure in the floorboards. Going from "you don't need to roll" to "uh, gimme a roll" is bullshit.

>>46173157
This, however, definitely works. It adds the level of chance people want from natural 1s and 20s, but doesn't allow for bullshit like, "I rolled a 20, therefore the guard should strip his armour, hand me all his gold, and renounce the king!"
Instead he refuses the players' demands, but mentions some doubts he's had about the king recently, or hints at another way into the castle, or something, if they don't succeed at the check.

File: 1455009754301.jpg (78 KB, 800x585) Image search: [Google]

78 KB, 800x585

I'm not understanding why people are making their players roll before they've actually attempted the thing they're doing. Taking the DC 5 door example.

Barbarian with 20 Str and proficiency in Athletics: "I want to knock down the door"
DM: "You apply a firm shove to the doorjam and the rotten wood easily gives way under the pressure."

Wizard with 6 Str and a bad headcold: "I want to knock down the door"
DM: "You apply a firm shove to the doorjam, make a Strength (Athletics) check."
Wizard: "I got a 2."
DM: "The door stays resolute despite your efforts to knock it down."

You don't need to tell the player ahead of time "Oh this is so easy you don't need to roll, it just opens". If they cannot fail, tell them that they succeed when they make the attempt without making them roll. If they can fail (like there's a magic lock or something on it), make them roll when they attempt to do the thing and narrate what happens like with any other skill check.

>>46173272
I don't remember that from 3.5, but I do remember it from nWoD, which I'm currently also playing alongside 5e. I agree, it's a fun thing to do, but it's purely a houserule.

>>46173167
>Then the DC is not a 5.

Then you're telling them it's an arcane locked door.

"You can break that door down without a check. Your +4 will automatically succeed even on a 1."

"This identical door WHICH ISN'T ARCANE LOCKED I SWEAR requires an ability check."

And don't give me shit about metagaming. That's just gaming. It's why we HAVE a core mechanic, and why people ROLL to succeed or fail at ability checks, especially considering there are factors and DCs they don't know about. The players and characters should not know that's a DC 5 door they can't fail at opening. They should know it's a weak-looking door, and roll to try and ram it open. It could be a DC 25 steel door disguised as a weak door through an illusion. So they have to roll.

File: Picard-facepalm.gif (659 KB, 300x282) Image search: [Google]

659 KB, 300x282

>>46173334
>Then you're telling them it's an arcane locked door.

>"You can break that door down without a check. Your +4 will automatically succeed even on a 1."

>"This identical door WHICH ISN'T ARCANE LOCKED I SWEAR requires an ability check."

>The players and characters should not know that's a DC 5 door they can't fail at opening.

>They should know it's a weak-looking door,

>>46172624
I disagree, the homebrew for 5e is seeming fairly balanced compared to previous editions.

>>46171077

Look man, if you're a fire kind of guy and want to be firing fire all the freaking time it's probably a good idea to take the feat that makes sure it's effective most of those times.

>>46173405
Is it just the best of a bad situation though?

Is there a better setup for Draconic Bloodline?

>>46173434
>bad situation
It doesn't really sound like it's bad. After all, if you have a focus on fire, it would be good to take Elemental Adept so that creatures with resistance to it are no longer resistance to it, in addition to boosting your average damage.

>>46172876
Not the other guy you are arguing with, but I have to ask you a question, do you and your players roll dice, and THEN decide what you are doing? Because thats what it sounds like you are saying. Normally this is how the conversation goes:

Player: I attempt to do X
GM: *arbitrates decision*

The players do NOT roll unless the GM tells them to. They don't pick up their dice and go to town.

A couple of examples for you, because I feel like you aren't understanding the conversation at large.

>Player: I attempt to climb the air
>GM: No, you cannot climb air
See, no roll there, even though you could have them pointlessly roll, only to fail even if they got a 20. Lets try again.

>Player: I attempt to climb up the icy cavern wall
>GM: Alright, go ahead and roll an athletics check and I can tell you how that goes.

In this instance, the player could either succeed or fail, and we will use a dice roll combined with relevant modifiers to determine that outcome. One more, just in case you aren't getting it.

>Player: I attempt to climb the Hills of Ardurr
>GM: Its not really much of a climb. Most of it barely goes to a 40 degree angle, and you have proficiency in athletics and a high strength score. You succeed.

In this scenario, the player does not have to roll, doing so in this scenario would be pointless for anyone short of quadruple amputee. At no point in any of these scenarios do you say what DC these tasks have before the PC has committed to the action (technically, you don't say it ever).

Do you understand?

>>46173334
What the fuck are you even saying?


That guy is saying on an arcane locked door would not be a DC of 5, it would be higher. I think by default having a lock be magical raises the DC by 10, so 15.
If you have a party member that auto passes both DC 5 and DC 15 checks you have a bigger problem.

If a door was "identical" to a door that was or wasn't arcane locked you'd give them some kind of information that the door is either slightly magical, or not. you wouldn't autistically say "hurr durr this completely identical door bars your progress for no reason"
In any case, nobody would put a magical lock on a door that's identical to a shitty door with a DC of 5, because shitty doors wouldn't deserve a magical lock!

In any case, >>46173629
has the right of it.

>>46173629
>"I attempt to ram the door."
>DM, knowing whether the door is a DC 5 dilapidated wooden door, or a DC 20 reinforced stone door, or a DC 15 enchanted dilapidated wooden door, or whatever
>"Okay, roll."

What does not happen:
>"I attempt to ram the door."
>"Okay, you can automatically ram it."

That gives away what it is. And even if you think that's fine (much like walking across a room or tying your shoelaces, which don't require a check), it becomes a problem when you hit the NEXT door.

>"I attempt to ram the door. It's the same as the last one, right?"
>"Uh, yeah, it looks identical. But give me a Strength check?"

Just set a DC. Ask for checks. Like the rules say. DC 5 is very easy for a reason, and DC 5 checks exist for a reason. The barbarian might succeed without a chance of failure, he doesn't know what the DC was, just that it looked like an easy door. His 19 ploughed right through it. The weedy wizard bounces off it with his result of 4.

>>46173758
>What does not happen:
You're right, because that's not how a good DM (read: anyone except for you) would play the situation out. Literally kill yourself.

File: 3323512168_ac3df9173d_z[1].jpg (74 KB, 333x500) Image search: [Google]

74 KB, 333x500

I'm wondering if anyone could give me solid resources or a video/guide on DMing. I have a pretty large group of friends that all want to play D&D dragons but the problem is that I'm the only one who really knows how to play but I've only ever DM'd once before and that was about five years ago. I want to teach them and have a decent game but I'm afraid I won't be able to actually DM properly once I'm done teaching them how to put together their character sheets and all that. I have the story writing and lore building ability, I just lack the general knowledge and I can't find good resources to help with this. What I would really love is just a video of a session entirely from the DM perspective.

>>46173758
>I attempt to ram the door.
>Very well. You push through it almost effortlessly with your great strength. In fact, the door almost flies apart when you rush past it.

>This door looks the same right?
>It looks almost identical to the last one, yes.
>I want to ram it. Shouldn't be too hard.
>Don't want your friends to looks at this one either? Very well, you slam into this door with supreme confidence, but it seems much hardier than the other. Give me an Athletics roll.

>>46173758
OK, found the problem, its either too late for you or you are retarded sir. If you made players pointlessly roll in the first scenario, for the door with a DC of 5 and they have 18 strength they may roll a natural one. They will succeed, on this roll of 1+4, and they will know that the DC is 5 or less, much in the same way that they would "know" what the dc was if you did not make the player roll.

Do you understand? They know what the DC is either way, and they will know something is up either way.

I also don't want to pick apart your example, because I know its just that: an example. But seriously, doors? How the hell would someone bashing them down know if they are identical, since they can only see half the door? Surely no one would raise a fuss over having to roll for one door and not the other. Maybe there is a chair propped against the handle in one room or its barred instead of just locked or something.

>>46173832
On youtube these two have been a huge intro/aid to DMing:

Dawnforged Cast
Fistful of Dice

So when is someone going to re-create the best spell in D&D history for 5e?

STICKS TA SNAKES

>>46168077
Probably a custom 9th level ritual. Material components expensive as shit. Cast time like a week or something. Requires sacrifices of humanoid life. Involves skill checks. Death is a very real risk that can be lowered by better or more sacrifices or something.

>>46168077
>Discover how to create a phylactery.
>Obtain the ability to cast 9th level spells (not just the spell slots but the actual 9th level spells).
>Must be a necromancer wizard or undying warlock.
>Obtain the monetary resources and homanoid sacrifices needed to perform the dark ritual and create the phylactery.

Thats how I would do it if I were DM.

>>46173929
Sticks to snakes isn't as cool without INSTANT DEATH VIPERS

>>46173929
lets see

STICKS TO SNAKES
level X conjuration (cleric)
V, M (a bundle of sticks)
range: X ft
duration: instantaneous

the real question should the snakes be separate or a swarm and should they be poisonous?

>>46171077
You will pretty much take up the role of blaster caster and can pump out tons of damage with quicken spell, or you could use your points to cast more spells over a longer period of time. Also, you wont know many spells pretty much ever, so when picking your spells be sure to make sure it's a spell you absolutely want and will be good for you to use.

You are also the best haste caster in the game once you hit 6th thanks to twin spell. You should probably try to avoid picking up other concentration spells other than create bonfire so you can always have your concentration open for haste.

Also, either human with elemental adept or half-elf of some sort will serve you very well race wise.

>>46174122
Should probably be a level 1 or level 2 spell.

Material component will make me laugh every time I ask my player where they got a faggot from. It should cost at least a gold piece, by the way, since the sticks are required to turn into snakes.

Range maybe 10 feet?

Summons 3 poisonous snakes from page 335 of MM.

>>46168077
Curse of Strahd actually has a Lich Ritual in it. Vampire too.

Are Gestalt characters universally hated here in /tg/?

>>46174229
Not for Pathfinder, but I can't think of a good way to gestalt in 5e. I'm pretty dumb though.

>>46174122
Snakes are venomous, not poisonous. Venom is offensive, poison is defensive.

>>46174297
What if I have a weapon with poison on it?

>>46174297
whatever

https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/712165802095431680

>>46174329
your weapon is poisonous, as the weapon is simply coated, and cannot choose to harm unless it is sentient, then maybe it would be considered venomous Also another qualifier of venom is injection.

Venom has to be introduced directly into blood, poison can be absorbed by other means, usually by ingestion, inhalation, or contact through the skin.

>>46174361
What if I fill a syringe with poison?

>>46174424
Where does toxin fit in?

well, the dmsguild link to character sheet has spilled onto the dndnext reddit. can't wait to see what dumbass suggestions they send charsheet anon

>can you make a version specific to my homebrew doctor who class which uses miracle time powers instead of spells?
>can you make a section that keeps track of the number of remaining wish uses? I need it for my players in my current campaign (first time DM lol)

>>46169210

My friend made a skill Rogue and took observant; his passive perception I think was at least 30 if not in the upper 20s and this was around level 12 or so

Personally, I houserule this, although I don't tell my party beyond "No automatic failures or successes"

>(Overkill) Nat 20
Player could have succeeded on exactly 20 or a lower roll, success + a positive effect.
>Nat 20
Add +5 to their total.
>(Overkill) Nat 1
Player would have failed with anything lower than a 10, failure + a negative effect
>Nat 1
Treat as normal.

>>46174610
A 20 in Dex is as high as you can get: +5
Let's assume level 12: Proficiency: +4
Expertise: +4
Observant: +5

Should be at 18 without any other bonuses (though I don't know what those might be).

>>46174610
Passive Perception can get ridiculous. The maximum amount of passive Perception I've been able to get is 37 (higher than Tiamat). Expertise, +5 Wisdom, Observant, and having advantage on the check through magic items or Keen Senses. Even without the advantage, it becomes impossible for anything in the MM to sneak by you as the highest Sneak I could find in it was +11.

>>46174631
Passive perception is 10 +relevant bonuses, not just the flat bonuses.

>>46174684
That's right. So 28 then.

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous, and not all that difficult to achieve.

>>46173929

There are multiple staves of "turn into snake" in the dmg, you could carry up to your atunement limit of them and yell "Sticks into Snakes" when you use them.

>>46174735
>and yell "Sticks into Snakes" when you use them
>Sticks into Snakes
You're a shitty Cleric.

I did check, and there's only one staff that turns itself into a giant snake. I feel like this could be a really cool endgame goal for a Cleric; get like, 5 of these and just spend your turns turning them into snakes screaming "STICKSTASNAKES" at the top of your lungs.

File: RIP.png (245 KB, 412x398) Image search: [Google]

245 KB, 412x398

>>46174470
gib link?
I want to laugh at them.

>>46174771

>only one
No, there is another.
The Staff of The Adder, the end of the staff turns itself into a venomous snake head on command, to bite while you smite.

>>46174771
Staff of the Adder: animated snake head that attacks
Staff of the Python: turns into a giant constrictor snake

So while there is only one staff that turns into a giant snake, there are two that turn into snakes :)

>>46174895
Right, but the staff doesn't turn into a snake. The tip turns into a snake head that gives you extra damage.

Good to have around, but it doesn't really turn into a snake.

>>46174908

I see you're a real "all or nothing" guy.
In my opinion it counts because it turns into a living thing with its own AC and hitpoints and everything, but whatever.

What are the best maneuvers to take as an archer focused battle master?

>>46174981
It doesn't turn into a living thing, it becomes animate. And besides, the head of the staff (which means the very end of it) becomes a snake's head that you attack with. It really doesn't turn into a full snake, and it definitely isn't reminiscent of Sticks To Snakes.

>>46170169
That's a
>all other players start rolling to investigate

Has anyone played with the Artificer (who's not very reminiscent of 3.X Artificer) from UA? I'm looking at making a wizard who uses spell slots to augment his longbow (1 level of Fighter) and I would like some ideas.

So I'm rolling this diplomatic bard character and her backround and race allow her to have four languages. Obviously the first three are common, elvish, and dwarven as they are the principle languages and alphabets but what should my fourth one be? I wanted to pick Sylvan because it would fit my character's backstory with being fascinated with her mother's elvish heritage, but it doesn't seem very useful...

File: Guardian_06_concept_art_(Judgment).jpg (550 KB, 1276x724) Image search: [Google]

550 KB, 1276x724

My group may finally give D&D (5e) a try here soon. I've played in only one 3.5 game, so still very new to mechanics but understand the concepts.

I'm hoping some one can help me with a charter build. I really like the idea of a paladin, you know your crusading knight or holy warrior type. However I usually prefer playing more offensively minded characters, and compared to the Fighter and Barbarian the Paladin leaves a bit to be desired (unless I'm reading things wrong, which is a possibility).

I understand that I'm not going to be able to compete with a pure melee blender and still fit with the paladin class but are there any ways to get them to be able to pump out some more righteous punishment? What kind of multi-classing would be advisable?

I have the book, but I want a pdf. scan when?

>>46174818
>>46174470
Nevermind, found it.
Charasheet anon, you refrenced /tg/ and /5eg/?
what the fuck why.
We're gonna have a bunch of awful shits in here.

File: 1432913601439.jpg (33 KB, 236x394) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 236x394

What's the most thematically appropriate warlock patron for a CoS campaign?

What's the best dark gift to receive from the amber sarcophagus?

The strongest thing in CoS is actually An Iron Golem. Two of them

>>46175197
A dick
On a girl

>>46175117
If you wanna be a full on smiting badass, go Paladin 2 or 3 and take Balor Bard, Pact of Blade Warlock or Favored Soul Sorcerer. You can smite using any classes spell slots. Just keep in mind your hit die becomes smaller so you will be squishier as a result. And you may need to avoid using offensive spells because your Charisma is secondary to your Strength/Dexterity and Constitution thanks to your need to be in melee to smite. I played a Favored Soul multiclass Paladin, shit is crazy, especially once you get Haste and your Extra Attack. Keep in mind you can smite on Opportunity Attacks as well, which I guaranteed by having Polearm Master. So they get close, smite. On my turn I can smite twice on attacks and once on the bonus action attack from Polearm Mastery. 3-4 sites per turn. Keep in mind you'll blow through the amount of smites you can do per rest fast as fuck if you're not careful.

>>46175126
Scan it yourself.

Then upload here

>>46175172
Strahd himself.

Warlock is the reason they're there.

>>46175199
don't touch my brazier!

>>46175199
don't touch my brazier!

>>46175310
>>46175269
stupid captcha. told me it failed to send the first time..

>>46172300
literally none of the official adventures do

>>46172589
why did you read the adventure as a pc

Please explain something to me

I have a monk whose entire purpose revolves around the shadowy wise guy batman type, who loves surprising people, but not only has the observant feat, but also 20 in wisdom at level 5.

This makes my passive perception ridiculously high, and our thief who specializes in being a sneaky motherfucker with double proficiency bonuses to his stealth checks needs some luck to not be spotted by my passive perception.

So how the fuck do I always get surprised? And how can I futher improve this shit? Or is there some sort of rule interacting I am not familiar with here?

Or is it just my GM being a dick?

>>46175217
Ain't got no scanner.

>>46175410
>Or is it just my GM being a dick?
Most likely this.

Anyone have those photos of strahd saying "What a terrible night for a curse" or "What is a man?"

>>46175091
send help

>>46173269
What page?

I want to crit 100% of the time, what class blended with rogue should I take? I don't care about optimal building.

>>46175527
>I want to crit 100% of the time
Literally impossible.

>>46175527
I don't want to build to level 20, just level 10 or so. I'm thinking so far. Variant Human Assassin 3/Champion 3/ and four levels in something else. Barb may be? First feat is lucky

>>46175575
Not true. If you only attack when you have paralyzed your foe and from within 5ft then you will

>>46175575
Let me rephrase that, because I did so poorly. I want to statistically have over a 100% chance of critting AT LEAST once per round.

so far Assassin allows for crit on suprised enemies round one. an Assassin 3/ champion 5 gives me roughly a 60% chance of critting each turn, and action surge doubles that to over 100%, provided I have advantage on each attack (round 1 going before any other creature)

Can I further build upon this?

>>46172589
From what I saw, it shouldn't be a problem. I mean, it's fairly deadly, but you won't actively be hurting your party just be getting a bit fuzzy.

>>46175392
Who said they read the adventure? The thing is literally called "Death House", and it's set in Ravenloft... it's not hard to figure out that it's about a creepy house.

>>46175611
SPOILERS! My players read this board!

>>46175597
oohh. so a hold person spell would be great to have for this build. is it worth 3 levels of wizard?

>>46175627
How high can you get your Intelligence?

>>46175627
can i suggest vengeance paladin instead

>>46173167
>>Why not let them make a check?
>I've already answered this, several times. This will be the last, so read carefully this time.
>Because there's no point.

Players like to roll dice. That's the point. Rolling dice is fun. Fuck, most of the time, the players will be rolling dice as they're declaring their action, so you don't have to decide whether or not to call for a roll anyway.

>>46174818
It's someone from 4chan. 12 hour old account. Only posts the dmguild link.

File: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.gif (509 KB, 500x246) Image search: [Google]

509 KB, 500x246

>>46175659
>Fuck, most of the time, the players will be rolling dice as they're declaring their action

>>46175644
I could multiclass into 3 or so classes with the standard array as variant human. I'd probably start with fighter for my preferred saves, then multiclass into rogue and other classes. So I could AT LEAST get it to 13, and probaly sacrifice charisma or wis in exchange.

>>46175645
I'd like paladin for that sexy smite crit, but getting to 5th level for hold person is iffy. I could only take 3 levels in champion, then go rogue, then go vengeance paladin to 5th level for 2nd level spells, and extra attack. stats shouldn't be a big deal.

>>46174033
Traditionally, liches start out at 11th level and 6th level spells, not 17 and 9th level. Especially if you want to have any kind of consistency, since most games will have a lich as an enemy long before 17th level...

>>46175678
i mean straight paladin

>>46175691
Than that doesn't really give me what I'm aiming for. maining paladin would be a good idea. But I ideally want to have the highest crit chance against multiple creatures, and perhaps the one or two creatures I could auto-crit in round one. Just going vengeance paladin would only give me the hold person spell and and the possible chances at advantage here and there. It's not enough for me.

>>46174995
The pushy one, the one that adds to the attack roll, and the one that grants AC vs. opportunity attacks, to start.

>>46175701
ok but i mean you can't guarantee a crit ever under any circumstances other than paralyzed or unconscious

if you just want a really good chance to crit then be a champ fighter and push someone over prone

>>46175424
Then you'll get it when you get it. If you're not the one putting in the work, you don't get to whine about the work not being done yet.

So, I'm going to be running CoS for my party soon, and I don't think any of them are going to play cleric or paladin.

Should I try to push them to have at least one, or just leave them to suffer from their mistakes?

>>46175620
How is any of that a spoiler? I gave no information, other than something that anyone who's not literally a drooling vegetable will figure out the second the adventure starts.

And I mean literally a vegetable, like a fucking head of lettuce or something, since even a brain-dead cripple can figure out that an adventure set in Ravenloft called "Death House" is gonna be about a fucking creepy house.

>>46175720
That's what I'm aiming for, and why I'm taking at least 3 levels in champion, but there are even more ways to boost your chances. With a level 10, 3 champ/3 assassin/4 paladin, I could grant myself something like x2.2 chance of crit in round one. I'm looking for ways to further improve that.

I didn't say it'd be a good build. I want to see how far I can push it.

>>46175670
So... I may be showing my lack of fancy 4chan experience here, but was this supposed to convey something approaching a coherent thought? Are you disagreeing with me? Do you possess the capability of using language in some form?

>>46175722
I don't think you understand how whining works, friend.

>>46175749
They hate players that do the quoted text. Know your meme.

>>46175768
>They hate players that do the quoted text.
Oh, so they hate all players.

Actually, yeah, that sounds about right...

>>46175745
assassin gets an auto crit in a surprise round

champ 3 crits on a 19/20

paladin ???

just go straight champion for maximum number of attacks and crit on 18-20 and knock niggers prone for advantage

Propposed fix for Blade-locks:

Bonus action to summon weapons.

They can replace EB with any melee range (5ft or touch) cantrip from any list and when using their action to cast that cantrip they can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

>>46175787
paladin for more damage with smites, and at level 5, you get the hold person spell as vengeance oath spell.

So how does human variant 3 cham/ 3 assassin/ 5 vengeance paladin, sound for a good wombo combo class? What feats will further improve my crit chance? Lucky for sure would, adding another potential 10% crit chance to an attack.

I'm not doing straight champion, because it costs too many levels for my budget and isn't worthwhile on it's own when you could get auto crits from rogue and more advantage enabling abilities from elsewhere.

>>46175796
If it doesn't grant charisma to hit and damage with the pact weapon it isn't a fix.

>>46175829
Silly you.
They already have invocations for that.

This is so they have action economy when using spells.

What you can do then is: Cast Shocking grasp on target + Get in a free weapon attack as they can take a reaction.

>>46175605
>gives me roughly a 60% chance of critting each turn, and action surge doubles that to over 100%
That's not how probability works.

>>46172677
Quite frankly there aren't many gargantuan creatures around, so your best bet might be to take a weakened version of a dragon turtle.

For example, a dragon turtle that happened to get injured (maybe add a huge harpoon sticking out of its back or something) and engages the party with such injuries might be an appropriate challenge.
Following the DMG, if you half his health and make his steam breath recharge on a 6 instead of a 5/6 (due to exhaustion or something), it should be around CR 11, which would classify as a 'hard' encounter for 5 9th level PCs.

If you'd rather stick with straight MM monsters, perhaps a Roc could work. Ya know, the giant flying bird. Not really a sea creature, but it uses broken ships to build its nest, so it might work.

>>46175854

Than you tell me the statistical probability of the chance of getting a critical hit on turn one with advantage and an action surge.

The base critical chance is 10% 19-20 TH, each attack provides for a 10% chance to hit, and having advantage to attack raises that further to 20% (19% I think technically). So if you have 6 attacks (Second Attack trait and bonus action, with action surge), that equates to a 120% chance of rolling a critical hit. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'd love to know why if I am, so I can change the build accordingly.

Now I know this doesn't GUARANTEE a critical, it just means the odds are heavily in my favor that I will.

>>46175894
>120% chance isn't guaranteed
Oh my god, I don't think I'd have the patience to explain this right now.

>>46175894
Action surge doesn't give you another bonus action

you don't add probabilities together

>>46175883

He could do a Hydra, that has the body of a prehistoric Thalassomedon. All he'd have to do is refluff it to have a better swimming speed.

That'd be pretty damn terrifying if you asked me. My characters are almost always terrified of ocean. If fucking dragons and other colossal creatures roam the land, what unimaginable horrors could swim in the depths of the sea?

>>46175475
I don't get it.

Do people really do this? Fuck over the one thing someone does well? Why? What's the point?

>>46175936
Action surge:

>Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your
normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take
one additional action on top of your regular action and a
possible bonus action.

>>46175927
I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I'm asking for help.

>>46175883
>>46172677

Lore wise, dragon turtles sometimes wander into the elemental plane of water and fall into service of marids, so they're somewhat extraplanar?
The Roc not so much, but you could always make them half-demon, I guess.

>>46175410
lets see
+5 wisdom
+5 observant
+3 proficiency

for a passive Perception of 23

if you get surprised a lot your dm is probably being a dick yeah

ask your dm what the creatures rolled for stealth and make a note of it. come back at him with a sample

>>46175951
yeah man

2 attacks plus bonus action attack action surge for another 2 attacks = 5 attacks not 6 attacks yo

>>46175965

Ah, I reread that. The word "possible", led me to think they meant another bonus action. Irregardless it's still 5 attacks. thanks.

>>46175952
shadow dragon turtle

>>46175973
>irregardless.

It's just "regardless". Regardless, you still don't add probabilities together

So what's everyone's favorite part of CoS so far?

>>46175894
>So if you have 6 attacks (Second Attack trait and bonus action, with action surge), that equates to a 120% chance of rolling a critical hit.
The most important thing when making statistical assumptions, is to know when something affects the rest of the data. Like, if you have a bag with 10 dice, and only one of them are black, your initial chance to draw the black one is 10, increasing until you draw it, whereupon it drops to 0 (no more black dice to draw)

In terms of dice rolling, the chance stays the same. This means that if your chance to crit is 10%, it will stay that way, no matter how many attacks you make. You don't stop getting crits because you crit, nor does your chance to crit increase because you didn't.

The only possible way more than 100% chance works, is if you always get one, but with the possibility of 2. So 120% crit chance means you crit no matter what, with a 20% (so 17 to 20 on a d20) chance of doing a DOUBLE crit.

Makes sense?

>>46175959
>ask your dm what the creatures rolled for stealth
He refuses to tell us rolls or stats, says it breaks immersion. I feel like might just be bullshitting

>>46176025
ok then you'll just have record Surprised or Non-surprised. Get a sample of at least 10 but preferably 1000

>>46176035
oh and record the monsters which participated

>>46176025
Try "My perception based character always being surprised breaks my immersion"

If the fucker just has to have his surprises try asking to rebuild your character to reflect that. Or just, you know, leave.

>>46175894
>>46175951
The chance of an attack critting on a 19 or higher with advantage is 27%.
The chance that you get at least one crit in five hits is...
~78.29%.
Calculating probability is a bitch, should've memorized some formulas or something.

>>46176047
And conditions that "might affect" the rolls.

>>46176073
I mean, I could see it for ghosts or ethereal teleporting creatures, but even the occasional assassin (if not every single one) should trip that 23 PP.

>>46176111
This too.

If your character has disadvantage on his Wisdom (Perception) check, most likely from dim light, then his PP is only actually 18
>>46176122
Goblins have a +6 to Stealth so they need to roll an 18 or higher to beat a PP of 23.

So Goblins have a 15% chance of beating this guys PP of 23 in normal light conditions

They need a 13 or higher to beat a PP of 18 so they have a 40% chance of beating it in dim light.

Depending on light, the monk anon should expect to be surprised by goblins 15-40% of the time

>>46169526
That sounds like insight.

If you were going to make a unique homebrew that you wanted to publish, what would you add to it? Races, classes, monsters, spells, equipment, setting?

>>46175894
>So if you have 6 attacks (Second Attack trait and bonus action, with action surge), that equates to a 120% chance of rolling a critical hit.

Let's have a little though experiment here. Six rolls of two die where you pick the best, you need to get 19 or 20 at least once.

Say your first roll was 2 and 5, you pick 5.
Second 4 and 9, so 9
Then 1 and 11, so 11
7 and 14, 14
3 and 15, 15
8 and 9, 9

So six rolls with advantage, and you got no 19 or 20.

Apparently the chance wasn't 100% or greater.

So here's how it actually works. Let's look at the advantage bit first. You have a 10% chance of a crit (19-20), and you get two rolls to try and make that. The way you calculate the odds of getting at least one die shoring 19+ is that you look at the chance of neither showing that.

90% * 90% = 81%

So that's the chance of not critting. Since you either crit or not crit, the chance of critting on one roll with advantage is then

100% - 81% = 19%

Then if you have six such attacks, and want to know the chance of getting at least one crit, we just do the same thing again. The chance of none of those attacks critting

81% * 81% * 81% * 81% * 81% * 81% = (81%)^6 = 28%

And the chance of getting one or mroe crits is then

100% - 28% = 72%

>>46176010
>The only possible way more than 100% chance works, is if you always get one, but with the possibility of 2. So 120% crit chance means you crit no matter what, with a 20% (so 17 to 20 on a d20) chance of doing a DOUBLE crit.

While some game systems might run it that way, in strict mathematical sense there is no such thing as a 120% chance, you only get into such when you start getting the probability of something happening and the average pay-off form something confused. The probability for a specific event happening can never, ever go above 100%.

There is a spellbook in CoS which contains Acid Splash

Acid Splash is a cantrip. I did not think that spellbooks contained cantrips

NANI

>>46176309
Now do the chance of 2 of those critting. Or 3.

t. guy who slept through math

>>46176323
oh and mending

>>46176323
Why wouldn't your spellbook have your wizard cantrips?

>>46176346
Not him but I assumed cantrips were spells you knew by heart.

>>46176351
So that you didn't need to prepare them. They should still be in your spell book. Mindblank is a bitch to fail, apprentice.

>>46176373
>Spellbook
>At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice.

>>46174995
Trip attack is rly good as your last attack of the round since it eats half of their movement and your buddies have advantage on him until his next round.
Also menacing attack makes them afraid so they cant move closer to you AND have dissatvantage if they can see you

>>46176373
Mindblank is a buff spell

>>46176385
>>46176395
Niggers, the lot of you. Also, I'm high.

>>46176090
how the fuck did you get 27%.
It's 19.1%

>>46176454
I fucked up, was doing it the long way, and got the chance of both crits on adv roll too high, like 9 times higher.

Hey y'all, I asked about this in one of yesterday's threads but I wanted a little more refinement.

My players will be in a temple to an evil Shark God. I was thinking of having one room be locked, with a statue of the shark god with a plaque about how only the devoted may pass in front. Basically they have to simulate proving their devotion to get through the door.

I was going to leave it open ended how they show devotion, but I want some cultists to have signs of previous passage. The big one that was recommended was ripping out of teeth a replacing them with shark teeth.

Any other ways you could prove yourself to a shark god?

>>46176559
eating a quipper

>>46176559
eat sushi

>>46176559
I was a fan of the underwater challenge, changing environment is something players usually don't get to do.

>>46176559
> Evil Shark God
> Not using a Sahuagin encampment with a submerged breeding pit, watched over by a Sekohlah shrine.

>>46176602
Oh, so have like a piranha trap in the room and they can use the piranha to draw blood. I like it.

>>46176620
Normally I'd go with this, but the bottom floor of the temple is flooded, with a few of the rooms being basically all underwater. So I don't want to spoil that.

>>46176634
That's actually what the bottom floor is, except they're trying to revive Iakhovas.

How much does a wooden frame full length mirror weigh

>>46168077
Suggestions for alternate AC/Evasion rules?

I just can't accept "missing" heavily armored target. These guys should be slow and easy to hit, but mitigate damage instead.