>Official /5eg/ Mega Trove, contains all official 5e stuff:
https://mega.nz/#F!BUdBDABK!K8WbWPKh6Qi1vZSm4OI2PQ
>Pastebin with homebrew list, resources and so on:
http://pastebin.com/X1TFNxck (embed)
>/tg/ Character Sheet
https://mega.nz/#F!x0UkRDQK!l-iAUnE46Aabih71s-10DQ
Previous: >>46838973
Which wizard school is the best?
Abjuration.
>>46850759
Divination. This has been covered numerous times.
>Which Wild Magic effect is best?
>>46850947
> Svirfneblin detected.
>>46850947
Is this build worth while?
Human Variant Rogue
>highest skills Str and Con
>Dex and the rest whatever
>gladiator background; take proficiency in lances
>dual wielder feat
>mounted combatant feat
Mount a large creature for advantage against all medium or smaller creatures. You can go huge if you can find the proper mount for advantage against large creatures as well. This advantage grants sneak attack. Two-Weapon Fight with dual lances (1d12 base damage, add proficiency bonus and strength mod).
Or would it just be overall better to do a fighter as follows
Mountain Dwarf Fighter
>Str and Con get highest stats
>Dex and the rest whatever
>dual wielder feat
>possibly mounted combatant feat because the advantage is still good but its not as necessary as it is with the rogue
Dual wield lances on a mount and off mount use dual longswords or some shit.
Any good resources for new DMs?
I have the drive to put on a fun game, and have ran some OSR stuff that my group enjoyed.
But I always find myself overwhelmed easily, and feel like I'm actually clueless rather than in control.
>>46850759
Depending on how permissive your DM is, I would say Illusion is pretty damn good at level 14. If shadow reality alchemist's fire can start actual fires, you can make several thousand gallons of it with a Silent Image.
>>46850759
Transmutation master race.
>Girlfriend's friend is letting me into her digital group.
I prefer the real thing but this'll be fun.
Reposting my attempt at completing and rebalancing Ambuscade Ranger
>>46850967
Seems like a waste, you need to invest your starting feat + your level 4 AS just to do something that will not be possible to do very often
also at it's core i'm just not sure that it'd work, would depend on your DM. Lance is a one-handed weapon when you're on a mount, sure, but I don't think that really means that the dual wielder feat lets you use two. How exactly are you controlling your mount when both of your arms are holding giant lances and trying to stab nigs?
plus you'll never be able to do that in a cave, dungeon, building etc, only when you're out in the open in pretty much perfect conditions
>>46851005
>I prefer the real thing but this'll be fun.
That feel hit harder than expected
>>46850967
>dual-wielding lances
I don't care if it makes sense mechanically, that is such aesthetic bullshit that trying to play it would make you a tremendous faggot.
>>46850967
Lances aren't finesse
>>46851036
Maybe I am a tremendous faggot, what does that have to do with traditional games?
>>46851021
And yeah, the rogue thing is way too much of an investment. Is dual-wielding while mounted just not a thing? If not I can totally drop this.
But with the fighter, it isn't built entirely around the lances. It would just be a bonus to taking the dual-wielder feat. Which means it probably isn't a terrible idea?
>>46851062
Good job, you can read. What exactly is your point?
>>46850759
Necromancy all day everyday. Gain control over life and death, gain untiring fearsome servants, eventually become a lich probably.
>>46851078
Your first build up there is a rogue, where you mention using sneak attack.
Can't sneak attack with non-finesse weapons.
>>46851025
nani desu ka?
>>46851007
It's alright I guess, I'm just not a fan of sneak attack on a ranger
>>46851078
>Good job, you can read. What exactly is your point?
looks like you can't read, sneak attack's description:
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
>acting like a passive-aggressive smug faggot when you don't even understand the most fundamental basics of the stupid character you're building
>>46851092
Ahh. I could have sworn that I read through SA specifically looking for that clause before and apparently I can't read.
>>46851078
>And yeah, the rogue thing is way too much of an investment. Is dual-wielding while mounted just not a thing? If not I can totally drop this.
I think dual wielding while mounted is totally a thing. It's specifically the dual wielding lances that's wonky.
>>46851078
The DM can ban anything even if it goes by RAW if he judges that it is fucking retarded. This is fucking retarded.
>>46851078
>Is dual-wielding while mounted just not a thing?
unless you're riding a paladin Find Steed animal as your mount (which can communicate with you telepathically and possesses an int of 6 and acts with you as one) or using that one spell that summons a phantom steed (think it's wizard or warlock? not sure) I'd probably say no.
Dual-wielding lances is just BS though, straight up. Requires a good amount of rules finagling to even be debated
>>46851097
Ambuscade is completely focused around stealth and surprise. It fits.
>>46851116
>acting like a passive-aggressive smug faggot when you don't even understand the most fundamental basics of the stupid character you're building
I've brought great shame upon myself and this board. I will go and end my life with the utmost haste.
>>46851137
(You)
>>46851144
>Dual-wielding lances is just BS though, straight up. Requires a good amount of rules finagling to even be debated
Actually requires no rules finagling. Lances do not possess the Light property and only possess the Two-Handed property if wielded while not mounted. The Dual-Wielder feat permits Two-Weapon Fighting with melee weapons that do not possess the Light property.
I won't be smug about it this time; if anyone can provide RAW quotes that contradict this, please post them.
>>46851197
you are the archetypal "That Guy". I bet every group you've ever played with secretly hates you
Dual-Wielding lances is bullshit, don't care how you put it. Trying to pull that shit in addition to adding rogue sneak attack damage and whatever other bullshit you were trying to do is laughable and if you were at my table I'd tell you to burn your character sheet and do something not retarded.
>>46850759
Divination, only way to go. Forewarned is forearmed fr.
I miss 1e, I say.
How do you guys fluff Crossbow Expert?
Machine gun crossbow is awesome, but i'm having trouble visualizing how it's done.
>>46851137
>>46851224
This. This is the answer.
>>46851197
Done. DMG, page 5.
>>46851125
i'd do a cavalier fighter (kits of old UA) with the mounted combatant feat, and a moon druid wildshaped into a huge beast as your mount. the druid can take feats such as athlete, charger, grappler, mobile, or tavern brawler to be an even better mount. one of you could take the sentinel feat to protect the other and stop people running away. the druid can also cast a concentration spell before he wildshapes, and it'll be very hard to break it because of mounted combatant. casting longstrider on himself before he wildshapes would be pretty good as well, +10ft speed for an hour for him and the cavalier on his back with no concentration
>>46851266
>>46851224
(You)
Still no RAW contradictions
>"he came up with a clever way to play the game that is totally permissible by the rules... I was incapable of conjuring this weapon strategy myself..... THAT GUY!!! THAT GUY @!!!!! Look mom, I called someone that guy again :P"
>>46851316
Omg I can't stop loling. I fucking love this.
>>46851316
I'm going to steal that concept for a boss encounter.
>>46851353
Wish > Simulacrum infinite chain is totally permissible by RAW. Am I going to allow it in my games? Fuck no, and if you ever tried to pull that bullshit I'd tell you to stop trying to break the game and to fuck off.
>>46851379
>two weapon fighting with a base 1d12 weapon as opposed to a 1d8 in the specific circumstance that the character is mounted
>comparable to literal universe-breaking spellcasting
Whatever, ya butthurt ninny
>>46851353
RAI over RAW, anon.
>>46851316
My DM actually just told me about that build the other day. But what he did was take polearm expert. Made for an incredibly lethal combo. The fighter can redirect damage to himself, does shit tons of damage to anything they do a ride-by on, and the druid keeps on doing druid shit.
I want to work on some kind of homebrew, but I'm lacking inspiration. Is there anything /5eg/ would be interested in seeing?
Duel wielding lances new shit meme
>>46851353
No RAW contradictions, but physics contradictions.Go ahead and dual-wield lances in my game on a horse. The first time you get struck, you are going to fall off your horse since you aren't keeping a hand on it, and then you lose the benefit of dual-wielding lances.
>>46850967
>>46851078
>>46851121
>>46851197
>>46851353
>>46851409
(You) need this more than I do.
>>46851441
A conversion of Avengers and Invokers over from 4E. I know alot of people are like "Oath of Vengeance paladins are basically Avengers" but them being able to use heavy armor kind of ruins it for me. The angle of Avengers I always enjoyed was morally ambiguous rogues with holy powers to assist in their holy assassination missions.
>>46851459
Not the guy trying to dual-wield lances. But he IS playing Dungeons and Dragons. A fantasy game. Wherein magic plays an incredibly prominent role.
If adherence to the laws of physics is a necessity for your games, you may want to rethink a few of the classes.
>>46851441
Just to clarify, do you mean Homebrew settings, adventures or.....Like, do YOU have a preference on what you'd like to work on.
>>46851459
I agree with the no dual wielding lances thing, but it wasn't uncommon for war saddles to have a lot of bracing to help prevent that sort of thing.
>>46851466
Monk/Ranger, use a greatsword, benefit from unarmored defense, cast Hunter's Mark and take Magic Initiate for some Cleric spells.
>>46851441
Regardless of what you do, make sure you disregard discouragement from /tg/
If you're the easily discouraged kind then I'd suggest that when working on homebrew and never mentioning it here.
>>46851441
Drunken master monk.
>>46851441
>>46851552
I'd like to see this as well.
>>46851501
>If adherence to the laws of physics is a necessity for your games, you may want to rethink a few of the classes.
I probably wasn't clear enough, because I was referring to the fact that with both hands wielding lances, there's no hand holding onto the horse. Pic related.
>>46851505
War saddles help keep the legs in place but they don't bind the knight in place. They're like the footrests for motorcycles.
>>46851572
>he forgot his image
>>46851501
'Common sense' is how I tend to refer to these situations.
>>46851572
>>46851459
Huh, I guess mounted archery isn't a thing.
I haven been around for a while, and I would like to know what the fuck happened to the UA's, is wizards just admitting to being lazy fucks?
I mean that's what I'm getting from this:
>This article is the first in a new series in Unearthed Arcana. Starting this month, and continuing every other month, we’ll dive into the Guild and highlight some of our favorite products. In addition, we’ll include this material in our future surveys where appropriate, and if the demand is there, we’ll work with creators to include some or all of their material in future products as official D&D content.
So can I expect the UA releases to be super shit or are they actually not bad?
>>46851618
Laziness and/or Wizards trying to really highlight the DMsGuild.
>>46851572
>>46851588
But it isn't common sense. It's DnD. Common sense went out the window when Orcs, Demons and objective morality became key components in this fictional universe.
While I agree with you dual-wielding lances is incredibly stupid, it's not any less illogical than someone whispering a few words, wiggling their fingers and throwing some diamond dust into the air to bring the dead back to life.
My point isn't 'Dual wielding lances is a great idea and should be allowed!' its
'Magic is a real thing, and incredibly powerful force, in this new universe you are exploring; why are you having less trouble believing in that then a guy learning how to dualwield long pointy sticks'
>>46851605
Never said it wasn't.
>>46851631
Sure, common sense can go out the window, but logic still applies. If you aren't holding onto something, and a force knocks you off that something, then you can't say "No it doesn't, I'm bracing the thing!"
>>46851631
Yes, magic is a thing.
There's no magic involved in a normal guy holding two really big sticks.
It isn't "Anything is allowed!" it's "It's reality, but with these caveats!"
Making the 'Magic is real so saying common sense is dumb' argument is just deliberate misinterpretation, mostly when it comes to actual game mechanics.
>>46851572
Nah I meant the ones with the high backs.
Gives you something to hold yourself upright against rather than getting tossed off backwards.
>>46851466
>>46851552
I'll look into both of these. I'll also be posting in these threads when I have some stuff down.
>>46851501
Shorter stuff, but no preference really. The classes already suggested are good as they won't take as long as a whole adventure or what have you.
>>46851676
>"It's reality, but with these caveats!"
I'm not him and don't have any stake in this conversation, but are totally aware of how ridiculous this statement is and don't even need to pretend otherwise.
Everyone knows D&D is about the farthest thing from a simulationist game there is, even when it was rules heavier then most simulationist games actually GOT, and now the level of "realism" has massively been toned down by a lot of narrativist elements.
That said dual-wielding lances is pretty goofy and I doubt I'd allow it in actual play.
>>46851676
>>46851676
Suspension of disbelief is vital to DnD. You absolutely, positively need to be able to say "Sure, that happened. I mean, I know for a fact it could never happen, but it definitely did, because that makes for a much better story".
With that in mind, we allow for magic. We allow for giants, which we know for a fact would just collapse under their own weight like disgusting, fleshy
That having been said >>46851717 has got it right.
DnD makes little to no sense from a purely logical point of view. A five foot nine, 160 pound human isn't going to chop through a giant automaton made of steel. It's just not happening. You know it and I know it.
But in DnD that's entirely possible. Hell, it's entirely possible for a two and a half foot tall halfling to do it with a dagger.
DnD isn't 'Reality' under any circumstances. It's a fictional universe with reality bending fictional forces at the disposal of players.
If it isn't hurting anybody or ruining anybody's fun time, it makes no sense to not suspend your disbelief long enough for a guy to wield two really long sticks while riding something.
That having been said, I still wouldn't allow for dual wielding lances at my game, but not allowing it because it 'isn't logical' is a pretty shit reason when the guy beside him can literally whisper some gibberish and change lead into gold.
is there any advantage a longbow has over a heavy crossbow?
other than longbows fit more with some fluff for characters.
>>46851860
I think it's intended that crossbows are for people with only 1 attack and longbows for others, but then Crossbow Expert goes and ruins that.
>>46850759
Uuuuuh guys, what if i wanted to know what the fuck has been added to the MEGA repository, and download only the new things, without dowloading everything all over again?
>>46850967
>>46851021
>>46851036
>>46851062
>>46851078
>>46851092
>>46851116
>>46851125
>>46851144
>>46851197
>>46851316
>>46851353
>>46851379
>>46851457
>>46851459
>>46851501
>>46851505
>>46851572
>>46851588
>>46851605
>>46851631
>>46851650
>>46851676
>>46851717
>>46851794
Okay, I solved the problem for all the complaining ninnies.
>fighter takes dual wielder feat
>wields a single lance with his right hand while riding horse
>three additional lances are strapped to the horse on either side (6 total, 3 per side)
>when he wishes to attack, he moves up to the enemy creature while holding only one lance
>he uses his free action to draw a lance from the horse's left side with his free left hand
>he does his attack action including extra attacks
>he converts his bonus action into an attack with Two-Weapon Fighting
>he drops the right-hand lance
Next turn
>he draws a lance from the right side of the horse with his free right hand using his free action
>he attacks as above
>he drops his left hand lance
And so on. If there are still enemies when he only has one spear left, he can dismount and wield a greatsword that was sheathed on his back.
The additional weight on the horse from the stored lances is only 6*6lbs = 30lbs.
PS, why did we stop talking about juggling daggers? I feel like that should have made the official 9gag approved 5eg meme list
>>46851931
Oops, 36 lbs*
>>46851868
well shit, I really don't want to use a fucking crossbow but it's hard to not take one when you're a variant human with that 1st level feat.
not even from a min/maxing standpoint either, just a basic fucking being able to get shit done standpoint.
>>46851379
Forcing him to read thePlaya's Handbook?
>>46851928
I try to post when I add new things to the Mega. Last thing I added were the new season 4 AL adventures that a kind anon donated and I cleaned for him.
>>46851459
I tried this, sadly I didn't find dragons, vampires, litches or any other monster in real life, did someone have more luck with this? thanks in advance.
>It's another "physics and irl logic only applies to you if you're a martial" episode
>>46851158
Sure, but surprise is not the same thing. Sneak Attack is a Rogue thing and should generally stay there. A Ranger should compensate by the fact they are also a little bit fighter and a little bit druid.
you all told me two weapon fighting was shit, this isn't shit at all it's fun.
>>46852426
>funNOfunALLOWED
>>46851459
>No RAW contradictions, but physics contradictions.Go ahead and dual-wield lances in my game on a horse. The first time you get struck, you are going to fall off your horse since you aren't keeping a hand on it, and then you lose the benefit of dual-wielding lances.
Holy shit, what are you smoking?
The whole mechanical point of lances in 5e is that you can use one while wielding a shield. You don't need to hold on to a fucking warhorse.
>>46851158
>>46852361
going to agree here. sneak attack doesn't really have anything to do with stealth or surprise. you can walk right up to someone's face in open combat, and still sneak attack them as a rogue. it's more about exploiting a weak point, seizing a moment of vulnerability, performing some finesse-ful maneuver, or "fighting dirty" so to speak. it's also a hallmark of rogues, you might as well give wild shape to beastmasters
>>46852426
It is shit, if you have fun, good for you, but that's subjetive, objectively TWF is shit, unless you're low level as fuck, in that case is ok.
>>46852495
Shh, don't upset the no fun allowed babbies.
Reminder that everything is okay as long as the majority of the group is deriving fun from it.
>>46852426
The moment other martials get their 2nd attack 2hd weapons become better.
Even better if they get access to a 3rd attack. More if they use their AoO frecuently. Don't even let me start if they get a 4th+ attack (Haste and/or action surege).
TWF is only good at low levels.
>>46852574
TWF scales alright actually, the potential versatility and the meager +1AC puts it on par with duelist imo.
When my strength modifier is -1 my atk bonus on a str weapon would be +1 (ability modifier+profiency) and my weapon would do 1d6 - 1 dmg, is that right ?
>>46852674
Right
>>46852643
You are confusing the fighting style with the feat that compliments it.
>When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.
Comparing that with dueling, TWF only occurs on an attack action, and uses your bonus action, meaning it occurs once per turn at best vs occuring on every attack made with that weapon, including extra attack, AoO, and the extra action available from action surge.
>>46852674
Correct, but remember that you can't do less than 1 damage on a hit.
>>46852495
>I have never ridden a horse, nor seen one ridden
>>46852719
So TWF and the feat Dual Wielder are shit and not worth being taken by a fighter?
>>46852751
Run the math and decide for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry.
The difference isn't so huge as to be game breaking—this isn't 3.5 here—but it is mathematically worse than other options.
>>46852762
RAW is there any way to attack with a net and with a melee weapon in the same turn with a rogue apart from haste?
>>46852751
The feat and style are both weaker than their counterparts, and fighters in particular don't mesh well with them for the reasons previously stated.
Rogues are typically going to dual wield, you want to land an attack no matter what for sneak attack, so a fighter/rogue could probably get away with it.
Rangers can use it to benefit from their additional per hit abilities, hunters mark and various hunter features. Beast master doesn't function properly though, because you aren't taking the attack action when you command your companion and get your free attack.
The stupidity of dual wielding lances isn't falling off of your horse, but that trying to direct the force of your momentum twice in two separate places is incredibly counterproductive. Lances are cumbersome and can't slash or deal significant damage by thrusting without momentum. Once the first lance hits, you'll lose your momentum and the second won't have any force behind it. If they somehow hit at the same time, all you're doing is dividing the force in half for each hit.
If you absolutely must use a second weapon on horseback, use a shorter weapon that can operate without momentum like a hammer or sword.
>>46852751
Its worse, but I wouldn't say shit.
If you're having fun I wouldn't worry.
My main issue with TWF Fighters in my mind is it eats your Bonus.
>>46852772
You can do so with the Dual Wielder feat. You can't normally, because it isn't a light weapon, but it IS a one handed melee weapon with the thrown property, meaning you can either throw both, or melee with both, and they can both be any one handed melee weapon. Doing so would use your bonus action.
>>46852772
The Dual Wielder feat would work.
>>46852793Explain using one lance and hitting 2+ times with Extra Attack
>>46852785
The best Dual Wielders might be Paladins. Particularly Vengeance because they also get Hunter's Mark. You lose TWF but you can Divine Favour, Mark, dump smites.
Though you'd still be better off taking PM anyway.
>>46852815
Multiplied damage in a single attack because attacks and rounds are abstractions. Still doesn't save lances from their inherent stupidity though.
>>46852815
Any given combat interaction rarely means the character literally swung his weapon once, each is a portion of time in which multiple attacks are made. The extra attack feature is meant to emulate the character being better at making MEANINGFUL blows during a combat situation. Even using a lance in D&D doesn't imply you are jousting.This is made more confusing when you keep track of ammunition, its lead my group to stop doing so.
>>46852811
>>46852808
The thing is that net is in the Martial Ranged Weapons category. As per pic related, it only permits one-handed melee weapons for melee attacking and only permits one-handed melee weapons with the thrown ability for throw attacks. Or am I misinterpreting pic related?
>>46852848
I actually didn't realize that Net was under ranged, i was assuming it was melee with thrown, so in that case no, it wouldn't work.Why aren't nets melee with the thrown property? It's pretty much the only historical way it was used that im aware of for combat
>>46851245
I go with my guy reloading fast as hell, with enormous forearms to actually be able to load the crossbow anywhere at that speed
>>46852815
There are plenty of things that are possible by RAW that are dumb as hell. No one who has ever done even a little martial arts would tell you that a skilled unarmed combatant could stand a chance against an armored guy wielding a greataxe, and yet there's a whole class based around that concept. You'd have to be out of your god damned mind to think that a dagger, hammer or handaxe is as easy to throw as a spear.
At a certain point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say, "I'll allow this because it's cool and heroic, but this is just pants-on-head retarded". That line will be different for every table.
>>46852848
Huh, that's weird. Talk to your DM. I'm sure most reasonable DMs would allow it. Hell, I don't even think you should need a feat to do it—as another poster said, the whole point of a net is to function as an off-hand melee weapon.
>>46852869
>>46852906
Is it possible to hack it following RAW as follows?
>take dual wielder feat
>say that you are wielding the net as a melee weapon as per pic related
>it is now classified as a melee weapon with the thrown property
>throw the net as per the second paragraph in Two-Weapon Fighting subheading ( >>46852848 ) and then follow up with a melee attack with your rapier as per Two-Weapon Fighting
>>46852952
Technically no, an improvised weapon makes melee weapon attacks, but is not a melee weapon, in a similar way that being unarmed lets you make a melee weapon attack, but not wield a melee weapon.im only 70% sure im right on this, but i think its the case
>>46852749
not him, but I actually have. Grew up around horses.
They aren't impossibly hard to hold onto thing. You don't need to be holding on really, as long as you're properly on the saddle, and you have strong legs and good balance. That said, lances don't require you to be charging, you can attack while standing still, meaning that momentum doesn't fucking matter.
The only problem really with dual wielding lances is the silliness factor. Really though, it fucking d&d, is that the silliest build or idea anyone has come up with in this game? Stop taking d&d so seriously, it isn't minmaxing like
Sorlock was, it's just an interesting build someone discovered. Great Weapon Master still out damages it, so why bitch about it?
>>46852983
An improvised weapon can be either, but you'd have to improvise it as ranged? Probably? Which you can't because it's already ranged.
Either way its just another dumb Wizards thing, I'm sure any reasonable DM will let you off-hand throw it.
I get the impression they intended a weapons properties to be their main indicators, rather than the categories. Its how they ended up in their confusing 'unarmed strike' business too. They always end up doing dumb stuff with their tables.
>>46853010
>lances don't require you to be charging, you can attack while standing still
lolwut
>The lance was a pole weapon or spear designed to be used by a mounted warrior or cavalry soldier (lancer). During the periods of Classical and Medieval warfare it evolved into being the leading weapon in cavalry charges, and was unsuited for throwing or for repeated thrusting, unlike similar weapons of the spear/javelin/pike family typically used by infantry. Lances were often equipped with a vamplate – a small circular plate to prevent the hand sliding up the shaft upon impact. Though best known as a military and sporting weapon carried by European knights, the use of lances was widespread throughout Asia, the Middle East and North Africa wherever suitable mounts were available. As a secondary weapon, lancers of the Medieval period also bore swords or maces for hand-to-hand combat, since the lance was often a one-use-per-engagement weapon; assuming the lance survived the initial impact intact, it was (depending on the lance) usually too long, heavy and slow to be effectively used against opponents in a melee.
>>46853098
Ruleswise.
>>46852740
can you point me to that rule in the PHB/DMG?
>>46853110
But the question isn't whether it's possible under the rules. We've established that it works under RAW. And we've also established that lots of ridiculous shit is possible under RAW. The question is whether it's too ridiculous to play.
If I were that player's DM, I'd say, "Yeah, the rules say you CAN do that, but SHOULD you?" You CAN take one level in each class for your first 12 levels, if you've got a 13 or higher in every stat. You CAN wear plate male to bed, summon 24 creatures in the middle of battle, or make an infinite chain of clones with Simulacrum. SHOULD you?
>>46853184
What?
I'm not even part of this argument mang, I was just saying when dickass up there said
>lances don't require you to be charging, you can attack while standing still
He was clearly talking about the rules, and that copypaste from wikipedia is therefore completely unrelated to the discussion.
>>46853098
I'm reading the PHB and the DMG and I can't find that text, also no idea which settings are these "Asia", "Middle East", "Europe" and "Africa". If you can point out where those appear in DnD 5e, thanks in advance.
>>46853219
Fuck yourself with a cactus. Play a stupid character if you want, but you can't escape its stupidity.
>>46853219
It's in one of these UA under the name of "shit some retards bitch about", I don't remember which month it was, I think it was after "Realism only applies to martials" UA.
>>46853184
>>46853110
They do compensate by giving you disadvantage if you use it unmounted. I think. It has some drawback anyway.
If a player wanted to make this kind of gimmick build I'd probably still let them though, it is the kind of ridiculous feat soldiers would tell tales of, same as the northman who could cleave through three men in one stroke, or the elf that could plant an an arrow in four goblins before you could blink.
The enemy champion riding forth, a lance in each hand is the kind of tale you'd hear some scarred veteran sharing in a tavern.
>>46853184
>Comparing Crowd Summoning or Sumulacrum shenanigans with "I can weild to lances while mounted"
Holy shit you're mentally handicapped
>>46853184
It isn't broken though. There are better martial builds out there, why pick on this one, situational build?
>>46853246
Yeah, if they presented it to me in that light, I'd probably be okay with it. It's certainly not game-breaking, but it's definitely outlandish. But there's lots of stuff in real-world myth and fantasy literature that's outlandish.
I'd try to dissuade them from it if they just presented it as a "cool build"—but I'd say the same for any "build". I'd dissuade someone from playing 20 straight levels of champion fighter if they had nothing behind it but just, "isn't this an awesome build guise?" Present it as an over-the-top, legendary sort of character, and sure, you can definitely do ridiculous shit. Like I said before, there's lots of ridiculous shit in the game already. The only question is how you'll deal with the ridiculousness. If you acknowledge it and play it that way, then why not?
>>46851552
>>46851571
Here's what I've got so far. I'm pulling from 3.5/PF and adding in other ideas.
In my mind, monks hit a lot for small numbers (a la flurry of blows) so I thought WotDM could do a similar amount of damage just in less blows. I'm also exploring temporary hp as a sort of drunk armor. WFF was going to give damage resistances when above half max ki points, but resistances are already taken care of in empty body, kind of.
Ki features are changed/flavored to match. Belch is essentially Stunning Strike.
I like the idea of the building ki points by drinking, but I'm not sure how to add meaningful decisions in regards to when to and not to drink.
Just sort of vomiting information here. Feel free to ask questions or tell me it's shit. Accepting all feedback.
>>46853184
Your comparing cheese builds to a silly build that isn't even the best option for a martial.
Holy fuck take your autism back to 3.X, we don't need you shitting up 5e with your "martials have to suck and follow real life logic while casters can do the fuck they want".
>>46853286
The comparison isn't based on how powerful it is, its that both of those things are possible, and both are bad ideas for different reasons. Crowd summoning is a bad idea because it slows combat to a crawl. Simulacrum+Wish is a bad idea because it's narcissistic shenanigans for one character to try to take over the game. The point is that a lot of things are legal by the rules, but a bad idea.
>>46851441
Swarm Druid
>>46853351
Way to destroy an argument I never made. I just said it's silly, not that it should be banned, or that casters should be able to do whatever the fuck they want (where did that come from?). There's lots of stuff in the game that's silly. There's lots of stuff in the game that's a bad idea to do, even if the rules say you can do it. Making a character focused around a single, ridiculous, suboptimal fighting style is a bad idea.
But silly stuff is fine, to an extent. I'd just dissuade a player from making the character because they'd get to do their awesome shtick like twice in a whole campaign, and it wouldn't even be that great.
>>46851441
Lycanthropy Ranger.
Kind of half-takes the wild-shape aspect of Druids. Basically gets a alter self with more options, and some cool transforming stuff later on
Question about dual wielding.
Say you have one extra attack. You attack twice, does that transfer over to two off-hand weapon attacks, or is it always one, regardless of the amount of extra attacks, since it was never made clear.
>>46853346
Monks can already spend 1 ki to Dodge. I'd say let them use Dodge in place of their Martial Arts action. In other words, if they use the Attack action, they then have the option to MA Unarmed Strike, or to Dodge and save ki for other things. It lowers their overall damage output but lets them stay in more consistently.
Also give them an ability to spend Ki to reaction hit someone if they dodge an attack, even if it wasn't the target that attacked them.
>>46853438
Always one. That's why it's shit.
>>46853372
There's a druid of decay on dms guild with some swarm forms. Doesn't do too much, gives access to the ones in the mm except the fish, and let's you double their hp later.
>>46853438
It is always one. It's not exactly specified but that is how the rules read and are intended.
You take the Attack action.
This means you get multiple strikes because of your Extra Attack feature, but each attack is not "the attack action"
Then, because you took the attack action, you can spend your bonus action to off-hand strike. (Although all these events can take place in your preferred order, in between moves etc)
>>46853335
>but it's definitely outlandish
What if he's has the outlander background?
>>46853524
Carlos, please
>>46853467
While accurate, also keep in mind that you only get 1 bonus action, period. Even if each "attack" within an attack action could proc the offhand swing, you could still only take one because its a bonus action.
What do you guys want to see in PHB2, if it's actual confirm
Random thought here, if the benefit of the dual wielding style was, instead of stat to damage, the ability to make an off hand attack whenever you miss with your main weapon?
>>46854246
And sorry for the grammar salad.
>>46854101
new archetypes (lots of ones from UA would be great with some more tweaking and polishing), races/subraces (sensible ones), backgrounds, feats, and spells
i don't want any new classes, and i don't want any new races that are too complex/powerful, like a thri-keen with four weapons or some sort of race that can fly at 50ft speed from level 1. a +2 WIS race might be cool, and/or maybe another +2/+2 like the mountain dwarf
>>46854101
The words "just kidding", followed by 250 blank pages.
2016 is a different time for RPGs than 2003 was. I don't think publishing endless splat books is really the way forward, and the folks at WotC don't seem to think so either. Keep the staffing light, keep the quality high, and just publish an adventure module every six months or so. They're down to a staff of, what, six people now? I'd rather see them ride it out on royalties, keep the core books in print, and make *way* less content overall. 90% of stuff published between the start of 2nd edition and the end of 4th was utter shite.
But I guess if the numbers add up to make a PHB2 worth publishing, they can put whatever the fuck they want in it. I won't be buying it. I'll be running 5e as a 3-book system (plus my own homebrew content) for as long as my players still keep playing.
>>46854246
So, effectively advantage on every attack? Probably not wise.
Do you get to choose a Feat at lvl 1 when making your character ?
Either I'm missing it or the PHB doesnt clarify this.
>>46854316
Only if you're a variant human. Othewise they replace your ASI's
>>46854289
I dunno, a well done artificer or warlord would be nice, if unlikely. They'd probably throw the mystic in there too.
>>46854316
Only if you're playing a variant human. Otherwise, you can take a feat in place of an Ability Score Increase, usually starting at level 4.
>>46854291
That'd be fine if they actually made the 5e PHB well. It's full of so many inconsistencies and mistakes. Feels like they didn't even bother handing it to an editor before sending it to printing. Not to mention it isn't what they wanted, the amount of radical changes bending to grognards is absurd.
>>46854316
Does it say you gain a feat at first level? No, it says you gaing an ASI (either feat, +2 to one stat or +1 to two) at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th, unless youre a Fighter or a Rogue, which get two and one more respectively)
Only variant humans have access to one feat at 1st level
Is people really this bad at reading?
>>46854246
If it was no action it would break economy and be too strong for a fighting style.
If it required an action it wouldn't do anything.
>>46854346
>It's full of so many inconsistencies and mistakes.
True, but less so than for any previous edition. Nothing's perfect, but I think the 5e PHB is as good as we can expect from a game with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover.
>>46851931
> I come up with clever ways to break rules I haven't read.
> Hehe meme tier, right guys?
You speak very clearly for one with so many cocks in their mouth.
>>46854101
If like it to be akin to a tour of the multiverse with one class for each setting/prime plane visited.
Eberron gets Artificer
Athas gets Mystic
Birthright get Warlord
And so on and so forth, with one very iconic class from each realms' history.
>>46854346
imagine if the grognards didn't have their way, and all the martials got advanced techniques.
But instead, we're left with "but i don't want to think, I just want to hit things with sticks" tier class design.
5e is a great edition, but only if you restrict your play to battlemaster fighters or half casters and casters. The grognards really ruined the other classes.
>>46854381
4e was pretty tight, but that was due to the nature of the game. Honestly, if they gave us a 5.5e I wouldn't be upset, even though it isn't quite as messy as 3e was.
>>46854346
>so many inconsistencies and mistakes
Name three.
>>46854466
Well, 4e didn't have a lot of broken interactions, proofreading, or formatting problems, but the basic math behind the system was awful. Past level 7 or so it took so long to kill anything that you'd spend an entire session in one combat. Essentials and later monster manuals fixed that to a fair extent.
>>46854481
Take your pick.
>>46850759
I play an evocation blaster and I'm loving spell sculpting.
>>46854508
Nearly everything in there is a politer way of saying "learn how to read you god damned morons". The wording in the book is fine, it's just that most of the people writing in to Sage Advice can't parse English sentences. Case in point:
>Does the fighter’s Action Surge feature let you take an extra bonus action, in addition to an extra action?
>Action Surge gives you an extra action, not an extra bonus action.
So Sentinel is pretty much mandatory on a melee Rogue right?
>>46854365
>too strong
Yeah the numbers is what I wasn't sure on. I think getting more attacks is fun and stylish. But too much is too much.
Hmm... Attack with disadvantage?
>>46854452
First good proposal for a PHB2 that I've heard. A book that does for other settings what SCAG does for Forgettable Realms could be cool.
>>46854611
Why would a rogue want to keep someone in melee with them? They should be using cunning action to dart out of melee range most turns.
>>46854611
because more opportunities fro AoOs with sneak attack? maybe. I wouldn't call it a mandatory feat though.
>>46854611
All it would do is make enemies pound on you.
Unless you worked it with a Goading Battlemaster or something.
What's a good build for a barbarian? Stats are 18 16 18 15 11 14 for the record.
>>46854617
I think it's fine as is (just mathematically weaker than other options)
But if extra attacks is what you're after, consider letting someone with TWF use the equivalent of Riposte. This couldn't just replace TWF though, it could be a nice addition to something like Defensive Duelist or some other feat with TWF. Having that option on hand all the time at no cost for just a fighting style is still too good, but I think the idea of binding a weapon with one of yours and striking with the other is a good, thematic idea that would be a nice damage boost for dual wielding.
>>46854832
Doesn't change that fighters and paladins directly outdamage everything
>>46854832
>>46854832
How do we fix this?
>>46854832
Creative players can do ridiculous shit, regardless of class.
That's a diagram for uncreative players, who follow the rules. Remember, whatever isn't covered by the rules, technically is allowed.
Rules question, on my phone so can't just check the pdf.
Lets assume at level 10 I multiclass out of Wizard and into warlock. Does my Eldritch Blast get the extra beam given at whatever level since I'm 10, or does it stay as a level 1 Cantrip?
What if you do it with a cantrip in both spell lists, like Firebolt?
>>46854947
Cantrips scale with character level, not class level. You'd get the extra beam.
>>46854922
By making it so casters don't learn spells automatically as they level. Instead, they have to spend experience or time on them. Significant amounts.
Include skill training bonuses that can be gained with either experience or time.
Rebalance the bounded accuracy to figure in skill training bonuses. (maybe from 30 to 40).
>>46854947
Cantrips scale with total level
>>46854977
Fantastic, that makes my retarded multiclass plans a bit more viable.
>>46854947
Both are based on character level, not class level. You'd calculate them for a 10th level caster.
>>46854978
> casters have to do special shit to gain their powers
That'll make the game more caster-focused, not less.
>>46854987
Every class is viable if you multiclass to Warlock 2!
>>46854978
>Spending experience
>This entire idea
I really don't think this fits 5e design.
>>46854978
Please do not DM at any point in the future.
>>46854922
"Not-Spells" for martials.
>>46855028Martial Practices
>>46855028
Fuck that, I like playing martial characters as they are. If I want to play a spellcaster, I'll play a spellcaster. If I want to play a game where everyone has spells, I'll play 4e.
>>46855006
Not really, no.
>>46855008
You could probably work it by level. Give every martial class more skill training bonuses by level, retool the bounded accuracy so casters are more disadvantaged without skill trianing bonuses, etc.
>>46855014
I'm gonna DM this sunday, and have been once a week for over a year now ;*)
I might be ignorant as I've only ever played 5e so far, but spending experience as a concept makes absolutely no sense to me
>>46855045
That's what the champion fighter is for anon. It should be the containment class for people like you.
All the rest should get neat toys.
Why does HotDQ suggest letting the players talk a roper out of attacking them when the creature doesn't understand any languages?
>>46855028
>>46855042
Examples?
>>46855059
>Not really, no.
The only real resource in tabletop RPGs is time spent talking at the table while everyone else is listening. If you make casters more involved, then they'll be taking up a greater portion of the time at the table, which means they'll be dominating the game more, not less. This is not difficult stuff here.
>>46855059
As someone who plays martials almost all the time (My 3e experience was like that scene of sideshow Bob walking through a yard full of rakes) I found them fine in 4 and like them in 5 too.
But if expanded utility/creative options is the issue; for starters, ignore bounded accuracy. Its fine. Combat is not where martials could possibly need help. Don't disadvantage casters, improve the ability for martials to contribute outside of combat
>>46855117
The rogue is fun without spells. Barbarian is fun without spells. You don't need to have a list of kewl powerz to have fun, anon.
>>46855146
You can tie it to in game time, just like researching a spell does now. Do you find casters monopolize the table when they say "well, I want to research this spell during the long rest/week ahead" and the DM goes "okay"
>>46855182
>Barbarian is fun
...I kinda disagree, it has so many passive shit it becomes boring after a while, it's basically:
>Is this a combat? ok I rage and reckless attack till everybody is dead
>This isn't a combat? I stare at the sky
>>46855132
F L U F F F E A T U R E S
L
U
F
F
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
>>46855225
Barbarians can roleplay too, anon. Every class can roleplay
I've downloaded the Trove from Mega as a .zip file, but it keeps on saying it's an unsupported archive type. wat do
>>46855225
>This isn't a combat? I stare at the sky
I don't get this at all. Read a Conan story sometime. Conan doesn't need a list of special powers to do cool shit outside of combat. Non-casters are only boring if you're so bereft of creativity that you need a list of pre-defined powers to do anything at all.
Just hit level 18 with my wizard, probably going to be the final session. I'm hype as FUCK to cast Prismatic Wall. Is a rod of cancellation actually a thing or just WotC being cheeky?
>>46855296
Conan isn't a DnD Barbarian, he's a Fighter/Rogue with expertise in many stuff
Also I'm not talking about special powers, I'm talking about NON passive shit, you know, some resources here and there like battlemaster's manevers, or monk ki points or similar, to me having stuff always one becomens boring.
Does anyone have the Fist cantrip that was posted here a few weeks ago?
>>46855318
>>46855318
People actually take 9th level spells instead of wish?
>>46854931
Holy shit, it even says "if the player is creative" right there.
In what way is it possible for a creative martial to do something that an equally creative and statted magic-user can't? Those rules used by the "uncreative" are all that prevents a Wizard from using Action Surge or having four melee attacks per round. But if you want to say that a Barbarian can pick up an entire wagon and throw it because he's so strong and impressive, what's stopping a Wizard with the same Strength score or lifting capacity from doing it?
The magic users will always have access to the same PHYSICAL capabilities of martial classes, either by pumping stats you wouldn't expect or using a spell to replicate them. The martials will never have access to the MAGICAL capabilities of the casters, absent items, which the casters can also use.
Just because this >>46854900 is true doesn't mean there isn't a huge RP and creativity disconnect between the casters and martials. We had like three fucking threads on this topic a week or two ago and most people were down on the idea of letting martials do "ridiculous shit" and barring casters from the same physical feats.
But seriously, give us some examples if you're so creative.
>>46855334
>Most interesting Barbarian feature is paying for things with Exhaustion
>Horrible because of how Exhaustion works
Another Anon gave his players the ability to ignore levels of Exhaustion based on Con mod. If you had 2 con and 1 Exhaustion you were fine, but if you hit 2 you'd get all the stacked penalties as normal. Or something.
Probably not something I'd do, but was a neat idea
>>46855342
Saw it, posted a meme about it being shit-tier bait. Apparently a lot of people want to bite on shitty bait tonight.
>>46855318
I haven't seen anyone get to that high of a level yet in 5e.
I am envious anon.
>>46855372
Some people want an actual 9th level spell sometimes, and not an option for one of anything weaker.
>>46855405
It directly addresses your point though. Like, you kind of seemed retarded by walking right into something that was previously posted.
>>46855405
Just because it creates discussions where your caster apologist candy-ass gets torn a new sugar hole doesn't make it bait.
>>46855396
The problem with spending exhaustion is how fast it can accrue and how slow it is to get rid of. Just being able to sleep off 2 levels a night would do wonders for them.
>>46855416
In that case, true polymorph or shape change.
But wish is an actual 9th level spell. And if you think the session is probably going to be your last, there's no downside to shooting for the moon with it.
>>46855405
I'm not him and that actually it's true.
Mechanically wise casters can do more stuff than martials, that's what magic does, more stuff.
If both players are equally creative the caster will still do more stuff.
This has nothing to do with fighters and paladins being able to outdamage everybody else, this is the eternal swissknife vs sword that D&D always have been.
>inb4 if it isn't in the rules it's allowed
Said noone ever.
>guy who hits things in a system where MAGICAL SHIT is pretty common has less options
well gee guys, i wonder why that is?
>>46855428
Not at all. Non-casters can do an infinite number of things. Casters can do infinity plus 3 things. The number of additional things a caster can pull off is absolutely dwarfed by the number of things anyone can do. The scale on the image is completely out of whack.
Besides which, in practice, no caster will have the physical stats or skill proficiencies to do anything that a non-caster would. The image is only relevant to the kind of imaginary world theory-crafting that gets passed around on forums.
>Be Thief with magic initiate: Familiar, GFB, BB
>Use use object bonus action for pocket sand
>Advantage SA+GFB everytime
I'm having a blast
>>46855538
lack of good class balance in the system. Other games have martials and mages with good balance. But of the DnDs, only 4e has come close.
>>46855538
This is the real bait.
>>46855636
It probably isn't, there're many people who think like that.
>>46855511
>Mechanically wise casters can do more stuff than martials, that's what magic does, more stuff.
When is the last time you saw a wizard, druid, bard, sorcerer or warlock with 20 strength? Theoretically, sure, a wizard *could* allocate all his resources toward physical abilities and still be able to use magic a bit, but that'd be a poor use of his time. Practically speaking, there's tons of stuff that casters *don't* do, so I don't see why it's relevant that they theoretically could in a game that no one at all is playing.
But more than that, the only actual resource is time. When the wizard uses his time at the table to cast unseen servant, he's not leaping from rooftop to rooftop in pursuit of an enemy, or searching for footprints in the dusty tomb, or hogtying a prisoner to bring back to the duke for a ransom. Theoretically, he *could*, if he decided to drop his good stats into physical abilities, but practically, he's *not* doing that. None of the spells in the book are inherently a better use of your time than anything else a player could be doing.
Gonna be making a dragon obsessed paladin. Lawful good probably, wants to be Bahamut's right hand man, wants to ascend to dragondom himself sometimes, thinks they're the master race. Thinking about having him multiclass in Sorcerer since CHA scales Pally and Sorc. No idea where to go from there. Any options for helping my dude embrace his fursona? Also, art would be appreciated.
>>46855538
>thinking martial classes are just normal jabronis who hit things
>>46855683
Why does he need good stats when there're spells that can do that and even better?
Jump? why when I can fly?
Lift this? why when I have TK?
Etc, Stats, except for caster stat and Con, are not that important for casters, they don't need Str to grapple, trip or lift
>>46852426
TWF is a little weak, but Dual Wielder feat is only acceptable if you're using lances. +1 AC and +1 damage is otherwise obviously not worth a feat.
>>46855511
I always viewed it as within a timeframe.
A caster can prepare Knock. Doesn't help much if he didn't prepare it, the party flees down the corridor and finds the only door barred from the other side.
Casters are generally more versatile, but less flexible. Forum style theory crafting will always put them ahead in total options, but in practice it's rarely the case.
Hit die comes into it too, falling down a pit right before a fight happens can cause serious issues.
Casters seem to operate best if they're given time and information. But when shit has hit the fan its usually martials who have the better capacity to act on short notice.
>>46855741
Tell me, how would a wizard with 8 strength, 10 dex, and 14 con (pretty standard) grapple, hogtie, and dead a prisoner back to town to collect a bounty? How would he pursue a thief through the alleys of Lankmar? How would he build a palisade to keep out a horde of zombies?
And before you start listing spells, remember that>>46855740
spell slots are a real thing, and preparing or learning spells that replicate or replace physical skills means you're not doing something else. The barbarian is running, leaping, and climbing all day every day. The wizard flies for a couple of minutes, then he needs to take a nap.
>>46855841
There are casters who can cast without preparing spells.
>>46855909
polymorph into something with appropriate strength and hands.
>>46855683
>well sure a caster COULD do all these things but he probably won't, so it's OK
You might have had the barest sliver of a point if martials could get level 9 spells by pumping their Int to 20 and taking a feat or two.
>>46855909
>grapple
polymorph
>pursue
divination
>build a wall
polymorph, magic circle
>>46855923
Generally with limited spell lists.
>>46855372
>not banning wish
>>46855406
yeah it's been a longass campaign, we're about to go bust up some demon lords and kill some liches, and as an abjuration wizard i am ALL ABOUT THAT SHIT
Divination. Illusion gives it a run for it's money at higher levels, but other than that there is no competition.
>>46855977
Bard, and sorcerer.
Warlock with pact of the time has a pretty good list too.
Not every caster will pick polymorph
>>46856047
Irrelevant.
>>46856047
Those that don't still have a wealth of options at their disposal.
>>46855969
>polymorph
Not going to tie a good knot around his wrists, keep him bound, or transport him back to town.
>divination
That's great if you want to know where he went, not so much if you actually want to catch him.
>polymorph, magic circle
Using a high level spell to be almost as good as a strong guy in a loincloth for a few minutes--stop the presses, guys, this game is irreparably broken.
>>46856047
Every smart caster will.
>>46856047
Two can play that game: Not every martial will have str 20 to do what you asked then
>>46856039
Tome gets cantrips and rituals.
Bard and Sorcerer are going to carry big opportunity costs. Which still fits into the idea where martials are more consistent in a shorter timeframe in their given areas of expertise.
>>46856083
If you have hands in your new form, you can do all of that.
>>46856119
Not if I, as GM, have a say
>>46856119
Yeah, because everyone who has hands knows how to tie a sturdy knot, track down a thief, or build an effective barricade.
>>46850759
Is there a list of all the books that have prestige classes? I'm trying to compile them all before showing them to my players.
>>46856153
When the fuck does anyone need to be good at anything physical for more than a few minutes?
Plus you aren't looking at alternative methods to solving problems. The right combination of spells will fix any problem. The right combination of muscle will fix some problems until you meet your inevitable demise at the hands of a powerful spellcaster.
>>46856139
>>46856153
Knowing that your mental stats remain unchanged why wouldn't you able to do that stuff now that you're stronger?
>>46856096
No, but they'll have better physical abilities and relevant skills, which is the entire point.
>>46855909
Spells having durations and limited uses mean fuck-all when the average session allows for rests or neatly book-ends adventures. For a caster's limited resources to seriously come into play, a DM has to be actively trying to pressure them; at that point, what you've got isn't a natural counter to their abilities, but an apparently necessary consequence to them. "This caster is going to run roughshod over the party and my adventure unless I handle it in the way most hostile to his class."
Most groups don't find the micromanaging of rest mechanics, passage of time, the hassles of travel, exactly when each caster prays/studies/whatevers for their spell recharges, etc., fun or engaging. For the same reason that Rangers are practically useless, the disadvantages of Wizards won't come up (and if they did, it's not a stretch for a caster to have equal Con to martials).
The "all day"-ness of martials isn't even impressive when their capabilities can be quantified by stats. You might have a point if this were a freeform system and the DM could simply say to the Wizard that he's too tired or weak or ill-suited to do this task, but D&D allows rolls for whatever the fuck, and I don't think you want to suggest DMs simply decree that casters simply CAN'T attempt or do things by virtue of having the wrong name in their class field. And so a martial has +4 Strength and +3 proficiency in a skill; he's only 35% better at this physical action now than the Wizard. They may both have a chance for failure still. The Wizard still has the capacity to run that roof and jump the alley, but the martial is never going to get to roll Arcana to try and cast Polymorph.
>>46856205
No such thing as prestige classes in 5e.
>>46856226
So casters are capable of anything at all when you handwave all their limitations away. K.
>>46856207
>Meeting your demise at the hands of a powerful spellcaster
I dunno about that.
Casters have more options, sure, but few could stand up to a Fighter or Paladin. Not sure about Rogue, but the DC for a Sneak Attack is going to be pretty harsh on concentration. Monk probably stands a good chance too. Barbarian might have issue if they don't have grappler and Rangers are the redheaded stepchild as we all know.
>>46856119
Polymorph only lets you be beasts. True Polymorph lets you be anything, but that's a 9th level spell.
>>46856226
>>46855909
And say you know you're in a session where there's no big combat encounter planned. It's an in-between day, you're just playing out the events of a week spent in this town doing various things. What's the barrier to the Wizard using all of his magic constantly here? He doesn't have to worry about getting caught out since he'll go take a nap at the end of every day. Further control over and power in non-combat situations.
What's more, the obvious barriers to a caster's need for rest can be circumvented creatively. While the martial is just always fucked if he needs to replicate a spell, smart play by the caster can allow for rest in situations that should be dangerous. There's numerous ways to camoflage a camp site or wink into another fucking dimension so you can get your nap on, even while there's an orc hunting party trying to sniff you out.
>>46856153
I missed the part where martial classes get Gold Preferred Plus-level access to Knot-Tying, Tracking, and Wall-Building. Are those class skills or features that come in at level three?
>>46856211
>Polymorph
>martial vs caster shit
Can you make another thread instead of shitting up this one?
>>46856275
Fair enough. It does let you be a giant ape though, which at the time you first get it, is probably a better fighter than the fighter.
