Everyone a Skeleton Edition
>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: >>46850759
How do you skeleton /5eg/?
What happens if your party decides to have a sovereign glue drinking contest?
>>46858447
This kills the party.
>>46858412
We didn't get the Official 9gag Approved list of memes last thread, can we make sure that that makes it into this one?
>>46858447
TPK
>>46858478
No we can't. Can we leave unfunny, repetitious memes to /int/ and the 40kids
>>46858478
Sure, I'll post it in a bit when I get to my computer.
>>46858478
>>46858500
Well then, restnot in piecesparty Wizard and Barbarian, you will be missed.
>>46858547
>>46858447
Is this a thing your party is actually considering/has actually decided upon doing?
Also, checked.
>>46858547
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Is there a statted spiked shield (targe) in any official literature? My DM said that this is the case but I can't find it.
>>46858672
No, there's only one type of shield in 5e, it takes away one hand (as in you can't use this hand at all for anything else) and gives you +2 to AC. This shield is a towershield, a light shield, a buckler, a targe, whatever, but has the same rules for all of them.
>>46858672
Use shield damage, make it piercing.
>>46858672
I thought there was in SCAG but it turned out to be Spiked Armour.
Can a necromancer be more than just "horde of skeletons and zombies"? I understand that that would be my bread and butter for the class, but are their debuffs and other necromancy spells worthwhile too?
>>46858571
Happened already, I had to end the session at that point, it was late as fuck, and I didn't even know how to respond.
OFFICIAL 100% CERTIFIED TO BE HILARIOUS IF YOU POST IT, 9GAG APPROVED MEME TIER LIST
Good memes
>casters vs. martials (mostly valid criticisms, but will start a meme war)
>bladelocks
>glaives vs. halberds vs. polearms
>juggling daggers
>bags of daggers
>trying to break the system generally
>bags of rats.
>4 suits of plate armor
>fudging rolls
>telling non dms to stop criticizing dms
>non dms giving terrible advice to dms
>cone of cold horse
>dragonborn are a meme race
>dragonborn are a meme race is a meme meme
>discord server
Bad memes (you're unfunny and should leave the thread if you post this vile filth)
>calling warlock players bad or edgy.
>>46858859
I've always wanted to play a speaker for the dead type necromancer. He'd go around trying to solve dead people problems, and giving nice speeches about them to people. So yeah, you just gotta sorta be death focused.
So we kinda inched around this in the last thread with pocket sand and the caster vs martial bitchfest #797023470000, but out of curiosity and a rogue Thief, what kinds of items/objects could you use to mimic spell effects, or perhaps have spell-like effects in certain situations. The last thread made me want to make a Thief who pretends to be a spellcaster. Any ideas anons? I remember pocket sand, flour bombs from the last thread, there are all sorts of chemicals like acid, grease, ect. Always thought crushed glass was solid, and there are ball bearings, caltrops, alchemists fire (and mixes of thereof). Assuming you had a lenient GM, what kinds of things would you try?
>>46858859
Maybe ask your DM and work on a homebrew that works more like Chiurgeon from http://www.kargatane.com/secrets/
The Kargatane guys basically succeeded the original Kargat team (i.e. the Kargat was the 2E Ravenloft team, the Kargatane was the 3E+ Ravenloft team).
DMs of /tg/, what do you put on your screen? I just bought the official one, and I'd like to add somethings to it. Was looking for suggestions.
>>46858922
If I had a lenient DM (or a DM at all), I'd ask him to brew some sort of potion system up for me.
>>46858859
Going to be playing a death cleric in an upcoming game as a spy. Using a dex weapon combined with the clerics high wis for roguelike shenanigans. Combined with the death cleric debuff spells and reg cleric support spells it promises to be a fun time.
>>46858909
From https://dnd.rem.uz/Advanced%20D%26D%20(unsorted)/AD%26D%20-%20Ravenloft%20-%20Champions%20of%20the%20Mists.pdf
Look up the Spiritualist kit. And see if the DM would be okay with it either as a Feat (3e) or as a Necro variant.
>>46858966
The only screen I ever use is a Laptop with PDF core books open, and a pile of facedown printouts next to it.
>>46858922
>pretends to be a spellcaster
You won't fool anyone though, any caster ever will know you arent' a caster
>>46858672
Lizardfolk enemies have a spiked shield. It's a 1d6 piercing weapon, that gives you the AC bonus and benefits of a shield.
I wouldn't allow it on the account of dueling feat, and monster weapon
>>46859064
The vast, vast majority of people aren't casters.
I would probably require Arcana, Sleight of Hand and Deception roles against an enemy caster's Perception to give it a chance.
>>46858859
>>46859009
The way I look at it is...
Necromancer Wizards are for undead hordes and moderate damage/debuffs
Death Clerics are for high damage/debuffs and moderate party support
Undying Warlocks are for slowly turning into an undead with moderate necromancy abilities
>>46859070
>It's a 1d6 piercing weapon
Wouldn't work with dueling then.
Besides the point but just saiyan
>>46858966
Potion system sounds like a good idea. Maybe an explosives system too? A sling for long range potion chucking would probably be a good way to go.
Nets would be a good addition. >>46858447
and glue.
Glue covered net? Hmm.
>>46859064
>>46859100
Kek, can you imagine a cultist shitting a brick with this dude with zero spells weaved around him starts chucking fireballs and the like? Counterspells doing absolutely nothing, silence having zero effect...
>>46859216
I mean, if he passes the sleight of hand, he's basically throwing the things as hand tricks, which can just as well imply that he's got metamagic out of the ass.
>>46859070
Thanks man. Why wouldn't you allow it exactly?
>>46859126
Why wouldn't it work with dueling?
>>46859100
>"roll arcana"
>15
>"okay, roll sleight of hand"
>17
>"okay, roll deception"
>4
>"YOU FUCKED UP, HE KNOWS YOU'RE A LIAR"
Seriously, requiring three separate fucking rolls? Just a sleight of hand; he's a rogue so he probably has expertise so he should be fine. And beyond that, he should have to "prepare" the spells he's faking; review them at the start of the day so he knows the components well enough to fool people.
>>46858922
Ugh, that reminds me, for Pathfinder I was once working on a Magician class that was supposed to basically be what you're describing: a spell-less spellcaster, a guy who achieves everything through smoke and mirrors and misdirection instead of actual spells.
I could probably make a 5E Rogue kit out of what I have...or maybe even make a full Magician class if I tried hard enough.
Here's what I had.
If I was really set on being a casting fighter is Eldritch Knight or multi classing a better option?
>>46859216
>the party consists of a group of thief rogues, who share a backstory of all having been members of the same tinkerers guild
>using magic item creation rule from DMG, they create a bunch of mechanical contraptions at an accelerated rate by working together
>BBEG expects to be attacked by a bunch of adventurers, ends up being killed by a bunch of nerds with flamethrowers and a giant mechanical snake
>>46859334
Deception is only if the caster probes him about the spell he was casting (the context it came up with img was trying to get access to a Wizard school)
But yeah, sleight of hand and maybe arcane would be enough if trying to impress yokels and the at-most-level-4 local hedge wizard/witch
>>46859100
you don't need rolls to see what spells is a caster doing, dunno why would you need rolls for a rogue faking shit.
>>46858922
I've been playing this in my current campaign. Alchemy checks, obscuring thrown objects with smoke, using invisible wires , all sorts of shenanigans.
>>46859412
>>46859100
Are you one of those DMs who has the targets of an illusion spell (the people the mage is trying to trick) roll a free investigation check even if they have no reason to be suspicious of the illusion?
>>46859363
Depends on how high you want your spell slots.
Bladelock if you want max level casting and adequate fighting.
Eldritch Knight, Arcane Rogue, or Paladin for semi-adequate casting and great fighting.
>>46859342
Please do! I'd love to see this as a Rogue kit, seems most thematic.
If you don't feel like it, would you mind if I used it for a conversion?
>>46859429
Because it's a situation where it could fail.
Because I actually require arcana rolls to guess a spell you don't have (which includes non-Bards guessing Bard casting, Divines w/ Arcane and vice versa for both).
I like magic to be rare and somewhat mysterious though, enough so that wizards have specific "by college" lists of spells they can take at level ups.
>>46859502
Not at all, though I'll try and put something together now. I don't have much else to do.
Hmm, maybe stick it up on the DM's guild...
As a newbie to dungeons and dragons, and an aspiring player first, and GM second, what advice could be given to me in order to maximize my effectiveness as the monk class?
Is it even worth playing? Or are there better martial classes for me to take?
>>46859489
Depends on how high level the spell is and how convincing the illusion is meant to be. I definitely test passive perception for some details.
>>46859363
Eldritch Knight is beastly at higher levels with some magic items, it's a lot better if you can start out at level 7 and pick up scrolls.
>>46859514
Nah dude, if the rogue is doing this it should be implied he's skilled enough to hide it normally.
Maybe if he rolls a 1 in combat, everyone else gets a Spot Check (opposed by his Sleight of Hand or whatever) to see through his trickery, but otherwise let it slide.
>>46859525
Prioritize Wisdom and Dexterity. Which one you prioritize more depends on your specific kit.
You are not a front-line warrior regardless of your kit. Don't try to be. Your job in combat is to be able to maneuver behind armored folk and punch the archers, mages, or the like. Think like a rogue, not a fighter
Ki is precious, use it sparingly.
Don't take Way of the Four Elements unless you can convince your DM to let you use one of the myriad fixes.
This site will probably be invaluable:
http://www.chinesetolearn.com/20-famous-and-wise-chinese-proverbs-%E8%B0%9A%E8%AF%AD-yanyu-sayings-and-quotes/
Most of all, have fun.
>>46859563
I guess it works if he has expertise.
>>46859525
The delta between good and bad is so low that you'll surely be fine. Which subclass were you looking at?
>>46859545
You're the worst. If the illusion is meant to look real and it's contextually plausible, nobody should be getting free checks to discern if it is an illusion if they don't have any reason to suspect it could be and it is meant to cost a standard action to check.
>>46859525
They're average as far as power level goes but I don't think most games/encounters really care if you're playing an non-optimal build, despite what people say. That being said to get the most out of monk you'll probably have to forgo any Feats and multi classing in favor for increasing you're attributes and getting your class abilities. I think the Sun Soul Monastic Tradition from Sword Coast Adventure Guide is pretty cool fictionally, very DBZ Super Saiyan.
>>46859334
I don't think he meant rolling all three at once, but if you were impersonating a wizard, you would be expected to identify magical items and the like, so arcana would be fairly important.
>>46859342
Oh nice! Thanks man, looking through, there is lots of good ideas.
I think my preference would be a rogue archtype. Instead of a spell list you would have a "trick" list, which would have things like the flour bomb (fireball), a smaller flaming ball (flame bolt, combining alchy fire with wood ball perhaps), smoke bomb (darkness), ect. The material costs and limited list would balance out that there are no verbal components and cannot be dispelled. Ideally, it would somewhat be like a sorcerer of half casters, in effect. No spell slots so you can throw way more of these bombs, but you can't go invisible, ect. However, you are still not using magic, so you get more flexibility out of your "spells" then a normal caster would. "I rig my fireball to explode if someone walks through the door" or "I use glue to stick my fireball with a dwindling fuse on the trolls back" isn't stuff a lot of casters can do after all.
>>46859592
>>46859606
>>46859616
I honestly have no idea which of the subclasses would be the best for it, so I wouldn't be able to give much of an answer. I was just thinking it'd be cool to use stuff like quivering palm and other features on unsuspecting opponents.
>>46859613
>for some details
I don't hand out free checks all the time, I said it depends on how plausible it sounds.
>>46859525
Well, if you want to be a damage dealer, better pick another class, Monks are more skirmisher/small BC type of martials, their damage is meh but they have Stun which is the feature that you're going to use the most with Martial arts.
Avoid wot4e, it's a ki sink and pretty subpar. Open Hand, Shadow monk, Sun Soul and Long Death are fine though, my fav are Shadow and Sun if that helps you.
>>46859334
Because its a weapon.
Unless you hold only the spiked shield in which case its just like using a shield with a shortsword.
>>46859676
>Quivering palm
Don't assume you're going to reach that far, it's pretty much a capstone feature unless you start at high level.
>>46859692
>"[It wouldn't work with dueling] because its a weapon."
I'm sorry but that really didn't answer my question. What properties negate it from functioning with dueling and how are we defining dueling exactly?
>>46859467
Oh man, hidden wires, didn't even thing of that!
>>46859759
*think
>>46859742
You can't have a weapon in the other hand if you want to use dueling style, so, unless you literally one have the shied and nothing else, no, you can't use dueling if you use the shield as a weapon.
Check sage.
>>46858447
if you have a cleric of lvl 5-6+ - nothing. He will just heal them back up/revive them and everything will be fine.
>>46859742
Dueling ONLY works, if you have a weapon in one hand only, no two-handed, no dual-wielding.
>>46859467
I kinda want a Rogue Half-Arcane Caster like that. Maybe called Magician. A few spells, and a ton of tricks.
>>46859742
The Dueling fighting style surely.
>>46859742
I see the mix up.
You meant the Dual Wielding feat.
So it'd be a weapon, another weapon you can TWF with and also +3AC.
>>46859884
No, it means if you're using a spiked shield and a longsword, that longsword doesn't get +2 damage from the dueling fighting style.
>>46859948
No, in his original post he says he'd disallow it partly because of the "duelling feat"
There is no dueling feat, so I assumed he meant the dueling fighting style, which wouldn't work. But based on him assuming it'd be kinda broken and the subsequent posts I realize he probably meant a feat and mixed up "Duel" with "Dual"
If you had the shield and took the Dual Wielding feat you could TWF with a Longsword and the Spiked Shield whilst getting the +2AC from the weapon AND +1AC for holding a weapon in each hand.
updated
>>46860057
Did you make the circle smaller?
>>46859807
>>46859779
Ahh, the fighting style. I was thinking about the Defensive Duelist feat. Thanks, guys.
So, what about the following
Wield spiked shield
>+2 AC
>1d6+mods damage
Take duelist fighting style
>+2 bonus to damage rolls
Take defensive duelist feat
>use reaction to add proficiency bonus to AC
>(basically +3 AC for one attack a round)
So, assuming proficiency with the weapon, assuming it can be considered finesse, and assuming 18 dex,
>damage roll = 1d6 + 4(dex) + 2(style) = 1d6 + 6
Not great, but then consider the following
Assuming half plate, dex of 18
>AC = 15 + 4(dex) + 2(shield) + 3(def.duelist) = 24AC for one attack a turn
>AC = 21 for everything else
What does /tg/ think of this?
>>46860077
Nope. It might look smaller because the image is larger now.
>>46860057
If martials and casters is causing such a huge problem in your games then you need to run better games.That means either get better at running 5e, or stop running 5e and fuck off
>>46860081
>15+4(dex)
Ok, what am I missing here?
>>46860130
I'm actually trying to switch out of 5e, but my players enjoy the casters enough that they want to stay for now.
I'll add >get better at dming to the list of silly arguments though, thanks.
>>46858412
This is how I skeleton
>>46860081
This is just wrong.
For one, you can't assume proficiency and finesse because a) you don't have proficiency and b) It's not a finesse weapon.
Secondly, you can simply wield a Rapier and a regular shield and still make use of Defensive Duelist and the Dueling fighting style whilst having better damage.
Thirdly, Half Plate only allows you to use +2 from your Dexterity modifier unless you have Medium Armour Master, where it's +3.
>>46859525
Monk is hard to get right, how to use your mobility properly, budgeting your ki points and you really have to know what needs controlling. I'd say it's the least newbie friendly class.
You'll play a lot like a rogue, but instead dealing fucktons of damage, you control enemies, mostly by non-magical means. Quite useful for mid to high level groups that fight a lot of planar enemies, where magic resistance is common place.
What's your experience with evil PC's? I'm DMing right now but when my campaign ends one of my players is going to run one and I want to play a lawful evil character but if there's no way to run a proper evil character without being That Guy I don't want to do it.
>>46860081
Me again, another thought:
Take the Dual Wielder feat.
>+1 AC when dual-wielding
Spiked shield in off hand
>+2 AC
Rapier in main hand
Take the Defense fighting style
>+1AC
Assuming half plate, dex of 18
>AC = 15 + 2(dex) + 1(feat) + 2(shield) + 1(style) = 21
>>46860183
>>46860144
Ah, my bad on the half-plate. So the previous post, the AC gets 22 once per turn and 19 for the rest.
>you don't have proficiency
It's a martial weapon at most so if you're proficient in martials, why not. Otherwise, take the weapon master feat.
Why would it certainly not be a finesse weapon? I'm not trying to assert that my previous post is feasible, just curious as to why not.
>>46860329
If everyone is evil, it'll work out.
You could also talk it over with the other players and establish a background and goal as to why he is with them and why they work together.
>>46858412
As a player? I don't. My DM says no intelligent skellies.
>>46860329
Just say the DM controls evil characters, period. Makes morale decisions a lot scarier.
>>46860375
By the way, this can actually be at first level with a dex of 14 for the max +2 and the human variant to get the feat at level 1.
>>46860329
If you're worried about it, it's best not to do it.
>>46858879
>not having dual wielded lances on the official meme list
Given the randomising factor the Tarokka cards add to Curse of Strahd, is there an Easy Mode/Hard Mode combination a party can get?
>>46860432
I must have missed one, please inform me.
>>46860375
Because nowhere is it stated that it's a finesse weapon. And nowhere is it stated that it is a martial weapon.
>>46860456
ctrl+f "lance" in the previous thread
>>46860456
Some autistic munchkin trying to break the game in the last thread
What alignments do mystics tend to favor?
>>46860057
One thing I'd point out is that a Battlemaster archetype has more to say about the actual tactics used in battles, which would take a great deal of creativity. Casters who haven't studied war can't really do that.
>>46860488
>Dual lances
>Breaking anything
Well, I stand corrected, it broke yout butt it seems
>>46860467
Well it has to be either martial or simple; either way, a fighter gets proficiency. And if the DM is a butt about it, like I said, weapon master.
And it isn't statted anywhere except lizardfolk statblock, so the only way to determine if its finesse without asking Mike Mearls is to go based on logic. Logically, would it be a weapon that a highly dextrous character could use effectively? I would say yes.
Starting a game tomorrow as Druid.
I picked Poison Spray and Guidance for my cantrips and Entangle/Healing Word/Ice Knife/Purify Food and Drink for my spells
anything I could do better/anything of that thats completely useless ?
PHB only
>>46860539
Lizardfolk use their Strength to hit with it though.
>>46860525
Just read the last thread
Would you DMs allow the improved familiars Imp and Pseudodragon to give the chainlock magical resistance? I'm chatting with my DM and while forcing disadvantage on magical attacks does seem like a pretty huge boon, I figure we could roll it into the voice of the chain master invocation as like a bonus.
Chainlock isn't even very good otherwise desu imo senpai.
>>46860548
Yeah, I know, but they also have higher strength than they do dex, so it can't be said for certain that it isn't just based on that.
Why isn't there a class or subclass featured western-style unarmed combat? The monk is too eastern to fit in with the other classes, with ki, the evasive defensive hit-and-run combat style, and the weeaboo fightan magic part of it.
A western brawler class would fit much better, and makes more sense. You've got tons of places to take subclasses from, wrestling and grappling, boxing, MMA-type "I'm going to murder you with my bare hands", gladiators, bar or street fighting, etc. Less MAD, since you wouldn't need wisdom, and since a western-style unarmed fighter doesn't have the same trope of "No armor allowed", you could wear armor, negating the requirement to load up on dexterity regardless of build.
And as a plus, it would be more damage-oriented than the monk would, so you could viably be that dragon-punching manly man, beating shit to death with his fists, instead of some weeaboo fightan monk, being in tune with the world, meditating and shit.
Interestingly enough, I don't think there has ever been a Western-style brawler in D&D before, despite it being pretty common western culture.
>>46860552
It doesn't break anything, he needs to be mounted, which doesn't happen frecuently like at all, and if he isn't he can't do that trick. It's literally something meaningless.
There're worst things going on like simulacrum, quickened EB, etc that are totally RAI, RAW and completely aproved by the Devs to complain about somthing as meaningless as dual lances.
>>46860584
>desu imo senpai.
Is this what you actually typed or is it a filter? I'm curious what the filter phrases are.
>>46860544
Purify Food and Drink is kinda pointless. Why not go with thunderwave?
>>46860599
>The monk is too eastern to fit with the other classes
Shit, we have a dev in here, he knows how these settings work so we should totally listen to here.
Look, dude, monks have been in D&D since day 2, they appeared before Rangers, Warlocks and Sorcerers. Almost all settings have Monk Monasteries around the world for centuries, you might not like it but it totally belongs in the game.
>>46860599
Why don't you just play a fighter skilled in unarmed combat?
That idea is completely stupid anyway. Why would you want to fight unarmed when you might as well pick up a sword and a shield for a few gold pieces? The monk has the weeabo fightan magic thing going for them, what does the brawler have?
>>46860613
Filtered, i typed "to be honest, in my opinion, family"
>>46860584
>forcing disadvantage on magical attacks
Even if you allow the warlock to have the imp's resistance, that's not how it works, at all.
As a DM I would allow it to work how it actually works, because warlocks suck and need help.
>>46860599
Be barbarian
Pick tavern brawler
Boom
Done
>>46860652
Viable grappling
>>46860659
desu imo senpai
>>46860599
Be a Fighter or Barbarian and take Tavern Brawler.
/tg/ sings praises for grappling all the time. Hell it works damn well with a Rogue too.
Also, in 4th Edition, Brawling was a Fighter style/build type.
>>46860539
A shield? A finesse weapon? Logically, I would say no. The final word is you're just assuming and making all this up. The spiked shield doesn't exist as a statted weapon (hence why it is not simple or martial, the only way to acquire proficiency is through Weapon Master)
The entirety of any of this working is down to your DM.
>>46860709
What about paladins?
Can you smite on an unarmed strike?
>>46860709
Okay, take the gladiator background for proficiency with the spiked shield, then execute the rest of >>46860375 for 21 AC at level 1 as a fighter. Viable/worth the sacrifices?
>>46860780
>take the gladiator background for proficiency with the spiked shield
what are you smoking?
>>46860584
Yeah, I allow the warlock to get the magic resistance. It's not broken by any means.
>>46860756
Yes. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. It doesn't work with improved divine smite, though, because they are not melee weapons.
>>46860756
I didn't think of that. That'd be pretty sweet. 2d8 radiant fists.
And yeah, you can smite on unarmed strike since it can be used to 'replace' a melee weapon attack.
>>46860827
>It doesn't work with improved divine smite, though, because they are not melee weapons.
God damnit, Wizards.
>>46858412
OP art is suspiciously like the cover sketch for an en world contest entry i sent in "The Bard Litch Legacy" and a friend sketched Skelitor with a foofy hat and purple pantaloons holding a lute
>>46860182
>Bone pile
Add the following to the end of the paragraph: "When you use this feature, it sounds exactly like a xylophone."
Pando is your new BBEG (Big Barked Evil Growth) for your campaign setting.
> How do you appropriately stat the ~80,000 year old forest?
> What are it's goals?
> How do your players fight against it?
>>46861022
Abilities: Autism
Oh wait, that's you.
>>46861022
Its goal is to spread across the entire material plane, creating a massive forest that is only itself.
Foiling it is gonna involve a lot of fire and no Druids.
Just thinking but how would removing one spell slot per spell level affect the martial vs. caster balance?
Also having just one spell slot to use on lvl 7,8 and 9 spells.
>>46861148
It still leaves casters with an axis of interaction that martials won't have. Also, I'd rather buff the martials to the level of casters than nerf the casters.
>>46858922
Why thief?
>>46861360
they get to use objects as a bonus action.
>>46861148
>Also having just one spell slot to use on lvl 7,8 and 9 spells.
.... You mean like now?
Your idea solves nothing and the tier based balance isn't bad enough to justify your concept. I'm wondering if you have even played the game at this point.
I want to be the very best like no one ever was, what should I roll?
If I cast both Phantom Steed and Unseen Servant, can the Unseen Servant ride the Phantom Steed?
>>46861148
If you want a game to be low magic, just ban spells above level 5 and let casters use the slots for higher powered castings or switch to spell points.
Anyone who thinks utility spells, with a few exceptions, aren't mostly shittier than mundane options this edition isn't paying attention or plays a Wizard with a whipped DM.
>>46861375
>Throw a dagger at an enemy
>That's an attack
>Throw grease/a bomb/glass at an enemy
>I'm just using an object!
>>46861410
I mean 1 for all three levels, though now that i think about it casting at higher level would be fucked.
Also balance
1)Go to elemental plane
2)Cast forbidance
3)????
4)Profit....and milions of exp
>>46861083
Projecting
>>46861103
Druids (well, non evil druids) should not support Pando. They would probably strive to keep it alive, healthy, but contained to a set boundary. As an honor to it's Legacy.
>>46861616
If it's not aimed directly I could see a point
The only correct RAW answer, anyway, is use the grenade rules in the DMG.
>>46861103
Even using the retarded ecoterrorist version of druid that 3e onwards uses, druids would support balance of the ecosystem.
>>46861476
High.
>>46861375
>>46861616
With oil, caltrops, and ball bearings, you can use an object to activate them in an area on the ground. I do this with my Mage Hand Legerdemain cunning action
>>46861616
Oddly enough, yes. Acid, Alchemists Fire, Holy Water are all items. They are activated using the Use an Object Action and then you make an attack roll with them. However, without Tavern Brawler you lose proficiency.
The same logic applies to cantrip attacks. An attack roll is made, but you aren't taking the Attack action, you are taking the Cast a Spell action.
I don't see this as particularly broken. They could be using that bonus action to stab with a shortsword, dash, disengage, etc. It seems thematic to me for a Thief to be running around hurling objects which cost them time or gold to get their hands on anyway.
Noob dm here, what's a good way to hide 3 parts of a nature-based macguffin so it's more interesting than just 3 minibosses? We only have two sessions left.
4 lvl 8 PCs
>>46861878
But for AF, HW, Acid, and Oil, the PHB says "Make an attack roll"; wouldn't this constitute them as attacks? And thus not doable with cunning action and this not doable by a familiar?
>>46861945
>"Make an attack roll"
Green flame blade says make an attack roll, does this mean is an Attack and not an Cast Spell action? no
>>46861941
One requires a favor to the person it was entrusted to. Favor actually unlocks access to it because he's not entirely sure how to do it on his own.
The last one requires a pledge to an archfey.
>>46861945
That was most of what my post covered.
>They are activated using the Use an Object Action and then you make an attack roll with them
Yes, they are attacks. But they are not used with the Attack action. Just as spells sometimes have attacks, but they are not done with the Attack action.
>>46861941
One is guarded (combat), one is hidden (investigation) and one is locked away (puzzle).
>>46861360
>>46861375
>>46861616
>>46861655
>not throwing a nade and scattering caltrops on the ground in the same turn
>not lighting a fuse and slipping the bomb in the butt flap of the enemy
>Not throwing a dagger and running into a room, placing a trap
>Not seeing how having another action to operate an object as a gadgeteer wizard impersonator/slieght of hand magician in a single turn is a good thing
Why are you such a raging faggot anon?
>>46862132
>>46862005
Hm. I want to be able to say with certainty that my mage hand and my familiar can both throw oil flasks at a target rather than spreading it on the ground (does 1d4 bludgeoning on a hit as per improvised weapon rules and lasts a minute whereas spreading it on the ground only lasts two turns and stays in the same square whereas throwing at an enemy coats the enemy and it lasts for 10 turns) but I feel like the clause in the mage hand and find familiar spells disallows them to make attack rolls period?
>>46862503
I guess you could fill a sack with 9 flasks of oil and have the mage hand drop it on the enemy for an extra 45 fire damage every time the enemy takes fire damage for the following 10 rounds.
Eh, I was gonna make this my first product on the DM Guild, but it occurred to me that it's probably terrible, and there's already some Magician stuff there anyway so I'd never be able to compete.
So, have fun, /5eg/. This is terrible, but at least it's free.
>>46862503
>>46861878
So can I throw table legs at someone every turn as a bonus action because I'm a thief?
>>46861022
>>46861103
Could do something with a Thornwatch style setting.
>>46862503
The wording is a bit ambiguous on that one, in true Wizards form. I'd lean to the side of it not being able to make attack rolls, but it's unclear.
>>46862651
Do you realize that I'm critiquing the concept as well ( >>46862503 (me))?
Anyway, in that case, its definitely the attack action. An improvised weapon is a weapon. Rolling an attack roll with a weapon definitely implies that the attack action is being taken.
Oil is gear, an object. The way its worded is that the oil is "[treated] as an improvised weapon". Hence, the discussion has merit.
Is it permissible by the RAW for a Beastmaster Ranger to take an appropriately beast-shaped druid as his animal companion? I haven't seen anything that would prohibit this.
>making a mercenary veteran character
>roll this
>spend countless hours making up battles, campaigns, sieges and skirmishes in which my character fought
>>46862778
This should help, Anon. It's one of my finer creations.
>>46862777
By raw, not really.
But "a druid" was literally on the animal companion table for the 2E ranger.
>>46862599
just make it pay what you want on DMGuild you'll get a handful of shekels maybe
>Throwing an oil can deal damage (cause a small clay pot hitting your head hurts a lot), and is treated as an improvised weapon with a weapon attack.
> Spreading Oil around counts as a Use an Item action.
> In either case, the Oil needs to be readily available, or else you need to spend time getting it out of a bag.
>>46862872
Huh, that's interesting. Can you point me to a quote that contradicts it?
>>46862756
>Rolling an attack roll with a weapon definitely implies that the attack action is being taken.
Absolutely not. The rule book is very clear on this.
Otherwise EKs can start slamming people with 9 Green Flame Blades at the start of every fight.
>>46862651
No, because these are improvised weapons that are used with the Attack action.
>>46862889
>It is worth noting that throwing the oil can cause you to miss.
> yfw I bring out the ranged miss dice.
>>46862896
Well, I didn't consider spellcasting.
What I meant was that an improvised weapon being used as a weapon requires the attack action.
>>46862889
Free action to draw it
>>46862929
Ranged miss dice?
>>46862958
Scatter dice from WH or other war games, likely.
>>46862777
>>46862890
Do you become a beast type when you wild shape?
i died last night in my session and had to use a newly rolled character who is the complete opposite of my old one. we are trapped on an island and i want to swim in the lagoon....the dm says its a bad idea and teases the damage a creature in the lagoon can do to me.......next session im going swimming in the lagoon
>>46862958
There is a very clear distinction in PHB about which action constitutes what, and many things in the game are based on specifically taking the Attack action. You get one action on your round. You choose that action, regardless of any other effects thereafter, you are considered to be taking that specific action.
When an object requires an action to use, you use the Use an Object Action. Acid, Alchemists Fire, Holy Water. These are listed as items and require an action to use.
>>46862599
Shit's good, would play.
>>46863061
Not your blog.
>>46862599
Not bad at all! Maybe I'll still take a crack at it someday, but this satisfies my urge for stage magic greatly.
>>46862830
Neat, I'm focusing more on literal battles though.
>>46863073
I'm convinced.
>>46863059
Yes, according to pic related.
>>46863079
>>46863161
i guess i forgot to add my point. im trying to get better into the whole do what your character would do instead of what the player would do. so still swimming even with knowledge from the dm saying it is a bad idea is the right thing to do yes?
>>46863291
Ah, well now you have a point. If the DM is hinting at you to not do it, just chalk it up to your character's instinct telling you not to swim in the water. Unless you have a fetish for rolling new characters, that is.
I'm a huge weeaboo faggot what's the best class to play if I want to be a magical girl?
>>46863463
warlock
>>46863436
alright, thanks for putting it that way. im having issues with where i should draw the line from character and player knowledge and where im allowed to put DM info. this campaign is my intro to DnD to im still sort of learning the ropes when that kind of stuff comes into play.
Grappling strength rogue. What archetype do I choose? Arcane Trickster is my favorite because it does almost everything the thief can do better. But going strength, a lot of the skills and features are wasted (many are dex based).
Recommendations?
For a ranger/rogue mutli-class, what would be good archetypes? I was thinking maybe swashbuckler/deepstalker but I'm not sure..
>Be thief rogue
>Use object bonus action
>GM "What do you want to use?"
>Me "This rope to tie the enemy"
>GM "...B-but he's conscious"
>Me "And?"
It's easier to hit opponents when they're tied
>>46863544
Assassin. Aggressive poison use.
>Thieves can now throw fire and shit as a bonus action
So why do I play other archetypes?
>>46863599
I'm thinking of putting Con and Str as high as possible so I can maintain grapples and not get my ass handed to me while grappling. Should I actually just pump Str and Dex and make con just an ok stat so that I can make use of sleight of hand and whatnot?
In theory I won't be used ranged weapons, so I don't need dex for that, I don't plan on stealthing, so I don't need dex there, but I guess pick pocketing would be nice. Should I even bother with strength since I'll be taking expertise in athletics? Jeeze, I need help with this build.
>>46863618
You can do it with Arcane Trickster too using Mage Hand Legerdemain.
>>46863618
Paying 50gp to hurl 2d6 acid damage. Or 1d4 ongoing fire.
No sneak attack.
No modifiers.
Or you could be an Assassin, walk up and auto-crit with a Rapier.
Or you could be an Arcane Trickster and cast Fireball.
>>46863742
You are also not proficient in this attack without Tavern Brawler.
>>46863618
AT has real spells, Assassin has a ridiculous alpha strike and poison proficiency as a class bonus, Swashbuckler has Panache and easy to trigger sneak attacks.
Magician is cool but it feels like AT for a no-magic campaign.
"In addition, you can use Sneak Attack with any
melee attack made against a target that has none
of your allies adjacent to it."
-Swashbuckler
This is a little OP, no? Basically "you get sneak attack for free" you don't need to implement any strategy or anything.
>>46864075
Worst case scenario, you can hide-snipe people with a crossbow with every archetype anyway (and until the blade-spells, you really had no reason not to, aside from maybe saving bolts).
Your damage also still won't be that great without haste or BM commanding you.
>>46864075
I'd very strictly limit it to melee and maybe hand crossbow/pistol.
>>46864122
>Your damage also still won't be that great without haste or BM commanding you.
I...feel I'm missing something here.
Insofar as damage against a single target goes, how is (say, for an 8th level swashbuckler) 1d8 (rapier) + 4d6 (sneak attack) + 5 (DEX) not "that great"?
That's an average of 23, if I'm not much mistaken. At will, provided that your opponent simply doesn't have allies adjacent to him.
What other class can do an average of 23 damage every weapon attack?
>>46864236
No, it works whether or not allies are adjacent.
>>46864260
Sorry, mea culpa. Provided that your opponent doesn't have YOUR allies adjacent to them.
The damage potential seems absurd in duel-like situations or if everyone else in your party is using ranged attacks, is my point.
>warlock 3 (pact of the chain [imp])
>rogue 17 (arcane trickster)
This seems like it would be a blast to play, with your invisible familiar helping you steal, and your mage hand helping you steal too.
Do you think that warlock 3 is worth giving up a 4th level spell?
What patron would you choose? Both FIend and Fey have things that appeal to me as first level features.
>>46862599
This seems pretty damn good. My only concerns being:
>Presto should perhaps state plainly that it allows you to Use an Item, make a single weapon attack, or use a magic item's function that normally takes an action
>Consider nerfing Presto by allowing it only to happen when hit by an attack, or giving it a limited number of uses per short rest. As is, if someone misses their attack, it's basically a free hit back with your reaction, which is pretty strong.
>Improvised Weapon Mastery seems quite strong, consider limiting it from 'all weapons' to 'improvised weapons'. Also consider allowing improvised weapon attacks to proc Sneak Attack.
>Legerdemain seems quite strong, even with its 1/rest limitation.
>Look Deep Into My Eyes doesn't specify time to use, so I'll assume an action. The Charm isn't a problem, but stunning creatures for up to a minute for free constantly is really strong. Consider adding the caveat that to keep creatures stunned, you need to continue hypnotizing them.
>Now You See Me, Now You Don't should be clarified to make it a little better, right now all of the examples it gives already let you sneak
>In Parlor Tricks and Smoke, you reference Ghost Sound and Obscuring Mist, which...don't exist?
9/10 homebrew though. Good shot.
>>46864236
At 8th level, a fighter will be doing 2d12+1d4+15(STR) damage (using the primitive calculations not dealing with hit chance). And it's actually fully at will.
Warlock would be doing 2d10+2d6+10 with Hex on (and he WILL have hex on if he's doing eldritch blast).
3 levels later their average damage also improves by a lot, while yours only gets 2d6.
I could go on, but rogue is basically just an average damage dealer without support. Normal rogue not abusing hide-sniping needs some support to even function.
>>46864309
It sneak attacks regardless to whether or not anybody is beside the target. Typically you need to have an ally adjacent to the target in order to get sneak attack without having advantage but this archetype extends on that to say you don't NEED to have an ally adjacent .
>>46860599
Look up Pugilist
If I take Tavern Brawler as a rogue, can I use an improvised weapon that is finesse so I can sneak attack?
>>46864180
>any melee attack
>>46862830
Ah man, I remember seeing this thing in an imcomplete form a while back. So glad to see this done, easily one of the best homebrew ideas I've seen. Seriously awesome work dude.
>>46862599
Great ideas here.
What I would change:
>hypnotism needs to be limited to once per day. Right now you can use it all you want.
>lots of "at will" actions. this really isn't a thing. Change them to bonus actions to keep the rogue from clogging up turns.
>for some, you need to just clean up the language: For example, parlour tricks should be something like: You learn the X, Y, and Z cantrips. When you use them, they do not count as magic, and you can use them without using any magical components (such as somatic, verbal, or material components). You can use them even if something is preventing you from using magic normally.
>>46864525
Yes.
Jailyard shiv time
Is the Luck feat worth it?
>>46864892
yes, just use it wisely. don't blow luck on your first roll against an opponent, don't blow your luck on stupid shit period. It's mad powerful.
I also don't like it when people don't RP it into their character like they're a fucking walking shamrock, but that's just me.
>>46864398
>In Parlor Tricks and Smoke, you reference Ghost Sound and Obscuring Mist, which...don't exist?
Bwuh? I could have sworn obscuring mist existed...oh, it's fog cloud. Mea culpa.
Changed Parlor Tricks to instead be Prestidigitation and Thaumaturgy.
>Now You See Me, Now You Don't should be clarified to make it a little better, right now all of the examples it gives already let you sneak
The idea is that even if you're standing in the middle of a plain, well-lit, featureless room, by throwing your cape over yourself you can use the Hide action and apparently disappear from sight.
Meh, I'll just make it turn you invisible as per the spell. Probably simpler.
Anyway, update w/corrections.
>>46860449
>Ah, the worst truth of all; you may face the evil of this land alone!
>>46864892
It's insane.
You can use it to turn disadvantage in your favour.
>>46864892
Yes. I may be memeing here, but it's confirmed to turn disadvantage into super advantage. It's pretty good.
>>46864626
>hypnotism needs to be limited to once per day. Right now you can use it all you want.
>lots of "at will" actions. this really isn't a thing. Change them to bonus actions to keep the rogue from clogging up turns.
>for some, you need to just clean up the language: For example, parlour tricks should be something like: You learn the X, Y, and Z cantrips. When you use them, they do not count as magic, and you can use them without using any magical components (such as somatic, verbal, or material components). You can use them even if something is preventing you from using magic normally.
Crap. Editing. Hopefully this is the final edit.
>>46865007
>that .pdf
>>46865007
>that PDF
...what
>>46865063
>Hopefully this is the final edit.
It never is, anon.
>>46865067
>>46865068
What was it?
>>46865007
>file deleted
>>46865007
>U.S Bankruptcy Court
>>46865111
when I clicked on it I got yotsuba 404, so I guess it was already deleted while the post was still up
>>46865007
>>46864236
While rogues do a lot of damage per attack, they only get that one attack per turn. The cost/benefit of only doing one attack roll roughly even out in my opinion, so damage per turn is a more relevant measure of damage potential. And rogues are relatively weak in terms of damage per turn.
For example, an 8th level Hunter Ranger will deal 3d6 (dual shortswords w/ extra attack) + 1d8 (colossus slayer) + 15 (dexterity) every turn, which averages out to 30 damage per turn.
>>46864236
>What other class can do an average of 23 damage every weapon attack?
Paladins
Barbarians
Fighters
Rangers
>>46864180
it already specifies melee attack. Though HXbow and Pistol are thematic, they weren't included in the quote
Human Rogue Assassin
>Grappler feat at 1st level
>Tavern Brawler feat at 4th level
>take expertise in Athletics
On surprise rounds
>run in with improvised dagger
>poisoned shank bad guy, autocrit sneak attack
>grapple check (expertise in athletics, so pretty good chance to succeed)
>while grappling, every attack gets sneak attack
>he has to waste his actions to make opposed check to get out
>party keeps the heat off of me until I finish with that guy
Now, is the autocrit surprise round and poison proficiency worth it or should I go arcane trickster for Mage Hand Legerdemain cunning actions to toss oil on the grappled target and then start using GFB?
>>46865063
Haven't looked at earlier versions, but the Presto feature could use some more precise phrasing. For example, you might want to specify that you can only make a single weapon attack using it, rather than saying you can make an attack action with it. Otherwise you'll get multiclassers trying to claim that it'll trigger extra attacks.
if i'm a warlock X/sorcerer 2, can I exchange sorcery points for pact magic slots?
>>46865385
no.
Is something wrong with the mega, or is it just my internet? It's been sitting on "decrypting folder data" for 25 minutes now, and I don't have any scripts blocked on the page.
>Planning to go Divination
Do I go Lucky too?
>>46865469
Halfling Divination wizard with Lucky.
Because fuck dice.
>>46865222
Not that anon, but the question was per weapon attack. An 8th level Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin or Ranger will not average 23 damage with every individual attack. They'll frequently reach or exceed this through the expenditure of limited resources (eg Smite) or multiple attacks, but not unlimited-use single-strike.
Of course, it's largely irrelevant to limit the comparison to a single attack when each of your counterexamples has access to multiple attacks per turn on an unlimited basis. And it's a silly argument in the first place. If somebody wants to play a rogue, that's what he should play. If somebody wants to optimize for damage, he should punch himself in the gut because fuck that bullshit.
>>46865315
Also thinking of taking Savage Attacker at level 8.
>>46864180
>I'd very strictly limit it by allowing it to apply to everything it already applies to and more
>>46860081
Stop being a fucking faggot
>>46865282
Then idg the issue. It's already trivial as fuck to get sneak attacks every round with an archer rogue. There's a reason Wood Elf bow rogue was the playtest meta as far as combat powerbuilds go.
>>46860449
Easy mode they get an archmage hard mode they get no one or a 1hp loli
>tfw one of your players immediately jumps on Battlemaster
YES
>>46860780
Gladiator background doesn't give a weapon prof
Holy shit please stop you are a retard
>>46865518
Savage Attacker is useless.
>>46864315
Anyone? Does this seem like a viable build?How about if I don't take eldritch blast?
I need a character to play for a one shot tonight. Homebrew,/official/something with rules works. Stat array is as follows : 18, 13, 13, 10, 8, 5
Any ideas?
>>46865711
what level
>>46865696
I would imagine it would be very useful for sneak attack damage.
>>46865711
What level?
Assuming 1. Then it doesn't really matter. I guess UA shadow sorc for that one level one immune to death feature.
>>46861625
Forbiddance is the size of a warehouse, they would take the damage once or kill you during the 10 minute casting.
>>46865752
You would imagine incorrectly. Savage Attacker works only with the weapon's damage dice, no other outside source. Rerolling your dagger's piddly 1d4 once a turn is useless. Even in an ideal situation with a 1d12 weapon Savage Attacker is still lame.
>>46865736
ahh shit forgot to post that. 5th level
>>46865804
meme it up with the bladelock w/ thirsting blade
>>46865711
5th level for this character
>>46865801
Ah. That is shit.
>>46865804
Ranger 1/Monk 1/Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Druid 1 with DID.
>>46865848
It was shit in the playtests and is still the same shit now, I dunno how they kept it
>>46865063
I love this class, everything except one thing.
The little powergamer inside me wants a damaging trick, like flicking balls of fire alá firebolt or something.
Is this not what the class os about? Am I too focused on the wrong aspect?
Help me here, I just don't want to be irrelevant in combat.
>>46860599
This is your weekly reminder that Tavern Brawler is fucking amazing and both Barbarians and Battlemasters will clean fucking house with them.
