![xNbRnaJ[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qCUUQB1.jpg "xNbRnaJ[1].jpg")
"hopefully soon" 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
Previously on Memes General: >>46858412
What sorts of splats do you want to see, if any?
More class options in general, so a series of Complete ________ splats would rule
Ranger with half-progression sneak attack dice and cunning action
Can a thief use cunning action to throw salt on an opponents wounds/eyes?
>>46870206
Ranger needs their favored enemy boosted. hat alone would make them relevant again.
As it stands right now you're basically a fanboy of whoever you hate. Spouting off inane knowledge and speaking in their language like some fucking otaku talking about weeb shit.
>>46870226
Yes, as can an arcane trickster's magehand.
>>46870206
> still this
Just play a Rogue.
>>46870226
How's about you read what it does and decide based on that.
>>46870290
>>46870315
Could it throw a bag of rats at an opponent?
How about a bag of daggers?
>>46870226
>>46870290
By which, of course, he means no. Don't be a dickhead
>>46870324
Mage Hand: if the bag of rats/daggers weighed less than 10 pounds, sure.
Thief: yes.
Barely 9 posts in and we're knee deep in faggotry.
I genuinely don't understand you people.
>tfw you'd actually pay for a full classics sourcebook of the old kits that core doesn't really cover too well
Literally that and the Ravenloft CS are the only supplements that really interest me.
>>46870324
The bag of daggers spills at your opponent's feet.
Your opponent picks up the daggers and prepares a perfect throw, smirks, and says "nothing personnel, kid"
>>46870606
Does he juggle them first? If he's juggling them, he doesn't limit his actions by drawing them individually.
Planescape/Spelljammer
I guess I generally allow the thief/arcane trickster to supplement their attacks with pseudoattack bonus actions. They deal 1d4 damage, if they don't have an effect (like alchemist's fire). Is that unbalanced? It doesn't seem too crazy to me.
>>46870264
Frankly, Foe Slayer should've just been a part of Favored Enemy. Why it's 20th fucking level is beyond me.
Not sure what you'd replace it with though. Maybe some buff to spellcasting or something.
>Sign up for a CoS game
>Finally get to play my favourite, fun class in a long while
>We trudge through what I believe is the Death House - as I've been trying to avoid spoilers
>4 sessions in we've beaten the shambling mound
>See no game scheduled for our usual weekly slot
>Ask if we're playing like 2h before the game just to feel safe
>GM cancels on my prompt and short notice because of RL, which is fair enoughActually feel relieved because I am not enjoying rolling dice against stat blocks, pretending I am a singular fantasy character surrounded by other cliche fantasy characters and waiting for my turn to pop up/trudging through the boring dungeon doing boring dungeon things
H-help me /tg/. I don't know what's wrong with me. I thought I want this. I thought I enjoy this.
>>46870074
Naval combat rules.made some, but they're really only workable for my campaign.
Magitek bullshit.
New archetypes, maybe; new classes only if concept is completely unworkable otherwise.
> Psionics should be a sorcerer archetype
>>46870737
For the thief t would even be okay to allow them to use alchemist fire. For the trickster it's weird that you let them since that isn't a sleight of hand check. Other than that it's basically letting them have an off hand dagger.
>>46870737
Nah, rogues per turn damage isn't all that great in the first place. Adding an extra 2.5 damage is hardly going to tip the scales.
>>46870786
Sounds like free-form is your game son.
There's no shame in it. Go, blossom in your own special way.
>>46870206
>>46870737
Doing something with the intent of harm is an attack. So throwing a bag of X across a room to flip a switch? Fine. Throwing a bag of X to incapacitate or wound an opponent? No. Otherwise why shouldn't I be able to use Fast Hands to "use" my rapier to stab as a bonus action every round? It's just using an object, right?
>>46870866
Nice table shading.
>>46870823
I mean yeah, there might be an skill check or ability roll involved to see if they hit.
I guess I just don't see the appeal of this meme. It isn't like pic related.
>>46870786
You may want to try different games. DnD combat can be kind of a slog if your DM is still getting used to thinking on their feet. There are other games that are more supportive of new DMs, like FFG's star wars games.
>>46870908
>using fast hands to use an object "rapier"
Sure, but you deal 1d4 damage.
>>46870786
>tfw I run a 5e campaign for 5 of my best friends in a homebrewed setting and highly personalized stories for each of the players
>tfw I would never remotely consider playing D&D online or with randos at a hobby shop
It's not he hobby, it's the way you're playing.
Give me a new Monster Manual. The current one works fine, but now we have a good time to understand the balance.
That, and we get the minutae contained within the dnd bestiaryInevitables
>>46870264
Why does this bitch have four ears?
>>46871018
>>46870908
>thief spreads caltrops in a fight
>counts as an attack because he has intent to hurt people
>>46870908
Well, since 'object' has an in game definition, no. You are using a weapon.
>>46870952
Making a sleight of hand check still doesn't allow them to use an object at a distance like that. Or to use an oject at all for that matter.
>>46871098
>Making a sleight of hand check still doesn't allow them to use an object at a distance like that. Or to use an oject at all for that matter.
No it doesn't. That's their class feature (use object on a bonus action or use magic hand to use object on a bonus action). The sleight of hand check, or possibly spell attack vs ac depending on the situation is just what I require to see if they're successful.
>>46870986
>>46870850
>>46870952
Maybe I am the problem. I've been GMing for so long that being restrained to acting as one guy - in a game where people actually find fighting random encounters and generic ghouls fun - is just not doing it for me.
I'm even playing a wizard and trying to creatively use stuff like ghost sound, grease. Others appreciate it. I seem not to.
I'd definitely love playing with tightly knit group of friends. But all my RL friends are:
>Lawyer normals
>Live in Fuckinghamshire, 2h and 20 pounds commute away
>Already tried P&P and either don't find it fun or can't take it seriously
>Combination of the above
>>46871098
Page reference for the definition of object, please. 5e isn't 4e, folks. They use real words to be interpreted by real people, not keywords to be mechanically processed by a DMbot. Excercise some judgement.
>>46871154
That's certainly possible. Talk to your group about their expectations and wants for the game.
Do all Monks have to have come from a Monastery? I'm trying to tie being a Monk into sticking around my family in Yartar.
Would receiving training from one Elder/Sensei/Teacher be sufficient?Fluff is important to me fuck you.
>>46871142
No it doesn't. It allows them to pick a pocket. reverse pick pockets, and pick locks. Nothing else. Otherwise the thief's ability would be basically nothing.
>>46870908
>Doing something with the intent of harm is an attack
An attack is anything involving an attack roll and anything else that is specifically called an attack.
>>46871220
It also lets you control the mage hand as a bonus action. Go read what mage hand can do.
>>46871158
Check the description of the use object action. It's for objects that specifically require an action to use. To use a rapier, you take the attack action.
Otherwise retards like you would be like, 'wel it says i cin in-tur-act wif one object per tern. attacking is in-tor-ictin wif a wipon rot?'
>>46871220
>A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range. The hand lasts for the duration or until you dismiss it as an action. The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again. You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked foor or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it. The hand can’t attack, activate magical items, or carry more than 10 pounds.
The hand can manipulate or stow objects.
The mage hand ledgerdomain feature lets you do all this as a bonus action, while the hand is invisible.
The thief's class feature is nothing compared to magical ledgerdomain.
>>46871210
Oh sure.
You were trained in your art by an elderly master in your small little farming village, who swore never to use his hands to harm ever again after killing a man accidentally. He brought with him his finest keepsake; a locket filled with medicinal herbs that can heal wounds, which he gives to you after you finish your training.And then some asshole steals the head of your Buddha statue.
>>46871282
>>46871290
O always thought you could use it for the 3 things it lists in the tricksters entry. Otherwise the thief is an almost useless sub-class.
>>46871154
>Fuckinghamshire
Why would you ever leave?
>>46871344
>useless sub-class
Welcome to WotC "class balance".
>>46871239
Called an attack by whom? If I say my Fighter stabs the orc in the face, is it not an attack roll if my DM calls for a Strength check? Or did it become an attack when the DM understood me to mean I was attacking the orc by way of stabbing? Getting pedantic about crystal clear hard definitions just leads to shorty rules lawyer garbage. You know damn well if you were attacking or not, and so does everybody else at the table.
>>46871344
>thief
>useless
Supreme Sneak, Use Magic Device, and Thief's Reflexes are all fantastic.
>>46871210
No, they don't. I was working on a homebrew a while back that addressed this, but it's pretty possible for monastic type traditions to arise from peasants who develop ki usage as a way to cope with day to day tasks.
>>46871210
Do it Drunken Master style.
>>46871423
> Homebrew archetype for what should be, at most, a Background Feature
Anon.
>>46871413
Use magic device and thief's reflexes are useful, but they are both high level abilities. Plus you aren't going to get enough magic items in 5e to make real use of use magic device unless your DM is a retard.
Supreme sneak is useless garbage. I don't want a 10th level ability to give me something that I can attain with low level spells or magic items without having to crawl on my belly through the dirt.
>>46871445
>all monastic traditions should just be background features
Anon...
>>46871210
Do you even36th Chamber?
>>46871445
>aarrgghhh someone came up with a very very slightly novel trace of backstory, how painful
>>46871458
>I don't want a 10th level ability to give me something that I can attain with low level spells or magic items without having to crawl on my belly through the dirt.
Invisibility requires Concentration, which is a serious fucking problem. I think 3e has ruined people's brains to the point that they can't wrap their tiny brains around how much of a problem Concentration is.
>>46870786
We have a pretty good GM for our hobby shop game, and I brought my A Game for roleplaying and it seemed to bring everyone else up to the challenge.
Now we have a ridiculous party dynamic and hilarity ensues as we clash with Strahd's minions and the bullshit of the lands locked in mist.
You know that town, Vallaki.
Fuck that town. Before we leave we are probably burning it down.
>>46871458
>advantage on sneak is useless
>on a rogue
>>46871533
Wizard is my favorite 5e class. I understand concentration. It's only a problem if you are mentally challenged. Plus a cloak of elven kind does the same thing.
Also invisibility doesn't give you advantage on stealth checks. But it's play that you didn't know that, being mentally challenged and all.
>>46870952
Are people STILL bitching about things that've been true forever (except in 4e, where the caster/noncaster line is... ambiguous)?
Especially when probably the most powerful class is the rogue, who is great in and out of fights?
>>46871533
Concentration isn't a problem. It's a solution.
>>46871563
>advantage on sneak is useless on a class that rolls minimum 18 on every sneak check by level 11.
Yes, actually it is. Mathematically the advantage is worth maybe +1.
>>46871563
You can get advantage on stealth checks many different ways, and the ability makes you move at half speed, thus forcing you to make twice as many stealth checks before reaching a destination.
>>46871604
>Plus a cloak of elven kind does the same thing.
Any argument based off "hope the DM spontaneously decides to rain manna down from heaven upon thee" is pointless. In the off chance you do find your nice specific magic item, then its not remotely a negative to have two people in the party who can sneak (since showing up alone to a fight meant for a whole party is suicide), and you can always use your cloak for something else.
>>46871511
>backstory
...Hence, background feature.
>>46871612
Yes, but concentration is absolutely a problem for the guy having to ... concentrate, since it renders flying, invisible, mind controlling wizards to one of the above, or none of the above if anyone decides to attack them.
>>46871614
What are you talking about? You do know that you can roll higher than 10 after you get Reliable Talent, right?
>>46871635
You only make one stealth check, the total of which is used for all perception checks to see you.
Reposting from the old thread as I failed my perception check to notice it was autosaging...
So I'm gonna be running the Death House adventure to see if we enjoy it enough to be worth playing the full Strahd module.
What is the effect of the mist? It doesn't say in the pdf.
Also, anything I should prepare for? I've warned people it looks pretty deadly to put them on edge for the horror atmosphere, whether it is, we shall see.
Do you think the struts in theunderground dungeonshould prevent diagonal movement? Looks like that's the idea.
>>46871732
>make one stealth check
>forever invisible
>move around free from danger for all eternity
That makes perfect sense.
>>46871749
>I failed my perception check to notice it was autosaging
>>46871732
>You only make one stealth check, the total of which is used for all perception checks to see you.
Yup, one stealth check lasts until you stop hiding or are discovered
>>46871782
Eventually, the rogue will either have to do something that breaks stealth, or he will be irrelevant and isolated from his party forever. Either way works.
>>46871732
>What are you talking about? You do know that you can roll higher than 10 after you get Reliable Talent, right?
Yes. But reliable talent makes advantage less useful. Mathematically, advantage is more useful the less of a bonus you have to hit or succeed. I.E., the more variance there is, the more useful advantage is. Reliable talent significantly reduces variance, and therefore significantly reduces the effective bonus advantage gives you.
>>46871749
It just redirects you back to where you started and gives you a level of exhaustion.
>>46871782
PHB 177 in the Hiding section:
"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."
>Until you are discovered or stop hiding
>>46870998
A MM2 also means more variety and maybe more setting specific monsters.
>>46871854
Yeah, the effect is lessened, but it's still there. That hardly makes it "useless garbage".
>>46872038
No, that's the half move speed.
>>46871688
Boo fucking hoo.
>>46872116
Supreme Sneak
Starting at 9th level, you have advantage on a Dexterity (Stealth) check if you move no more than half your speed on the same turn.
Hiding
When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You only need to move at half speed one turn for each time you use the ability, not the whole time you're sneaking.
>>46871458
Going back a bit, speaking as someone who is actually playing a Thief right now (currently 8th level), Second-Story Work has actually been incredibly useful. While the +5 ft. to jump distance isn't all that much, the ability to Climb at full speed is amazing when combined with the Rogue's general ability to Dash as a bonus action.
If you're a thief, and you can't make good use of what amounts to a 90 ft. climb speed, you're doing something wrong.
>>46871343
>>46871423
>>46871440
>>46871491
Cool, thanks anons.
>>46872264
Not who you're arguing with but I have a question.
What if the rogue (not even necessarily thief) uses his action to hide and decides that his hide attempt was not good enough? Can he use his cunning action to try again? How about on his next turn? Would that be metagaming?
>>46872321
>Can he use his cunning action to try again?
Yes.
>Would that be metagaming?
Not at all.
>>46872282
>what are Slippers of Spiderclimb
>can climb and can run across the ceiling at full speed
Although with Second-Story Work, you do get the climb speed without having to sacrifice a boots/attunement slot.
>>46872116
If you're a ranged rogue then that's hardly a problem. You're probably hunkered down in a shady area 50+ feet away, waiting to get your next shot off while the rest of the party is keeping the enemy busy.
Outside of combat, it basically means you get advantage on sneak all the time.
>>46872360
>what are Slippers of Spiderclimb
A magic item that not everyone is going to have access to, and a thief is good enough at climbing that there's no real drawback to giving the slippers to another party member.
>>46872247
Guess you misunderstood my post.
>>46872360
Get the fucking magic mart out of your head. It's not a thing in baseline 5e.
>>46872360
You must be great to play with that "pray for DM welfare" is your answer to every tactical consideration.
>>46872595
>wizard decked from head to toe in magic items
>just mug him and sell his shit to get rich, no more need to adventure
>>46872620
>be golem
>sell body to magic mart to become rich
>level 1 head with level 20 bling
>>46871282
>>46871290
Manipulating an object is not the same as taking the 'Use Object' action.
>playan new session
> got 3 magic items at level 1 already, (though they're all just small utility items that have no effect on combat)
How fucked are things going to get for a DM that gives magic items out the ass in 5e?
>barbarian
>take magic initiate for create bonfire
>grapple opponent (reckless doesn't work for this because it only applies to melee weapon attacks)
>shove him prone
Next turn, cast create bonfire in the square he's in
following turns just beat him senseless
After how good and well-designed the 4e fighter was, 5e going back to old boring fighter mechanics to satisfy grognards was just baffling.
>>46872771
Everything we described is possible with the base functions of magic hand. It's the mage hand ledgerdomain that lets you do it as a bonus action.
>>46872832
Not very. The official modules, for example, are 10x as generous as the DMG guidelines, and a DM who hand picks loot under DMG guidelines is 10x as generous as one who random rolls it.
>>46872897
5e casters are pretty helpless compared to 4e incarnations as well, though.
>>46872898
The conversation started with alchemist fire. That's an object that requires the use object action.
>>46872882
There's a thief bard in a game I'm in now that just sets people on fire left and right with oil/alchemists fire.
>>46872929
5e casters are nerfed (but still powerful) versions of their 3e incarnation. But they're still vaguely interesting to play.
Playing a fighter, rogue or barbarian in 5e just boils down to "I hit it and maybe add a single extra effect". No interesting mechanics, no engagement.
>>46872897
And a year and a half later, the answer is still "homebrew a fix or stop complaining because that won't change shit."
>>46872966
That's for using it with a throw. Not carrying an opened bottle and pouring it with mage hand.
>>46872832
5e is flexible enough that it can deal with a good amount of magic items. It just gives you more ways to approach given situations, more shit to do, and more power in combat, which can change the game tone to better suit the campaign.
>>46873010
>cunning actions
>totems
>superiority die
And no, the casters aren't just nerfed 3e casters. They're a ton weaker than 4e casters too.
How do you feel about race bloat?
>>46873309
I limit races based on setting and preferences. 8 core races (plus DMG shit) is maybe a bit much, but like, some 2-3E books had the same depending on the setting.
Darksun, Planescape and Spelljammer had huge race bloat.
>>46873309
More published races mean there's more stuff that DMs can allow or disallow to fit their game's setting.
>>46873010
>DPR god
>thieves
>meatshields
>No interesting mechanics, no engagement.
>>46873010
I'd certainly agree they're interesting to play, just they're the most helpless, defenseless incarnation of casters ever.
>>46873345
Darksun's races are hardly bloat. Thri kreen predate DS, while half giants and muls don't particularly have to be setting specific.
>>46870606
>>46870074
>What sorts of splats do you want to see, if any?
Weaboo Fightan' Magic II
>>46873123
No it's not. Both throwing and splashing it are using the object. Alchemist fire has to be thrown, but mage hand also can't be used for acid or holy water. Pouring them out is fine, but you can't accurately poor it on someone with mage hand. If you were trying to do that it would be considered splashing them.
Reading through CoS, I keep seeing children referred to as "noncombatants". Does this mean that they die after one attack, cannot be targeted, can not be affected, or will simply flee from combat if given the chance?
>grapple a target
>their move speed drops to 0
>ray of frost the target
>their move speed drops to -10
??????
>>46873850
Yeah it means that they run away and if the players want to kill them after combat, they just succeed.
>>46873855
They stand even more still, what do you want?
>>46873187
Honestly, crits are more fun than superiority dice in a gambling kinda way. Once you do the math, you'll see that Precision Striking -5/10s is only way to go for killing power. All other maneuvers are just utility and situational, no one in the party will really want you to waste your dice on that stuff either.
They want fighters for front line killing power, you'll be the one with the fanciest weapons and buffs after all.
>>46873855
Movement speed can't be less than 0.
>>46873809
The PHB explictly describes only throwing the alchemist fire bottle, not splashing it. Regardless, it's absurd to think letting go of something (i.e. dropping it) would take an action. It makes more sense with other rules, and it does so little damage overall that there are no balance concerns.
>>46873964
It takes an action when a flying kobold drops a rock. The hardest part of an attack isn't the force behind it, it's aiming. You can't aim with mage hand.
>>46873964
Its definitely an attack. I would allow it if you were trying to drop flasks on large, hard, flat enemies, like a gargantuan Floor Beast.
>>46873855
You ask the DM which way they were going to move, and then they move 10 ft in the opposite direction.
>>46873998
The neat thing about dropping a flask of the stuff above people is that it's impossible to miss: that stuff is going to coat everything in the square with it, regardless of whether it hits the ground, or the target. As opposed to a rock that has to actually hit the thing.
>>46872897
I miss the Slayer Stances too.
>>46874115
>The neat thing about dropping a flask of the stuff above people is that it's impossible to miss:
Its very easy to miss when dropping jars filled with goo in people's general direction. Aiming where you're dropping it would certainly be an attack.
>>46873889
What about during combat? Do they have an initiative score? Or proficiency in Stealth? Can they try to survive at all?
>>46874184
Do you really need detailed rules for killing children?
>>46874209
I asked my players that exact same thing!
>>46874183
nah, throwing is an attack roll, that I agree with, because that's hard to judge. But it's definitely not hard to judge when your mage hand is in the area generally above a guy.
>>46874183
What you're describing (dropping something on top of a general area that someone is in) is something so trivially easy that any DM would be well within their rights to not even require a roll. The damage is so mild that there's no problem with this.
>>46874284
If you're going to make it not an attack action to drop shit on people used as an attack, then sooner or later that player is probably going to try to drop more than one thing at a time.
>>46874209
Do we really need rules for killing dragons?
>>46870074
I'm curious as to why we haven't seen many splats. Was a reason ever given?
>>46874399
Luckily there's a weight limit for the magic hand, and only one bonus action anon.
>>46874117
Much as I like Fighters in 5, Champion was a terrible idea, it should have drawn more from Slayer from 4. Then they went and made Monster Hunter in the last UA.
Just, come on WotC.
Grappler feat is broken
>"You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling"
>"You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check.
>"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."
So, the second grapple check to turn the grapple into a pin is at advantage.
>>46874504
What's wrong with Champion?
>>46874445
Yes. Because splat creep in 2e, 3e, and 4e would result in the game becoming nearly completely unrecognizable from group to group.
>>46874539
The Strength (Athletics) check for a grapple is an ability check, not an attack roll. Ability checks and attack rolls never overlap.
>>46874399
If they're just dropping something in a 5 foot space without aiming it, it would be trivially easy for the target to just step aside.
Ah, but what if the Rogue is sneaking?
That's what advantage is for.
>>46874539
First, the ability to restrain the enemy is fucking useless since you're restraining yourself.
Second, you don't make an attack roll when attempting to grapple something, you make a contested skill check.
That is literally one of the most brokenly useless feats. How could you possibly think otherwiseMeanwhile, the level 3 Cleric casts Hold Person
>>46874539
No it's not. Grappling is an ability check. This is why people dip Rogue or Bard for their grapplers.
People really need to learn the difference between the Attack action and an attack roll.
>>46874540
Too simple.
I'd be tempted to tell a player who wanted to play Champion to check one of the kits in Kits of Old first. Or Banneret. Or really anything else unless they were sure they wanted to play Full Attack: The Kit.
>>46874543
>groups being homogeneous is good
>>46874576
Grapple checks are attacks anon. They are special melee attacks. If something tells you to make a grapple check, it's telling you to make a special melee attack action of grappling.
>>46874543
In 2E it was a feature, not a bug. It should have been considered a feature in 3E and 4E too but the online player base had a bug up their ass about house rules.
>>46874620
Restrained has some usage, grappling is useful because you make it so the target can't break free easily. Usually with bane/hex/expertise. All of that can be undone if someone comes up and shoves you.
It's still a weak feat though, the advantage is useless because 9 times out of 10 the grappler's next action is going to be to knock the guy on his ass anyway.
So I want to play an undead focused caster and I can't decide between an undying warlock that's the mortal servant of a vampire lord (Essentially Renfield, but less crazy), or a necromancer wizard and have some skele-buds to aid me in questing. What would teegee recommend? I'm planted squarely on the fence.
>>46874651
A grapple is an attack. That does not make the ability check involved an attack roll.
>>46874456
>>46874251
>>46874183
>>46874284
>>46874115
>>46874080
>>46873998
>>46873964
>>46873809
>>46872998
>>46872966
>>46872771
>>46873123
>>46871344
>46873126
>>46871290
>>46871282
>>46871285
>>46874399
Mage hand can drop 9 flasks of oil from a sack onto a target that each do 5 extra fire damage to the target when it takes fire damage.
Wait, no. Fill a sack with 1 alchemist's fire and 8 oil flasks. Mage hand empties the bag overtop of an enemy (emptying a bag isn't the Use an Item action, it's just manipulating an object) for 1d4 + 40 fire damage per turn until the alchemist's fire is put out using a dex check.
>>46874688
Mix them. Necro 6+warlock 5 means you can have an army of skeletons.
>>46874664
Grappling is useful when all of the following requirements are met.
>The target has too much HP/AC to kill in this turn
>The target can run and escape you
>Your allies lack magic that can stop it
Otherwise
>Hit it with your sword and say it's nonlethal
>Chase it, see above
>Speed reduced, paralyzed, restrained, or grappled by a spell instead, see above to help
I'm all for letting people do cool things with grappled enemies, but RAW grappling is shit.
Not sure who I hate more.
The asshole who drew >>46870952
Or the asshole who drew >>46871056
Is it safe to go straight from LMoP to Cos with a lvl 4-5 group?
>>46870776
Monk's 'Perfect Body' is shit too.
Editor of this needs to be shot.
>>46874732
A Level 5 Martial (Barring Rogue) can, with one action, reduce a targets speed to 0, give it disadvantage on all attack rolls and grant advantage to nearby attack rolls on it. It's an opening move on a tough opponent.
A Tavern Brawler can lay a little damage on top of that but no feats are required.
>>46874732
Then why is everyone on the internet going crazy over grappling builds in 5e?
>>46874815
Doesn't really help ranged allies though.
>>46874819
Because that's about the only "build" that does anything but loads of damage for a martial and is reminiscent of "builds" of earlier editions.
>>46874798
Mechanically yes, but how it goes depends on your players' reactions to the change of tone.
>>46874831
It does, that enemy is no longer a threat to them.
And nothing is stopping them walking over with a back up melee weapon.
>>46874819
Because advantage and disadvantage are very potent in 5e and many, normally tough, monsters don't have good strength scores.
>>46874632
Not really, Superiority Dice all get turned into plus attack once you get your power attacks from GWF/SS. At least with Champ people at the table get excited when it a crit occurs and offers some unique multi-class crit builds. Once you optimize any character and figure out what you want it do in combat for maximum DPR, it becomes very simple, the Champion is just ready to rock n' roll; It does seem insulting to most MtG players that love weeding out the bad from the good.
>>46874815
Tavern Brawlers can use their unarmed strike to shove prone and the bonus to grapple.
>>46874869
>>46874893
Seems like you could do better by GWM/SS-ing the fuck out of them and killing them.
>>46874924
Or you get someone to grapple them first so you have advantage on your GWM swing.
And all subsequent GWM swings thereafter, with no fear of reprisal because they can't swing back without disadvantage.
Or you can go GWM/SS the small fry because your Barbarian has the dangerous wizard in a chokehold, on top of being able to lay into them with their battleaxe one-handed.
>>46874977
Grappling doesn't force concentration checks on casters, nor does it stop somatic components.
So i want to play an unarmoured spellsword/runespear/hexblade themed character.
How should i go about it?
I have considdered the following:
Swashbuckler 4/Dragon Sorc 1/Battlemaster 15
Monk 19/Arcana cleric 1
Dex based Paladin/Dragon Sorc1(or 6 for more fire)
Dex based Barbarian1/Eldritch Knight 19
>>46875018
It will give disadvantage to ranged attack rolls.
If there was a spell that reduced a targets speed to 0 and gave advantage to melee attacks on it, it would be a good spell and it would be an excellent cantrip.
>>46875046
Arcane Trickster X/Bladesinger 2?
Undying light Tomelock 3/ Gold or Red Dragon Sorcerer X?
>>46873486
>The antennae spells 'no'
I will never unsee this.
Is it okay to let the 1d4 damage die from tavern brawler stack with the monks MA die?
Planing a campaign and making up some home-rules.
For now i've banned variant humans so everyone has to wait till lvl 4 to get feats.
Also should i merge the ritual caster and magic initiate feats?
>>46874633
>>46874654
>In 2E it was a feature, not a bug.
It was a big part of killing TSR, since not only were its rules written without playtesting, they also didn't make any effort to make different rules compatible with each other.
>It should have been considered a feature in 3E and 4E
Having no real ability to predict what is expected of PCs of a given level in 3e + a million splatbooks being required, vs a million splatbooks and a lot of errata being required, means such games aren't very grab-n-go.
They're trying to do 5e from the perspective of what works, vs from the perspective of barfing out a pile of splatbooks and then dying.
>>46875115
No Tavern brawler shouldn't stack.
Two wildly different sources of skill.
>>46875156
>a million splatbooks and a lot of errata being required, means such games aren't very grab-n-go
They would be, if WotC embraced the electronic format instead of just considering it an afterthought.
Which is why 4e is playable with the Builder +PDFs of Monster Vault and Rules Compendium.
PS.: you don't actually have to use all the splats for either games (tho because of the electronic format and ease of refluffing of 4e,there's no reason not to)
>>46873486
>DPR god
>thieves
>meatshields
>No interesting mechanics, no engagement.
Being a damage per round god isn't interesting. It's "I have the most damage". There's no actual depth to the gameplay. Having 20% more damage than anyone else over time isn't worth giving up, say, literally all the cool stuff a paladin gets.
Cunning Action will mostly boil down to "I move in, I attack, I dash out". Again, there's little engagement - you repeat the same move over and over.
And meatshields don't exist in 5e. There's no aggro management or anything like that, because you only get one move per round.
TL;DR:
Paladin is a well-designed class. Any class with fewer fun buttons to push than paladin is a bad class.
>>46874903
That's the real problem with 5e - the 'right' option is pretty obvious at all times, so playing a class like fighter is boring.
What do you do this round? Same thing you did last round.
What do you do out-of-combat? Oh, that's right, something that anyone else can do better.
It's just pretty bad design compared to, say, paladin, which gets all kinds of cool stuff, or monk, which has some fun options (although 'I stun it' is usually the best one).
>>46875207
I don't see any compelling reason for WotC to kill fifth edition like they killed third and fourth, and how TSR killed second.
The phenomena of picking up a book and finding out "oh yeah this product is nonfunctional and most of these classes are now useless" is not conductive to a healthy game.
Building an Urban Bounty Hunter Fighter right now, looking to go Archery too.
I've played Battle Mater before, and although maneuvers don't key all that often it's still a fun archetype to play. What I haven't played is an Eldritch Knight. Now we're doing the point-buy system, so i'm not going to have (well I could, but i'm not looking to) a bunch of points for Int. Does an effective Eldritch Knight need a lot of Int for Spell DC?
DMs, how do you guys feel about NPC companions?
all my players are obsessed with obtaining as many as possible. One rogue managed to wrangle a goblin (a runt of a goblin pack) into his service through deception and charm spells (Arcane trickster) and I'm already sick of it
If a creature is frightened, can it turn around so it doesn't have line of sight to what it's frightened of? Is that all it has to do?
>>46875280
Ranger (especially beastmaster) is subpar right out of the box, rogue is outclassed by bard who does everything better, and fighter is only for the mentally impaired.
All of 4e's core classes are functional right out of the box (although paladin is slightly subpar).
3e had the worst of it, with having tier 1-2 and tier 4-5 classes as 'equals'.
>>46875385
This is a fedora post.
>>46875356
An E-knight without multi-classing into wiz and int as it's second most important stat (str int con) is pretty shit.
Going 6 EK 14 Wiz is pretty good though. Health will be rough but you can buff that up a number of ways. Basically you're gonna be in plate potentially with a shield and you'll have access to abj spells and Shield, which is gonna make your AC like fucking 25.
you could start dwarf for the +hp though I'd go variant human.
>>46875372
It just can't move towards whatever it's frightened by and it has disadvantage for attacking that thing iirc
it needs to make a wis save to stop being afraid, turning around isn't gonna do that
>>46875396
OK, fine, fighter is also playable for very small children used to games like Snakes and Ladders and Candyland, where you also perform the same move and make no mechanical choices.
>>46875432
Jesus Christ, OSR fighters must give you epileptic seizures.
>>46875372
Not unless your character is retarded and believes that because they can't see something it's gone.
>>46875385
>>46875432
This dude is insufferable through a computer, anyone force to sit down and play with him deserves a medal.
Not that they'd stick around long enough to get one.
From my understanding, you can only ever cast 1 spell, as in actual spell-slot spell, per turn right?
So, even if i'm a Eldritch Knight with action surge, I can still only cast uno?
What if I have haste up and take my action surge? Still only uno?
>>46875493
Action Surge is another turn.
>>46875372
No, it only has to be "within line of sight", they don't have to actually see it. But they can go and hide behind a wall or something.
It also doesn't end the Frightened condition, it only suspends the disadvantage on checks and attack rolls. So you can fight effectively up until said source turns the corner to follow you.
>>46870074
WotC comes to you and says you must fix the Ranger. It can only be done by converting it into a Barbarian or Rogue Archetype.
Which do you choose?
>>46875522
Rogue Assassin
>>46875533
No, I mean you must make either a Rogue Ranger or a Barbarian Ranger.
>>46875509
No it's not, it is an additional action.
Only Rogue gets a double turn (Or Ambuscade)
>>46875522
Fighter
>>46875545
Oh. Rogue Ranger. Barb would be interesting too though.
Question for you or anyone who can answer: Are the Deep Stalker Magic spells at will?
>"You are always able to cast these spells"
>I have no spell slots left
>"You are always able to cast these spells"
>I can still cast them
?
>>46875493
The rules are, if you cast a Bonus Action spell, you can only use your action to cast at most a cantrip. If you use your action to cast and then Action Surge, you can use this extra action to do whatever you want, including casting another spell.
I believe that would be the case even if you were to cast with a bonus action, then you could use your action to cast a cantrip or attack, etc, and then cast another spell with Action Surge.
>>46875522
>>46875566 is correct, ranger should be killed as a class and incorporated into fighter. Barbarian, too.
Why are necromancer, flame elementalist, and oracle a single class, but 'normal guy who hits things', 'woodsy guy who hits things' and 'angry guy who hits things' different classes?
No reason besides "that's the way an old edition did it".
>>46875493
I'm not 100% on the spellcasting rules, but to my knowledge this rule only applies to spells cast with a Bonus Action. A hasted action also cannot be used for spellcasting only because the spell itself says so.
So you should be able to Action Surge and cast two full spells. If you were under the effects of Haste and Action Surge you could cast two spells and then take the Attack action, for example.
>>46875509
you wot? it's just another action
>>46875586
oh boy that is dangerously cheesey. Would the action given by haste stack with an action surge action? I know you can't use the haste action to cast but you can use it to attack once with melee
>>46875606
At least 4e made them distinct. Ranger was the heavy offence, Fighter was defensive.
5e Rangers can't really make the claim to be more offensive than fighters.
>>46875566
>>46875582
>>46875606
Regardless of new base class, what are the essential things you need to keep the "Ranger" feel?
>>46875622
Primeval Awareness
Ranger spell-casting
Fighting Style
>>46875622
animal companion. nature bullshit. Focus on out of combat utility things like primeval awareness, favored terrain etc
>>46875520
well that's what my dm did, just literally turned around and blocked the way like an asshole
>>46875622
Favored enemy and terrain, possibly animal companion. Never really considered being a half-caster an essential part of being a ranger, although DnD ranger typically has that as well.
I do kind of agree that in 5th edition they could've just made the ranger a fighter archetype who gets a favoured enemy, bonuses to moving in the wild, and an animal companion as class features.
>>46875474
OSR games take "spotlight balance" super seriously (as shitty as I think it is).
In an OSR game, a fighter class is an absolute beast in a fight, with massively better combat ability than other classes, You don't have rogues who do comparable damage or wizards who have the same AC and comparable amount of hitpoints and can cast spells uninterrupted willy nilly.
Then there's of course that the fighter often isn't restricted by a codified skill system, and even gets to make up his own shit (even with mechanical support: see DCC fighter's martial die).
An OSR fighter takes the spotlight in combat, or at least fills a role that the others can't fill nearly as well.
In 3rd edition D&D, the other classes combat capabilities were boosted (since I think they realized that having to be clunky and shit at what more than half the game is about is kinda shit) but fighter classes arguably got even worse at their already middling non-combat effectiveness. This got somewhat remedied by 4e (has better role protection for defenders, has less strict skill system, gives everyone access to rituals/martial practices/other out of combat powers relatively easy), but in 5e now everyone can perform similarly in combat (like 4e) but once again martials have very limited access to interesting effects (like 3rd).
>>46875650
Fighting style is kinda not needed imo.
Doesn't help that one of the big rangers during AD&D used a Greatsword as much as a bow and daggers.
>>46875686
>OSR Games
You're literally only going off of 3.5.
Can dragonborn contract lycanthropy?
The party I'm DMing for might be fighting a wereboar soon and it has 2 dragonborn
It makes sense to me that any PC race could contract lycanthropy except for Aarackocra and dragonborn, because they are already pretty animal-like and they're not even mammals
Should I just say fuck it and roll with it if the scaleys get infected?
>>46875659
DM ruling aside, if you tried to use fear to chase a creature out of a 5 foot corridor or something, that was still within the RAW. It doesn't have to flee or anything, it just can't willingly move closer. It could turn away and cower without moving. But it will still have disadvantage, so you could easily grapple it out of the way.
>>46875699
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm mostly basing my opinions on my experience on DCC and the limited time I had with Rules Cyclopedia.
>>46875613
It does, yes. A hasted 5th level fighter can use attack twice with his standard action, twice more using Action Surge, and then one last time because of Haste. If they have a means of attacking with a bonus action (such as with the GWM feat, if they crit or kill something), then that's 6 attacks in the same turn.
>>46875686
Something about Step of the Wind doubling jump distance instead of granting a single move with flight like its 4e equivalent just irks me.
I like 5th and it's a minor thing, but it just irritates me for some reason.
>>46875385
Why not play an Unearthed Arcana ranger?
>>46875356
EK is a tank. Dont go archery with it. Int is not important as most of the spells you would get are defensive buffs.
For good EK go human variant with Lucky, grab find familliar, shield and magic missile or mage armor. Dex build with rapier and buckler. At level 8 switch one of your spells for mirror image. Laugh as not even nat 20 can hit you.
I'm trying to build an Eldritch Knight with Sentinel who forces enemies to stay in the flames of Create Bonfire. I realized that even with sentinel, they can move out of the bonfire and stay in my threat range. What options do I have?
>>46875791
If they two-weapon fight, they get 8 attacks (a bonus action from their actual turn and another from their haste turn)
>>46875896
Find Familiar is not available for EK unless they take it as one of the non-school-limited spells from 8th, 14th, or 20th level.
>>46871210
>Do all Monks have to have come from a Monastery?
No, because what they learn is a skill like any other. A very esoteric sort of skill but a skill nonetheless.
I had a Waterdhavian Noble Monk who wasn't ever actually a "Monk" at all, he just had esoteric martial arts skills.
>>46875791
So a Fighter at level 20 could under those circumstances attack 8 times in one turn?
that's pretty nuts man. Assuming they are using a standard greatsword with a +5 str modifier that's in total 16d6 (2d6 x 8) +40 (if they all hit)
>>46875896
>>46875910
or if they multi-class into wiz, which they probably should
Im gonna play eknight here soon, any cool build ideas? I'd want to go strength
>>46875898
Haste is not an extra turn it is one additional action.
>>46875910
EK can take 1 non limited spell as soon as they gain the subclass.
>>46875898
>Haste
>"and it gains an additional action on each of its turns."
No mention of extra bonus actions there. If they dual wield, they still only get 5 attacks, because their off-hand can only ever do one attack with their bonus action.
>>46870264
... sauce?
>>46871413
>use magic device
>awesome
you won't use it often, or soemtimes, even at all in the course of a game
>>46875932
A fighter at level 20 could attack 12 times with Action Surge and Haste.
>>46875711
>Can dragonborn contract lycanthropy?
Yes. Lycanthropy is a curse that can affect any humanoid.
>>46870264
>making favored enemy useful therefore making ranger only good against certain races
3.5 and PF rangers are bad just because that
>>46875910
At third level the spells have to be two from evocation or abjuration and one from any school i believe
>>46875932
10 attacks, actually, with Haste and a bonus action attack from some source. Yeah it's crazy, but they're level 20 fighters, man.
With a +11 to hit (no magic weapon bonuses), and 10 attacks, that's an average of 120 damage if they all hit. Only can be done once per fight, though, but it'll certainly wreck most enemies. And that's not even counting criticals...
>>46875993
Twice, you got two action surges.
How would you DMs handle a PC who has contracted lycanthropy (specifically were-bear)
>>46875962
if you have a good DM you will.
but yea it isn't that great
>>46875964
>>46875993
Forgot that fighters get more extra attacks, that's pretty amazing.
>>46875964
"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)"
>>46875995
Oh damn, you're right. They get a second use at 17th level...
>>46875985
>>46875939
Ah, you're correct. Thanks!
>>46875839
Which one are you referring to?
>>46875941
So wouldn't they get
>normal turn: attack, extra attack, bonus action twf
>action surge: attack, extra attack
>haste: attack, extra attack
For a total of 7 attacks?
>>46876047
Me again, oops, I see. Haste only gets one weapon attack.
>normal turn: attack, extra attack, bonus action twf
>action surge: attack, extra attack
>haste: attack
For a total of 6
>>46876012
Oh good, it looked like things would've gone off the deep end.
Then again, it's rare to see a level 20 anything.
So, Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights get one non-school-limited first level wizard spell. Is that spell choice permanent? Because level-up spell switching only permits school-limited spell switching unless switching out the 8th, 14th, or 20th level.
>>46876069
Yeap, that's it.
>>46875522
>>46875545
>>46875622
Here's a quick and dirty pdf with new homebrew "ranger" archetypes for Rogue and Barbarian. What do people think? Written in shorthand, but I think it's readable.
>>46876210
It seems that way. I assume its intended to be your one 'trick' like a signature spell.
>>46876210
Both archetypes benefit from taking 2 levels of Bladesinger, which grabs you ritual casting, and whatever first level spells you can get your grubby hands on.
>>46876290
Reading through Warlock stuff right now; if someone stole a warlock's Book of Shadows, could they cast the three cantrips in the grimoire? If yes, they could imprison the warlock so that he can't perform the ritual to receive a new grimoire and have the old one destroyed.
>>46872882
You don't really get much from barbarian in this scenario, since you can't rage and keep up concentration.
You are better off using Bard or AT so you don't need to spend a feat and you get some good bonuses for grappling while still being able to cast.
>>46875898
Grappling him is actually a good idea. You could also dip into sorcerer to quicken booming blade and give him a shitty choice between staying in the fire and getting burned or moving and getting boom'd.
Actually, booming blade says
"A creature must also make the saving throw _when it enters the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn_ or ends its turn there."
Would that mean if you grapple a guy and then create bonfire, if you have 20 ft of movement left you can move him in and out of the bonfire's space for some extra damage?
>>46876351
I assume only the warlock has the ability to read his book of shadows; you get to be the right amount of mad/cursed with evil/contracted by fey/etc. for it to work.
>>46876388
>Actually, booming blade says
*Actually, create bonfire says
May not be the place to ask but I'm playing 5e anyways
Making a new campaign and I want it to be vague eldritch horror early on but under the guise of biblical-like events
I guess I just want suggestions, especially when it comes to potential locations, dungeons, and creatures involved
Does D&D support this sort of stuff well?
>>46876412
Family friendly "angels are winged humans who are very nice, and the devil is bad!" biblical like, or book of revelations "angels are essentially eldritch horrors with impossible geometries and number of appendages, sent as a messenger by a being so alien and inscrutable to us that it thinks these eldritch horrors are fine as messengers" biblical?
>>46876247
Nothing? Even criticism helps.
>>46876412
What would be necessary to "support" vague eldritch horror biblical like events? Your question is itself pretty vague.
>>46876442
the second one for sure
>>46876501
Well third has spells that turn the water to blood, blanket the land in darkness, stats out the plague of frogs and locusts, and so forth, if that's what you mean... and I'm not sure it is, especially since it probably doesn't need much in the way of rules. You aren't really clear as to what you're expecting.
>>46876442
I think the reason D&D never called celestials angels, but devas, until the 3.5 makeover, was specifically because people would point out those don't bear too much resemblance to biblical angels.
