How should I go about running Planescape as envisioned by Guillermo Del Toro?

Our party spends its downtime sitting around a campfire, listening to our elderly warlock/wizard tell stories of how he enslaved demons and stole the souls of paladins. This usually upsets our paladin.

The fuck is downtime?

In all seriousness though we barely have any downtime in our game. Plus all the uses for it take "Aint nobody got time fa that" levels of time

I am currently DMing three games, and the three part's downtimes are as follows:
>Paladin beats the shit out of a little girl, pretending to try to train her, when the rest of the party aren't looking, because the Anubis Cleric, Eldrich Warlock, and Bender Monk are hella protective.
>Bicker over a helmet, and also do small individual minor tasks. Barbarian is trying to get his Cod-piece as skrimshawed as possible, Paladin wants to fashion fake wings, Ranger protects his REAL wings, and the three fighters practice Olympic Wrestling
>Three of the players faff about in-combat and play the whole game as downtime, other four are working together to undo their damage

And that's just my parties that I am currently running. Fuckin Episolus was a story, let me tell you Gentlemen...

File: 1457833416576.jpg (36 KB, 640x640) Image search: [Google]

36 KB, 640x640

>dm uses "training for levels"
>costs 100s of gold and several weeks to level up

>>47330622
Downtime is extended periods of time ingame that either takes place in game or between games. Rather than always adventuring, play sessions are more highlights of the character's career and downtime is the space between these highlights.
Downtime can have mechanical uses as well, from sources of income, creation of resources, to even generating adventure hooks.

I've been thinking of using spellcasting dragons. Aside from their innate casting variant in the Monster Manual, if a dragon took wizard levels, what would they pick for their school?

>>47330270
Planning on possibly running a game, but I don't have any GM experience outside the shitty homebrew RPGs I ran in highschool.

I don't really know how to start on GMing for D&D. What to prepare for a first session, how to get started on this sort of thing, etc. I've seen other GMs work but it's hard for me to reverse-engineer what they're doing enough to plan something of my own.

Anyone got any tips for a possible first-timer? Aside from the fact that I will almost definitely be horrible to start out, I mean.

>>47330687
I had to deal with that in 3.5 before. I'm so sorry

>>47330707
I know what it is. That first statement was ment to be rhetorical in "it happens so very little you might as well not know what it" kind of thing.... Should have probably delivered the joke better.

>>47331115
i can't even begin to fathom why anyone would willingly choose to put that in their game

as if leveling wasn't fucking slow enough

File: OLcXyiZ.jpg (489 KB, 1191x975) Image search: [Google]

489 KB, 1191x975

>>47331163
It was very clear. That anon just didn't get it somehow.

>>47331087
Watch some games that people put up on youtube, run a premade adventure, and read the DMG.

>>47331185
It's great when the party has to decide between leveling up or stopping the evil fucker sooner

Or if the don't level up at the same time for whatever reason (resurrection/new character/etc). Double the fun or one of the party members just has to wait.

does anyone have the Macabre Escape PDF ? the continuation of Death House ? also... any good side quest adventures ? i saw some on DM's Guild... but dont know witch one is best.

>>47331233
is this post sarcasm? because all of that sounds fucking terrible

>>47331185
>as if leveling wasn't fucking slow enough
Doesn't adding the option to spend gold and downtime to level up speed up leveling?

>>47329082
Sneaking in combat is hard, especially if there's ample light in the environment. I usually rule that simply going behind and object and passing hide check doesn't cut it, since they know exactly where you are and can expect an attack from there. You'd have to move to get any advantage, and it'll be hard to do that unless there are plenty of ways to move unseen. This is to prevent a person staying behind the same object and hiding over and over again.

>>47330684
>Paladin beats the shit out of a little girl, pretending to try to train her, when the rest of the party aren't looking, because the Anubis Cleric, Eldrich Warlock, and Bender Monk are hella protective.
If any of my characters found out, even the evil ones, they'd be instantly after his blood. Little girls are off limits.

Buckler / Parrying Dagger
Martial, 1d4 bludgeoning / piercing, Light, Finesse, adds 1 AC if you have one equipped. Probably give Rogues proficiency too. Idea being that it gives dual wielders options other than twin Rapier / twin shortsword, and buffs them a little. Plus, muh realism. Should maybe only add the AC against melee attacks but I don't know that it's worth the complexity.

Any thoughts?

Also, what would a two handed Finesse weapon be like? I'm fine with Strength having exclusive access to the d12 / 2D6 weapons, so maybe a d10 reach martial weapon that counted for Polearm Master? Or, maybe just Finesse longswords given that Sunblades already exist.

>>47330442
Hype up your campaign for a while, then cancel it

>>47332000
Can't get enough white knighting in the real world, eh?

>>47331230
This

Question for Eldritch Knight:
Our group will soon reach 8th level where I can choose a 2. level spell, free of the normal EK restrictions. Does this mean I can choose the "find stead" spell from the paladins spelllist?

>>47332122
Women != little girls. Murder and rape all the women you like, and I'll only apploud your efforts. Little girls however are cute, innocent, and smell like strawberries.

>>47330270

This picture is super comfy.

Is there a limitation to the way of the open hand monk's abilities aside from needing to hit them with an unarmed attack? One of my players is playing a monk, and they're going to be taking on a young dragon in the next session. Having it get slapped around will fairly trivalise the fight.

>>47331087
Start with Phandelver and read the PHB and DMG. Watch a couple of GM tips videos on jewtube and possibly some campaigns. Remember that you aren't the players' opponent, you're only the narrator, and the overall goal is to have fun. Be consistent, be logical, and try to get inside the heads of the characters and monsters. How would a bugbear fight? How would a captured goblin act? You're there to make the world come alive for your players, so practice different accents, maybe go through some basic monster tactics, and don't be afraid to make mistakes.

Have fun, anon.

>>47332777
What level is the party? Which colour of a dragon? Is it certain that it should be a combat encounter? Remember that dragons are not dumb lizards, they're cunning and intelligent, and know the weak spots in a party.

>>47330687
Kill your GM, I'll be your alibi

>>47331538
No when you also need the necessary xp

>>47332777
Excuse me if I doubt it

>>47332745
read the book

EKs use wizard spells, and find steed is not a wizard spell

>>47332843
Level 3, young green dragon. Their objective is going to be to convince the dragon to fuck off out of the area, which would be difficult as it's where it has its lair. The main objective for my purposes is for them to learn that the Cult of the Dragon is operating in the area, and is attempting to steal the hoards of other dragons as tribute for summoning Tiamat. Honestly there's no real reason the fight NEEDS to happen, but I know my players. Given the opportunity, they'll charge straight into combat.

>>47332868
If you have the necessary XP then why are you training rather than just leveling up?

>>47330622
^
This, there is no downtime, only constant adventuring to save the world.

>>47333157
But what if my character WANTS to spend weeks of game time dicking off doing nothing of importance?

>>47333174
Then he can do that without being required to by the mechanics every damn time. Put it towards learning a new tool or something if you must.

>>47330270
I spend my down time performing dark rituals in honor of my demonic lord in my locked inn room. Either that or chillin with my best friend, who is a good aligned cleric of a nature deity. Warlocks make for some interesting roleplay shenanigans.

>>47333072
Greens are cunning and treacherous, they would absolutely search for a weak point in a party and abuse the fuck out of it. Take wing, abuse breath weapon. Concentrate on the healer, then caster, then ranged weapon expert, then anyone who remains.

A 3 level party will be doomed if they decide to fight a dragon.

>>47330270
So I'm adapting CoS to fit my campaign and so far my players have decided they want to revive the Order of the Silver Dragon

Are there any rules, homebrew or not, that deal with managing a small force, a lá Diamond Dogs? Recruiting, training and ultimately leading your men into battle?

>>47333248
Said monk might get lucky with the stuns, but that sure isn't something to count on.

>>47333289

Stunning blow is a level 5 ability.

>>47333072
>>47333248
From the description you have given thus far, I'm assuming this is LMoP correct?

If so, the party does nit have a great chance in success, but it is possible to beat it. When my friends and I played through this module, our fighter recklessly charged the dragon and drug the group into combat (before we had agreed to try diplomacy since I was a dragon sorcerer. We were also level 3.) So we fought him and got wrecked, but with some lucky crits and some other damage being dealt, we got it down to below half and it flew away. Idk if that is something scripted for the module or not but you could have the same thing happen to help prevent a tpk.

>>47333131
Because the DM is a stinky doodoo head, obviously.

are there "spells are useful in this order" lists for 5th edition like there were for 3rd?
just the generic descending list of quality for class spell levels
im mostly asking for cleric, but am curious about everything i guess

>>47333344
It is scripted.
A real green wouldn't give up on rekking the party if they were already hurting.

>>47333447
Figured as much.

>>47333446
Things like concentration, spell preparation, ritual casting, less minmaxing, etc all change the nature of spell preparation so it's less important in 5E than it was in 3E. Plus, character build and party composition all play into it so you're probably better trying to work it out yourself. Think about what utility you need to cover, your action economy (Healing Word is great for reviving downed team mates whilst still fighting and Spiritual Weapon is great for damage for this reason too), what holes your Domain covers, etc.

>>47333514
thats more what i figured looking at the spell lists, but i figured there were still a few obvious "this spell is amazing, this spell is shit" that i missed or might take
i was planning on making a tempest cleric, but dont really know what the other spell people are doing yet

File: abenope.gif (504 KB, 320x240) Image search: [Google]

504 KB, 320x240

>>47330218
>https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3355632/character-applications-here
Oh.
Oh no.
Oh nooooooo.

Well, this has completely turned me off to the idea of running a campaign on Roll20 for people I don't already know.

>>47333549

Can you screenshot it? Opening the link requires registration.

>>47333548
try googling some cleric guides, they will usually have a spell tiering system like light blue = best, blue = good, black = okay, purple = bad, red = terrible

just cross-reference the guides with one another on what they each think are the best spells, and then make your own evaluation of those spells taking into account your particular character and campaign, as well as evaluating what spells you are taking (eg there could be two concentration spells of the same level that are both unanimously considered great for combat, but you're going to have to consider which one you would prefer because you can only use one at a time)

with clerics, if you have high wisdom then you'll be able to get a healthy enough selection of prepared spells that you shouldn't have to worry too much, and you can change those prepared spells on a daily basis. a big bonus for clerics is domain spells, which you always have prepared, and range from decent to great depending on your domain

>>47333630
>and you can change those prepared spells on a daily basis
why am i worrying about this, and forgot that
it doesn't matter if i pick my full spellbook and it goes terrible with theirs. i can just shake my hands at a cloud while i meditate during a long rest and they're all new
il probably still look up a guide though, since im sure i missed more things than like fog clouds cover/sacred flame ignoring cover

File: roll20help.png (2 MB, 1818x4127) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1818x4127

>>47333564
There's like 16 applications, it'd take an hour to stitch a full page together.
Most of the others aren't terrible, but I didn't exactly read them either because they weren't eye-grabbingly horrid.

>>47333686
Oh ye gods be merciful

>>47333326
Derp, thanks.

>>47333344
Yeah, it's LMoP, essentially replacing the first section of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. I'm not super worried about them making it through the fight, I'm just not sure if I'm handling the monk's abilities properly.

As a DM, would you guys allow this character?

My players were complaining about low levels for a bit, so to change it up, everyone starts at 10.

Conjuration Wizard 2, Arcane trickster 4, Warlock 4

He's taken ever tricky thing he can, so think disguise self on at will, minor illusion at will, the conjuration feat that lets him create ball bearings etc. His stated purpose seems to be as tricky as possible, using low level features to do a lot of damage/control, while having eldritch blast+high cha as a backup.

It seems fun, but it also seems like it could get really frustrating to DM for.

New DM here, I was wondering: should I hand out the floor plans of locations to the party (like those provided in pre-made adventures) or just use them for my own reference and tracking of movement?

>>47333936
Put one copy on the table, and cover up unexplored sections with a piece of paper, unless it's all one section they can see completely.

>>47333905
If you don't think you have what it takes to run a game that could give such a build the challenge it would need to be fun let the player know.

>>47333881
>I'm not super worried about them making it through the fight,
You should be. A dragon, even a young one, would completely decimate a level 3 party. Unless you play it like a retard, in which case you're a shitty DM.

>I'm just not sure if I'm handling the monk's abilities properly.
Well to start with, a monk doesn't get stunning blow until level 5. The unarmed stuff is extremely simple:
>make an attack with either a monk weapon or unarmed strike
>can use bonus action to deliver an extra unarmed strike
>if he uses Ki, he can instead use:
>>two unarmed strikes as a bonus action after attacking
>>dash or disengage as a bonus action
>>dodge as a bonus action

Then there's deflect missiles, which lets him catch thrown objects and projectiles as a reaction. He rolls 1d10, adds dex to the roll, and the incoming damage is reduced by that amount. If it reduces the incoming damage to 0, he can catch the missile and throw it back using 1 Ki.

Open hand special stuff:
>after using 1 ki for flurry of blows (2 extra attacks on a bonus action) and hitting with at least 1 of the bonus attacks, he can impose a:
>>dex save or prone
>>str check or 15' push
>>inability to use reactions until the monk's next turn

That's it. There are no stunning blows for monks at level 3.
Did you even read the FUCKING book?

>>47334031
>A dragon, even a young one, would completely decimate a level 3 party.

My players almost killed it when I ran that campaign.

>>47334150
Read this part:
>>47334031
>Unless you play it like a retard, in which case you're a shitty DM.

>>47334154
You're completely ignoring the fact that luck plays a huge roll in combat.

>>47333936
I just draw it out as they progress

>>47334181
Yes, if you play like a retard.

The dragon has a really high passive perception, so ambushing it is extremely unlikely, it has 80' flight speed, and a 30' cone breath weapon that deals 12d6 damage (6d6 on a successful save). A party of lvl3 that succeeds in killing it would have to do so much damage in a single turn that it's astronomically unlikely.

>>47334210
It doesn't matter how well you play if you get shit rolls.

So my GM claims we will always get a disadvantage when shooting into a melee, and if we shoot without a disadvantage, we automatically hit an ally if we miss.

Is this the normal rule? He claims it is in the DMs handbook, and says we shouldn't read it because we would just "meta game too much".

I have tried my hands on a javelin fighter who uses ranged attacks a lot, and it immediately stops being effective when anyone getd into close combat. I saw the last thread where someone said the same thing, but someone said no, and then the thread was closed.

How does this work? Not finding anything in the players handbook.

>>47334219

Well I guess the dragon could do 6 damage to everyone on a pass, then be required to fly up to recharge its breath weapon.

So yes, you're completely right; the dragon might have to take 10 turns to kill the party if they roll extremely well and the dragon rolls extremely poorly.

What are some artisan tools that could be used for criminal purposes, specifically really low level criminal purposes at the moment.

We're playing a scummy gang game and I have a free proficiency with a set of artisan tools and I'm not sure what to take.

Ideally something I could theoretically use dexterity or wisdom on.

Some notes: We operate out of some slums, we are in a big city, there is no real big restrictions on alcohol (so bootlegging wouldn't be super profitable), and another player is a carpenter

The game I'm running for my players is soon to meet its end. For the next one, I want to build some lot more intrigue and social interaction oriented campaign where roleplaying takes precedence over combat and rolls. Are there any guides and tips for building such a campaign?

Roughly, I'd want my players uncover corruption, crime, or secrets of the rich ín an urban setting.

And that's it, after almost 2 years I'm, unfortunately, bored of this game. No campaign has went beyond 6th level, I (together with other players) have tried any possible combination, which are less knowing games die so fast, what's left is roleplaying but I can do that with any other game out there.

Good luck /5eg/ I hope your games last longer.

>>47333131
Because the GM added the you have to train for X days and pay X money to level on top of actually having the necessary xp, is that difficult for you to understand?

>>47334237
And any time it flies in for breath weapon all PC's can hit it with ranged attacks.

>>47334223
>Is this the normal rule?
No. You get disadvantage if you shoot while an enemy is adjacent to you, but there is no disadvantage for shooting while an ally is adjacent to your target. It's a rule from previous editions that some people refuse to let go of. It does not exist in 5e, even as a variant rule.
>He claims it is in the DMs handbook, and says we shouldn't read it because we would just "meta game too much".
He is lying to and trying to keep you ignorant of the rules so that he can do whatever he wants without fear of you calling him out on his bullshit. He is a bad GM and you should all leave the game.

>>47334223
In past editions, you had trouble firing into close combat (ie. At an enemy within 5ft of an ally), and needed to take a feat to remove this penalty.
This is no longer a thing in 5e, default rules - everyone fires into combat the same as everybody else (except the rogue, so actually GETS sneak attack damage)
The thing about disadvantage is that, if your DM thinks firing past your allies gives you disadvantage, then it does. If you're having trouble, you could ask if attacking from the side, or back, would stop the disadvantage (there's no ally in the way!)
There is a rule in the DMG about hitting cover if you miss the target because of it (cover gives +2, or +5, AC), but still hit the AC of the cover, then the cover takes the damage, with the cover being your friend in this case.

Basically, if you want to be good at archery, and don't want to kill your friends, tell your DM you're feeling like you can't get your character to do what you want him to do, and either ask for the disadvantage rule to be changed, or just ask for more ranged enemies /spellcasters to bonk while the fighter is fighting the front line!

>>47334643
My game died the other day too.
We should've stuck to 4e

>>47334223
He is a liar and bullshitting you in a rather offensive way. Fuck him and his game.

>>47334674
I also have been in 7 or so different groups, with more DMs (because in some of them there was DM rotation), but the constant: New game, reroll 1st level characters, literally killed this system for me.

>>47334658

Well yes, for one turn. After that turn, they'd have disadvantage due to range.

If every player has ranged weapons and everything crits, they might get the dragon down to half HP before they die.

>>47334223
Been in similar situations, thing is before being a player in 5e I was a DM, so I know the rules, everytime one of thse fuckers try to bullshiting me I tell him that they just go with
>b-but new errata appeared
>b-but new suplements appeared
I just leave, if you want to add new homerules, sure, though I prefer an explanation that isn't bullshit and some reason behind them beyond "I just want to fuck with players", if not I just call their bullshit and leave.

Wasn't the first time my actions also make other players acknowledge they were gaming with a DM cunt and forced them to leave too.

>>47334705
Why wouldn't every player have a ranged weapon?

Also the players would likely take full cover once their shots were in disadvantage range.

Even with the party being smart though, you're probably right. The damage variance is just way too much in the dragons favor unless it fights like a tard.

>>47334439
Jeweler's Tools, appraise the goods, be able to rework stolen stuff for resale, make fence contact.

>>47331890
This is something a lot of people don't get about 5e: level 1 and level 2 characters are not heroes, they're not really even adventurers. They're novices, they're supposed to be weak and die quickly. That was a deliberate design choice for 5e: levels 1 and 2 are meant for those people who want to play the farmhand that takes up a sword and eventually becomes a hero... eventually. Instead of having people cobble together "level 0" or "apprentice level" rules, WotC built the apprentice levels right into the game.

If you want to start a game where the players are already adventurers, level 3 is definitely where you want to start them. By level 3, every class has their archetype, and the main things that make their class their class, that's what they come into their own as real adventurers.

>>47334742
>Why wouldn't every player have a ranged weapon?
You'd be really really surprised. I've heard just about every reason for a character not carrying a ranged weapon. Some I can accept but most are just silly
>But my guy is a greatsword fighter he doesn't use a ranged weapon
>Ranged weapons are dishonorable
>I'm sneaky I can just sneak up close to people and dagger them
>I already have a ranged weapon I can throw these axes 20ft/I have guns (that also shoot 20ft)
>My character's dex isn't as high as his strength

About half of these are from the same player, to his (lack of) credit he also typically refuses to carry a melee weapon on his ranged characters. One particularly funny time was when he played a gunslinger in pathfinder and refused to carry EITHER a melee weapon or a ranged weapon that wasn't a pistol. It meant he had a 15ft area of effectiveness he could operate in that didn't include directly adjacent to him. It got kind of dumb at times

>>47334742
>Why wouldn't every player have a ranged weapon?
They probably would, but unless they specialise in ranged combat, they're not going to do a lot of damage. 1d6 for most, 1d8 for some.

>Also the players would likely take full cover once their shots were in disadvantage range.
Of course they would, but once the breath weapon is charged, the dragon would circle around to hit them around solid cover. And that cover goes both ways, so they'd have to move once the dragon swooped down if they want to hit it.

Once the dragon takes wing, the party can realistically do nothing except run and try to hide and hope that the lizard isn't interested in giving chase.

>Even with the party being smart though, you're probably right. The damage variance is just way too much in the dragons favor unless it fights like a tard.
Yeah. Barring spectacular circumstances where the party all rolls >17 for stealth to surprise the dragon and then manage to pin its wings, you're probably looking at a TPK. And even if they nail it to the ground you're probably going to have deaths since squishies can't take that 12d6 (or 6d6 with DC 14 con save) poison damage.

At level 5 with 3rd level spells and extra attacks it's doable, but I don't see it happening before that.

>>47334655
That's fucking retarded though, why would anyone add that houserule?

>Start game
>Constantly getting our asses handled to us
>Have to flee everytime
>Talk to GM
>GM ignores us
>Decide to flee from every encounter ever, not even try to pass it
>Game becomes us walking away from everything slightly threatening
>GM gets ubermad
>Talks shit about us being supposedly heroes
>Don't listen to him and still flee
>Rage quits
GG

>>47334779
>level 1 and level 2 characters are not heroes
The DMG says otherwise.

>>47334793
>My character's dex isn't as high as his strength
That's a legit issue. If you don't have the mod to hit with it attacking is a crapshoot. But that's why thrown weapons exist. Too bad they have poor range.

>>47334817
Tiers of play.

>>47330996
Whichever school they feel like? Dragons are intelligent creatures, they'd have just as much of a variation in what schools they each prefer as any other Wizard.

>>47334803

How can a DM fault their players for playing smart? Fighting for no gain is stupid.

If a good DM wanted his players to risk combat, he would add some incentive for them to engage.

>>47334848
Intelligent creatures with forced alignments and personality types. They'd likely gravitate to things based on type.

>>47334842
I agree to a point but if I'm playing a high strength character with martial proficiency (...all of them?) I usually pick up a longbow eventually, even if I have to wait for it to fall into my lap.

Being able to shoot something (poorly) from 300 ft away is still better than not being able to shoot it at all and it does come up enough for me to justify carrying a bow and 20 arrows

>>47334817
Well, sure, saving a village from a rat infestation might be seen as heroic.

>>47334700
Making 1-2 tutorial levels was a mistake. What was so bad about level 0?

>>47334963
>Complain about always starting at low level and games dying too early
>"I know, how about level 0?"
Go to the corner to meditate about what you just said

>>47335040
I meant levels 1-2 could be made more substantial, on par with what lvl 3 is now, and those who need "tutorial mode" could start at level 0. The playtest was more in line with that before they watered down the early levels. For some reason even experienced players fixate on going 1-20 in their games and thus most games start at 1, despite the fact it was explicitly designed as an entry for new players, while experienced ones were supposed to start at 3.

>>47334817
They can call the tiers whatever they want, the fact remains that level 1 and 2 characters are not heroes. Heroes don't die to a goblin.

Specifically, my source is the discussions coming from Mearls and other designers during the days before 5e's official release, where they were specifically talking about levels 1 and 2 being used to represent apprentice-level characters, and level 3 being where you come into your own as an adventurer.

>>47334871
Any school could be used for good or evil purposes, they're not naturally aligned in any specific way. Pick the school that fits the dragon's personality just like you would for any other Wizard, it's that simple.

>>47335248
The dragon's personality is as forced as their alignment. Greens are cunning and manipulative, blacks are cruel and malicious, whites are brutes, etc. You can predict schools based on color, which I imagine is along the lines of what the first anon was asking. I'll start - greens would definitely specialize in charms and illusions.

File: sketch-1462643762415.jpg (260 KB, 1920x727) Image search: [Google]

260 KB, 1920x727

>>47335230

Would giving Shield Masters the option of striking with the shield for 1d4+str/dex damage be overpowered?

>>47335455
Thats regular improvised weapon damage

>>47335488
Yes, but you normally don't get to use them as a bonus action.

SM lets you push a creature for 5 feet with the shield, but that seems awfully useless. So I was considering adding a shield strike as an option to that.

>>47335510
You can shove, which is either a push or knocking prone. Knocking prone as a bonus is good. If you're also a grappler it's goddamn great.

>>47335455
What do you mean? You can already do that.

>>47335571
Oh you're right, I misread the tooltip. I thought it was 'shove for 5 feet' but it actually says 'shove a creature within 5 feet'.

>>47335510
Knocking someone prone is significantly better than dealing 1d4+strength damage.

>>47335404
That paragraph is flat-out incorrect, based both on the designers' stated goals, and the actual mechanics of the game. 1st level characters have the potential to become heroes, sure, but they'll have to survive their first hit from an orc's greataxe before that can happen.

I'll say it again: I don't care what the DMG says, actual play and mechanics say differently.

>>47335598
Well I dunno, it's a strength check and the fighter who's considering it is dex-based. He doesn't actually even have Athletics, I don't think.

>>47335510
>Yes, but you normally don't get to use them as a bonus action.
You didn't mention that you'd be able to do the damage as a bonus action, either.

>>47335624
Huh. Well apparently I didn't. But that's what I meant, striking as a bonus action instead of shoving with the shield.

>>47335617
Well in that case it kinda sucks, yeah. Perhaps let him use a different stat for it as part of his shield mastery

>>47335657
I'd be down for letting someone use dexterity instead of strength as a grappler, since they can grab someone and trick them into using their own strength against them, judo-style, but with a shield it's pretty damn hard to grab. But it might be the simplest fix.

>>47335455
If shield masters can attack with their bonus action for 1d4+mod then dual wielding becomes completely pointless. You'd do more damage (3d8+15 vs 2d8+1d4+19 for fighting style, feat and 20 stat) and also have higher AC.

>>47335617
Let him make Dexterity (Athletics) checks, maybe. Then again, the fact that you use strength to prone people is the one reason why you'd ever go Strength over Dex for a sword and board character so I'd probably conclude that he chose better skills and initiative mod over the ability to effectively shove people.

>>47335455
>>47335488
Actually that makes me wonder: if you were wielding only a shield and used it as an improvised weapon, would you be able to apply the dueling bonus? Would you be able to use it as an offhand weapon for twf (assuming you have the feat)?

>>47335726
The trade off would be that the dex rule requires and only applies to the shove given by the shield master feat. Perhaps not enough, but it's some restriction

>>47335726
>If shield masters can attack with their bonus action for 1d4+mod then dual wielding becomes completely pointless. You'd do more damage (3d8+15 vs 2d8+1d4+19 for fighting style, feat and 20 stat) and also have higher AC.
I fixed dual wielding so that it doesn't take a bonus action and scales with extra attack, so they aren't really on the same level.

>Let him make Dexterity (Athletics) checks, maybe. Then again, the fact that you use strength to prone people is the one reason why you'd ever go Strength over Dex for a sword and board character so I'd probably conclude that he chose better skills and initiative mod over the ability to effectively shove people.
And I suppose Shield Master feat is still really useful for a dex-based character due to dex saves buffed even further and that sweet evasion. And it's not like he has anything to lose by burning the bonus action on the shove, even if it's unlikely to succeed... Hmm. Maybe a 1d4 flat, for some extra damage.

>>47335753
I think improvised weapons are generally ignored for Dueling - since you can use anything as an improvised weapon, and Sword and Shield is confirmed to be allowed to use dueling.

If somebody had picked up the Dual Wielder feat I'd let them attack with their Shield as the bonus action attack. No proficiency on the attack, of course, unless they also had Tavern Brawler and they wouldn't get the +1AC from dual wielder so it'd be a pretty weak choice.

>>47335814
>I fixed dual wielding so that it doesn't take a bonus action and scales with extra attack, so they aren't really on the same level.
I'm curious, what did you do for dual wielding?

How do I convince my DM that crit fails are fucking retarded? It's bad enough to have a 1/20 chance to stab yourself in the foot but he also has it so if you roll a 1 on a damage roll you hit yourself instead. This is ridiculous but no one else in the group seems to have a problem with it.

>>47335853
Does he have monsters do the same on crit fails? If yes, I also see no problem with it.

>>47335881
Of course he doesn't.

>>47335814
If you're already running with house rules to dual wielding that's pretty damned relevant to a discussion about making sword and board more like dual wielding.

>>47335807
Why would you shove any other time?

>>47335853
I was at a lgs session where the dm used that shit. I rolled three ones and managed to get my weapon lodged in a wall, pull it out only to toss it 10 feet away and fakl prone, then freeze myself to the ground with a frost bolt. The monk rolled a 1 and his quarterstaff simply shattered.
Just leave, it's not worth it.

>>47335844
Well, exactly what I wrote. Doesn't take a bonus action to hit with your offhand, and the amount of strikes you can make now scales with extra attack.

I balanced that so that before you take any actions, you need to declare which target you're going to hit and how many times before you take the attack action, and if you use the offhand to attack a different target than the one you're attacking with your mainhand, you take disadvantage (because it's extremely hard to keep track of two targets at the same time and hit in an efficient manner).

E.g. you're fighting against three bugbears with 2+2 attacks, you declare that you attack bugbear 1 once with both weapons, then the other two targets each once. You then roll mainhand + offhand for bugbear one, and if it dies from the first hit, the offhand strike is wasted; then you roll for bugbear 2 with your mainhand, and bugbear 3 for with offhand, with disadvantage.

It's a bit more rolling, but I think it works out pretty well.

>>47335915
>If you're already running with house rules to dual wielding that's pretty damned relevant to a discussion about making sword and board more like dual wielding.
Well it's not like I'm making it like dual wielding, since it requires a feat and does less damage.

>>47335934
Wait, you're just doubling their attacks? So a dual wielding fighter can get 8 attacks a turn, 16 with action surge? Goddamn that's crazy. You done any math to show that isn't broken as aol hell?

>>47335990

Yes actually.

A dual wielding character with style and feat:

8d8+40 = 76 average damage.

Great weapon fighting:

8d6+20+40 = 88 average damage.

There are more things to consider, like great weapon fighter being able to use a bonus action to do a melee swing after felling a creature and taking the +40 damage makes his attacks less likely to hit. Two-handed weapon user also has an added benefit of having a free hand, which can be really useful at times, and the two-weapon user scales worse than the great weapon fighter due to needing two magical weapons, and has one less item to bond with on high levels.

Yeah, it's not completely balanced, but I think it's not nearly as broken as you think.

>>47336102

And of course great weapon fighter gets the bonus action swing after a crit as well, and the two-weapon fighter gets a +1 AC bonus.

File: 1460478476113.png (952 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

952 KB, 1280x720

>>47335853
Is it in-person? How do the other players feel?

If you all feel the same, present a united front, and tell the DM to stop doing that fucking stupid shit. Holy crap what a fucking faggot. Who's that fucking stupid? Literally who?

If he refuses, then DM a game, yourself.

If you're alone, please do yourself a favor and find another group to play with.

1s are incredibly common on damage rolls, and critical failures shouldn't happen every fucking round. Hell, they shouldn't happen on ATTACK rolls, either. Nat 1s miss automatically. That's it. That's all you need.

THE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED LEVEL 10 FIGHTER ROLLED A 1 GUESS HE FUCKING THROWS HIS WEAPON AND IMPALES THE WIZARD WHOOPS HAHA

My blood is a 95% saline solution right now, pardon me.

Anyone got the World's Largest Dungeon PDF?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/4k2774/what_is_your_dream_campaign_that_you_want_to/d3bjpnv

preferably 5e

>>47335977
Compared to RAW dual wielding with a Feat and fighting style it does more damage, and Dual Wielding almost always involves taking the Feat anyway.

>>47336158
That said, an old DM of mine had us roll twice on 1s, and if we rolledd a 1 twice, THEN there was a critical failure, and something went wrong. And it was so rare that it was totally fine and usually ended up being funny rather than punishing.

Inversely, he had us roll again on a d20, and if we got another 20, we'd automatically kill whatever it was we were hitting. And again, it was so rare it'd usually end up killing some mook like a goblin rather than anything truly threatening.

C'est la vie.

>>47336140
>>47336102
AAAAAND the GWF gets to reroll 1's and 2's on his damage roll.

So yeah.

>>47336102
A GWM is also working with a -5 to hit and an inferior dex score, meaning worse init and potentially worse AC, at least in the case of barb. Is all that worth +12 damage?

>>47336258
A dual wielder's got nore chances to hit/crit though. Champion dual wielder would be a blender

>>47336102
>Two-handed weapon user also has an added benefit of having a free hand.
Do you have brain damage? The absolutely do not have a free hand, they cannot grapple or cast spells, RAW, anymore than someone using TWF.

Also your damage calculations fall apart whenever you tack on all of the things that happen per attack. Any magic weapons, hex, hunters mark, etc. All favor TWF and push it well above GWM.

Congrats, your sense of balance is so awful you made something that does more damage then the highest damage dealing thing in the game, with much few drawbacks and gave it some added bonuses (+1 AC)

>>47336342
They can cast. your hands are not glued to your weapon

>>47336102
And both characters, of course, have 100% accuracy. Oh wait, no, the Great Weapon fighter has a -5 penalty to attacks, which significantly lowers his actual average DPR. You're also forgetting the higher chance for the dual wielder to crit, another side-effect of not including attack rolls in your calculations.

Assuming they both need a 11 to hit normally (a 50% chance), and both crit on a natural 20, the damage values are:

Dual Wielding
4.925 per attack (45% to hit, 5% to crit)
39.4 per round

Great Weapon Fighting
5.85 per attack (20% to hit, 5% to crit)
23.4 per round

Great Weapon gets a chance at +0.275 damage each round (the bonus action attack), but even that doesn't put it anywhere near the dual wielding style in average DPR. We're talking a 16 point difference in damage here.

>>47336302

Strength vs. dex is beyond the scope of this discussion, as you know that dual wielding can also be strength based.

And I noted that the great weapon fighter takes a -5 penalty to hit, but he can make a bonus action swing on a crit/kill, has a free hand if necessary, scales better, and can reroll 1's and 2's on the damage rolls. Of course it won't be completely balanced, but I think my houserule is far closer to being balanced than the basic rulebook.

>>47336336

No. Critical hits are simply statistics. When you hit a lot, you crit a lot, but your crits will do less damage than a greatsword crit would.

>>47336342

Reaction grabs, casting, dex save to grab a ledge etc... All work better or at all if you have a hand free. You can always let one hand go of a two-handed weapon, but if you have a weapon in that hand, you will have to drop it to do all that stuff.

>>47336102
>>47336368
The Great Weapon bonus attack thing was just calculated from the 5% chance to have a 25% chance to hit with another attack, and doesn't include the multiple chances to score that critical, or dropping an enemy. Still, while the exact number is probably off by a bit, the point is that the added DPR of the bonus action attack is negligible, especially compared to the 16 point damage different between the two styles.

And, as others have pointed out, this is before even considering easily acquired damage bonuses that apply per attack.

Perhaps if it scaled that fighters specifically get an extra off-hand attack with their third? It'd be three primary and two off-hand.

So by level 20 a two-weapon fighter would have four primary attacks and two off-hand attacks?

So all-in-all it would be one more attack than RAW? 6 instead of 5.

A little boost, but not some ham-handed bullshit like 8 fucking attacks holy shit.

Also I'm PRETTY SURE off-hand attacks are a bonus action, and CANNOT benefit from power surges.

So even with a power surge, a TWF would get 10 attacks (9 by raw), not fucking 16.

Even then, TWF would leave monks in the fucking dust by level 11.

>>47336396
>No. Critical hits are simply statistics.
...Is this not an issue of statistics?

>>47336424
This is a person who clearly has no idea what they're talking about, they didn't even calculate average damage based on chance to hit, they just assume all attacks will succeed.

>>47336342
You're allowed to take one hand off your weapon as a free thing, you can't drop and pick your second sword back up for free.

>>47336415
He said his houserule offhand attacks don't use bonus actions. They're just attacks, and thus benefit from action surge

>>47336368

I purposefully didn't include AC in my calculations because it's not a static factor, but I did note that the penalty exists. It means that a two-handed weapon user would only use the feature against an easy to hit opponent.

I did say it's not completely balanced, but I think you're underestimating the advantage the bonus swing gives you, especially when you consider that under my system, all hits need to be declared before action is taken.

>>47336424

The point was that you can safely ignore crits in the damage calculations, as you only ever crit a similar percentage of your swings. 1 in 20, or higher for a champion. You hit more, you crit more, but your crits hit for less.

File: maybeafightermaybeamonkmaybearogueidkplshelp.jpg (53 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

53 KB, 1280x720

How would you go about making Snake as a PC?

>>47336396
>Strength vs. dex is beyond the scope of this discussion
No it isn't. The entire foundation of martial combat in the game is the str vs dex trade off. Dex provides so much as is allowing it better damage too just makes str pointless.

>>47336459
Wow what a moron. They were made bonus attacks on purpose.

I think giving TWFs ONE more attack per round is within acceptable limits.

But even then, what of the sword-and-board fighters? They get high as shit AC once they get into magic armors and shields, I guess? But their damage is still abysmal.

I feel like limiting power attack to heavy weapons was a mistake. Instead, they should have specifically kept finesse weapons out of the picture, so that regular one-handed/sword'n'board melee characters aren't nearly worthless in a fight.

>>47336533

If you want to start arguing the usefulness of STR vs. DEX, you'll have to do it with someone else.

We're trying to compare apples to apples here, and STR based dual wielding does exist. STR 2H vs. DEX TWF is not apples to apples.

>>47336533
B-BUT MUH DEX. I gotta have the best initiative, the best AC, the best attack AND damage, okay???

I also want all of the skills to be dex too. Why is athletics Str-based? Don't you know dexterous people are also athletic? I can climb and run and shit with DEXTERITY.

Why can't I use both ranged and melee weapons better than the strength-based fighter?? Why do I have to settle for superiority with just ranged????

;;;;_____;;;;

pls gibe god-stat superiority

>>47336543

>Wow what a moron. They were made bonus attacks on purpose.

Alright, then it would also take a bonus action to swing a two-handed weapon. For consistency's sake.

You're more than welcome to swing a greatweapon without a bonus action, but you'll do so one-handed and with disadvantage and -1 tier of damage dice.

>>47336575
You can't isolate your comparison to only specific scenarios. You have to account for all possible arrangements; that's how you balance a game. Looking at it with tunnel vision like that is what allows ridiculously broken rules exploits to arise. Do you want this to turn out like 3.5?

>>47336488
>I purposefully didn't include AC in my calculations because it's not a static factor
"It's better to have math that's grossly inaccurate in all cases than math that's highly accurate in 90% of cases."

And for the record, having to roll more than 11 to hit benefits the dual wielder, while having to roll less than 11 is unlikely to happen often.

>I think you're underestimating the advantage the bonus swing gives you
It's roughly a 5% chance to have a 25% chance to deal some extra damage. I'm not underestimating it. At most, it's +1 average DPR (that's being incredibly generous and pretending that you could trigger the bonus attack four times)... which, again, is nowhere close to the 16 point damage gap.

A 15 point damage difference is not insignificant, especially since this is, again, before considering per-attack damage bonuses.

> all hits need to be declared before action is taken.
This is not the massive drawback that you seem to think it is.

>>47336623
But... I *AM* welcome to swing using a bonus action. There's specific great weapon abilities that allow you to do so when you crit, right? Can't power surge that shit.

Also the fact that you CAN use Dex to TWF is all that needs to be said. The fact that you CAN make dexterity an all-doing stat via your house-rule is more than enough to convince me its a bad idea.

You have no idea how to balance anything.

>>47336638

Look. If you're trying to tone down dual-wielding because DEX as a stat is too good, then your problem is not two weapon fighting. Your problem is DEX being too good.

>>47336396
>Reaction grabs, casting, dex save to grab a ledge etc... All work better or at all if you have a hand free.

Says literally who? By RAW, taking one hand off a weapon you used to attack in order to cast a spell doesn't work. What in the hell is a reaction grab? Dex saves to grab ledges? By that argument I could say people dual wielding war picks have ADVANTAGE to grab ledges. Stop with that grasping shit.

If anything, TWF has an advantage over GWF in the free hands department. By RAW you can sheath one of your weapons as part of your free item interaction for the turn, then you have a free hand open to do something like cast the Shield spell or Counterspell. while also still having a melee weapon that you can get AoO with. That is not an option available to someone two handing their weapon.

>>47336506
Examine who Snake is as a person/character and use that information to create similar personality traits.

>>47336663
He's not, he's just arguing about anon's house rule dual wielding rules.

File: 1461681707513.jpg (47 KB, 621x502) Image search: [Google]

47 KB, 621x502

>tfw you want to kill some of the members of your party so bad but the DM says no PvP allowed

Is there a worse feel?

>>47336620
You know I never got the association with dex and ranged weapons. Seems that that would've been the perfect weapon type to involve a mental stat like wisdom.

>>47336663
Nobody's trying to tone down dual-wielding, they're trying to stop you from making it too powerful.

>>47336698
That'd just lead to even stronger characters being better than they already are.

>>47336672
>By RAW, taking one hand off a weapon you used to attack in order to cast a spell doesn't work
They're talking about attacking one round, then casting the next. That you definitely can do. I actually do think that being able to take a hand off your weapon is a benefit of two-handing as opposed to dual wielding or sword-and-board, but not nearly enough of a benefit to counteract the damage difference of their little "fix" for dual wielding.

>>47336368
>You're also forgetting the higher chance for the dual wielder to crit
The Dual Wielder has twice as many chances to crit, but his crits do a little over half the damage as the GWF guy (+4.5 average damage vs +8.33) so it's basically a wash.

>>47336396
>Strength vs. dex is beyond the scope of this discussion, as you know that dual wielding can also be strength based.
Dex is generally a better stat though, so it's worth at least mentioning. It's an advantage TWF has over GWF regardless of house rules.

>>47336713
You mean divine casters? Have clerics use CHA, druids use INT. Rangers...well rangers could use help anyway

>>47336656

>"It's better to have math that's grossly inaccurate in all cases than math that's highly accurate in 90% of cases."

Some styles are better suited for some situations. More news at 11.

Yes, dual wielding under my system may be slightly superior, mathematically, but it has other drawbacks.

>It's roughly a 5% chance to have a 25% chance to deal some extra damage. I'm not underestimating it. At most, it's +1 average DPR (that's being incredibly generous and pretending that you could trigger the bonus attack four times)... which, again, is nowhere close to the 16 point damage gap.

Not nearly that little. Keep in mind that it also applies if you fell a creature, and I initially told you that under my system all attacks need to be declared before the action is taken. A cleave is beyond that scope, since it happens on a specific trigger.

>This is not the massive drawback that you seem to think it is.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it favours the two-handed fighter who has to figure out less targets for his weapon attacks, and loses less if a creature dies before his swings hit.

>>47336727
>The Dual Wielder has twice as many chances to crit, but his crits do a little over half the damage as the GWF guy (+4.5 average damage vs +8.33) so it's basically a wash.
The main benefit here is on-crit effects, though you're right that unmodified it's actually only a +.77 average DPR boost over great weapons.

>>47336727

Then for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there are DEX based two handed weapons.

>>47336452
If the chance to hit is the same for both it's fair to ignore, but that doesn't apply here ofc.

>>47336683
I was talking about mechanically.

>>47336737
That might work out.

>>47336760
Unless you houseruled that in too, I don't see why that should be accounted for. And it's gotta be heavy for GWM

Does anyone have a quick way to calculate how much bonus damage the ability to reroll 1's and 2's actually is?

>>47336698
I assume that dexterity involves hand-eye coordination, fine motor movements, etc.

I also don't understand why bow users only need, like, 8 str or something stupid like that.

Has anyone ever tried using a bow? Maybe I'm a pussy, but it's tiring as hell if you aren't physically fit, and damn near impossible if you want to use a GOOD bow meant to kill shit. Specifically people, if we're talking historically.

You need to be very strong to use a strong bow for a long time.

>>47336705
This guy understands.

>>47336722
You can sheathe or unsheathe one weapon for free every round. At the beginning of one round you sheathe, next round you cast and unsheathe, next round you attack normally again. It doesn't affect casting ability at all.

>>47336795

We are already discussing my houserule, so why not? And if it's the only way to keep this discussion apples to apples, then I'll gladly do it. I'll even waive the GWM heavy requirement.

>>47336810
>You can unsheathe one weapon for free every round.

Not on my table.

>>47336760
lmao
>What if we allow shield masters to shield bash as a bonus action?
>that'd make them too good compared to TWF
>Well, what if we allow TWF to just double their attacks?
>that'd make them too good compared to GWF
>Well, what if we gave GWF dex weapons?

>>47336739
>Yes, dual wielding under my system may be slightly superior, mathematically, but it has other drawbacks.
It is vastly superior, and the drawback (singular) is easily overcome by simple tactics.

> Keep in mind that it also applies if you fell a creature...
Yes, and that's one of the reasons I was so generous with my calculation. +1 average DPR is, as I said, only applicable if each attack could generate a bonus hit, for up to 4 bonus hits... obviously, that is not the case, and the actual bonus DPR would be much lower than +1, I just didn't feel like calculating out the average DPR of having 4 chances to score a crit. Increasing the DPR bonus to +1 was my compromise for the fact that you also gain a bonus hit on dropping a creature.

> and I initially told you that under my system all attacks need to be declared before the action is taken.
Wait, that doesn't apply only to dual wielders? Holy fuck, dude, you have no idea what you're doing.

> but it favours the two-handed fighter who has to figure out less targets for his weapon attacks
No. All the dual wielder has to do here is only attack in sets of two (main hand + off hand), and they are on the same page as the great weapon fighter, but they still have higher damage, AND the option to split their attacks up even further if they really need to.

I'm done here, you refuse to acknowledge how things actually work, you clearly have no idea what you're doing. This probably won't make your game unplayable, but you've still made dual wielding by far the best melee combat style available. Have fun with that.

>>47336722
That works, but it doesn't work any less well with TWF, so I don't know why they would bring it up.
>Turn 1
>Attack a billion times with TWF
>Stow a weapon as your free item interaction

>Turn 2
>Cast Spell
>Draw weapon as your free item interaction.

>>47336796
Work out the average of the dice roll, and use that instead of 1 or 2.

Eg the average on 1D6 is 3.5. With GWF a D6 is (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 = ~4.167

>>47336847

You're more than welcome to try to fix dual-wielding in a simpler way then. I'm happy to take suggestions.

>No canon social stealth rogue archetype with bonuses in persuasion, who mingles into high society parties, finding her target, wooing them, taking them to somewhere private where no one will hear their last, muffled, gargling breath as their throat is sliced open.
>No canon holy assassin, acting out his god's will and showing his god's might without bringing attention to himself, so there is no confusion about who's hand is at work in the target's death

2 great archetypes with no recognition. Unless I'm being dumb and these totally exist.

>>47336813
Then with stats being equal, the -5 to hit for gwm, extra crit chances and per attack effects like hunter's mark all still push twf above gwf. Your houserule doesn't balance things, it just tilts the imbalance the other way.

File: ss+(2016-05-19+at+02.27.19).jpg (200 KB, 649x615) Image search: [Google]

200 KB, 649x615

>>47336760
Well the GWM feat only works for heavy weapons, which tend to be two-handed.

A dex-based two-handed weapon couldn't possibly be considered heavy, under any circumstance. It'd defeat the purpose.

>>47336836
>Not on my table

See image. If you houserule otherwise, I honestly couldn't give a shit. That's your business. For everyone else, and for the sake of the current argument, it does matter.

>>47336871

So 8d8+40 = 76

And 8d6+20 = 53 (without GWM)

So the difference shrunk a little, and the 2h user has an added option to take a -5 penalty for +10 damage.

>>47336796
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average
According to this (which I'm assuming is accurate, since I'm not sure how to math out rerolls like that), a greatsword averages about 8.33 damage with great weapon style, so about +1.33 damage. Because of the 25% hit chance of the great weapon master, that's about 1.33 bonus DPR on average (1.33 multiplied by 0.25 for the hit chance, x4 for four attack). That's not including critical hits, but still, it doesn't do much at all to close the gap.

>>47336909
>>47336922

What if off-hand attacks didn't get any modifier added? Then it seems more equal.

>>47336903

>See image.
I'm completely aware, but do you honestly have any idea how slow it is to actually unholster a weapon? You're welcome to take the rules as they're written, but for some people it may not make sense.

>If you houserule otherwise, I honestly couldn't give a shit. That's your business. For everyone else, and for the sake of the current argument, it does matter.
We're discussing my houserule in the first place. Do you want me to list everything that may or may not affect this conversation? I've modified the system a fair bit.

>>47336672
https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/516805872929218560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

>>47336885
>what is an assassin with expertise - persuasion
It even gives you a bunch of false identity bullshit

>>47336869
I was specifically responding to someone saying that you can't take a hand off a weapon to cast. You can replicate that part with dual wielding, yes, but that wasn't my point.

>>47336876
Oh, I don't have any decent suggestions, I just love the flow of this conversation with the cascading houserules.

>>47336885
Those seem pretty easy to do RAW?

>>47336935

That's actually a good idea. My proposal:

With two-weapon fighting style, you no longer have to use a bonus action to attack with the offhand.

>>47336935
They usually don't, but the fighter Two Weapon Fighting style allows you to do so.

>>47336876
If you have three attacks, you get an extra off-hand attack as part of the same bonus action as your first off-hand attack. it's a fix that people have been using since 5e came out, and it works just fine.

>>47336935
I don't feel like doing the math again for DPR calculations, but that might work. Maybe somebody else will care enough to work it up and see.

>>47336982

I don't like it, makes things uneven.

>>47336968
But then Rogues are still getting shafted. Why not with TWF Fighting Style, you get an equal amount of off-hand attacks as you do Attack actions, and all classes can use TWF as an attack action normally.

>>47336982
Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say here >>47336415

>>47337003
Just minus 20 from the top, since we're assuming 8 attacks with a 5 modifier each.

>>47337006

I initially considered that as well, but then I figured that it would be completely useless for low-level characters.

>>47336938
>I'm completely aware, but do you honestly have any idea how slow it is to actually unholster a weapon?
Depends on the weapon. Something on the hip? A trained warrior (as in, anyone who adventures for a living) could easily draw a weapon from their hip in less than a second, even while doing something else.

If you want to be realistic, you could say that something in a boot takes a bonus action (still quick, but takes a moment to bend down), while anything carried on the back takes an action (because you have to take it off your back first, despite what Hollywood might think about drawing massive swords from a back sheathe).

>>47336968
With Feat and style that makes your attacks average 9 + mod vs the GWM guy with 8.33 + mod and the benefits of his feat. On hit damage bonuses (Rage, Hex, etc) all benefit the dual wielder of course but that seems better balanced.

>>47337005
Your weird-ass OCD is not my problem.

>>47337021
But everything with TWF style gets extra attacks eventually, so it'd work out in the long run. I'd guess it'd be more of an investment.

>>47337006
I dunno about anyone else but I like the mechanical tension Rogues have right now, where you can take a second swing should your first miss at the cost of losing your Bonus Action.

>>47337039
>Depends on the weapon. Something on the hip? A trained warrior (as in, anyone who adventures for a living) could easily draw a weapon from their hip in less than a second, even while doing something else.
I know mate, even I can draw from the belt with the same attack motion with a sword, it's pretty easy to do. Holstering is a completely different thing however.

Grabbing things is gross motor skill, holstering things is a fine motor skill. Putting small box into a small box is hard to do when under stress. And consider that you're supposed to cast and move at the same time.

>>47337061
Taking a fighting style at level 1 that doesn't do anything until level 5 sucks, especially given the percentage of games that don't go past 6 or so.

I don't really touch dual wielding, because I feel that

5d8+25 plus 1 AC and an extra application of an on-hit effect

Balances out with

8d6+60 with a to-hit penalty

Either way, dual-wielding is not a very smart thing to do IRL unless you're using something like a parrying dagger

>>47336158
The rest of the group thinks I'm overreacting. They claim that soldiers die of friendly fire all the time so it's not unbelievable that 5% of the time an adventurer would hit an ally. I don't know what's worse, that or the fact that the DM sometimes tries to issue critfails on rolls as high as 3 or 4. I have to fight tooth and nail against it every time.

>>47333686
Holy shit that is the worst scum of the Earth. BIH

>>47337123

Start avoiding combat. Hide, flee, do anything in your power to not engage in any way.

If your DM actively punishes you for fighting, simply stop fighting.

>>47336962
But you literally can't. Lets say you are attacking someone with a greatsword, and they cast Shield. You of course are swinging in with GWM and actually want to hit them, so you decide to cast Counterspell.

OH WAIT, you can't. turns out you are two handing your weapon to attack.

According to Crawford, once you are two handing, you are two handing until the round ends or something happens to your weapon like using your object interaction or getting disarmed (yes, even for versatile weapons wielded two-handed.)

>>47337019
Yeah, but then you have to re-do the accuracy calculations, which I don't feel like taking the time to do. Remember, a big part of the damage difference is that the GW fighter has much lower accuracy, you can't just take 20 off the top, you have to remove 4 of the 8 attacks, then recalculate them with the 45% chacne to hit and 5% chance to crit.

Honestly, it probably wouldn't take too long, I just can't be bothered to keep going with this discussion, given the dumbass I'm arguing against just refuses to accept reality anyway.

> With Feat and style that makes your attacks average 9 + mod vs the GWM guy with 8.33 + mod and the benefits of his feat. On hit damage bonuses (Rage, Hex, etc) all benefit the dual wielder of course but that seems better balanced.

I really with people would stop ignoring accuracy. Each dual wielding attack isn't just "average damage on hit", it's: "(average damage on hit times chance to score a non-critical hit) + (average damage on hit times chance to score a critical hit)". You can't just ignore the accuracy percentages when you have different chances to hit.

That is to say (again, assuming target AC = 11 + your to hit bonus):
Dual wielding is:
(9.5 x 0.45) + (9.5 x 0.05) + (4.5 x 0.45) + (4.5 x 0.05) x 4

Great weapon is:
(22 x 0.2) + (22 x 0.05) x 4

>>47337165
Makes sense to me. Crawford is right.

>>47337115
It's pretty much outright better than just using a single sword.

Though sword&board is so notably better than both of those that it probably couldn't be statted fairly.

>>47337097
Ah, sorry, I misread your post, I thought you were talking about drawing a weapon. My mistake, sorry.

>>47337165
I wasn't talking about trying to drop a hand in the middle of an attack, I wasn't aware that was the point of contention. You're correct, in that specific case, it doesn't work.

>>47337194

Looking back, I realise I fucked up again. So to clarify: I'm talking about holstring, not drawing.

>>47337123
I use crit fails but only as funny, only slightly detrimental things, hitting an ally or yourself on a crit fail is pretty stupid

>>47337165
Not that guy but that's a very specific example of trying to do a thing while both your hands are actively occupied

It's not the same as, say, using the EK's ability to cast+swing, which would totally work out

Crawford makes a lot of nonsensical rulings

>>47337224
Oh, I did read it right. Well okay then. The important part is that we agree (though I leave the rules as-is, because if I start trying to fix all the realism issues with D&D, I'll never stop changing things, and I like D&D for its simplicity).

How viable are oath of vengeance paladins?
I want to be abe to contribute to my party

>>47337258
Very, all of the paladin oaths are pretty good.

>>47337246

Simplicity is fine and dandy, until people start holstering and unholstering weapons every single turn to get some extra benefit.

>>47337266
Except crown

>>47337258
Any Paladin is pretty damn good, and Oath of Vengeance should do just fine. Generally, Vengeance wants to grab a big two-hander and just smash face, and it does it pretty well.

>>47337268
Eh, once per round doesn't bother me much. It's a lot better than people trying to cheese free actions back in 3.5, and it's rarely come up at all in any game I've been in.

>>47337219
If you weren't talking about doing it in the middle of an attack then what were you talking about exactly? If its not during the middle of an attack I see no reason why you can't use your item interaction to simply stow one of your weapons and cast spells with your free hand.

Care to provide some illumination?

>>47337268
I could see it being broken if they do something like a samurai class that gets a bonus for attacking on the unholster, but otherwise it doesn't really make a difference for anyone other than EK, and nobody plays thos guys so I'd let it go

>>47337303
You don't have to stow a two-handed weapon to cast a spell, you just have to take one hand off of it... you can hold it with one hand, even if you can't swing it with one hand. It's not a huge benefit, but it is one that exists, and I thought the person I was replying to was saying that you can't take a hand off a weapon to free up that hand for an action.

Is there a rule regarding leaving a weapon inside an enemy? Like if I stab a guy with a dagger and leave it in would anything else happen other than it counting as me dropping the dagger?

>>47337328
>but otherwise it doesn't really make a difference for anyone other than EK
I love the Eldritch Knight, but the one I played never got to level 7, so my strategy was usually to just drop my weapon (well... toss it up in the air, thematically, for effect), cast my spell, then summon my weapon back to my hand as bonus action.

Though that was mostly just to look cool.

>>47337328

Well for example in a couple of threads past there was this crossbow expert abusing guy who'd keep drawing a hand crossbow and stowing it again every round to get extra damage.

Ignoring drawing and holstering for the sake of simplicity is fine until people start abusing them. Then it's the DM's place to stop the stupidity.

>>47337378
No rules for it, no.

>>47337258
Imo, oath of vengeance is the best oath. It gives a lot of solid oath spells and has some great abilities that shine amazingly when used with sentinel. I played one awhile ago and I had a blast with it.

>>47337174
>I really with people would stop ignoring accuracy.
>You can't just ignore the accuracy percentages when you have different chances to hit.
I'm talking about two characters with equal hit chances though.

>>47337398
I don't understand how playing a dueling cowboy with a hand crossbow could give any extra damage though

>>47337397
I guess that makes sense if you have nothing else to do with your bonus

>>47337552

I don't remember the specifics, but he was literally drawing and stowing it every turn.

>>47337258
Oath of Vengeance is fantastic if you really, really need that one guy - yeah, that one - to be extra dead right now.

For guaranteed single-target damage potential, accept no substitutes.

File: 122359860335.png (61 KB, 231x242) Image search: [Google]

61 KB, 231x242

>only 5E game in my city is adventures league
>DM is a rulesnob and doesn't give us much room for character freedom.
In one instance a cleric used Planar ally and the DM handled it the worst way you could imagine. Cleric asked for a favour and without even asking for anything in return the celestial vanished and said ''no''. Waste of a fucking spell slot.

File: albumcover3.jpg (105 KB, 900x900) Image search: [Google]

105 KB, 900x900

>Allow players to roll for stats
>All five players show up with a 20 in one skill
>"I guess 18's were just lucky this time!"


I'm mandating the fucking stat array from here on out. I'm tired of all these magic 18's popping up on stat rolls.

>>47337464
Except you're not: one of the "benefits" of Great Weapon Master is that you suffer a -5 penalty to attacks. The thing about GWM is that it is almost always better to use it, meaning that you will almost always have that accuracy difference.

With this different rule, it's entirely possible that the damage will be more in line, but you have to include the calculations based on accuracy to know for sure.

>>47337579
That's literally not possible: you get one free object interaction per turn, if he wanted to draw and stow it both in the same turn, he'd have to use an action to stow it. Your player was cheating.

>>47337971
Make them roll in view?

Though my last rolled stats were fucking silly, even with it being 3d6 straight down.

>>47338069

Not my player, in an earlier thread. I'm pretty sure he was getting damage out of it every other round, but it's still fairly ridiculous.

>>47337971
That's why I only use point buy

>>47337971
At least use point buy, not the stat array. Some characters need more granularity than 15, 14, 13, 12 10, 8. Point buy works just fine.

>>47338073

Limited time to play, I'd rather have them show up with characters made.

>>47338083
>>47338086

I'll give it a shot next time.