Updated max dmg list

17 lvls assasin/3 lvls pala
9d6 sneak attack
2d8 smite
2d6 thunderous smite
+5 dmg from dex
+2 from Dueling
3d8 booming blade

after crit
3d8 rapier (extra d8 from half orc)
18d6 sneak attack
4d8 smite
4d6 thunderous smite
+7
6d8 booming blade

All dmg x2 from death attack. Max possible dmg from 1 attack

None because my DM is retarded and thinks EB is op so he banned agonizing blast

File: 5e character options list (1).pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

reposting from last thread

Anyone have a more recent version of this sheet?

I'm playing a fighter, just hit level 3. Are there any archetypes besides these listed?

Battlemaster
Bloodthrall
Cavalier
Champion
Eldritch Knight
Monster Hunter
Purple Dragon Knight (Banneret)
Scout

File: dota2_the_warlock_by_biggreenpepper-d6mrfmh[1].jpg (2 MB, 1900x1201) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1900x1201

I like warlocks (and paladins and clerics), because the roleplay opportunities are so obvious to DM and player alike. They tend to take the games into interesting directions, that something generic like a fighter, wizard, sorcerer, or ranger don't.

Basically, warlocks (and clerics/paladins) are a lot easier to have fun roleplaying with.

>>48262629
That's pretty embarrassing

>>48262629
Did you show him this to demonstrate how EB is rather tame compared to what people get up to?

>>48262618
Now do one for max damage in a round.
Then do one for max damage in an encounter.
Then do one for max damage in a series of 6 encounters, divided up by 1 short rest every 2 encounters.

>>48262685
Doesn't matter because he doesn't allow multiclassing.

Here in a few weeks his run as DM will be done and I will take over and fix this shit

>>48262642
I would agree. But other classes could be just as interesting if done right.

>>48262618
How are you learning Booming Blade?

>>48262495
but anon, they get bonuses to skills and either evasion or uncanny dodge. Their pseudo sneak attack ability will be limited to once per short rest but will probably scale to allow it up to 3 times per short rest at level 14 while the ephemeral weapon remains the same.

Hell I could even change the wording a bit so that the weapon needs to be powered up before you roll the attack to avoid crit hit shenanigans.

As for things I'd be willing to give up, that reduced sneak attack is one of the things I've already toned down, the original had sudden strike with regular rogue SA progression usable whenever you would normally proc SA. The ephemeral weapon was usable up to 10 times a day.

>>48262712
Magic initiate feat

>>48262597
I'm having great fun tweaking them in a stupidly-excessive rules hack that I'm putting together. Features include:

>several classes removed (only cleric, fighter, rogue, warlock, wizard remain)
>hit points and proficiencies rejiggered
>several subclasses removed
>several subclasses added
>two patrons removed, one patron added
>warlocks are the only class that gets bottomless cantrips
>warlock cantrips scale by warlock level,not class level
>several direct-damage cantrips added to warlock spell list
>several invocations added to augment non-EB cantrips
>means by which wizards obtain spells modified heavily
>several things stolen from wotc adventure path nonsense
>several things stolen from old editions and OSR faggotry

I have no idea when I'll actually stop meddling with it. Maybe in time for my current campaign to wrap up, so I can use it in my next. Who knows? Not me.

>>48262711
Right, and that comes down to the player. It's totally possible to roleplay any class in an interesting way. Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks just come preequipped with the best roleplay devices that make things easier.

>>48262642
>classes historically reliant on deities are more interesting in an edition where they aren't reliant on deities and settings where members of any class can be highly religious or engage in pacts with noncorporeal space entities

>>48262801
Be careful not to hurt your neck with all that fedora-tipping.

>>48262815
>someone mentioned gods
>FEDORA!
You can quit at any time.

For my Feywild session i plan to have the players swap character sheets at some point. I don't know for how long, probably for one RP encounter and one fight.

Thoughts?

>>48262731
Are you going to share a sample of this brew so we can take a look at it, or are you just going to bring it up for no reason?

>>48262846
>Feywild session
Bad idea.
>swaping sheets
Worse idea.

>>48262836
It's not mentioning gods, it's getting strident about how clerics and paladins don't, by RAW, need to have any relationship to religion. Pump your brakes, edgelord; we all get that you're too cool for mom to drag to church anymore.

>>48262801
I never said they were more interesting than their historical counterparts. anon. I said that those classes were easier to make interesting than their contemporary counterparts anon. You should read things twice in the future to make sure you're not imagining implications.

Your terrible reading comprehension being pointed out, I will say that clerics, paladins, and warlocks are still easier to roleplay than the other classes, if only because all of the classes require you to pick something to devote your character to, while the other classes do not. That choice helps the DM and the player tell interesting tales together.

>>48262857
It was a direct response to a question about having fun with warlocks. Tweaking the warlock class has been a fun part of working on my 5e hack.

I'm not happy with the results yet, not even to the "solicit specific feedback" stage, so I'm not inclined to post it just yet. Heck, I'm not even done with the crunch on augmenting Chill Touch and Ray of Frost yet, much less naming the damned things.

>>48262866
I'm sure this kind of gurgling is the best you can come up when asked for an opinion so i thank you for your input as insignificant it might be. You're doing your best and thats all i can hope for :-) bless your little heart anon :-)

>>48262874
>strident
Do you have They Live glasses that let you see hidden text that no one else can?

Screw you guys who say Ranger is shit

>Sharpshooter feat
>+3 dex
>Hunters mark
>Archery fighting style
>Hail of thorns
>Colossus slayer
>Longbow

You are looking at a +2 bonus to attack and a minimum of 17 points of damage. Also Hunters mark can be transferred upon death of target so you can keep your chain going.

>>48262874
Isn't the cleric fluff full of references to your deity?

>>48262597
I never saw Warlock 1, but Warlock 2 had a profound influence on my fetishes.

I do play a lot of Warlocks now though, but I'm not sure if that's related.

>>48262931
And how do you intend to concentrate on both Hail of Thorns and Hunter's Mark at once?

Also, Colossus Slayer is one of the weaker options.

>>48262965
Yes. And there's nothing really hard in RAW about needing a deity, it's just heavily implied. It was explicitly not necessary in one of the Next betas, but that wording got removed.

Paladin's move to being irreligious is actually a weirder shift. Old editions and settings had Clerics that didn't technically worship Gods, but Paladins were "chosen champions" even more important and cool than Clerics for quite a while, and with all sorts of restrictions that even Clerics didn't have to put up with (though Clerics had their own that Paladins didn't). But that's gone completely now, because alignment-restricted classes are dumb and having multiple classes for different alignment shades of the same thing is even dumber (Paladin, Blackguard, Mehguard).

>>48262618
How were you getting Hunter's Mark in the previous version?

File: Necromancer.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

What needs to be changed?

>>48262631
You accidentally included Beast Master Ranger.

>>48263103
from paladin lvl 3 oath spells

File: 8d109520ab0d66649ee6b004513c4e6b.png (81 KB, 435x308) Image search: [Google]

81 KB, 435x308

>>48262874
>>48263082
???

I think 3.5 (probably other editions too) had a blurb about non-deity aligned clerics, and I'm sure some settings might, but I don't think what you're describing is RAW

>>48262931
Ranger hate is less about them being underpowered and more about them being boring.

>>48262928
For the Rowdy Roddy Piper reference, I hereby retract all criticism of you.

That said, paraphrasing somebody in greentext is commonly interpreted as sardonic. Strident probably wasn't the right word to use. Even in a tumblr-friendly deity-free setting, being an adventuring warrior dedicated to Secular Humanism is still a more ready supply of plot hooks that being some jabroni that randomly picked up a sword or spellbook and decided to take up the murderhobo lifestyle.

>>48263082
"As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you
want your character to embody, Appendix B includes
lists of many of the gods of the multiverse, Check with
your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."

Sounds fairly explicit to me. On the other hand, I'm not seeing anything saying that you can be a cleric without a deity.

>>48263115
I see two major problems. First it describes a cha spellcaster, then uses int for casting. Second it expects me to read 13 pages when the necromancer class already exists as a wizard archetype

>>48263123
I didn't make that pdf. some other anon was posting it weeks ago.

I don't know anything about 5e rangers, don't care to either.

fuck I wish I wasn't playing 5e, but I told my group I'd give it a shot.

>>48262914
Not him, but if you're going to get upset like that you probably shouldn't ask for people's thoughts on 4chan.
That comment wasn't even particularly bad, just unhelpful. That type of post is best ignored. Responding to it like that, trying so desperately to be insulting, so clearly lashing out, just makes you seem upset.

>>48263241
I wish I wasn't playing 5e either, but my group doesn't even want to try experimenting.

File: becmi_cleric_fluff.jpg (69 KB, 288x709) Image search: [Google]

69 KB, 288x709

>>48263148
The possibility of godless clerics goes waaaay back in D&D, it's just quite common to associate clerics with gods. It's possible to have a non-religious cleric in the same way it's possible to have a fighter that doesn't get into fights. The name of the class has certain connotations that will reasonably lead people to make and use characters in a certain way, probably the best way, but it's not entirely mandatory.

Pic related, from the BECMI red box.

>>48263279
While that is a completely legitimate point, it isn't RAW for 5e

>>48263255
Asking for opinions on 4chan does not deprive me of the right to shitpost as well, though.
> :^)

It just seemed like the guy had something to say, i was merely trying to bait it out of him.

Also,
>>48262846
>>48262846

>>48263300
>"Check with
your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
>"None"

Now what?

I know this is weird but do anyone know how to bypass zone of truth.

I asked because my chara became a lawyer for a thief (I am doing this so this will attract the attention to the thief guild for our thief)and I found out that the court has the zone of truth when you stand in court
and the jury has an anti-charm rune around them during the trial

the accused is basically charged with stealing when it was a 2 man job and he was just there to pick up the goods... but he got caught

how should i play this out? I mean we plan to charm the jury prior to the case but I need to make a strong case before than so it is somewhat convincing

>>48263335
Just do what real lawyers do.

Drown the jury in pedantry and technicalities.

>>48263333
Not that anon, but by 5e RAW, you basically can't be a cleric. You can be a Paladin. Just not a Cleric.

>>48263348
care to give example
I dont know much about this

>>48262931
I have no Ranger hate. I have WotC hate for leaving them lackluster in comparison to other classes. They're special because they focus on damage output from ranged attacks. Except Fighters can do it better, and sooner. They're special because they have limited spells to compliment their damage output. Except Paladins have this as well, and less limited. They're special because something something nature, except Druids exist.

I WISH Ranger was decent. I love Rangers. I'm playing a Ranger. But the class is just fucking there.

>>48263160
Disagree with this, though. Shift a few abilities around, make their magic capacity on par with Paladin OR give them a cantrip or two, and give them a scaling bonus to ranged attack/damage that eventually outshines the Fighter's access to thee Archery Fighting style and you're on track to a worthwhile class.

Oh, and finally get rid of Favored Enemy. Seriously, fuck Favored Enemy.

>>48263335
Glibness spell. Maybe you could get a scroll from a wizard after adjourning the trial somehow.

>>48263241
It was a joke Beast Master Ranger is the buttmonkey of 5e

>>48263378
>Ranger hate stems from people finding it boring
>"Hurr durr I disagree because if you completely disregard the rules of the game and change shit all around it could actually be good."

What a fucking idiot

>>48263333
Ask your DM how he plans on making Clerics work then.

>>48263378
what would you want the ranger to be able to do, powers wise? or would you prefer making the ranger a fighter subclass where it gets a few druid/rogue powers?

>>48263364
Yesterday I drove through a road that said "No thru traffic" because of construction.

>I wasn't intending on driving through, I was going to visit a friend. It just so happened that I realized once I got there I didn't actually have any friends, so I decided to leave a different way than from where I came.
>I technically wasn't driving either, a friend was. So therefore i couldn't be charged with improper driving in the first place

It might not be the best example, but it is an example which in itself is another example

Also, you can use mutually exclusive claims as a defense. For example, if someone sues you because your dog bit them, you can defend yourself in court with both
>my dog was tied up in its kennel
>I don't own a dog
They're both valid defenses, even if common sense would make the jury suspicious why you would choose those two defenses together.

File: IsThisForReal.png (80 KB, 997x640) Image search: [Google]

80 KB, 997x640

Alright, which of you is this?

>>48263378
So Rangers get to be Fighters, Paladins, and Druids all at the same time?

>>48263148
>>48263201
>the most important question to consider
Doesn't exactly say "this is necessary" or "you must" or "the most important question to consider and definitively answer".

File: 1465836549075.jpg (111 KB, 474x474) Image search: [Google]

111 KB, 474x474

>>48262631
>Unearthed Arcana

>>48263115
Well, they start with three cantrips but you include a recommended list of four.

The whole "spending THP" thing is really weird and gets weirder with the "convert a resource to THP, and THEN spend that TPH" angle.

This class just generally seems to be all over the place. The 20th level feature hinges on creatures being frightened of you, but none of the other class features involve fear. Is the class about producing undead servants? Team support? Having a massive spell list? Skill monkey-ing? Pure damage output? It seems very unfocused.

All in all it comes off as very top-down design. You had an idea and thought about it in fluff terms without really considering what you wanted the class to do mechanically.

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

2 MB, 1818x4127

>>48263501
"I'm a non-binary quint-gendered disabled vegan spacefur hipparchist that's someone who believes the government should be run by whoever owns the most horses FYI" doesn't even chart on the list of People To Watch Out For On Roll20.

>>48262642
What's the history behind Warlock as a class in and outside of D&D?

I ask because 5e is the first edition of D&D I've really been interested in and when I saw Warlock I thought of three things: male witches who are basically just creepy wizards, Warlock from Dota whose ult summons a familiar, and Red Mages from Final Fantasy because their Artifact armor in XI is called Warlock's attire.

Then I saw the three pacts and wondered if they weren't all connected through some sort of lore I wasn't aware of (I imagine D&D lore since two of those are heavily inspired by it, but maybe there's more to it).

>>48263513
is unearthed arcana frowned on? They seem like shit articles to me, but all of 5e seems like shit, so who am I to judge.

>>48263420
What a useless and stupid post. Those were my general suggestions to take a mechanically lackluster class that's supposed to have the flavor of "dedicated archer", and make it more mechanically viable.

>>48263435
That's come up too. I'd be okay with that, but I'd rather preserve them as a class.

>>48263505
Are they getting Superiority Dice, Second Wind, Wild Shape and Divine Smite? Of course not. Giving them a small pool of cantrips would make their magic capability more useful. If that ends up. More important than that though would be something specific to favor archery, as that's supposed to be the class' specialty.

>>48263308
You never have a right to shitpost. And no, I don't believe you were trying to "bait" opinions out of them, I think you were just petty and upset.
Do better, anon.

>>48263594
>If that ends up.
Evidently I can't use the backspace key on my keyboard either.

>>48263569
Warlocks arose in 3.5e as a forever-caster class, basically Sorcerers on crack. All their shit was unlimited and they were "force of will" Cha-based casters who got their magic through having a special bloodline rather than studying anything (again, like Sorcs).

They are specifically "born, not made", and the overwhelming majority of them have some kind of fiendish lineage to blame for their powers, whether that be a great grandma who got knocked up by a demon lord or a father who bargained with a devil for some shit but had to sign over their first child.

5E Warlocks are pretty different from that first imagining.

>>48263420
Are you sub-literate?

>>48263082
>Paladin's move to being irreligious is actually a weirder shift. Old editions and settings had Clerics that didn't technically worship Gods, but Paladins were "chosen champions" even more important and cool than Clerics for quite a while, and with all sorts of restrictions that even Clerics didn't have to put up with (though Clerics had their own that Paladins didn't).

Godless paladins were established at least as early as 2e in The Complete Paladin's Handbook. I don't think 1e is explicit about it one way or the other.

>>48263569
Warlocks were introduced in 3.5e. They were basically fluffed like sorcerers. I think that (like sorcerers) they were more a vehicle for testing out non-Vancian spellcasting systems, not so much a lore thing.

Most of the fluff for the 5e warlock comes from 4e, which really fleshed them out.

File: CaFfW4SUcAAEmUv.png (94 KB, 524x499) Image search: [Google]

94 KB, 524x499

>>48263681
Wow, anon, your mastery of greentext is impressing us all so much.

>>48263569
They first became a core class in 4e when they were included in the first PHB as an Arcane Striker. That provided a lot of the fluff side of the 5e warlock--they've made a pact with a powerful entity who gives them power. As the old saying goes: "Wizards get good grades by studying hard. Sorcerers get good grades by being naturally talented. Warlocks get good grades by giving the dean a blowjob after school."

Crunch-wise, they focused mainly on single-target shutdowns. Their damage wasn't quite as high as other strikers, but their powers usually carried powerful control effects. They also weren't especially mobile by striker standards, though they did get concealment whenever they moved, which was pretty handy. They had a good selection of skills and utility powers that reinforced that.

>>48263435
Forgot to answer the first part of this directly, but as I've said, archery would be their specialty. Assuming for now that I wouldn't touch their spellcasting ability, I'd just flat out give them the benefits of the Archery fighting style right at level one instead of Favored Enemy/Natural Explorer. At level 6, they can pick a second style in place of their enhancements for Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer

>>48263681
Why don't you stop being so childish and upset someone even barely disagreed with you and respond to anything that's being discussed? If you have any suggestions on how to balance the Ranger class or make it less "boring", let's hear it.

>>48263771
>Archer should be the only option for rangers
And now I hate your opinion.
How about scouting, tracking, survival skills, with the capacity to be good in combat in various ways.
With some nature related magic to add utility.

>>48262724

They still don't really get anything that makes them any better in melee, is all I'm saying.

I'm left wondering if a warlock template isn't a better way to go about this seeing as how they seem fairly similar to Warlocks anyways. Don't make it a new Warlock patron or anything (though, that idea might work too) but they're similar in tone and in invocations too; why not use a warlock similar spellcasting progression template as a base?

>>48262706
>flat ban on multiclassing

Why? I can understand some restrictions if you've got some faggot rollplayers that just want to minmax, but otherwise it's fine.

File: westerns-warlock-poster.jpg (338 KB, 2348x1859) Image search: [Google]

338 KB, 2348x1859

>>48262597
>deendeefags confirmed for pleb-tier movie taste

>>48263771
>LOL GUISE RANGER MEANS ONLY BOW CUZ RANGE(R) AMIRITE

How about you go fuck off and kill yourself.

>>48263861
>Archer should be the only option for rangers
Woah whoah, slow down there. Breathe. I never said they shouldn't be able to do those as well. Literally the only thing I said was "give them Archery and let them pick another style later" aside from "take away Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer".
>scouting, tracking and survival skills
Assuming here you're lamenting the loss of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer. I'll defend removing those any day. Tieing the mechanical utility of the Ranger's ability to track enemies and maneuvre around terrain to specific enemy types and terrain types is a bad idea. Favored Enemy is a sacred cow fluff mechanic with little effect and Natural Explorer could be a decent later-level ability if you expand it to all terrain types.
>good in combat in various ways
I'm honestly confused here. Did you miss where I flat-out gave them a second fighting style at level 6?
>nature-related magic
Again, I have no idea why you think I'd limit that. If anything I want to expend that. Not to something as powerful as the Druid's nature-related magic, but again, really not seeing how you think I'm putting that aspect of the class under fire.

What the fuck is going on with the reading comprehension in this thread?

File: paladin socko.jpg (694 KB, 819x1024) Image search: [Google]

694 KB, 819x1024

>>48264045
Is it time for Western D&D?

Can I use Channel Divinity to Turn Shitposters?

>>48263501

is it wrong for me to think of her as "Vicky Dicky"?

>>48264130
First being better in some terrain is not a bad thing.
While I agree that the new incarnation of favored enemy is lack luster, the favored terrain rule giving significant benefits in the area you are supposed to focus in is good. It already includes rules that you add more terrain types as you level.

Second, having archery be the auto choice that is added onto still means that archery must be the speciality of the class. Because you are always an archer. Are an archer before you are anything else.
So whenaking a ranger I'd have to be a ranged fighter primarily, unless I feel like fighting against my class.

If you think the archer path should be better, argue for it being buffed. Not automatic

>>48264047
You're just embarrassing yourself.

>>48264339
How about you go suck my halberd-bill-glaive-guisarme.

Not sure where else to ask this, hopefully someone here can help me out.

A few threads back one anon posted a PDF to an old D&D TSR module called, "Against the Cult of the Reptile God," which was aimed at 1st to 3rd level characters.

I gave it a read-through and liked a fair bit of it and wanted to convert it to 5th edition, but the PDF is missing some of the maps. Specifically, the maps for the two inns in the town and the dungeon for where the "reptile god" resides. My google-fu has failed me, so if someone can direct me to where the maps can be found I'd greatly appreciate it (and share the conversion on here once I finish it).

So, I am about to run PotA next week, and I am a little scared of the sandbox. I just know the party is going to end up somewhere they shouldn't be. and these guys I am running this for are all randoms off the internet, so its not like they would be cool with me nudging them away from certain areas or too forgiving of a TPK like a group of friends would.

So what is the best way to handle this? should I set up walls around areas I dont want them to be? I was thinking about making easy and hard versions of every keep and temple, then they can go through them in any order and still not be caught in boiling water, or met with low level trash they just have to mop up.

Or is just letting it be an open sandbox with the team possibly getting in over their heads part of the experience?

What did you do if you ever ran PotA?

>>48263990
Multiclassing is inherently twinky because they put mechanics over flavor, when the thing that separated an RPG from a war game is that the flavor is meant to be equal or even more important than the mechanics. People say they do it for character/story reasons, but you know that's just an excuse. It's bullshit 99% of the time. I think it should totally be allowed, so long as a campaign actually has the character doing things that'd lead them down that path, but planning to multiclass ahead of time because of "muh build" is a sign of a shitty player. What, you're a sort-of skilled paladin, amateur ranger who serves Cthulhu on the weekend? Yeah, that's cool, and hey: "coincidentally" you one-shot the BBEG, that's cool, too, right?

File: n1-front.png (2 MB, 1075x865) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1075x865

>>48264388
Didn't realize that version didn't have the maps. That was just the only version I had that was small enough to upload on 4chan (it was also a freebie from WotC afaik).
Here's where you can find one with the proper maps included:
mega:#F!9k0mnRDA!4izJiGrCIFeoHBlbskROwg!wg1xGDqC

>>48264458
And that link came out a bit weird, use this one if the other one is being silly:
https://mega.nz/#F!9k0mnRDA!4izJiGrCIFeoHBlbskROwg

ADnD -> 1e -> Modules -> N series

>>48263945
I already tried that, it doesnt work well at all. they are supposed to get a fuckton of low level spell uses, not a few strong ones. I also took the invocations from the warlock because the 3.5 version of the class was granted a lot of bonus feats and invocations seemed like the best way to plug that gap.

the unseen weapon feature is meant to give it a taste of melee prowess, not convert them into a martial archetype. If anything, its meant to be more gish in nature, though its combat capabilities are still limited, like you had said.

I lowered the damage from the smite from 2d4+2 to 2d4, half necrotic half cold. Is that more fitting in power level?

>>48264718
oh, and restricted it to 3 times per long rest.

>>48264254
>Favored Enemy/Terrain
Well I'm less against FT than I am against FE. I hear you here to some degree, but I'm not sold on it. Official sources even point out the limiting nature of tieing mechanical benefits to such conditional factors as what enemies you happen to face or what environments you happen to be in, specifically in regards to the FE feature.

Instead of FT as written, I'd reverse the terrain types and the benefits; rather than choosing one type of terrain to receive all of those benefits for, I'd instead make those benefits universal across all terrain, but have the players choose which benefits to receive. This way they are equally valuable wherever the progression of a campaign may take its players.

>Archery
Honestly, I'd argue that Archery being the default combat choice for the class called "Ranger" is a pretty reasonable supposition to make. No other class is designed around long-range weapons, and that's a unique specialization that I think you could pretty easily assume of someone building a Ranger.

>buffed, not automatic
There's no "archer path". There's a fighting style that Fighters have access to before Rangers, that carries benefits specific to long-range combat. Expanding that fighting style still wouldn't address the fact that players looking to specialize in archery are more incentivized to go Fighter than Ranger, and that is a serious failing of this edition of this class.

File: asdassd.png (46 KB, 1173x447) Image search: [Google]

46 KB, 1173x447

>>48263501
Here have some more that I found yesterday.

>>48264821
Well that was underwhelming.

Honestly, these are pretty boring, and if they're not, they're likely just trolling.

>>48264780
>FT
That makes very little sense.
Why would you not just be better in the terrain you most familiar with?

>Archery wouldn't fix fighter being better
It would if you made it an option with equal or better buffs to the fighter choosing archery buffs

>Limiting the explorer type to just being the ranged class.
>Having ranged weapons be the focus for an entire class and not a specialization one or more classes.
All of my why. You just pointed out there isn't a melee only class.
Something that narrow should not be a class.

>>48264490
No worries, this one has the maps, so I can continue working on the conversion.

>>48264780
>I'd argue that Archery being the default combat choice for the class called "Ranger" is a pretty reasonable supposition to make
It's ranger as in the verb--to range, to travel or wander far.

>>48264921
Frankly, what doesn't make sense to me is choosing a class where your utility is influenced by whether you're adventuring in a forest or a grassland. Rather than thinking of the benefits granted by Natural Explorer as inherent to the environment the Ranger is most familiar with, why not think of them as individual skills the Ranger has learned to hone over their years traveling? Disagree with me if you will, but I think that a Ranger who specializes in individual sets of skills makes just as much sense as one that instead specializes in operating in individual types of terrain.

>better buffs
Could you explain this further? Are you suggesting that the Ranger's Archery fighting style should have ribbons that the Fighter's doesn't, or somehow be different mechanically? Fighters and Rangers both have access to the exact same benefit in the RAW, if they choose Archery.

Look, you seem to really want to hammer in the idea that I think that Rangers should be nothing but arrowsluts and that's just not accurate. I DO want them to be better at it than Fighters can be, or at least to be capable of using it in ways that Fighters can't, but I don't want them to be relegated only to ranged weapons and Fighters to melee weapons. This class needs something, because as it stands, Ranger has virtually no intrinsic combat specialization and can't do anything that another class can't do better.

Unless you want to track a wolf, maybe.

>>48265309
>Why not think of them as individual skills.
Well I can't get lost in this terrain.
But I can in this, but I know how to navigate well enough that I can't be slowed down.
And I have no advantage for traveling here, but I can track things real good.

Yep, makes perfect sense that these extremely related things would have no connection to each other, but "I'm extremely familiar with this type of terrain that I grew up in/ trained for" makes no sense at all

>>48265060
Fair enough. That actually fits better with my ideas on the Natural Explorer feature, even if it does admittedly undermine the inherent focus on archery I've been arguing for.

So maybe imposing ranged combat on the class isn't the answer. It's still a sadly underperforming class that needs retweeking.

How is this for a cantrip?

10ft cone targets take 1d4 necrotic damage and must succeed a con save or take 1 level of exhaustion for 1 round.

>>48265309
>Can't do anything better
Because you're only looking at combat.
If the phrase "cannot become lost by except by supernatural means", even limited to a single type of terrain at first, did not strike you as "wow, this is a very big ability" then we aren't even playing the same game.

>>48265610
Stop trying to force this meme you faggot.

>>48265591
It needs tweaking but you are proving that you are not the person who should be doing that tweaking.

>>48265637
>meme
lol youre the faggot if you think thats a meme.

>>48265637
How is this for a cantrip?

10ft cone targets take 1d4 necrotic damage

When should I make a Sorcerer roll on their Wild Magic table?
I don't want to bring it up too much and make everything feel too random, nor do I want to only bring it up during crucial moments.
I was considering just rolling a die every time they cast a spell to determine whether Wild Magic kicks in, but how often should it come up? 50%? 25%?

>>48265569
Would you spare us the bullshit? Not only did I not suggest that the latter "makes no sense", I'm not even saying that you shouldn't be able to do that - I'm literally just suggesting an alternative.

And why the assumption that all Rangers "train for" one specific terrain? I think Rangers ought to be a lot more variable. So yes. I DO think that it makes sense for a Ranger to be as adept at, for instance, tracking in the forest as in the desert, if the Ranger in question is roleplayed as a wander or a traveler.

>>48265624
I am not. That's a good enough ability to salvage a failed survival check, sure, but is that really enough to justify the Ranger's first level?

>>48265650
AGAIN, I ask you to spare the bullshit. If you have ideas, share them.

Drawing up a warlock using that one UA Undying Light pact. Also, going to try and go the pact of the blade route. Anyone have suggestions?

>>48262597
>how have your warlocks enriched your games lately
I played a warlock, Charles Ward, who was really enthusiastic about trying to summon up Cthulhu again. He was cheerily insane and got on really well with the bard because we both loved to sing.
He freaked out the fighter by telepathically asking him if he'd "heard the good word of Yog-sothoth." He also jokingly told a tale of how much fun he had when he met a Shoggoth and how he still smiles as he remembers the being that should not be.
I also sung several Lovecraftian versions of Christmas carols during short rests.
Charles might've been the most fun I've had as a caster, even topping the time I murdered two zombie ice giants in a turn.

>>48262642
>Who knows? Not me.
I've never lost control.

>>48265569
Still waiting on you to elaborate on those "better buffs", by the way, unless that's you again, greentext shitposter from earlier. You certainly sound like that anon.

>>48265896
Talk to your DM about pact of the blade changes. There are several good ones out there that make it not a straight downgrade from every other pact boon.

How would you build Tarzan?

>>48266234
It could be a shit load of things.
Off the top of my fucking head:
Have an archer focused progressive power choice in addition to the single weapon style choice.
Have spells that buff arrow shots. I mean they already have things like this. Have more.

My problem was that your basic concept and ideas were wrong.
That the ranger should be focused around bows.
That unless the archer upgrades were automatic there could be no way to make the ranger the preferred archery choice.
That being better in archery, or even damage output in general, was the best way to make rangers better.

I'll go into more detail about what I would do once I'm off my phone.

File: 1456440625881.jpg (225 KB, 1096x883) Image search: [Google]

225 KB, 1096x883

>>48262597
Okay thread, hypothetical question time!

You are tasked by WotC to subtly change the Ability Score system of D&D 5th Edition, so that every stat is SIGNIFICANTLY USEFUL for every character, regardless of race or class. Assume that the current benefits of attributes, such as skills and saving throw bonuses, are not considered 'good enough'.

Stats still have to range between 3 and 18 (20 maximum for PCs), provide the same modifier based on the score, and you cannot add or remove any stats. You can make limited adjustments to the existing class features of the game, but they'd prefer you not mess with anything written in a Class description.

Some classes can still gain more benefit from a specific high score; for example, Wizards need Intelligence for their spellcasting, so they get more out of it than other characters. However, a Wizard would get a noticeable benefit from Strength, and putting an 8 into that Stat would seriously suck for them, as badly as an 8 Dexterity or an 8 Constitution.

In essence, if you had to remove Dump Stats from your game, and make all stats somewhat useful for everyone, how would you do it?

Inb4 "Have you tried not playing D&D?"

>>48265879
Roll the d20 surge check after every level 1 or higher spell.

If they've used Tides of Chaos, the next level 1 or higher spell auto-triggers a surge.

>>48266437
The easiest fix is removing class restrictions on skill proficiencies, which really should have been based entirely on background.

File: ehbxb8U.jpg (2 MB, 1040x1536) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1040x1536

HUMANS

I'm trying to figure our some racial rules for humans that make them a little more interesting, thematically, than being the "jack of all trades" race. The main variation is boring as shit (+1 to everything, 1 skill proficiency, have fun), and though the alternative one (+1 to 2 stats, 1 skill proficiency, 1 feat) is arguably less dull, it's also very strong in 5E because of how feats are.

The humans in my setting are the most prolific casters. Their tribals have more shaman, their civilizations have more mages, and their outcasts have more warlocks. A legacy of magic flows in their veins, regardless of whether they act on it.

What would be a suitable magic-related thing that doesn't just make humans a magical race (i.e. no inherent cantrips, no detect magic, etc.)? I also want non-casters to get some use out of it, even if it is less.

>>48266437
Bit like Pillars of Eternity.
Strength affects all damage modifiers. All of them.
Dexterity affects all recovery time and defenses.
Constitution affects all health and resistances.
Intelligence affects all range of abilities and ability to bypass resistances.
Wisdom affects perception and defenses.
Charisma affects how many chicks you get on your dick.

>>48266437
I write a report about how this is not a necessary change.
That all stats other than con tie to at least one commonly used skill, so tanking makes you bad at that.
Further not only is having certain stats be more useful for some classes fine, the inverse is also fine.

>>48266384
More spells for buffing archery was another idea I talked about with someone else, and I'm interested in hearing more about this progressive power choice.

>your basic concept and ideas were wrong
1. Being focused in archery doesn't exclude other abilities, and I went out of my way to point that out. But hey, I'll concede that, and I admitted that.
2. I don't know where you're getting "there could be no way" from; that was only one suggestion.
3. Now that's just not fair. I've only been discussing combat features, but that doesn't mean that's the only problem I have with the Ranger, and the only suggestions I have for them. Favoured Enemy and Terrain, for instance, I dislike for reasons outside of mechanics; I don't like that they impose roleplaying and character implications on your Ranger. I think making all Rangers focus on one specific type of enemy is boring, flavor-wise, and that's disappointed me since I started playing.

I'm not making a formal homebrew pitch here, just trying to toss ideas, there's no need for immature shit.

>>48264419
Probably bait

You're playing the wrong system if you're so against the concept of builds. Customization like that has been in the game since at least 2e, and people like it.

>>48266282
Bear totem barb, Human variant. Grappler feat. Outlander background.

>>48266282
Paladin of early 20th century white racism.

>>48266654
Hello, I don't know what balance is so you might not want to listen to me.
Give humans one additional ability score proficiency and allow humans to use that ability for rolls that don't already use it if they want. It's basically Resilient except casters can use their chosen ability to cast, so muscle wizards can be a thing in your world.
Martials get something out of it, casters get something out of it and it turns humans from 'jack of all trades' to 'master of what they choose'

>>48266893
???

>>48266826
Not only that, customization like that HELPS roleplay and flavor, it doesn't hurt it.

>>48267050
>doesn't hurt it
At the very least, doesn't have to. There are a lot of interesting things you can do with a Rogue/Fighter, a Barbarian/Ranger, etc.

Guys, I'm making eldritch knight dex fighter, and I need to pick a feat. What should I go for?

>>48266437
I remove ability score modifiers from the game.

>>48267176
War Caster.

>>48266992
It's a joke. The person to whom you're responding is intentionally focusing on the part of the Tarzan story least relevant to creating a Dungeons and Dragons character.

>>48267176
Dex fighter probably means you're using a shield, which means you want War Caster so you don't have to swap around what you're holding all the time.

>>48267176
Sharpshooter, skilled, mobile, magic initiate, blade mastery, warcaster, durable, medium armor master

>>48267281
>medium armor master
>trap

>>48267281
>blade mastery
What is that?

File: UA Extra Feats.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>48267354
its a UA feat.

Could use some advice.

Got a DM who likes to max HP on everything we fight, and it really turns every encounter into a meaty slugfest. Irrelevant mooks end up poking away at us for several turns, whittling the party away. I was trying to think of how I could deal the most damage per round consistently so maybe I could cut through this meat a little faster, but I haven't come up with anything good. We're around level 3 (and won't be leaving it any time soon). How can I deal with this meatwall?

>>48267330
It IS a feat. it benefits dex. Never said it was good

>>48267354
>>48267388
>While wielding a sword (long, short, great, rapier or scimitar)
> +1 to hit
>advantage of Opportunity Attacks
>can use reaction on your turn to gain +1 to AC for a round

>>48267407
Exploit Sneak Attack damage. Work together with other players to flank and give each other advantage if you can.

>>48267407
Get sharpshooter or great weapon master next level to get a - 5 to hit /+10 damage if your ability bonus to hit is decent, or you can gain advantage easily (Someone in your party casts Faerie Fire, say)
Otherwise get heavy armour matter master to soak up a bunch of the low damage hits

File: 1456470468213.jpg (65 KB, 736x1040) Image search: [Google]

65 KB, 736x1040

>>48266640
>The easiest fix is removing class restrictions on skill proficiencies, which really should have been based entirely on background.
So you think giving all classes access to all skills would make, say, Intelligence about as useful to a Barbarian as Dexterity?

>>48266694
>Bit like Pillars of Eternity.
An interesting way to handle it. What specific bonuses would you have in mind? How would you handle recovery time, defences, resistances, etc?

>>48266701
>I write a report about how this is not a necessary change.
>That all stats other than con tie to at least one commonly used skill, so tanking makes you bad at that.
>Further not only is having certain stats be more useful for some classes fine, the inverse is also fine.
I've established that, in this hypothetical scenario, WotC doesn't view skill and save bonuses and being 'good enough' a reason for, say, a Wizard to invest in Strength. Also established is that not all attributes need be equal for different classes; Wizards still get the most out of Intelligence, but a Wizard with 16 Strength and 8 Constitution should be roughly as powerful as a Wizard with 8 Strength and 16 Constitution. Powerful in different, significantly useful ways.

>>48267185
We're assuming that you have to keep ability score modifiers in the game.

>>48263594
>Supposed to be a class that favors archery.
Yours is just another opinion in the sea of them that's pulling the ranger down. Can't satisfy everybody, so it doesn't satisfy anybody.

>>48267407
Focus on ways to get critical hits. Typically that means putting them to sleep or paralyzing them.

>Entangle
>"A creature in the area when you cast the spell must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be restrained by the entangling plants until the spell ends"
A creature...? Is this just shit wording or does this spell only target one enemy?

>>48267555
And I'm establishing that in this scenario "wotc" is being stupid and I'm tell them so rather than try and fuck around to do something that would likely cause more harm than good

>>48267654
It's weird wording. It's meant to affect each creature in the area.

>>48267654
"A person directly hit by an atomic bomb explosion dies" does not imply that only one person can be hit by an atomic bomb explosion per detonation.

>>48267555
>An interesting way to handle it. What specific bonuses would you have in mind? How would you handle recovery time, defences, resistances, etc?
Well I'm a fan of weapon/spell speeds, so dexterity would affect those speeds.
As to defences... not fully sure, but flat +1's to this and that are pretty boring these days. Maybe something actually a bit like skill powers from 4e, but with stats?

>>48267654
It's deliberately done. Any area of effect spell with a duration longer than instantaneous substitutes "a" for "each" because it could have a theoretically infinite number of targets for as long as it is active.

>>48267769
Huh, I never realized that. Thanks, that's what was throwing me off.

>>48267725
That would be a rather obvious assumption to make from that statement. Not so much with the wording of a spell in a fantasy game.

>>48262846
Sounds fun. Do it.

>>48262846
A DM's pulled this one on me. I had fun and thought it was pretty cool.

Is repelling blast fun? Is it extra fun with lightning lure, so I can put enemy wherever I want?

>>48266740
>1. Being focused in archery doesn't exclude other abilities, and I went out of my way to point that out. But hey, I'll concede that, and I admitted that.
no, but it means that it becomes part of your character, whether you want it or not.
And given that it's been established that to be a ranger is NOT to be a ranged fighter. And that no other edition has done this, you're now forcing people who want to play the explorer/outdoorsmen whatever to also be an archer.

This is bad, as it narrows the concept.

2)>>48264780
>Expanding that fighting style still wouldn't address the fact that players looking to specialize in archery are more incentivized to go Fighter than Ranger, and that is a serious failing of this edition of this class.

3) >I don't like that they impose roleplaying and character implications on your Ranger.
but saying that they should be 'the range focused class' isn't?

Green text is there to show that you did in fact say these thing.


Also
>implications
that they are more familiar with one type of terrain, which they get to pick, than others?
I don't know a way that you could not have either had more experiance with, or more training with, one thing, than with others, as a level one character.
You are at the start of your story, you aren't universally skilled yet.
You already picked a background, expand a bit on that.

Now the one type of enemy I will, somewhat, grant you, but terrain, no. You started somewhere.

What do you call your raven familiar? You do name your familiars, right?

>>48268339
How many people call their raven familiars something other than Nevermore?
I call mine Naesala.

>>48266992
>>48267202

If you've ever read the original Burroughs novel, it's about 90% about how awesome Tarzan's English Blood is. If you're making a Tarzan character that doesn't revolve around his magical whiteness, you've missed the point of the character.

>>48266437
If I were in that situation, I would create a new "stat" called Action.
Each ability modifier adds to the sum of this stat. The highest modifier adds itself once, the second highest twice, the third highest thrice, and so on until the 6th highest (lowest) is added 6 times to the total. You must [roll a d20 UNDER the sum of your Action stat minus your character level] in order to succeed in performing any action. In addition, your health is now double your Action stat instead of based on hit die.

There. Now every stat is Significantly Useful to every character regardless of race or class After that I'd immediately scrap it because it is a silly idea.

>>48268434
Mine is called "Walnut" because it is obsessed with walnuts.

Though my group ignores that "spirits" bullshit and just has them as actual living creatures.

>>48268434
ikol

>>48266740
>>48265893
>That's a good enough ability to salvage a failed survival check, sure, but is that really enough to justify the Ranger's first level?
this needs to be addressed

You are massively underselling how good this is. As in, this is too good to allow for players to have in all terrain starting at first level.

Because this isn't 'salvaging a failed check', this is getting 20, or better, on a check.

I'll give you an example. In the campaign I'm currently in, we escaped from a tower into the middle of a dense woods, in the middle of the night, after a massive thunderstorm, and needed to get a wounded NPC back to town.

Stack those penalties up, dark, dense forest, all trails and paths destroyed after storm, mud, still raining.
How much did I need to roll to find our way back?

Nothing, because I had FT forest. I also made it so the group could travel at full speed, which would have been into the 30s for a check. Impossible at level 3. I got that automatically.

FE being out of combat based now is actually an improvement in my opinion. The tracking bit is pretty lack luster, but advantage on all rolls to know something about any creature of that type is huge. You know these things.

Primeval awareness is also pretty damn cool. My main problem is the '1 minute per spell level bit' because basically there is no reason to use more than first level slots as with the range that broad and no direction, it's basically a one time 'yes/no' for each thing on that list.
I'd tweak it to letting you know better range bands with higher spell levels.

The other tweak would be the archetypes. Hunter isn't very coherent, it's just a collection of decent combat advantages. And beast master is just not very good at all.

Also, hide in plain sight at level 10 is fucking amazaballs if you are at all creative in how you use it.

The class has bitching out of combat utility.

What should my Pallock first feat be?

Resilient for bonus to CON saving throw to concentrate Hex?

Great Weapon Master because I like big weapon?

>>48268271
Again, my suggestion of them getting that fighting style was just that - a suggestion. To infer that I somehow felt that "there could be no other way" to make them more appealing long-range fighters is completely baffling to me.

Anyway, since we've put behind the idea that they're intended to specialize in archery,
>I don't know a way that you could not have either had more experiance with, or more training with, one thing, than with others, as a level one character.
The same way you could have a breadth of skills in a single terrain, so could you hone a select number of those skills in such a way that you can apply them universally. Rather than mastering one terrain, your character could be a wanderer who's learned to carry their skills across different types of terrain. Yes, you started somewhere, but you don't have to have stayed there the entire time you were "gaining" your first level. Even at level one, you're assumed to have sufficient skill and experience to justify your abilities.

>somewhat
At this point, I really have to ask, what are the parts of Favored Enemy that you actually like, apart from "makes sense if a character is devoted to hunting one particular type of enemy"? It's not often I meet someone who doesn't virtually entirely disavow it.

>>48268757
> To infer that I somehow felt that "there could be no other way"
because when other ways were suggested you rejected them.

>so could you hone a select number of those skills in such a way that you can apply them universally.
That's what the survival skill represents.
You're just better at areas you have more familiarity with. As someone whose done any sort of outdoorsmenship, you are better able to do them in areas you more familiar with.
All the things in that feature are so closely related, splitting those up gets weird.
But again, those are all things you can do in every terrain, you're just better in the area you know best.

>Favored enemy
representing familiarity and experience. That's what I like about the new version, it's not necessarily something you hate and want to kill, it's something you know a lot about and are very familiar with.

>>48268569
Okay, point taken. It's a good ability. A great ability, and can REALLY save a party's ass. I have to say though, that's such a highly situational benefit that I just wouldn't feel comfortable hoping for something like that in most campaigns. Personally, I think that should be its own feature, for later levels, and applicable in all situations, because to me, it s eems like that is more of a testament to your character's internal sense of direction and instincts than ability to appraise their own environment.

And I agree with you on FE being non-combat involved being better, for much the same reason. Its highly conditional utility was pretty unsavory, especially as your character progressed on and encountered different types of enemies.

>>48267555
>So you think giving all classes access to all skills would make, say, Intelligence about as useful to a Barbarian as Dexterity?

It would let the barbarian be useful with intelligence if they wanted to, without having a feat tax for it. I'm not saying that every class should be proficient with every skill all the time, just that letting people pick their proficiencies entirely based on background, instead of letting it be limited to class and somewhat helped by background would be better.

>>48268906
Fair enough. I like the idea of representing familiarity and experience mechanically too, I just seriously disagree with the limits on the nature of that experience and familiarity.

>>48268624
warcaster

>>48263115
it should be deleted

>>48265610
lol wtf

File: (judgemental stare).jpg (56 KB, 517x572) Image search: [Google]

56 KB, 517x572

>>48263501
I hate Roll20.

>>48263560
I want to fucking die

What cool magic items would a lizardfolk shaman have? Preferably something useful to a party of fighter, paladin, wizard, cleric and bard.

Could be something consumable, too.

>>48269486
Staff of the Python/Staff of the Adder
Ring of Animal Influence
Bag of Tricks

>>48269486
Those magical Pipes of Haunting for the Bard- just don't ask how lizard folk can purse their lips to play the pipes.

>>48268503
Doesn't this make a 14/14/14/14/12/12 human the strongest in the game? Under your system, they have a 31 Action

>>48269893
Not necessarily the strongest, but one of the higher action scores. I don't know of any class that gets more than 7 ASIs, so a 20 Fighter would get 16/16/15/14/14/14 at best. Its not a good idea by any means, but "no dump stat" status achieved.

>>48269538
>Staff of the Python/Staff of the Adder
Those were the first that occurred to me. But cleric is dex-based and I don't think they'd like using snakes. Ring of Animal Influence sounds interesting, though.

Feat or ability score increase?

>>48267555
This isn't a 'real' solution and obviously upsets balance, but is definitely an incentive for more balanced stats.

Do saving throws by requiring you to roll under your raw score. A int score of 12 requires you roll 12 or lower to pass. This is an un-Pathfinder and un-D&D way to deal with it (more GURPS-ish really), but it's a far more powerful incentive for balanced stats than a -1.

Of course, even if this didn't fuck with balance, it relies on the threat of saving throws, which may or may not be significant, depending on a variety of factors.

Playing a Noblemen Graduate from Wizards College adventuring as an internship so he can get some respect in the world.

Should I go Divination or Bladesinger with a polish sabre? I am torn

>>48270254
Then you can never fail a saving throw for a stat you have a 20 in? What about you have to roll under [your targeted stat - caster's ability modifier]? So if both you and the caster have 20s in the relevant score you need to roll under 15 to save.

>>48270368
Yeah, that would work around that. You'd have to adapt traps and the like to have some kind of equivalent as well.

That's honestly pretty interesting, when you think about it, because someone with a particularly low stat like 8 would have a terrible time passing a save against someone with even a moderately high score.

I don't know if that's good or bad. Proficiency bonus could help, but it's not like your dump stat is going to be one of the two your proficient in.

>>48270139
yes

My DM decided he wanted to run a new game in 5th ed and I've never played. How do backgrounds work? Are those things all in *addition* to what proficiencies you get as part of your class, or are those features substitutes for what you get as part of your class? Also, are cross-class skills still a thing, or do you just not add your proficiency bonus? If I play a barbarian, am I still allowed to make Arcana/Performance/Sleight of Hand checks? Can just everyone Use Magic Device regardless of class/abilities now?

Thanks.

Still getting the hang of losing all of my fighter feats.

Man, as I'm going through this "Cult of the Reptile God" module I'm amazed at how many, "no save vs. traps" or "no save vs. poisons" there are in this setting. And this is a module aimed at level 1-3 characters? Nearly a third of the named NPCs are retired adventurers or people that have - basically - a level or two in some class, even if their stats might be shit.

If any group tried to murderhobo their way through this there's a good chance they wouldn't even last a night.

>>48270405
Let's see here... a rogue with 20 Dex and +3 proficiency needs a 7 or higher to beat DC 15. That's 70% chance to succeed. If he had to roll under his stat, modified by his proficiency and enemy stat+proficiency (7), that means rolling under a 16. That's 75% chance, so not too far off... On the other hand, a character with 10 Dex and no proficiency would need to roll under a 3, which means 10% chance compared to the 30% he has under the normal rules. But I guess that was the intended purpose?

>>48270139
As a general rule, and this is a very general rule.

Ability score til your prime requisite is 20, then feats.

>>48270608
Also, the amount of NPCs that have random +1 weapons or armor is just dumb. And there's a couple people with Ring of Protection or even a +2 weapon or armor too.

And I thought Greyhawk was a mid-level fantasy setting? This town is damn near tripping over how wealthy and magical their items are.

>>48270636
I guess. It really just seems to be making high ability scores more powerful, which is a bit lackluster.

That is sort the point, though, so go figure.

>>48270588
Backgrounds give your character some extra equipment, two skill proficiencies, two tool proficienices/languages, and a background feature ribbon that rarely ever comes up in play. They're an important part of your character, what you did before you became an adventurer.

>>48270663
Soooo... They're in addition!

>>48270588
Backgrounds merely add to your base class, and can be modified to fit your character. Essentially everyone gets 2 skill proficiencies and 2 languages and/or tool proficiencies plus some gear, on top of everything you get from class and race.

There is no Use Magic Device check now everyone can use most magic items unless it has some requirement. And everyone can try to use any skill, yes. They're all keyed to a certain stat, if you're not proficient you simply add the stat modifier.

>>48270649
That module is for older DnD. Pre 3.5 I'm almost positive, but past that I can't remember. Both Magic Weapon economy and Character Death Economy were extremely different between 30yo DnD and 5th ed

You're going to have to do some conversions on a few things.

>>48270655
It makes the penalty for low scores more pronounced, so once again it encourages no dump stat, or it accentuates the specialization that comes from having high/low stats. Attempt those low score checks even less.

>>48270655
Rather than making high ability scores more powerful it's mainly making low ability scores way more punishing. Having 8 in a stat would mean you will barely ever make a saving throw.

>>48270794
Which makes sense to me. Saving throws are already meant to be something difficult, and someone who is below average in something shouldn't be able to typically pass.

It does make higher abilities scores more powerful as the other guy calculated. I guess it's not a big deal, though.

>>48270738
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I just wish that the chance to fail isn't so high at 10.

I haven't asked my DM, but this just occured to me.

Suppose I find a Wand of Magic Missile. Can I use it as a regular spell focus (wand) on top of also getting 7 charges worth of Magic Missile, or is Magic Missile the only thing the wand's good for?

I already have a spell focus for my current character, it just occued to me "Why fiddle with more gear in my hands/belt than I have to?"

>>48270738
My guess, based upon various annotations and how they list AC starting at 10 for being in peasant clothes, but lowers as they scale in gear, that this is a 2nd edition module.

I mean, basically everyone is getting de-leveled in some fashion, most of the NPCs are just getting converted to basic commoner stats with annotations for if they use a different weapon due to their location, and the end boss is going to get nerfed a bit, because I don't think a CR 8 creature with lair actions is something a level 3 party can handle.

>>48270832
As far as I understand, any wand or staff can be used as an arcane focus. That's what you're supposed to do, I think.

>>48270906
Okay, neat.

Guess I'll stow my existing one in my component pouch for emergencies then.

File: Monster Hunter DnD 5e Supplement.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

How did this shit get so popular?

>>48271109
5e? Homebrew? Monster Hunter?

>>48271141
That homebrew in particular.

>>48271181
Can't really say, it's the first time I've seen it and I browse /5eg/ regularly.

Rolled 17 (1d20)

Do people use a wis/int check on plot points that the players haven't picked up on but that the characters may have worked out thanks to the character's high Wis/Int?

>>48271109
It didn't get popular.
Stop hitting the refresh button hoping your shitty homebrew gets noticed, and catches on.

>>48266826
>munchkins like munchkin things

Oh.

>>48267050
>>48267111
I, too, used to spend a lot of time thinking of reasons why I was earnestly sick and desperately needed to stay home to recover my health. But hey y'know might as well play some video games while I'm at it :^)

Don't feed me pigshit. You're twinks, embrace it.

>>48271260
Don't act retarded. Anyone with a shred of experience with 5e would realize that it was written by an idiot that's stuck on 5e and can't into balancing. All it takes is a glance to find something wrong, stupid, broken, or all three at once.

>>48271221
I generally wouldn't bother.
If it's integral to the plot then putting it behind a roll they might fail only creates more problems.
I'd do it for optional lore or history stuff, but if it's an important plot thing they really need to know there's no shame in telling them.

>>48271261
>unless you are a CHA maxed fighter who can't hit a goblin more than 10% of the time you aren't roleplaying

File: Gabriel_belmont_by_spadjm-d5bitfk.jpg (248 KB, 1086x1500) Image search: [Google]

248 KB, 1086x1500

How would you build a Whip Paladin?

>>48272051
With a whip

...and warlock.

How would you build a Booming Blade/GFB Rogue?

I'm thinking Arcane Trickster - Owl Familiar for flying in and "Help" for advantage. Then maybe 2 levels of bladesinger for an extra attack?

Ftr 1 for Dueling fighting style? Vhuman at level 1 for Sentinel and maybe Warcaster later?

>>48272125
> V.human
> Bladesinger

>>48272136
Derp.

Are Sentinel and Warcaster worth it at least, or just one of them. I think you'd struggle to get 2x feats and 20 int/20 dex.

Can I put Holy symbol (Emblem) on my sword instead of a shield?

What about Arcane Focus (Crystal)?

>>48272245
no, held, shield, or necklace. dm rule for everything else
non cleric focuses need to be held, same dm rule for otherwise.

My wizard just hit level 5 in today's session.

What are some good non-obvious and/or underappreciated 3rd level spell picks?

>>48272383
counterspell and dispel magic. holy shit are they stupid good.

>>48272051
One Level in sorcerrer ans the spell sniper feat.
Booming blade all day.>>48272089

>>48272125
Swashbuckler rogue 3 /Dragon sorcerer 1 for the cantrips and free AC/ Fighter 1 for dueling
And afteer maxing out your Dex and Cha you go and get your self some feats.

>>48265680
That's pretty weak. The avg. amount of targets of a 10ft. cone is 1. So thats a single target 1d4 damaging spell with no other effects. Save for zero or half damage?

Its the worst damage cantrip

>>48264419
This is always something I've wondered about. Multiclassing is a massive munchkin trap yes, it also can often not make a lot of sense in terms of RP (why does my Wizard suddenly have proficiency with every weapon class after leveling up?).

However, wouldn't it actually make sense in many cases for savvy adventuring types to have twinky, multiclassing tendencies? If someone spends their entire lives in the woods it makes sense for them to be a pure ranger, druid, or barbarian, however if that same person spent a long time helping an army they might develop the skills of a Fighter, or an interest in magic after encountering many friendly or enemy mages and/or magical artifacts. People have a natural tendency to diversify their skillset over time.

Hell, isn't the Bard class basically the embodiment of this entire phenomenon, except they happen to have a career preference for music rather than hired killing?

>>48272383
I also like melf's minute meteors. fun spell.

>>48270588

Yes to the above. Also, be aware that a lot of the "fighter feats" are now baked into the base rules and feat chains are almost entirely gone (armor prof. feats excepted) and are fairly circumstantial. You can make a perfectly serviceable fighter just by taking the ASI's instead and going Champion, but if you want something that feels a bit more 3.PF go Battlemaster.

In short, try to look at Fighter with new eyes. 5e uses a lot of the same mechanics as 3.PF, but the way those mechanics interact and what those numbers mean have changed a lot.

>>48272660
How is this then?

Wither
Necromancy cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Component: Somatic
Duration: Instantaneous
You siphon the very essence of a creature you can see up to 30ft away. The creature must make a successful Constitution saving throw or take 1d4 necrotic damage and have disadvantage on the next ability check it makes before the end of its next turn. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs. The spell’s damage increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th level (2d4), 11th level (3d4), and 17th level (4d4)

Think it can fly as a cone instead of single target?

>>48272728
i have a tempest cleric character that doesn't worship a god, but nature itself. his first feat is going to be magic initiate druid, and he's eventually going to take a few ranger levels to help solidify his "fuck yea, salt of the earth" without him being a tree wizard
he's taking initiate because i wanted him to be hearty not "strong" so his str and dex are pretty fucking low, and the ranger is really just for rp purposes (but taken till at least 3, so its not just wasted shit)

but yeah, i agree, npc's are basically the copy paste representatives of a class, pc's kinda get to do what they want, and alot of the time, its player prerogative to want to make a "better character". even the rp/fluff choices im making to multiclass are aligned to be the least terrible they can be

>>48272728
And to clarify where the "savvy adventuring types" factors into this, I'm mainly pointing out the fact that anyone in a D&D universe that makes their living or their purpose through killing dangerous things would be directly incentivized to pursue skills that make them as good at pursuing their goals as possible, not to just sit in their same path arbitrarily.

Which I guess comes down to one fundamental question: How much are PCs supposed to know about the potential skills they could acquire by taking levels in a specific class, and the mechanical effectiveness they may provide?

>>48272245

Yes, but not to any mechanical benefit. The ability to cast spells with both a somatic and a non-costed material component with a different object in both hands belongs to Clerics and Paladins alone. Everyone else has to have a free hand to "activate" it. So while you could, for example, put your arcane focus on a diadem instead of a necklace, you'd still have to free up a hand to cast with it.

If your concerned about casting with a two-handed sword, don't be. You're allowed to remove a hand from it to gesture and then return the hand free of cost. You're only required to have both hands on the weapon to make an attack action with it. The big takeaway is that you can't tie a crystal around your forehead and then cast with neck motions.

Do you think a version of Beguiling Strands would fly in 5e as a cantrip?

Honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been a massive spellbook addition homebrew yet.
Like, isn't most the shit in the PHB pretty vanilla?
I'm half tempted to run through my 4e books and pluck a bunch of spells out of there to toss them into a 5e format.

>>48272982
There's The (Not Really) Complete Tome of Spells, but that's full of unbalanced shit like Erik's Quills.

>>48272840

Still kind of terrible. 6 seconds of nerfed ability checks isn't worth dropping to 1d4, especially since 5e treats ability checks and saving throws as two separate things. The closest to that is Vicious Mockery, which nerfs attack roles instead.

Go here, read all the ranged damage cantrips until you get a sense of how "big" they're supposed to be. http://ephe.github.io/grimoire/#cantrip (you're looking for Acid Splash, Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, Frostbite, Lightning Lure, Magic Stone, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame, and Vicious Mockery)

>>48272982
4e spells might be more numerous but are much more bland. They're almost all just some damage plus applying one of the handful of templated buffs or debuffs. The few flavorful 4e spells, like Hurl Through Hell, are represented in 5e spells or class features.

>>48273033
Haven't seen that one yet.
Do you think Shaman might make a good Druid Circle? Circle of the Spirits or something, more based on elemental stuff or protection?

>>48273040
Yeah, i was copying vicious mockery's cantrip damage .

everybody here said disadvantage to ability checks is too strong of an ability for a cantrip.It isnt even 6 seconds worth of disadvantage, only disadvantage to the next ability check within the next turn.

Would a 10ft cone range pump it up enough? Im still trying to err towards the side of it being underpowered to be safe.

>>48273081
Honestly I'm not exactly looking at the core handbook spells.
Primarily some of the powers in the setting handbooks, like the higher level Artificer shit, or maybe some Psionics, could be good.

>>48272901

I would imagine just about everything. 5e's default settings are all based around factions trying to recruit, some of them quite overtly. I imagine in a populace town it's hard to pass too many street corners without all manner of proselytizing and advertising going on, not to mention the fact that gimmick parties excepted you've probably got a good mix of classes and skills in your own party to provide pickable brains.

Expecting a knowledge roll for everything was the biggest fuckup that happened to this hobby. It doesn't take nature proficiency to know that your pet dog is probably safe to be around, a wild dog is probably not, a wolf is a really wild dog, and a dire wolf is a really big really wild dog. Nor does it take training in advanced navigation tools to find your own house, but we've coddled bullshit from stupid DMs on the subject for so long its infected the whole damn hobby

>>48272935
It might be a bit too powerful desu senpai. check out the gust cantrip and extrapolate from there.

How do casting spell while holding two-handed weapon work?

Do I use the "free object interaction" to release my hand from the grip and cast spell? Does that mean I can't cast Hex as bonus action spell, re-grip my Greatsword and attack?

>>48273169
You get warcaster, or you sit and spin.

>>48273142
Why? What powers in particular do you think would be cool if they existed in 5e? Can you describe them in natural language and not just 4e templating?

>>48273169
You can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand. Two-hands are only required for attacking.

>>48273124
Disadvantage on ability checks is fine, causing exhaustion is not.

Exhaustion is explicitly a stackable condition. So 6 mooks casting this cantrip can kill anything

>>48273205
Ah i see. Hadnt thought of 6 mooks casting it on the same target. Would have been nice if someone just outright said that instead of just saying it was too powerful.

So would it be safe to remove the restriction on 1 ability check to all ability checks for the next round and change it to a 10ft cone? average targets in a 10ft cone is still only 1 target and you have to get close enough to hit the thing with it, but it still gives a chance of affecting 2 or more if there are lots of things clumped together. also friendly fire can be a thing.

or should i keep it at 30ft and make it disadvantage on the next saving throw instead? that seems more powerful to me but it would be a spellcasters inversion of vicious mockery, targeting their defense instead of offense.

>>48273198
I knew that. The problem is whether I can use OA during the same turn I cast or not.

>>48273258
Nah, disadvantage on the next saving throw is far too powerful. Consider the synergy with high level save or die spells. Also consider that its a TENTH LEVEL EK class feature.

DMG pp. 283-284 "Creating A Spell"

>>48273266
yeah, thats exactly what it means, you remove your hand to cast the spell, then put it back when you're done

>>48273169

Taking your hand off a two-handed object momentarily to do something else isn't even an action in itself anymore, this was a bitch-fight last year but team free action won it: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/30/2-weapon-casting/ and "Two-Handed (p. 147). This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it." from the PHB errata document.

>>48273178
Some good ones off the bat might be like thundering armor from Artificer
Target is a piece of armor, with a range of five feet.
You touch a piece of armor or shield and enchant it with thunderous magic.
The armor grants a +1 to AC of it's wearer, and when the wearer blocks a Melee attack using the enchanted armor, the attacker is pushed back five feet.

It could be a leveled spell or a cantrip, but I don't think it should be getting bonuses for higher levels or by being upcast.

>>48273410
No bad. Consider shield of of faith