>encounter distance is in the playtest but not in the DMG but on the DM screen

reeee

>>46953529
>What's your favorite class feature in the game?
Anyone who doesn't say "Combat Superiority" can get out.

Song of Rest and Panache.
If that UA ever becomes official: Unnerving Flourish.

>>46953491
Wat, no. The average of 4 1d6 rolls is 3.5

Reposting because I didn't notice last thread was already at it's end.

>>46953319
Not a good choice for my cleric, unfortunately. He only uses light armor. The Decanter of Endless (Holy) Water was a good one, but I'd still like to hear other suggestions if anyone has a good, flavorful idea.

I'm already working on a magical rapier for the Valor Bard that lets him use a Bardic Inspiration die to lower a foe's AC for a round, once per day. It'll also be constantly dripping blood and have some history tied to it.

File: 1434420675627.jpg (65 KB, 535x434) Image search: [Google]

65 KB, 535x434

>>46953529
How the flying fuck do you balance combat in this game?
I'm DM'ing and I have been for a few sessions but I'm pretty new. Combat is either:
>I can crush them instantly and I have to hold back and play dumb or else I'll slaughter them like lambs
OR
>They breeze through it like hot knife through butter

What am I doing wrong? How do I provide challenge that's doable?

>>46953681
In campaigns where I have a lot of urban segments and actually care about what they're wearing, Mithral light armors have a really nice thing with being concealable. Who would ever guess that the corset you're wearing is as strong as the guards' armor.

OTOH, in general it's underwhelming.

>>46953823
more enemies of less CR for more difficult encounters

fewer enemies of higher CR for the illusion of danger.

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

1 B, 486x500

Now with Zendikar.

>>46953935

Wait what? Isn't Zendikar some MTG thing? I haven't played MTG in a long time.

>>46953935
>tfw you bothered to fill the survey for this one
Innistrad would be really nice (and would fit great as a 4-domain cluster in RL), but it probably just really requires a bestiary.

>DM thinks encumbrance is fun

>>46954031
>not wanting kamigawa most of all.

Full pleb right here.

>>46954075
Please learn math

>>46953823
Use the XP budget guidelines in the DMG, but make sure to remember they suppose no magic items, just average power.

Lots of low level enemies are a real danger, they can (and will) eventually wear of the PCs. Go to published modules for examples.

>>46954080
>wanting the most hipster deck

>>46953823
>>46954162
Also, several fights on the same day. Even if each fight isn't deadly, they'll cost the party's resources, and they'll start getting worried quickly. Especially at low levels.

>>46953823
Don't stick to stat blocks. Don't show your rolls. Aim for "too hard" and reduce difficulty if you roll too well / the party rolls too shit. Feel free to change the statistics of creatures that can't have been revealed yet. If you have five orcs with 60 HP and it's become apparent that this fight is going to be too difficult, and none of the orcs have been killed yet or reduced to 10, you can just treat them as all having 50 HP now and no one will ever know. This goes for saves that haven't been revealed or alternate attacks; say enemies with +4 AB with their melee weapons are doing too much damage, so you make them decide to take some ranged shots at +3 AB instead with weapons that are d2 weaker. That "holding back and playing dumb" is the ideal state. Your players will occasionally do something really crazy or lucky and surprise you.

There's too much fucking variance in a d20 to make a truly balanced fight. Don't sweat it and flub your rolls and "AI". Just don't flub your rolls in a way that hurts the players. That way lies darkness.

>>46953972
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-zendikar-2016-04-27

I have to say probably Illusory Reality for higher levels, but it's so high that it will almost never come up so in general... Portent. It's very satisfying, especially as a guy who grew up on 3.5, to be able to just say "No... This happens, bitch."

Plus on a personal note, it's nice to see the divinationist finally not be the shit tier school of magic.

>>46954410
God fucking dammit. Don't listen to this guy. You are playing a game. There are rules for this shit. Follow them. If it's too hard, follow the rules to make it easier in the future. If it's too easy follow the rules for making it harder in the future. Your players need to know that some shit can kill them, and if they don't know when/how to run away then they need to be taught or reminded. If you just goof around and make shit up you aren't playing the game, you are jerking off your players and assuring them that they are super kool.

File: abandon thread.gif (4 MB, 800x450) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 800x450

>>46954410

Oh boy, the pro-fudging faggot is back. I guess now we'll have to endure 60 posts on why every DM cheats, and how we're all whiny bitches who've never actually DMed because we disagree.

Oh well, I didn't want to read this thread today, anyway.

I have to confess somethig. It's been on my mind. I kinda fudged some damage the other day. Not because the players were having a hard time, but because I realized that I put too much damage on a trap. That's not a REAL fudge right? Realizing that you broke the rules when creating the dungeon and changing it on the fly? More of a revision really.

>>46954842
The idea isn't to flub every roll for maximum balance or to bail the party out of dangerous situations they foolishly ran into or some shit luck. You skipped the whole slippery slope part of this argument and slid straight to the bottom.

Heavy improvisation is as much for your benefit as DM as it is for the players' enjoyment. You don't have to spend so much time on encounter balance if it's all malleable. And while you can spend just as little time worrying about that balance as someone who's going to change rolls, you get right back into the "too easy / too hard" shit, your players don't have fun, and they think you're shit at making encounters on top of it. Worrying about encounters is the stuff you want to be doing the least as a DM.

>>46954987
Forget the slipper slope part of the argument, the whole argument is stupid. You shouldn't *have* to fudge rolls. You should built encounters that your players can take on, some that they will roll over, and some that they will struggle with. It's up to the players to decide which is which. You should make have a contingency/dues ex machina if there is literally no way for them to escape, and it isn't their faults, but other than that you shouldn't intervene just to wank off your players.

>Don't worry guys, it's okay
>Look.
>See the bad guys are dead.
>You did it.
>Good job.
>Want me to jerk you off now?
>Okay, just hold still while I get this zipper...
>You are sooo kewl anon
fap fap fap
>And your imaginary alter ego is so kewl too
fap fap fap
>See how he did there?
fap fap fap
>He did real good and I didn't patronize you at all.
fap fap...

And I'm gona stop now because just realized I'm basically writing literotica at this point... But yeah, don't baby your players by pulling punches so you don't hurt their feelings.

>>46955162
>You should built encounters that your players can take on, some that they will roll over, and some that they will struggle with.
Okay, you have fun spending an hour or two (or more) for your encounter balance and still having it blown the fuck up.

>don't hurt their feelings
>wank off your players
Which one of these very different things did I imply in my post?

>>46954987
And I forgot to address your second point. You are basically saying that DM'ing is hard and that it's easier if you don't follow the rules. That's true, but chess can be hard. Should we be allowed to just break the rules of chess because it would make the game easier to play?

>>46955353
If you are making the game easier on your players, by preventing them from needing to run, you might as well be telling them that they are awesome, special snowflakes, and don't need to run from anything. And as to taking hours to build encounters I'll refer you here.>>46955387
If you don't want to spend plenty of time out of game building encounters. Don't DM. You aren't ready for it.

>>46953529
>What's your favorite class feature in the game?

Cunning action.

File: 1449993165678.jpg (95 KB, 599x1000) Image search: [Google]

95 KB, 599x1000

In the spirit of gothic horror fun, I'm working on a draft of a new race. Tentative name is Curseborn, with Occult and Amalgamation varieties. The general concept is a dead or dying person who was somehow bound or reanimated, not quite back to life, but also not to servitude or undeath.
Occult are created by magic; things like voodoo, a mummy's curse, a fey prophecy left unfulfilled by the untimely death of its subject, or a deal carried out by some power. May or may not recall their past life, often bears some arcane mark such as tatooed leylines, a brand, or a crystal embedded in them. May also be stuck at any stage of decay between "funeral parlor", "Fallout ghoul", or "Skeleton with tendons". I am currently unsure if Warlock and Sorcerer or Wizard and Mystic are better archetypal classes.
Amalgamations are some flavor of Frankenstein's Monster, but not as strong or stupid as a flesh golem. Flesh golems are more crudely hewn and forced into obedience with necromancy as the mainstay of their form, but Amalgamations are put together with more careful surgery and at least a good understanding of the science behind it. Could be a misshapen blend of very different parts, carefully constructed and modified to match, or as simple as one or two creatures, perhaps with just a brain and a few missing pieces replaced. Thanks to miraculous crimes against nature, life is returned (or given fresh) to them.
I've nearly hammered out the lore, but I'm still puzzling over what stats to put to them. So far, I've got
>Curseborn
>ASI: Con +2 (?)
>(?)
>(Subrace) Occult
>ASI: Cha +1 (?)
>Resistance to Necrotic damage
>Cast Detect Evil and Good or Detect Magic once per short rest (?)
>(Subrace) Amalgamation
>ASI: Str +1
>Resistance to Lightning damage
>Muscle Memory: Once per long rest, add your proficiency bonus to a skill check you are not proficient in (?)
I'm still thinking of flavorful traits. Maybe a Crawling Claw thing for Amalagamations? Hit me with some ideas.

>>46955387
That's not what I said and your analogy blows.

>>46955499
>making the game easier by preventing them from needing to run
You're the one who came up with that and I already explicitly told you that's not the point. Do the thread a favor and don't even reply if you're just going to argue against your own points.

>If you don't want to spend plenty of time out of game building encounters, don't DM
Out of curiousity, how much time do you spend preparing for a weekly session, and how much of that is encounter balance?

Speaking of class features, this came up in game the other day:

Trickery Cleric in OotA. We're in a bunch of spider webs, with half the party about 100 feet down below. I create my duplicate 30 feet below myself. Is it effected by gravity? Can it call?

Can creatures attack the duplicate? Can the duplicate be destroyed? Half the table looked over the ability and we were all fairly stumped.

>>46955387

But unlike chess, one of the rules of D&D is that the DM makes the rules.

The Dungeon Master's Guide even says that you may want to fudge rolls sometimes. Chapter 8, the part about rolling behind a screen.

>>46955707

Fuck, meant *fall, not call. Damn I hate losing my ability to spell.

Is the War Domain any good? I'm trying to make a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Bane but I haven't played a Cleric in 5e yet.

>>46955707
The illusion is not affected by gravity and it does not fall. You can move it down (or up, or side to side) 30 feet each turn.

Just because you're making an illusion of a land-bound creature does not mean the illusion follows that rule. It can fly. It's just a massless image, and if you can cast it up a ledge or into a pit that isn't on your level, you can cast it straight up into the air.

What CR is 5 Vampire Spawn?

>>46954080
Just adapt some fey, fiends, celestials and aberrations. Mostly fey. Kami are Shinto daimons, like how fae are European daimons.

File: cityOfDoors.jpg (680 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [Google]

680 KB, 1024x768

>>46954031
I'd like to see a Ravnica one.

>>46956590
1800 xp X 5 spawn X 2 encounter multiplier = 18000 xp total =
CR 17

>>46955162
The easiest way to do this is to allow for retreats and alternative victory conditions.

>>46953823

just had this problem tonight

>BBEG is a team of four celestials
>want to use Deva stat block but holy shit 40 combined challenge rating
>nerf them to about half power
>still prepared to perform in situ nerfs
>party steamrolls them

kill me

>>46956703
Wasn't Ravnica largely Sigil with numbers filed off?

>>46956710
CR is extremely useless then.

I just pulped that encounter with a level 5 tank fighter, a level 5 invocation wizard, a level 5 war cleric (Spirit Guardians MVP), a level 5 warlock, and a level 3 barbarian

File: 1457557209621.jpg (250 KB, 779x1200) Image search: [Google]

250 KB, 779x1200

>>46955898
It depends on what build you are trying for. The short answer: Yes, War Domain Clerics are good, great even since the base class is already good.

War Cleric is a great secondary melee combatant. They can mix it up reliably in melee for 1 or 2 combats per long rest depending on your wisdom score, and their channel divinity makes for some pretty heroic moments. But you're still a utility full-caster, and spells are still your primary bread and butter. Due to healing and buffs you can even off-tank well.

Polearm Master or (less reliably) GWM can help bridge the gap between you and your martial brethren damage-wise, though.

If you are looking for more of a martial > spellcraft type though, Vengeance Paladin of Bane is probably more up your alley.

Still, War Cleric is pretty baller. Gets even better if you have martials in the party to buff. Very War-leader type feel.

>>46956809
Pretty much. Eastern European flavoured as opposed to London, though.

Pros and Cons of a DEX Paladin please.

>>46956867
It's really hard to figure out proper CR for encounters not already in the books, I hope they'd do an UA about this to clarify shit.

>>46953823
I think the problem lies in action economy death spirals, which is exacerbated by bounded accuracy. The fight is decided by the first to go down.

Doesn't really matter if the enemy was supposed to be a joke if they crit and down one of the party members round one and they don't have Healing Word. And in the other direction, no boss squad is problematic if the party rolls hot and kills one of them immediately.

This is what Lair Actions are for.

Consider a Lair HP? Say you have 4 enemies of 100 hp each. They actually each have 50 hp, and the Lair has 200 hp. Damage to any of them goes to the Lair HP first, and once that's depleted, you start gouging into that 50 and can finally kill one of them.

This would of course require you to reexamine what a balanced encounter is, since the party can't target fire to get the upper hand

>>46957025

Play a STR Paladin like they were meant to be played.

>>46957025
God hates ballerinas.

>>46957025
Higher naked AC
You don't need to spend a feat on resilience
Rapier, dual wielding, Whip & Shield

File: Maryona.png (212 KB, 540x810) Image search: [Google]

212 KB, 540x810

>>46957025
Pros-
>Cheaper and more easily accessible light armor means you can have comparable or even superior AC in early levels.
>Better initiative, better use of ranged weaponry,and you can still use a rapier+shield.
>Unless your DM is an inflexible type, they'll allow the Archery fighting style and ranged smites. +Sharpshooter you can deal comparable damage to GWM. Mine does, but bumps the smite damage dice down by one step.
>Your offensive stat is also your defensive stat, so more points to allocate elsewhere.
>FAR more useful dex-based skills, and more to boot.
>You can climb on to larger monsters with your good Acrobatics score.
>You can still use heavy armor if you find a better set. Doesn't affect speed or initiative in most cases.

Cons-
>You will never be able to minmax damage since you can't make full use of GWM feat.
>Less AC than heavy armor at later levels.
>You suck at grappling and shoving.
>If your dm disallows ranged smites/Archery you are relegated to a significantly more utility-based role than traditional paladins.

End notes?
You're still a paladin. You are still bulky, have great support spells, and shit out damage. Go for it.

>>46957244
>You will never be able to minmax damage since you can't make full use of GWM feat.
Should I be going GWM?

I'm rolling a Str-Paladin now, but i'm liking eventually getting Shield Master and shoving. Plus i'm the only person in our party with a shield.

>>46957244
With Defensive Duelist I would have higher CA once per turn.

>>46956590
>>46956710
That's not how CR works, dinguses. CR is an NPC's "level." XP multiplication is used to determine encounter difficulty.

>>46956867
By all objective accounts it's a deadly encounter. However, vampire spawn have relatively little HP for their CR since they have resistance to non-magical BPS. If the melee guys had magical weapons, the encounter would be trivial, especially with Spirit Guardians cancelling out their regeneration.

The warlock has two EBs, the fighter has two attacks, the wizard has access to stuff like fireball and scorching ray, not to mention that vampire spawn are susceptible to lock-down illusions and such just as much as any other creature. And the barbarian can still tank their relatively weak hits, especially if they're a bearbarian. Vampire spawn also have a shit to-hit, so your tank fighter and barbarian are going to avoid a lot of the hits they could last through anyway.

CR isn't useless, you were just lucky and had a party well-suited to taking down that type of enemy.

>>46957025
Good initiative, AC is fine, damage is fine, better Dex save.

Athletics is super useful, sometimes you need to lift heavy things, damage could be better.

Dex paladin is fine.

>>46957313
Fighter was rocking a silver long sword, barbarian had a magic whip. Also, the encounter was nova'd because we came in off a long rest and knew we'd get one right after.

That said, RAW this was supposed to be a balanced encounter for a party of level 17's.

Which is ridiculous

File: 1428516460122.jpg (132 KB, 636x900) Image search: [Google]

132 KB, 636x900

>>46957293
Honestly? Unless you NEED to completely shrek fools, no. 9/10 times it is overkill. It's just "mathed out" as the optimal damage feat. Shield Master is the shit, go for it.

>>46957294
Yeah, and paladins don't use their reactions much from what I recall. Since Polearm Master isnt really an option for dex builds (that I remember) DD might be decent. Still not great, since it's only against 1 attack a round.

>>46957294
DD on a class with no reactions is like, the secret to going Dex. That or Battlemaster manoeuvers.

>>46957461
Shield Master and/or Tavern Brawler > GWM and/or Polearm Master
Why kill when you can cripple and humiliate?

>>46957313
>That's not how CR works, dinguses.

I got those numbers straight from the DMG. Chapter 2, Evaluating Encounter Difficulty. Total the monsters' XP, modify total XP for multiple monsters. Five vampire spawn are 1,800 each, and five enemies is a x2 multiplier, so the total difficulty is 18,000 xp.

For four level 5s and a level 3, a "medium" encounter is 2,150 xp. 18,000 xp for a group of 5 PCs means an xp threshold of 3,600 per party member. That means it should be a "medium" encounter for level 17 PCs, and "deadly" for level 11s.

Based on the challenge system as written, level 5 PCs shouldn't have stood a chance. And yet, here we are.

So yeah, I have to say that the system for calculating encounter difficulty is not so hot.

>>46957461
>Shield Master is the shit
That's what I was thinking.

Thanks anon.

>>46953638
>The average of 4 1d6 rolls is 3.5
No it's not. It's 14.

>>46957671
Based on the challenge rating system as written, five vampire spawn pose a significant risk of wiping out a typical 5th level party. "Deadly" doesn't mean "OMG your shit's gon' get wrekt, son." Just like a "medium" encounter doesn't mean "poses a moderate risk of wiping out the party." The way I break it down when helping folks wrap their head around it is:

Easy: there's a reasonable chance the party will expend zero resources defeating this encounter. They'll spend no leveled spell slots, use no class abilities that require a short or long rest, and lost no hit points. Probably.

Medium: They're probably going to have to use some resources. They can't just plough through a literally unlimited number of these encounters without resting.

Hard: You might kill one of your players if the dice get lopsided and they're low on resources.

Deadly: The party is almost certainly going to expend some resources, and there's a reasonable chance one or more of them is getting knocked to zero HP before this is over.

That said, I strongly suspect in your case the dice rolls were abnormal, your characters were "overpowered" (maybe rolled stats or generous equipment by the DM), the vampire spawn's tactics were atrocious, some rules were misapplied, or a combination thereof. I write this not because I think the CR system is perfect (it isn't; it's just somewhere in the neighborhood of "good enough to help break in a new DM"), but because vampire spawn are potentially pretty rough.

File: 5e combat difficulty.png (186 KB, 353x282) Image search: [Google]

186 KB, 353x282

>>46958407
Alternatively you could just describe them using the DMG's description for them.

>>46958469
And yet time and again we see fucksticks that cannot comprehend what's written in the DMG. Sometimes it's helpful to rephrase and re-emphasize things

>>46958469
Anons are waiting for the movie(s)

they're not going to read the books

>>46958718
You joke, but if there was a 5e equivalent of DragonStrike's "hyperReality" video I'd watch the fuck out of that.

Hey anyone got that image on how to do alignments in a group while being cooperative.

>>46956809
Not really, no. Sigil's whole thing is that it was a city in the middle of the Outer Planes, filled with portals that lead literally everywhere in the multiverse. Ravnica, on the other hand, is a relatively regular world that happens to be entirely covered by a giant city; by DnD terms, its a Prime Material Plane.

>>46959334
Ignore alignments, act according to your character's personality, flaws, and experiences, which you come up with while keeping in mind that D&D is a cooperative game.

>>46959355
I don't really care for alignments myself, but this is to help out some friends who are just getting into D&D. I'm trying to move them away from alignments. I've seen the image I'm requesting in other threads and think it might help prevent some fuckery.

whats the most broken class for level 2

File: Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms.jpg (62 KB, 460x601) Image search: [Google]

62 KB, 460x601

Just picked this up, it's fucking great.

Any recommendations for books like this? Just straight, interesting, fluff content books?

>>46959716
the ravenloft gazetteers

>>46959716
Old World of Darkness splats tended to be 90% fluff, mostly a collection of stories focusing around a theme, like a specific auspice or werewolf tribe.

>>46953575
Thanks bro I didn't even notice that

So, confirmed highest DPS martial build is variant human cavalier fighter (1st level Dual Wielder feat) mounted dual wielding lances right?

Level
>mean damage with lances (mean damage with greatsowrd)


1
>13 (7)

5
>19.5 (14)

11
>26 (21)

20
>32.5 (28)

Damage means calculated assuming 10 strength and as many attacks as possible without expending rest-rechargeable class features.

Any questions?

>>46960132
Does the greatsword mean damage include GWM?

>>46960160
It doesn't include that (my stats knowledge is a bit too rusty to work it out at the moment and I didn't feel like looking it up). At first I figured it wouldn't make a difference because GWM would apply to the lance-wielder as well, but I just checked the feature and indeed the weapon in use must be held with two hands it seems. I'd like to see the mean un-modified damage for a GWM greatsword fighter if you could provide it.

File: Capture.png (145 KB, 304x189) Image search: [Google]

145 KB, 304x189

>>46960200
>weapon in use must be held with two hands it seems
You're probably thinking of the GWF fighting style.

>>46953529
Know your enemy.

I just love getting a peek at how strong certain creatures are.

>>46954858
>>46954842
>This fucking triggered by fudging.

>>46960160
>>46960200
Oh, and I also did not take into account the benefit of the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style for the lance-wielder.

>>46960213
Ah, you're correct, I was thinking GWF. I would think that GWF has a more significant impact on the output than GWM, no? We're getting into some statistical calculations I'm super rusty on if we start taking into account varying modifiers to the attack roll but I'd love to see someone pump out the appropriate numbers for a proper comparison.

In this case, there are a few things to take into consideration:
>Great Weapon Master Feat (which can apply to great-sword and dual-lances)
>Great-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting fighting styles respectively
>Any other applicable feats/features (I haven't ever played a fighter so I'm not familiar with the popular builds)

>>46956809
>Wasn't Ravnica largely Sigil that wasn't complete shit?
Fixed that for you, anon.

>>46953529
>What's your favorite class feature in the game?
Pact of the chain

I love my little nigga

How often does the Kor Racial Lucky trigger?

Is it once per long rest or every single time?

>>46960200
>>46960213
The weapon does not have to be in both hands to use the first feature but the bonus damage feature requires the weapon to be heavy, which does require both hands. Lances are not heavy weapons and hence cannot get the bonus damage feature.

>>46960317
Oops, my bad. I'm making a bit of a fool of myself it seems. Regardless, I think it's still worth crunching out the numbers if someone has the resources to do so.

>>46960347
It's definitely something interesting to calculate out. I did it a long time ago but I don't remember all of the numbers anymore.

The main problem your gonna run into is the drastic changes in power a few levels can give. If you calculate at level 1 then usually TWF will win out, but as you get higher in levels the builds that use the sharpshooter and GWM feats will easily overcome dual wielding weapons of any type. On top of that S&B will also come close to breaking even with dual wielding at late levels as well, except for dual wielding lances.

>>46960517
S&B? Sword and Board?

>>46955707
>Can creatures attack the duplicate?
Creatures can attack anything they want, even an empty space if they think there's an invisible enemy hiding there.
>Can the duplicate be destroyed?
There is no mention of anything destroying it, so, no.

>>46960311
Every single time

>>46960561
Yes.

At late levels, S&B fighters can do 4D8+24 while dual wielders of the non lance variety deal 5D8+25. Not a huge difference, especially considering S&B don't need a feat to pull off their setup.

>>46960311
it's literally the halfling's feature, which of course triggers every time

So, a thought I had using a monk.

How would you get the most AC possible? Not just speaking as a monk, but in general? Preferably not a level 20 character.

>>46953823
>make an encounter with a bunch of animated swords and suits of armour
>giant slog that burns through tons of hp
>same XP on a pair of Spectators
>goes down after one turn before the 4th party member can even act with virtually no effect on the party
I sometimes wonder if the encounter XP modifiers undervalue the effects of high numbers of enemies. Lots of tanky enemies is certainly not the most fun way to do things.

>>46960865
variant human fighter

level 1
>plate armor (18)
>dual wielder feat (+1 for two weapons)
>spiked shield (+2)
>defense fighting style (+1)
22 AC (level 1)

If you're an eldritch knight, at level 3 you can take the spell Shield, which you can cast as a reaction twice daily for +5 AC until the start of your next turn.

>>46960931
>>dual wielder feat (+1 for two weapons)>spiked shield (+2)
Can't use both, mate.

File: 5e_MM_Lizardfolk_Spiked-Shield.png (680 KB, 383x852) Image search: [Google]

680 KB, 383x852

>>46960942
>Armor Class 15 (natural armor, shield)
>Spiked Shield: Melee Weapon

>>46960973
it says "Melee Weapon Attack", as in it's using its shield as a weapon. that doesn't mean that the shield IS a weapon.

the lizardfolk's "Bite" action also says "Melee Weapon Attack". are mouths literally weapons?

I'm looking at DMing a game of 5e for my friends.

What does the powerlevel progression look like in 5e? Is each level a big deal or is it a gradual build up?

>>46960990
Yes. They literally are, by definition, (natural) weapons.

>>46960990
>Not cutting out a lizardfolks jaws and attaching them to your fists.

>>46961003
'natural weapons' are not precisely the same as 'weapons'. you can't unhinge the 'natural weapon' (jaw) of a monster and start swinging it around as you would a 'weapon' (sword, mace, etc.), although it would count as improvised and deal 1d4

unarmed attacks, which are the weaker natural weapons of PCs, also count as melee weapon attacks, but unarmed attacks are not weapons. this has been clarified

>>46961027
But we aren't talking about the jaws of a lizardfolk, we're talking about a shield with fucking razorblades attached to it. Are you telling me that being stabbed with two giant knives would hurt just as much as someone bopping you in the chest with a buckler?

>>46960997
There's a big jump in survivability from level 1 to level 2. But I wouldn't say there's any big jumps in power.

>>46961055
Level 5 is a pretty big power increase for martials.

>>46960270
GWF upgrades 2d6 from 7 to 8.3 or so which matters a lot less than the extra 10 damage the Greatsword gets from GWM.

File: 1368917475440.png (168 KB, 400x400) Image search: [Google]

168 KB, 400x400

>enjoy making characters and backstories
>finally play them and it's no fun

why?

>>46960865
If you want the highest possible AC for a low level character, your gonna want to make a fighter or paladin. Full plate, shield, and defense fighting style for a total of 21. If you go paladin you can also pick up Shield of faith for an extra +2 for a couple of fights. If you really wanna push for it, you could ask your DM to let you be a warforged for a +1 AC. Otherwise you could go human and pick up that feat that lets you add your proficiency to your ac against a single attack. I think it's called defensive duelist and requires either a light or finesse weapon.

>>46961223
DnD has a rich class system but shitty gameplay.

>>46961070
Level 5 is a big power increase for everyone.

>>46960997
5th level is a big power-bump for everyone. Extra attacks, 3rd level spells...

Actually, every odd level is a big deal for full casters, as they attain higher level spells. But I'd say mostly 3rd and 5th are the usual gamechangers (since not many campaigns go too far...)

>>46960973
I didn't realize that you had proficiency with Spiked Shield

File: proficiency sheilds.png (5 KB, 169x40) Image search: [Google]

5 KB, 169x40

>>46961367
Easy mistake to make, hopefully this clears it up for ya, friend.

Okay, so Dark Souls in DnD 5e. Human Revenant for the race, obviously. What's the most Dark Souls class, though? Monster Hunter Fighter? Undying Light Warlock, for a Pyromancer build? Paladin for holy magic and swordfighting?

>>46961390
But it's a weapon proficiency that you need

>>46961458
Depends a lot on the build really?

Battlemaster Fighter fits really well since the combat in the game relies on using techniques other than square go with the bad guy. Evasive Footwork for the rolling about, Riposte, Trip Attack, etc would all help with a Dark Souls feeling character in combat. Second Wind feels a little like using Estus? Anyway, that's the most iconic Dark Souls character to me because the image I most closely associate with Dark Souls is a knight in plate armour with a Zweihander or a sword and shield combo using skill and perseverance to defeat some gigantic monstrosity. Monster Hunter works okay but I prefer BM.

Spellcasters are inherently gishes in Dark Souls so you'd want some that could mix it up in close quarters too. Tomelock with Shilelagh (as a DM I'd allow using Shillelagh on a different weapon with the only mechanical difference being damage type) and GFB gets that Magic Weapon / DMB style reasonably well; Paladins or War or Thunder Clerics could all do reasonable approximations of a Faith build. Light Cleric or UDL Warlock could work for Pyromancer.

File: proficiency shields weapons.png (11 KB, 292x54) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 292x54

>>46961526
It must fit one of the two categories.

>>46961588
It's exotic

>>46961592
Exotic isn't a thing in this edition unfortunately

>>46961604
>unfortunately
No, exotic was retarded

>>46958407
All characters were RAW and point buy, the only magic items between the lot of us were a cloak of protection and a magic whip. The tactics may have been bad, but they didn't have much choice with how we clustered in a 10 ft diameter circle around the cleric and they had no ranged attacks.

All rules were correct.

>>46961655
Exotic is not a bad idea, would make the weapon master feat not entirely useless

>>46960865
>>46960931
>>46961244
Also, add a cloak of protection and you're golden, boi.

>>46961856
How much does a cloak of protection cost? Is it feasible for a level 1 character to buy with his starting gold? If so, 23 AC, level 1. Fuck.

>>46961789
Didn't you also mention that the encounter was immediately between two long rests? If so, the party could just blow all their resources without consequence. Difficulties are balanced around the 6-8 encounter adventuring day, with the party needing to conserve resources across it. If they just have one encounter, they can happily punch far above their level and throw out all of their smites, high level spells, everything, because they get it all back straight after.

This was not a problem with encounter design. It was a problem with campaign pacing. If you're only going to give them one fight a day, use the variant rules from the DMG and make a short rest 8 hours and a long rest a week.

>>46961946
>Plate
>Magic items
>level 1

dude...

>>46961981
Oh yeah, plate can't happen at level 1 regardless, oops. So, with the build anon described and the cloak, at what level is that feasible? That said, at what level can a character feasibly purchase plate and a cloak of protection?

>>46961946

Magic items have no set cost in 5e. They have ranges, but even those are listed as OPTIONAL OPTIONAL VARIANT HOLY SHIT LET US BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS GUYS THIS IS AN OPTION.

Certainly giving a 1st level character a cloak of protection is not *recommended*, but it's your table. Do what you want.

>>46961946
There are no rules for buying magic items.

If you have one, it's because you need one and won't be selling it. If you have one and don't need it, you're well off enough that you have no need to sell it.

Similarly, plate armour is ludicrously expensive (a couple thousand gp, IIRC), because it needs to be commissioned and fit to the wearer. Plate takes an armourer weeks to months to make, depending on how complex you want it, and the more complex it gets the better it has to be fitted to the wearer so they can move properly. A breastplate might just take a few days, but all the other bits would take a few days each as well.

Which means that magic items and plate armour are not level 1 gear.

>>46962013
You can't buy magic items in 5e unless your GM lets you. Similarly, there's no "wealth by level" anymore, so the answer is "whenever the GM wants you to have them".

>>46961946
It's an Uncommon magic item, so up to 500gp according to the suggested table in the DMG. The fact that you could buy multiple sets of +1 Splint Mail for the same price as Full Plate would suggest that these tables should only be considered with a handful of salt.

>

>>46962013
>plate can't happen at level 1

>Death House
>You can run Curse of Strahd for 1st-level characters with the help of this optional mini-adventure, which is designed to advance characters to 3rd level

>>46962059
Ah yes. So then, 22 AC is the max for a level 1 character.

>>46960931
Goddamn it, not this shit again.

Shields are not weapons. Being able to make an MWA with a shield does not make it count as a weapon. You can't do what you're trying to do with the shield master feat, either.

>>46962087
I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to do the Dual Wielder / Lizardman Spiked Shield trick in Curse of Strahd, regardless of whether your DM would allow it normally.

I guess you could be Warforged instead for the same result? Otherwise, 21 AC.

>>46962129
Just ignore Andrew and he'll stop it.

>>46962087

There is no max AC for a first level character. You're arbitrarily deciding that a 1st level character can get access to plate and a cloak of protection—why stop there? Give him +5 plate while you're at it.

There are no hard and fast rules for what a 1st-level character can get, just guidelines and good judgment. If you want to throw all that out the window, why stop at a measly 22 AC?

>>46962151
Because Death House is a level-1 module and it contains 4 sets of full plate that will neither rust nor disintegrate when removed from the house and will modify themselves to fit any medium humanoids who don them.

>>46962129
>You can't do what you're trying to do with the shield master feat, either.
No.

>>46962147
>Dual Wielder / Lizardman Spiked Shield trick in Curse of Strahd
Why's that?

>>46962151
Don't forget a +5 magic shield, and 3 AC attunement items. And that's just options that actually get listed specifically, your dm could just hand you a "Can only be hit on a 20" amulet.

File: e1GefZY.jpg (209 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

209 KB, 1920x1080

>Player absolutely insists on using a combat shield
You know what? Fine.
>Buckler/Targe
>Martial Melee Weapon
>1d4 Bludgeoning/Piercing, Light
>Special: This weapon counts as a Shield, but provides only 1 AC.

>>46962177
>Why's that?
Where are you getting a Lizardman Spiked Shield from?

File: equipment.png (35 KB, 443x145) Image search: [Google]

35 KB, 443x145

>>46962199

>>46962189

Why is everyone so butt-blasted about attacking with a shield? You've got a big hunk of wood/steel strapped to your arm. Of course you're going to try to smack your opponent with it. Shields in practice are wide, flat, offhand weapons. Go watch a video of someone competent fighting with a shield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3yvOkooYA

>>46962234
>Shields in practice
>trying to apply realism to a system that doesn't even come close to attempting realism

>>46962234
Because it's not explicitly in the rules.

I mean you're right for what it's worth, but yeah.

>>46962234
Because D&D combat is not modeled after every action your character performs gets a roll, but rather that this set of combat actions results in an attack. If you aren't a shield master, it doesn't contribute to anything in terms of doing more damage, not because you don't swing it, but because it isn't making a notable difference in offense compared to not using it. If you ARE a shield master, you can knock a bitch down for advantage on all your attacks, which shows that using it in combat WELL provides an offensive bonus.

>>46962246

Okay then, explain it to me from a game-as-game standpoint. What's the harm in letting the party paladin make an offhand attack with his shield for, say, 1d4 bludgeoning? Maybe you could have him give up the shield bonus to AC for the round, like 3.5 did. I don't see how this is inherently unbalanced or bad for the game. Two-weapon fighting with a decent offhand will still be better at dealing damage.

>>46961946
If magic items are able to be purchased in your world and if your going by the DMG, it would be 500 GP. Starting gold won't get you that, and it sure as hell won't get you plate either. Your best bet is to suck off the DM until you get him to use the variant high magic character starting gear rules. That will get you 500 gold and a magic item on top of the normal starting gear.

>>46962278

So at your table, you'd rule that it's impossible to deal damage with a shield? I just don't understand the argument. What does the game lose by allowing players to smack their opponents with a shield and deal a little damage?

>>46962286
I don't see any issue with that, the problem being raised here is the guy trying to argue that since he's using a weaponized shield then it should give him extra AC from the dual wielder feat.

>>46962286
I took the tavern brawler feat specifically to make improvised weapon attacks with my shield

>>46962310

Oh, well then that's dumb as fuck. Dual wielding isn't about making your shield shieldier. I might give the player a little benny, like only dropping their AC by 1 point for using the shield as an offhand attack, but the feat isn't meant to give you +3 AC from a shield.

>>46962300
If you used your attack action to attack with a shield, you would be able to make the attack for 1d4 as an improvised weapon. It's not a light weapon, and thus doesn't trigger the offhand attack of your real weapon, even if THAT is light. If you have the feat, i'd probably let you fudge RAW and 1d4 followed by your "weapon", although not the other way around, i'd make you declare that beforehand.
You seem to still not get the concept of an attack action being more than 1 swing of a weapon. Being in combat and using a shield DOES already involve using it to the best you can, it just doesn't give you an offensive benefit that translates to more dice, unless you specialize in it in some way.

>>46962293
If your DM allows you to buy magical items then mundane plate is completely pointless, of course.

>>46962286
I'm not sure anybody would have a huge issue with allowing a shield to be used as an Improvised Weapon; Jeremy Crawford is fine with it. You wouldn't be proficient with it (without Tavern Brawler) and you couldn't use it for two weapon fighting without a Feat. I definitely wouldn't have any issue with somebody investing in those two feats to start using their shield as an off-hand weapon. I would probably allow Duelling to apply but not the +1AC from the Dual Wielder feat.

>>46962347

>You seem to still not get the concept of an attack action being more than 1 swing of a weapon.

I *do* understand that—I've been DMing since the early 90s. My point is that, if a player wants to make offhand attacks with a shield for a little extra damage, it wouldn't hurt game balance to let him. It's still going to be an inherently worse option than GWM or even Dual Wielder.

>>46962347
>attack action
>more than one swing
Every ranged weapon says hi

>>46962375
So your the DM, and your more willing to allow a SHIELD to be used in an offhand attack, with no feat investment at all, than to allow the same with an actual weapon when neither are light? Or do you just ignore RAW and RAI all together and freeform?

>>46962393
I mean, you can swing those too as improvised weapons if you really want to, and if you do then yes, the attack action would involve the melee.

Ammunition counting is screwy for D&D, but its not like it doesn't function at all, your time is spent aiming/tracking instead of putting arrows down field.

>>46962359

>I definitely wouldn't have any issue with somebody investing in those two feats to start using their shield as an off-hand weapon.

I see where you're coming from from a RAW perspective, but that seems like a huge investment just to be kind of okay at something—especially when the thing the player wants to do is just bog-standard medieval combat. I let my players do 1d4 bludgeoning as a bonus action in exchange for losing the shield bonus to AC, and haven't had any issues with it. It needn't represent a single swing of the shield, just a more aggressive use of the shield that would be reflected in lowered defenses.

And more generally, I think DMs should encourage players to think more along these lines when playing a non-caster, and make it worth their time to think outside the box a little. If you hide all the fun behind feat chains, we're right back into 3rd edition caster supremacy territory.

>>46962394

>So your the DM, and your more willing to allow a SHIELD to be used in an offhand attack, with no feat investment at all, than to allow the same with an actual weapon when neither are light?

Yes, because fighting with two long weapons is unwieldy and generally a poor choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8akxwI56s

Shields, on the other hand, are made specifically for armored assholes to bash other armored assholes.

>>46962472
>using muh realusm instead of balance

>>46962472
No, they are made specifically to not die as best you can. Because dying stops you from stabbing, slashing, and bashing. Sure, they can bash a bit, but they aren't as good at is as a big piece of wood. Shields are represented by their ac bonus, and to be used effectively offensively need the Shield Master feat. Otherwise, you are assumed to be using it to not die.

>>46962359
I'm not saying my DM does this, just saying it's in the rules of what is allowed.

>>46962496

Okay, demonstrate to me that allowing offhand attacks with a shield is bad for game balance. It's still going to be inferior to using two shortswords or scimitars. (1d4<1d6) It's still going to be inferior to basically any class's at-will attack ability.

File: 1c70bc38bb[1].jpg (24 KB, 324x126) Image search: [Google]

24 KB, 324x126

>>46962472
Shields are generally made to shove the opponent to make them lose balance, not hurt them. Maybe they should put that in the ga- oh right.

The biggest problem is S&B being so overshadowed by heavy weapons. The +2 AC is nice, but killing a guy faster is generally a better way to avoid damage.

>>46962538
Damage wise you lose about half a point between D4 and D6, but you gain 2 AC. In this edition, that's a lot of bonus AC, especially for such a minimal loss in damage.

>>46962538
I'm not saying using shield as a weapon should be forbidden, I'm saying that making it cheaper than using two weapons is stupid, this isn't about realism, is about balance and that should be the primary reasons for every rule

>>46962553

>Shields are generally made to shove the opponent to make them lose balance, not hurt them. Maybe they should put that in the ga- oh right.

Yes, there is a thing that shields can do offensively in the game, but that doesn't have to be the only option. There's no reason I can see for a DM to tell a player, "Sorry, under no circumstances can the six pounds of leather and steel strapped to your arm ever deal damage to an opponent."

From a game balance point of view, using a bonus action to deal 1d4 damage is not exactly optimal—especially if you lose 2 AC for doing so. From a verisimilitude point of view, getting hit with six pounds of leather and steel should hurt. From a narrative point of view, a knight getting up in an opponent's face and backhanding him with a shield is fucking awesome.

So yes, I completely agree that, in the RAW, shields can't deal damage. My point is that there's no reason a DM should say no to a player who wants to deal damage with a shield.

>>46962609
Yeah, eh. A lot of shit falls out of the scope of the rules. The fact that people are so resistant to allow modifying them in a hobby that has been founded on doing so kinda saddens me. Fucking WotC era bullshit.

>>46962594

It's not cheaper, though. Everyone can use two light weapons in combat, right out of the box, and everyone who would ever want to use two weapons in combat is proficient with either short swords or scimitars, which are one die step better. Using a shield to do 1d4 damage at the expense of losing the shield bonus is inherently less powerful than bog-standard, out of the box two-weapon fighting.

>>46962538
>>46962653
Fifth level for the sake of example, Fighting Style and 18 Strength:
2d8+12+1d4 vs 3d6+12 means your shield character has 1 more average damage and can choose to skip out on the 1d4 damage to instead gain 2AC and use your Bonus Action for something better. Sword and Board is already very good in terms of damage output compared to TWF, giving it the option to just do more damage than TWF is not a great idea.

In fact, I'd be more tempted to go the other way - introduce some sort of "parrying dagger" rule to allow TWF characters the option to switch between offence and defence. Something like "If you don't use your offhand attack you get +1AC"?

>>46962609
>From a narrative point of view, a knight getting up in an opponent's face and backhanding him with a shield is fucking awesome.
Shield Master exists and is a great way to represent that.

>>46962653
I really don't know how I'm replying anymore, I thought you were the guy who wanted to use shields with profiency bonus, as a bonus action without spending feat or anything

>>46962609
Shields do damage per RAW, as an improvised weapon

>>46962653
Why should using a shield be straight mechanically superior than an offhand club?

I think you guys are arguing in circles here

>things that are obviously ok
Using a shield as an improvised weapon, using a shield for two weapon fighting with the TWF feat

>things that are obviously not ok
Adding an extra AC from the shield when you get the TWF feat

>things that can go either way
Shield proficiency counting when used as an improvised weapon, shields counting as light when used as improvised weapons

I would say no to both because:
1- being trained on how to protect yourself with a shield does not equal knowing how to use it effectively in combat. Anyone can shield bash though, but it's generally not gonna be as effective
2- Using your shield as a bonus action should only happen if you are trained in doing so (shield master, TWF)

>>46962609
>From a verisimilitude point of view, getting hit with six pounds of leather and steel should hurt. From a narrative point of view, a knight getting up in an opponent's face and backhanding him with a shield is fucking awesome.
Okay? You can already do that RAW, by attacking with it as an Improvised Weapon, and you even get to keep your AC bonus!

File: hqdefault.jpg (13 KB, 480x360) Image search: [Google]

13 KB, 480x360

>>46953529
Anyone who didn't answer Magical Secrets is clearly retarded.

>>46962662

>2d8+12+1d4 vs 3d6+12 means your shield character has 1 more average damage and can choose to skip out on the 1d4 damage to instead gain 2AC and use your Bonus Action for something better. Sword and Board is already very good in terms of damage output compared to TWF, giving it the option to just do more damage than TWF is not a great idea.

Why did you give the S&B guy a better main-hand weapon? If you give both characters shortswords, you've got 2d6+12+1d4 (avg. 21.5) vs. 3d6+12 (avg. 22.5). I never argued for letting sword and board characters circumvent the normal rules requiring a light weapon in each hand.

>>46962697

Because shields are better than clubs...? If you're using a club, you're already using a weapon of desperation.

>>46962749
A club has a smaller point of impact, and you can swing it with more force than a shield due to the way you have to have shield strapped to you.

>>46962703

>2- Using your shield as a bonus action should only happen if you are trained in doing so (shield master, TWF)

I see your reasoning, and your logic is sound, but I don't think it's very good for the game. You're setting up a really high barrier just to do something that isn't all that amazing to begin with. That kind of design leads to players seeing martial classes as boring, because everything they want to do is hidden behind two or three feats. That was the main design problem behind 3.5.

File: authority.jpg (73 KB, 1200x825) Image search: [Google]

73 KB, 1200x825

>>46962749
You can't honestly believe a shield can be more effectively be used as a weapon than a club by someone who hasn't trained specifically to do so

Clubs aren't weapons of desperation and shields aren't weapons by default

Pic related, clearly not a "weapon of desperation"

File: Thorsberg_Shields.jpg (394 KB, 753x646) Image search: [Google]

394 KB, 753x646

>>46962798

Okay, and getting hit in the jaw with pic related would clearly hurt at least as much as having a Chinese guy punch you (also 1d4).

>>46962783
>players seeing martial classes as boring, because everything they want to do is hidden behind two or three feats
>seeing martial classes as boring

No, they really just are boring.

>Spellcaster
Take your pic from literally hundreds of amazing cool spells that all have different fluffs and crunches and neat combat and utility implementations

>Martial
You can swing your sword 4 times if you hit level 20

>>46953529
>Minor Conjuration
>Not Minor Illusion
It's like you don't even want to be the best around.

I'm preparing for my first game so sorry if the question is retarded. Also I'd theorically be playing 3.5 but I only need general tips which I suppose stay true for both versions
What's the best way to make a bard useful if the rest of the party consists of cleric/wizard/barbarian? I suppose that I can't go for a buffer setup and that I should be leaning towards a more melee build, is that correct?

>>46962737
Treating it as regular TWF and considering the shield to be a Light weapon is definitely not the impression I'm getting from posts like >>46962783 or >>46962300
So, you don't think it's correct for it be impossible to deal damage with a shield all of the time but that you should only be able to do so when wielding a Light weapon? In that case, the S&B character will never do so because he gains such a tiny amount of damage compared to using a 1d8 weapon and always having a spare bonus action and +2AC.

So, your rule is completely pointless because the player has to be deliberately using a Light weapon in his main hand and a shield in his offhand - at which point he's just worse than either a regular S&B guy with a d8 weapon or a TWF guy with two d6 weapons.

>>46962847
Use your magical secrets class ability to be the best archer in the game by stealing Ranger and Paladin spells. I like Banishing Smite.

>>46962838

>No, they really just are boring.

Only if you hide all the cool shit behind feat trees. If you let players improvise and do cool shit without penalizing them, martial classes can be pretty nifty. Then you go from

>You can swing your sword 4 times if you hit level 20

to

>You're Achilles, Hercules, or Beowulf. Do any old shit that heroes can do, and your DM will reward your creativity.

>>46962783
But there is nothing disallowing them from using the shield as an improvised weapon at all, I really don't understand how you jump from "not being able to do something expertly by default" to "martials are boring"

You want to use a shield as a weapon? You can, but since you don't have specialized training it's an improvised weapon
You want to have proficiency with it? Well there is shield master and tavern brawler, both of which will allow you to make better use of your shield
You want to use your shield with your bonus action? Well there are shield master and two weapon fighting which allow you to do so

You make a choice when you wear a shield to forego the chance to use a bonus action to hit in exchange for 2 extra AC, it's a fair trade

>>46962848

>So, your rule is completely pointless because the player has to be deliberately using a Light weapon in his main hand and a shield in his offhand - at which point he's just worse than either a regular S&B guy with a d8 weapon or a TWF guy with two d6 weapons.

He has the benefit of choosing offense or defense, at the cost of dealing 1 point of damage less. It also opens up the possibility of the Roman shield and gladius style of fighting seeing actual play at the table, which I think is pretty spiffy.

>>46962856
isn't it risky for 3/4 of the party to be ranged?

>>46962886
>Only if you hide all the cool shit behind feat trees.
Which, RAW, is exactly the case. And even then, you get to level 12 and you finally have all the feats you need and WOAH you get to do one fucking cool thing that you need to present to your DM with quotes and page numbers for him to permit. Whereas the casters take one feat like spell sniper and now the combat and utility maneuvers they can perform are either more numerous or more versatile. Furthermore, the casters can take those exact same feats the martials do and bam, now they can do that exact same thing, except not 4 times (at level 20).

It's just so damn frustrating.

>>46962886
Okay, wouldn't you say Achilles, Hercules or Beowulf are a few levels higher than 1? Say, about 12?
Wouldn't you say they're fighters?
Wouldn't you say they are variant humans with dumped stats (wisdom and intelligence)?

That's a total of 5 feats/ASIs that you can take

>>46962886
>not giving fighters and barbarians their own spell lists which are all variations on I cast fist

>>46962893

>I really don't understand how you jump from "not being able to do something expertly by default" to "martials are boring"

The design philosophy that says martial classes must have a series of feats in order to do marginally cool things is bad design, and makes martial classes less interesting. Requiring two feats to do something as simple as a shield bash is a really, really high barrier, especially if you take the point of view that fighters and barbarians are not just "Joe Shlub with a stick" but Achilles, Hercules, and Beowulf.

>>46962926
Not really. There are enough kiting spells in the game that any ranged class usually has multiple ways out of the stickiness of melee combat.

Getting real tired of this caster superiority meme

I wish the roleplay-challenged 4rries would leave

>>46962953

Yes, but they're also not hyper-specialized into doing a single maneuver, which is what feat trees trap you into.

>>46962969

>Getting real tired of this caster superiority meme

I was just thinking the same thing.

I'm not gonna lie, 5e is my first edition, but do people really see that huge a difference between taking the attack action several turns in a row and casting Ray of Frost/Firebolt/Acid Splash?

>Nuh uh, talkin' about castin' Finger of Death!

That's real fuckin' neato.

>>46962966
Literally nobody is saying you need two feats to shield bash. I'm pretty sure everyone is fine with you using your shield as an improvised weapon.

>>46962969
Casters are superior though. Anything a martial can do, a caster can also do, occasionally better.

Not everything a caster can do a martial can also do.

Casters get to experience all of what DnD has to offer. Martials don't. Casters are superior.

>>46962966
Holy crap man it is ONE very specific thing thing you can't do, and that is "using a bonus action to shield bash" for which there are already specific rules in place

One thing out of oh so many that you can already do

Using a shield to fight without a feat is not gonna make the class less boting for you if "i should be allowed to do it with a bonus action" is the extent of your creativity

>>46962953

>dumped stats (wisdom and intelligence)

Eh... all three of those specific examples were supposed to be cunning, clever warriors. D&D fighters having low mental stats is kind of unfortunate design. There should really be good reasons for every class to use every stat, at least a little.

>>46962798
Clubs are shit weapons though.

Unless your aim is for non-lethal almost everything else is a better option.

>>46960623
>At late levels, S&B fighters can do 4D8+24 while dual wielders of the non lance variety deal 5D8+25. Not a huge difference, especially considering S&B don't need a feat to pull off their setup.
It'd actually be 4d8+28 to 5d8+25. Or 46 to 47.5 average.

>>46962968
I see, I'll try the archer out, thanks

File: 1428989652110.jpg (1 MB, 1143x1593) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1143x1593

Things anyone can do with a shield:
>Use it as an improvised weapon for 1d4 Bludgeoning damage
Things those proficient with shields can do:
>Don it for a +2 bonus to AC
Thinks those with Tavern Brawler can do:
>Add proficiency bonus to attack rolls using improvised weapons, including shields, and use a bonus action and free hand to attempt to grapple afterwards
Things those with Shield Master can do:
>When you take the attack action and are using a shield, you can use a bonus action to shove the target (which includes shoving prone)

>>46962997
That post was absolute nonsense. Work on your syntax, retard.

And yes there is a huge difference, and I'll tell you why. The caster can decide one day "I'm gonna try to work out a new strategy" and they have dozens of components to piece together into hundreds of different combinations. The martial can say "Hm, what can I do to change things up?" and he has to say "fucking nothing" because he chose a Fighting Style at level 1 and he will severely handicap himself if he deviates from the very specific conditions outlined thereby.

>>46962997
Good to know there is at least one more person in this thread who isn't an idiot

>>46963008
And that's blatantly untrue, but if you feel so strongly about it just go play 4e

>>46963080

Ooooh noooo, you decided to cast Erupting Earth instead of Fireball today! The AOE damage is sooooo different now!

>>46954842
>>46954858
How do people get so fucking autistic holy shit.

>>46963019

The shield bash thing is just one example in an over-arching trend of making martials pay out the ass to do simple stuff. The point isn't really just this one thing, it's a whole philosophy of how the game ought to work.

Here are two different ways a DM could respond to a player trying to shield bash:

>Paladin: I smack him in the head with my shield and go in for a stab to the gut!
>GM: Okay, that would be two-weapon fighting, and since the shield isn't a light weapon, you've got disadvantage on both attacks. Also, you're not proficient with improvised weapons, so you can't add your proficiency to the shield bash. It deals 1d4 damage if you manage to hit.
>Paladin: Never mind, I just hit him with my sword.

That would be a completely logical reading of the rules. It would also ensure that the paladin player would never try anything remotely cool ever again.

Alternatively, another DM might say:

>Paladin: I smack him in the head with my shield and go in for a stab to the gut!
>GM: Okay, use your bonus action and roll a 1d4 for damage. Your shield is at disadvantage, but if you were using your short sword it'd be normal.

Then the paladin player has a new option to consider.

>>46963081
What's untrue about it?

The only things I can think of that martials have which are off limits to casters are some class features. Rage, Smite, and Action Surge. Maybe favored enemy, if you even count rangers as a class and not a cruel joke.

Haste mimics Action Surge, smite is just increased damage, so any number of damage bonuses or high damage spells mimic it, and I guess rage is sort of unique.

Meanwhile, no martial class is allowed to cast 6th level spells and above, or gets access to as many spells.

>>46963032
Being a cunning and clever warrior doesn't directly translate into int and wis

Achilles was neither intelligent nor wise, he was an idiot and died like an idiot

Hercules was not an intelligent man, he punched things and hit them with clubs, his "clever" ideas were shit like "I'm gonna deviate a whole river to clean out a stable lol, Herk smart"

Beowulf was short-sighted and foolish, even though his high charisma allowed him to get away with his lies

>>46963094
I shouldn't be surprised that your reading comprehension is just as bad as your writing syntax. Just stop posting.

>dozens of components to piece together into hundreds of different combinations.

>>46953935
Which UA has the cavalier?

>>46962969
>>46963008
Casters are a lot more flashy and are pretty Damn strong, but especially in this edition casters are not fully superior. They are generally limited by their very frail bodies and limited castings, especially at low levels.

The only truly superior casters are clerics. Especially arcane clerics.

>>46963127

>Smite is just increased damage

You do realize that most spells are just different colors of doing damage right?

>I do my damage THIS way! ITSSOCOOL!

>>46963141

How FOOLISH of me, clearly you wanted to cast Investiture of Flame INSTEAD of Chain Lightning! Because doing AOE damage in different ways is COMPLETELY different from just doing single target damage in different ways for the martials! Wew lad, you sure got me.

>>46963141

What are you on about? His writing is perfectly grammatical.

File: 04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>46963151
Kits of Old

>>46963177
Thank you!

>>46963161
A lot of spells are, but most also provide some sort of additional condition or malus to the victim. Moreover, many offer utility that martials simply cannot have.

Let me put it another way: Martials get to interact with things by hitting them or skill checks.

Casters get to interact with things by hitting them, skill checks, or casting spells.

Casters are playing 1.5times the game that martials are.

>>46963158
This has never been about damage, or tanking. Martial damage is on par with caster damage. Martial utility and depth is not.

>>46963113
Or you do exactly what is RAW and RAI, fighting with your shield is built in to the attack so you, gasp, roll as nomal and describe the scene!
Now, if a player came to me asking if they rework dueling as shield fighting, only active with a shield but not requiring a weapon, i would 100% let them get the damage bonus with any attack while the shield is equipped.

>>46963094
>thinking this is about damage
Oh, look, a retard

How do you deal with dick players? Like the dude tries to tell other players what to do all the time, takes credit for things he didn't do, and he has to insert himself into everything even if he's not near the event.

>>46963081
>one more person
We all know of it's you samefagging.

>>46963198

Yes yes, I get it, 3 is definitely the coolest number out of all real numbers. How can 1 and 2 even compete? I mean just look at it, it's THREE! Compared to 1 and 2, it's just clearly larger.

>>46963211

Oh man, you are so right, how could I forget how balls-to-the-wall cool the clutch play of Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum is! You use that spell slot so we don't have to camp out or stay at an inn like we have been for the rest of the game! Good job caster!

>>46963198
What are spells beyond damage and/or skill checks of some sort,even if that is in the form of a saving throw.
Unless you mean buffs, which martials can do, and bards have as a feature.

>>46963239
Is your family disappointed by how retarded you are?

>>46963113
What? This whole thing made exactly zero sense

You're literally going against both RAW and RAI in all accounts

If the paladin is at least level 5 he can make one improvised shield attack and one sword attack, neither is at disadvantage

If he isn't but has shield master he can make a weapon attack and then shove as a bonus or shove first to get the guy prone and make a weapon attack with advantage (or two after level 5)

If he has twf he can make a sword attack and a bonus action improvised weapon attack

If he has tavern brawler he can smash the guy in the face with the shield and grab him by the neck

>>46963241
>What are spells beyond damage and/or skill checks of some sort?

Are you suggesting that you can turn into animals with a skill check? Fly with a skill check? Travel across huge stretches of time, space, and dimensions with a skill check? Raise the dead? commune with gods and get truthful answers? Summon demons? pass through solid stone? Manifest objects where none were before? Give those objects sentience and motility where none were before? Give a newt human intelligence? Turn invisible? Create pocket universes?

I'm not going to lie, the game you're playing where all that is possible for every class sounds fun. Too bad it isn't DnD.

>>46963239
never go full autism anon. You're not even addressing his points. You're just saying nonsense.

>>46963219

Talk to him directly, specifically, and objectively.

"Please don't give directions to other players. Let them play the game for themselves."

"Your character isn't in this scene, but we'll get back to him shortly. Hold tight."

If the player doesn't respond to that, talk to him one on one after the session. Tell him that [specific behavior] is making the game worse, and he'll need to either change [specific behavior] or leave the group. If he doesn't change, he's not invited to the next session.

File: 1453659300260.png (860 KB, 620x864) Image search: [Google]

860 KB, 620x864

>>46963279
>Not playing a mad scientist Rogue
You could be having more fun, anon.

>>46963249
>I can't win this argument normally, let me try vicious mockery, surely this proves my point that casters are superior

>>46963310
I was new to the "argument", you just came across as really fucking retarded. Sorry bruv.

>>46963161
>How FOOLISH of me, clearly you wanted to cast Investiture of Flame INSTEAD of Chain Lightning! Because doing AOE damage in different ways is COMPLETELY different from just doing single target damage in different ways for the martials! Wew lad, you sure got me.
Holy shit, reading your arguments is making me feel sorry for you.
>I'M STARTING TO LOOK BAD IN THIS ARGUMENT, BETTER YELL AND START SPOUTING LE KEKKING MEMES
I legitimately feel sorry for you. I can tell just from our brief, anonymous, text-based interactions today that you are a lonely virgin and that it is entirely the fault of your shitty attitude and lack of motivation.

Anyway, as you've clearly demonstrated that you are incapable of comprehending a caster taking two different spells and using them in synergy, I will detail such a scenario for you now.

This involves Hold Person, Mage Hand, and Fireball (excuse that I'm using such well-known spells here, I literally only know like 10% of the spells in this game and am still more apt at strategizing than you - let that sink in - not only are you pathetically incelibate, weak, and, frankly, dumb, but you are also bad at the only thing in your life that you believe that you are good at (D&D - I literally felt like I needed to explicitly state that here because of how poor you have demonstrated your reading comprehension is). Now, the caster uses Hold Person on an enemy. Once the enemy is held, the caster uses mage hand to, from a safe distance from the action, apply oil to the enemy's square. Now, for two additional turns, the enemy in that square will take an additional 5 fire damage whenever he takes fire damage. The entire party can take advantage of this. And the caster will enjoy an additional 10 fire damage herself over the next two turns.

Now, if the Arcane Trickster does this, of course, it's much better, he doesn't need to hold person (the oil can be applied as a bonus action) and he can use Green-Flame Blade instead of Fireball.

>>46963204
Absolutely this. That's how I've played Sword and Board melee characters, and it's how I'd run them were there any in my party I DM for.

>>46963269

>If the paladin is at least level 5 he can make one improvised shield attack and one sword attack, neither is at disadvantage

By the RAW, it's simply impossible for him to make an attack with an offhand weapon while wielding a non-light weapon. The DM in the example is giving the absolute bare minimum of leeway in allowing the action to take place at all.

>If he has twf he can make a sword attack and a bonus action improvised weapon attack

Nope, that'd be the Dual Wielder feat. Two-Weapon Fighting is a fighting style that lets a fighter add their ability mod to an off-hand attack.

>If he has tavern brawler he can smash the guy in the face with the shield and grab him by the neck

Probably not if he doesn't have a hand free, but you're right as far as the RAW is concerned.

>>46963310
>has been using ad hominem all along
>someone pays him with the same coin
>"ad hominem! "
Hello /v/

>>46960865
Monk/bladesinger wizard using Mage armor and shield spell. Enjoy adding your wis, dex, and int to ac and casting shield pretty much whenever you want.

With standard array, that's a 20 AC at level 4, 25 with shield. With maxed stats that's a 28, 33 with shield. If you have magic gear it gets retarded, where Tiamat couldn't hit you except on a crit.

File: index.jpg (332 KB, 1125x1046) Image search: [Google]

332 KB, 1125x1046

does incelebate mean "not celebate"? Or is it more in line with incels, that is "involuntary celibacy"?

Anyways, just jumping in to quesiton that, and present the black commons for the inspiration deck I'm making.

>>46963175
>I'm not gonna lie, 5e is my first edition, but do people really see that huge a difference between taking the attack action several turns in a row and casting Ray of Frost/Firebolt/Acid Splash?
>>Nuh uh, talkin' about castin' Finger of Death!
>That's real fuckin' neato.

>His writing is perfectly grammatical.

Sure, bro.

>>46963347

Jesus dude, who pissed in your wheaties? Maybe take a break from the internet for a little while. Have a cup of tea.

>>46963365
>By the RAW, it's simply impossible for him to make an attack with an offhand weapon while wielding a non-light weapon.
Using Extra Attack you can switch between weapons you're using for the attacks. That's why they specified a level 5 paladin.

Attack action to make a sword swing --> gets to make another weapon attack as part of the action --> improvised weapon shield smack.
Even uncharitably that's a legal chain of events.

>>46963368
>unarmored defense with mage armor
Oh, anon

>>46963290

>Why aren't you having my argument with me?!

Because I'm not arguing with him. I'm calling him a faggot, which he is.

>>46963347

>Psssh, nothing personnel kid, come back when you have a real debate team

The smug superiority of those who think they're in the right is always precious. Lemme break it down for ya, slowmo:

The only perceived """""superiority""""" for casters is fluff. Martials deal damage, casters deal damage, but you think your way of dealing damage is SOOOOO cool and awesome because le i maek teh Hollywood movie explosions. Your fluff ain't that great. Hell, half your fluff isn't even your own fluff, most of the fluff comes from the spell itself. So you're acting high and mighty because your version of pretend damage, which WotC held your hand on, is flashier than the pretend damage martials do. Congrats Special Ed. You are special.

Sorry for the late response by the way, I had to use the bathroom and drop a caster. Korean food, whew.

>>46963375
As in incel - involuntarily celibate, as you said

File: do you even chomskyan syntax, bro.png (4 KB, 220x248) Image search: [Google]

4 KB, 220x248

>>46963376

>>46963368
How do you add wis?

>>46963366
You do realize there are more that 2 people who agree martials are fine right?

>>46963368

That's not how AC works in 5e. All three of those things give you a new way to calculate your AC; they aren't added together. You take whichever calculation is higher.

>>46963418
>The second part of your post

Take my criticisms to heart instead of meekly defending yourself by spouting more fucking memes. You're just further substantiating my claims.

And I'm arguing the point that martials have been shit on as a martial player myself. I've only played martials and half-casters ever. But I've read through some of the higher-level spells and it's crazy how much casters can do. If you ignore that fact, then good for you. remain blissfully ignorant - however, if that's the case, then you have no place in this discussion.

Also, seriously, STOOOOOOOP TALKING LIKE """""THIS"""""" ya DARN FUCKING SPECIAL retarded faggit!!! Nobody takes you seriously if you pull this nonsense.

Genuinely out of curiosity, do you fall on the autism spectrum somewhere?