Official /5eg/ Mega Trove, contains all official 5e stuff:
https://mega.nz/#F!BUdBDABK!K8WbWPKh6Qi1vZSm4OI2PQ
>Pastebin with homebrew list, resources and so on:
http://pastebin.com/X1TFNxck
>/tg/ Character Sheet
https://mega.nz/#F!x0UkRDQK!l-iAUnE46Aabih71s-10DQ
>New-ish official PDF
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/plane-shift-zendikar-2016-04-27
What's the best or oddest pet you've allowed or have been allowed to keep in game?
Thread topic: you have a choice between a level 20 champion fighter mercenary, or a level 10 warlock mercenary.
From a purely min max perspective, how could you possibly justify taking the champion fighter over the warlock?
>>47183456
After defeating a Gelatinous Cube last session, I scooped some up and managed to bring it back what it was before just on a smaller scale, I keep it in a Chest it can't dissolve and named it Baby Clean. No clue what I'm going to do with it, was thinking of storing magical items in it
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/10/a-new-dungeonsdragons-adventure-storm-kings-thunder/
Just saw this on reddit. Sounds neat but I'll be a bit dissapointed if it doesn't get an Elemental Evil companion supplement or something similar.
>>47183508
champion has 8 attacks 15% crit and 21 ac and far more hp, seems good to me.
>>47183508
>10th level Warlock
lel, class is meh as fuck, I'd choose almost any other class even at 10th level, Champion it's.
>>47183508
Is this a ruse? the fighter of course, not only it's better at the same level, you also give him 10 more.
>>47183528
It also has more feats (you can even pick magic initiate and cast) and can reroll saves 3 times a day
>>47183508
Wasn't this a thread in the gaintip forum?
>>47183508
This is really dumb fighter wins no matter what, unless you mistyped and meant a lvl 20 warlock also
Which thread is for talking about the older editions of the game?
>>47183652
Other threads
If there isn't one then make it, should be fine considering no more quest cancer
What's the minimum character level you DMs start giving out +1 weapons/armor?
One of my players wants to be a ranger in COS and I'm considering buffing it just a tad because I find it slightly weak
Would ignoring hunter's mark concentration req and giving the animal companion max hp+4 times ranger level be fine?
Hunter seems good enough to me
>>47183795
1st. But the catch is that you have to EARN that artifact, nigga!
>>47183508
Warlock, easily. Damage is not the limiting factor for higher level gameplay IMO. Spell slots and utility are.
>>47183926
Fighter can be better in every skill, and by 20 would have magical gear to make up for lack of spells
>>47183926
hahahaahha, thinking a 10th level warlock can do anything better than a 20th level champion, if this were 3.5 you'd be right
>>47183964
10th level warlock barely has spells though, only 10 spells known and only 2 slots
So I've finally browbeaten my group into giving 5e a shot... With the caveat that they want to do the Pathfinder adventure path "Iron Gods". Is there a guide to converting Pathfinder adventures to 5e? Is it even worth trying?
>>47183926
Are you serious? The warlock has nothing in his measly 2 spell slots that can possibly stop the freight train that is a level 20 champion
Shit, lv10 warlock would have trouble taking on a lv10 champion to begin with
>>47183992
Just take the encounters and adjust the CR using the same monsters, then adjust the non-combat DCs, easy as can be
>>47183992
You're going to run into one big problem really fast: Iron Gods relies heavily on Barrier Peaks-style futuristic alien technology, and 5e just straight up doesn't have any equivalents yet. I'd wait on it. See if they'll compromise for something a little more traditional, like Runelords or Giantslayer.
>>47183992
If you translate monsters prepare for thousands of TPKs, 3.PF is more "epic" than 5e.
>>47183456
> Oddest pet
Tecocelotl are absolutely a thing in my setting, yes.
Guys, it has been a long time since I entered in 5eg and asked this question, but now that the dust has settled and more official material has been released, I was wondering, how do IRULES OF NATURE!in 5e?
>>47184028
The question wasn't who would win in a fight, it was who you would rather have as a mercenary.
>>47183990
That's six slots per day, as well as any invocations. That's six slots your wizard can devote to more stuff.
>>47184217
Play a monk in a setting with firearms. That missile-catching ability just got more impressive.
>>47184296
>that's six slots
>implying you're entitled to 2 rests per day
Kek
>>47184296
Man, give me the phone number of your GM I also want to have 2 short rest per day too
>>47184351
>what are lunch and dinner
>>47184351
>>47184387
I made short rests 15 minutes so my party pretty much takes short rests after every encounter
>>47184400
That's the same thing though? Don't you mean dinner and tea?
>>47184400
That's one short rest and the food immediately before a long rest.
>>47184222
I'd still get the champ, the only situation in which I wouldn't is if I was playing a champ myself, and even then, can you imagine the sheer force we would dish out? It would be like a freight train with 2 locomotives
>>47184419
>pretty much every encounter
Have you considered playing around with urgency? Putting on more time constraints so they can't take short rests or can only do one or two a day?
Are they going to release a new monster manual or something with actual content soon? I'm a DM with actual ability to DM so these lame ass fifty dollar adventures really aren't doing it for me.
>>47184493
From the looks of it no. Which really fucking sucks.
>>47184450
I really see no need for it, having a short rest per encounter has been working okay, and they haven't been in any dungeons where they couldn't easily have taken an hour
The only exception was at the temple of moving stones on POTA, they took too long between the fight with the bandits and the priest so I had him prepare (spider climbed to the ceiling, set up cover stones, readied an action to acid splash the first one to enter and prepared his getaway)
They are currently short resting inside the sacred stone monastery but I allowed that to happen because they already killed the boss and we're taking a break until august for one of the players to go home for summer
>>47184533
So 5e is dead then? That's a shame.
They actually learned to balance feats for once. They also could have made major and minor feats for additional customization.
They could have had ability score diversification by limiting it to +1 to two scores, instead of instituting that silly cap.
Proficiency was an actually good idea.
This editiOn could have been good. Makes me sad.
>>47184577
What? No, there is a major content book coming out soon (meaning sometime before next summer) that will either be a sort of PHB2 or SCAG-like thing for Eberron
They did a survey recently to see what people wanted for the "first major content expansion"
>>47184656
>For Eberron
Nice, I hope they improve Shifters, Warforgeds and release Mystics.
>>47184656
> scag for Eberron.
> book with actual genetic content that doesn't shill a published setting
Guess which one they'll pick? Hint: it's the one that doesn't require any actual effort to produce.
>>47184217
Probably a Fighter or Barb. What are the specific things you wanna do mechanically?
>>47184577
You're an idiot.
>>47184656
After the SCAG though I dont have much faith in them producing anything of quality or note. Like hell what has actually been used from the SCAG besides those cantrips?
>>47184773
Explain how, then.
> inb 4 "no cause you're too retarded to understand" or any of that shit, if you cannot defend your opinions you are not allowed to have them.
>>47184778
Nothing because it's basically a reprint of the Faerun campaign setting books from the past three editions.
>>47184685
What else would you want? Most everyting is covered by the PHB, DMG and SCAG, and I hope you don't believe the SCAG content is sword coast exclusive
All the things people want could definitely be fit into an EAG
>>47184577
It still has fundamental caster/martial imbalances, and relies on an archaic d20 mechanic instead of something more modern like narrative dice or the one roll system, or even fucking apocalypse world's move system.
I have hopes for 6e, since other innovators are going to start cutting into DnD's sales if this mediocrity continues, but 5e is a lost cause.I wish I could get my players to stop playing it.
First time player here trying to get my RP down.
If I'm a cleric of illmater who got into it for the healing, how can I justify cutting down goblins like they're wheat?
Also when I let one go (DM gave me the opportunity to either coup de gra it or interrogate I chose the latter) did I bone my party out of XP?
Should I have tied it up, or what do non murder hobos do? Just kill it justifying it by saying it was picking off travelers?
>>47184762
>What are the specific things you wanna do mechanically?
CUHRAZY! things
Looks like this threads going to turn into shit.
>>47184804
>>47184804
Well you are right about the faster imbalance. But moves from AW? No, DnD has a certain identity and if it loses hat to pander to "new" hipster shit it might as well not exist. I like Apocalypse World but using it for fantasy is a fuckng mistake, just look at Dungeon World.
5e could have been good but sadly it is too late now. The game is dead. If they can't get it right after five fucking editions then they are never going to.
>>47184778
I'm using the undead Warlock patron, one of my party members is rocking the battlerager, and the other is using that one monk with the DBZ ki blasts, we're all having hella fun. Not for you =/= not for anyone.
>>47184801
Given that the last chapter of the SCAG is literally "how to use this shit in other campaigns", I should _HOPE_ nobody thinks it's Frealms exclusive. (lost my shit at the suggestion for getting Battleragers into Dragonlance)
>>47184847
> Can't refute or argue against his points
> I'll pos a bait image instead because these threads should only be for circle jerking about how great 5e is.
>>47184847
He isn't all that wrong though, casters have more variety thanks to spells which essentially makes them be one step above everytime.
>>47184817
Are you seriously playing a pacifist in a fucking DnD campaign?
Just focus on buff spells.
>>47184892
I'm not going that far, just trying to have a character that is consistent.
>>47184857
I don't think we need to pander to hipster shit, but recognizing that a binary d20 roll to determine just success or failure is silly isn't pandering. You could accomplish what those games accomplish (information rich non binary outcomes) while using the d20. It's just the DnD designers don't, and IMO the game suffers for it.
>>47184892
It's a completely valid way to play, you only need a DM who isn't a complete retard.
How much damage would you have a cannon ball do?
>>47184976
depends on the canon and the ball.
I'd guess 5d6 bludgeoning.
Maybe an explosive component too depending on whose firing.
>>47184976
>>47184976
It's in the DMG: 8d10
>>47184996
Wait, +6 to hit? Why is a cannon more accurate than standing next to a guy and poking him with a pointy stick?
On the other hand, there is a chance of a Monk catching that and throwing it back.
>>47184964
DnD has had stuff like that, but honestly I prefer he binary outcomes and interpreting it on my own.
d20'is swingy as fuck but it's part of DnD
>>47184973
> if the DM doesn't fellate but completely non viable character build, he is a shit DM
> if my DM doesn't support me trying to play a mech in power armor in Call of Chtulu, he is a shit DM for not being more adaptable.
>>47185035
> what is dodging and or parrying
I'm going to introduce my BBEG at the next session, and I'm super worried that I'm going to fuck it up.
My backstory is basically:
>World where all the gods meet in a council every X years
>Characters find mysterious orb
>Things happen
>Characters learn that the gods' meeting is actually so they can talk to their own creators
>Characters also learn that the creators sometimes fail to show up, and that gods tend to die when that happens
>Realize that the mysterious orb can kill gods
>Get into the meeting, presumably with the plan of using it (maybe)
There's a twist, of course. I wrote out about how it should go—could somebody look it over for me? Is it too long? Does the BBEG present a credible threat? Is it 2edgy?
http://pastebin.com/yfywpdb0
>>47185059
False equivalency is false. You just need to be creative at bypassing encounters if you're a pacifist, but it's completely doable. In fact, I hope more DMs make combat so lethal that it's a good idea for anyone, not just pacifists, to search for alternative approaches.
>>47185038
as DM, I appreciate having rules and shit for "well you missed the guard with your arrows, but you hit a barrel behind him and now he's covered with oil.
Star Wars does it really well, and imo it makes the DM's job way easier, precisely because I don't have to constantly ask when to spice combat up and how: the Players have rules support to do so already.
>>47185113
> need to be able to bypass or talk your way out of literally every encounter.
What if you fight zombies ?
Or skeletons?
>>47185123
So what is stopping you from saying that?
The issue with non-binary outcomes as a rule is that they must be used every time. In AW rolls are very rare and only take place at story points. Ina DnD combat it will just bog things down. It sjoule be discussed in the core mechanic section but, sturcutring it like AW? No. The two philosophies of gaming are at odds in terms of amount of rolling.
>>47185127
Bypassing doesn't necessary mean talking. Distractions, sneaking, magic, simply running past... And you don't have to be a pacifist towards mindless creatures that are already dead.
>>47185153
There's nothing stopping me from saying it, but leaving everything like that up to DM fiat both makes it burdensome for me, and annoying for players. It turns the game into a roleplaying hybridized with begging for bonuses from the DM and begging to avoid a situational malus from the DM.
Having rules support makes it more satisfying for the players when it happens (instead of just me giving them a bone), and less arbitrary when they get screwed by disadvantage. It's better all around.
And you should give FFG's star wars a try. It's a pretty fast system with stuff I've been talking about. Quite fun.
>>47185035
>On the other hand, there is a chance of a Monk catching that and throwing it back.
There's a statistical chance, sure, but in practice it isn't going to happen
>>47185207
And if he does by some miracle manage to catch it, he couldn't throw it back and do 8d10 with it. At best 1d4.
>>47185191
Tell me more about ffg .
I agree with you about he GM fist thing, maybe there a middle ground. As long as you don't kludge on mechsnics that don't fit together like Torchbearer and Dungeon World. Altering DnD too much fucks with its identity. But other than that, if it is done by competing devs, it could be improved.
>>47185035
>8d10 damage
>Deflect Missiles: 1d10 + Dex + Monk level
At the most a monk will deflect 35 ranged damage. Average for a cannon ball is 44. Unless they roll really badly for damage, in which case you can reenact Kung Fu Panda.
>>47185229
FFG uses a narrative dice system, with different symbols.
You have success paired with failure
Advantage paired with Disadvantage
Triumph paired with Despair.
Opposites cancel each other out, except for Triumph and Despair. Your dice pool is determined by your skills and abilities, the difficulty of the task, and any circumstances that make it easier or harder.
If you have one success left over after everything is canceled out, you succeed. Additional successes can represent how much you succeed by. Failure is always binary: you can never fail more by having more failures left over in the pool.
If you have any advantage or disadvantage left over at the end of the roll, they give you circumstantial bonuses. Additionally, some weapons or skills let you convert advantage into defined bonuses (such as crits). You can fail with advantage, or succeed with disadvantage, and vice versa. For instance, you might successfully hack the computer and open the door, but also trigger a silent alarm that results in more guards contesting you later. Etc.
Triumph and Despair are super advantage and disadvantage, respectively.
Players generally get to decide what to do with their advantages (and the book has suggestions for each skill on what is appropriate), and the DM gets to decide what to do with disadvantages.
Once your players get used to the dice, it's a ton of fun.
>>47184892
I played a sort of pacifist healer cleric once. I had no qualms with killing monsters and shit, but I'd protest if we killed people instead of capturing them. Just tell your martials to declare non-lethal damage whenever they got close to killing anyone or convince your DM to give enemies death saving throws and then stabilize them after the fight.
>>47185289
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHpuPXKOwUI
>>47185329
That sounds pretty cool. Does it slow down combat much,corn does combat have very few rolls compared to DnD?
>>47183795
When I was running Lost Mine of Phandelver my party skipped the goblin trail, and I realized it would have been 100% possible for them to get a +1 Longsword at level 1. Although, that would either require some great luck, or a player knowing where it was located already and rushing to that location.
>>47185379
>Literally maxing the d10 and enemies rolling poorly constantly
AKA stuff that will never happen
>>47185418
How would they have dealt with the nothic though? Also, the people in Phandalin would have told the party that Gundren never arrived, prompting them to backtrack and go look for him.
>>47185383
Combat is a bit more abstracted than DnD, and it generally runs fast. It's designed I think to be a bit more dramatic.
Whats a good name for a city gang that currently only consists of 3 wood elves?
We're playing in a city game and our party is literally a gang that's just starting up, currently its just us but we're starting to make a name for ourselves.
We don't want to exactly be "the elf gang", at least overtly, if we end up being a gang that just happens to be sometimes referred to as "that elf gang" so be it, but its not what we're aiming for.
Gimmicks are also welcome, we just need some way to make our gang semi memorable.
>>47185469
The Three Faggots.
>>47184879
>>47184882
It's more like pic related, I disagree and have no intention of getting pulled into that discussion, so I just post a meme, hide the post and move on
Is 5e really that bad? I haven't played any other system, and I don't see why I would need too. 5e was easy to get into, and seems alright on the surface. We haven't had any problem aside from when we had someone play a wizard and they were pretty strong, but it was easy to counter and balance. Are people complaining because they like to whine? Or is there really something? I don't have any experience with a different system, so no way to compare 5e's rules and play to something else.
>>47185652
> I haven't played any other system
That's why. Case closed.
>>47185652
It isn't bad. People are just asshat whiners. As long as you and your group is having fun with it, there's no reason to change anything about it.
>>47185695
Do you have the attention span of a vaccinated goldfish?
>>47185652
5e isn't bad, it's just that other systems do other things (like dice pools). Some people who like these other things have been convinced that these other things are inherently better than the things that DnD does. I would definitely recommend trying out other systems if for no other reason than to broaden your horizons and have fun.
>>47185708
The rest of his post does nothing except unintentionally highlight a flaw of 5e; caster supremacy. Sure it's not as bad as 3.5 but that's like saying the Rwandan gencoide is not as bad as the Holocaust..
>>47185715
Literally nothing in this post contains an argument.
> other systems so othter things
How the fuck does that imply 5e is good?
>>47185652
Don't listen to the whiners, 5e is the best edition of D&D so far and the best game at what it intends to do: get a group together to go through some dungeons and slay some dragons
There is a lot of shitposting and complaining in these threads about how people feel other game systems are better because 5e is missing this or that thing they like and they will never get, but they don't realize they can just stop shitposting in this thread and play what they like.
5e also actively encourages homebrewing in much the same way some videogame publishers encourage modding, and a lot of people here believe that license to homebrew equals license to force people to like what they don't like or hate what they hate.
A lot of people posting here are just "badwrongfun" spergs and memesters.
I do encourage you to try other systems, but 5e is my and my group's favorite, and ultimately the main topic of this thread, however much people whine about it. Just block it out and focus on conversation that interests you.
>>47185765
There is no argument, nobody is trying to say 5e is better than whatever your system of choice is, you are the one trying to start the equivalent of console wars, just leave or stop shitposting
>>47185791
You offer no concrete reasons why 5e is best edition.
Also, there are lots of fantasy games out here that do the same thing as DnD except better than DnD itself.
The devs live in a fuckin time capsule I swear. They finally discovered background mechanics and bounded accuracy..... 10 years after the rest of the RPG community at large. At his rate we will have caster balance by tenth edition. Oh wait, fourth had it, and fourth got dumped in the shitter because other stuff about it sucked and the devs are reactionary fucks who throw the baby out with the bathwater
>>47185765
Literally nothing in this post contains an argument.
> I shitpost in generals for systems I hate
How the fuck does that imply 5e is bad?
>>47185700
Except you could have more fun with a better system
>>47185841
> 5e isn't bad
That is an assertion. If you can't back it up then you are false. Same with the other guy who said DnD 5e is the best edition so far. Support your claims or get the fuck out.
>>47185469
The Knife Ears
>>47185889
The onus would be on the person claiming that d&d is bad.
Why do you feel the need to come to the 5e general and shitpost?
>>47185865
You made he assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
5e is based on outdated mechanics, alignments that do not represent realistic human motivations, a stat increase system that literally works against its own intention, then institutes a hard cap to cover up its own shortcomings. You are still punished for playing a martial, and character customization is basically picking one of five combat styles as a fighter.
There is more but I'll leave it there for now as that should be plenty in the plate for your tiny brain to do that.
> inb4 you explain away these flaws as "that's the point of DnD!!!"
>>47185942
None of the points you list are objectively bad.
I have a question guys, how do you get the "cloudy" look at the edge of pictures I usually see on homebrew? I want to apply it to this on naturalcrit but have no clue how to do it, is it html script or some sort of photoshop work?
>>47185990
None of the points you can list are objectively good.
>>47185990
> Being punished for playing a martial is not objectively bad
>>47185999
Photoshop
>>47183828
Plz respond
>>47185942
> You
> You
> You
Because only one person could possibly disagree with you.
>>47185999
You mean the cloudy look that looks like utter shit? Your page looks fine as is.
>>47186018
Ignoring the part where you aren't punished for playing a martial, yes. Playing a mundane character in a magical world is a big disadvantage.
>>47183785
Well then
>>47185375
Would you use a Pseudoelemental in one of your games?
>>47186032
> "you" cannot be plural
If you are going to argue pointless semantics to avoid facing the truth that 5e is a mediocre game at best, please tell me so both of us don't waste time.
>>47186051
Martials in 5e are still underpowered as shit.
Also, this is a game. No one wants to play mundane characters. By your logic, 3.5 is good.
>>47186023
Ah, thanks m8, now to figure out how to work photoshop
Have my favorite homebrew
>>47185652
I liked it a lot more than 4th edition.
5e isn't bad, isn't great either is just ok. Better in almost any aspect than 3.5 and that's what made me try it.
>>47186068
> N-nuh-uh! That's not what I meant!
> M-must b-b-be hard being so s-stupid!
I enjoy this system, and others. I don't pick fights with strangers on the internet for the purpose of reinflating the tattered scraps of what you somehow call an ego.
Go play something you enjoy. Don't shit in the pool because you don't enjoy swimming.
>>47186033
You think? I feel like it's a bit plain
>>47183828
Removing concentration on Hunter's Mark doesn't really fix anything for them, but definitely give the animal companion more HP. I tend to go for 6 per ranger level, a solid 50% increase.
If Hunter's Mark is your focus on fixing it, make it free to cast, maybe twice per short rest or something, or Wisdom times per long rest.
I'm trying to design a megadungeon set in/around/under a mountain. Setting is FR, the mountain is gonna be somewhere up in the Spine of the World.
I'm fairly new to FR as a setting, what sorts of things might be living up there? Any cool ideas as to what I can put down there?
>>47185469
Mowgli of the Concrete Jungle
>>47186162
DMG Appendix B has lists of monsters by environment. There's also one for mountains.
>>47186054
That sounds super complicated to be honest, like I feel if I were to actually get into it and run a campign with that stuff my players wouldn't be able to keep up. As it is they have trouble keeping up with minor investigations to the point that I had to make an NPC that does most of the legwork and just points them at stuff
>>47186081
Martials aren't underpowered
Some, like fighters, or Paladins, are great in combat, maybe better than most casters. The balance, in 5e at least, is only out of combat
>>47186162
I mean, you're working with some pretty varied terrain there: Alpine terrain with the option for underdark and maybe some plane of fire stuff, if it's a volcanic mountain.
Can you be more specific, or is in/around/under mountain as far as you've gotten?
>>47186081
They aren't underpowered. And players who don't want to play mundane can roll a caster, or multiclass. Why is this an issue?
>>47186144
I'll also be implementing some other things for the companion, like barding and death saves (which are both already in the books but looks like people don't use them)
Though i have a gut feeling he will end up going hunter, he said his character is gonna be an indiana jones type archaeologist guy
Battlemaster fighter
fighting style: archery
maneuver: precision attack
feats: crossbow expert, sharpshooter
weapons: heavy crossbow, hand crossbow
20 dexterity
>declare sharpshooter, fire heavy crossbow
>hit: 1d10+15>miss: roll precision attack superiority die, see above if hit
>declare sharpshooter, fire heavy crossbow
>hit: 1d10+15>miss: roll precision attack superiority die, see above if hit
>declare sharpshooter, fire heavy crossbow
>hit: 1d10+15>miss: roll precision attack superiority die, see above if hit
>drop heavy crossbow
>draw hand crossbow
>declare sharpshooter, fire hand crossbow
>hit: 1d6+15>miss: roll precision attack superiority die, see above if hit
>declare sharpshooter, fire hand crossbow
>hit: 1d6+15>miss: roll precision attack superiority die, see above if hit
total damage3d10+2d6+75
minimum total damage80
mean total damage100
maximum total damage117
Viable?
Obviously this involves weapon dropping/drawing so it doesn't sustain itself every turn.
2nd turn:
>drop hand crossbow
>pick up heavy crossbow
>declare sharpshooter, fire heavy crossbow 4x, apply precision attack when necessary: 4d10+60
total damage 2nd turn: 4d10+60 (mean 84)
3rd turn:
>declare sharpshooter, fire heavy crossbow 3x, apply precision strike when necessary: 3d10+45
>pick up hand crossbow
>declare sharpshooter, fire handcrossbow 2x, apply precision strike when necessary: 2d6+30
total damage 3rd turn: 3d10+2d6+75 (mean 100)
even turn number, repeat turn 2
odd turn number, repeat turn 3
>>47183608
So was the bladelock best archer bait
>>47186184
Sweet, thanks.
>>47186206
Well I've picked a mountain, given it a name, and decided that there are a bunch of Dwarves from Mirabar up there trying to set up a mine. I'm thinking that there used to be a mining operation there that was abandoned a long time ago, and that there was some reason for that.
I'm just not sure what that reason should be.
>>47186375
that one was true though. I mean, I guess it could still be bait, but imo doesn't qualify.
>>47186349
What level is this supposed to be at?
>>47186501
sorry, forgot to include that. That's a level 20 (fighter's get their third extra attack at level 20)
>>47183515
Use it as a portable toilet.And store your magical goods in it. Who is going to finger-fuck your turds to get that magic ring?
>>47183526
>>47183795
For a +1 weapon, I'd say level 7 at the very earliest. For a +1 armor, I'd say level 8 at the very earliest.
But I can't stand 3.5 / Pathfinder's "everyone is superheroes" style, so you capeshit faggots might disagree.
>>47183992
>converting Pathfinder to 5e
just get a new group, jesus christ
>>47186224
It's an issue because there is no good reason to play a martial
>>47186695
Except a lot of things.
>>47184804
/tg/ really does have the weakest bait of all the boards
>>47186678
Some of us give a shit about our friends dumb nut. Not everyone subsists off of roll20 and playing with random strangers from the FLGS "game wanted " cork board
>>47186704
Like what things? You're just wasting time being evasive anon. There was no reason to play a martial in 3.x and no reason to play one in fifth edition. The problem is less severe but it's still a problem.
>>47186532
It's pretty great as far as number of shots and damage goes, but seems a bit boring
I dunno, I feel that if I picked a battlemaster I would be using manouvers for a lot more stuff than just getting extra DPR
If that's all you're looking for though, it's good, if a bit gamey
>>47186349
Minimum damage is 0
>>47185035
>Why is a cannon more accurate than standing next to a guy and poking him with a pointy stick?
>>47186737
Like wanting to play a martial.
>>47186710
> I can't refute it so I'll call it bait
DnD fags, ladies and gentlemen! Can't handle their terribly balanced system being called out for its flaws, while also shutting on the only edition of their schizophrenic game that actually happened to be balanced while vacillating from one play style to another.
>>47186639
>For a +1 weapon, I'd say level 7 at the very earliest
In all precon campaigns you get it around 2nd level
>>47186760
That's like chopping your own leg off because you want to be a pirate. It's fuckng stupid. Playing a martial leaves you neutered and useless next to a wizard who can do everything you can do, except better, while doing loads of hints you can't do.
>>47185084
Does the lack of replies mean that it's really bad?
>>47186788
>That's like chopping your own leg off because you want to be a pirate.
No it's not.
>>47186805
I tried to read it, but it's both too long and poorly-written. It comes across as bad acting dialogue transcribed to text. Sitting around your RPG table, something like, "Be as dramatic as you want!" can work if the enemy is a massive ham, but I wasn't impressed by what I read.
>>47186822
Just stop responding to the shitposter already
Must we seriously have this martial vs caster discussion every fucking thread? Let people play what they want! Playing as casters is fun! Playing as martials is fun! So can you people just fuck off?
>>47186853
So tone down the ham factor?
I think I can do that. Probably. Hopefully.
>>47186805
>>47185084
>my BBEG
>my backstory is
>>world where blah blah blah
>>orb
>>orb is kill gods
>THERE'S A TWIST
>so... what do you think of my bbeg...?
Wat the fuk am i reading
>>47186822
>a cleric has martial weapon and heavy armor proficiency
>a cleric has spells
>a cleric can fight hand to hand or with ranged weapons
>a cleric can implicitly have the role of a fighter without being a fighter
>picking fighter is not reducing your combat and out of combat effectiveness
it's exactly like cutting your leg off. you are using the appearance of a pirate to be a pirate. the fighter class and lack of spells is the only appearance of a fighter in 3.of. A pirate doesn't need a peg leg, and someone who fights doesn't need to not have spells. It is exactly the same thing.
>>47186782
>5e
>+1 weapons at 2nd level
Yeah, no. Go back to Pathfinder.
>>47186900
The more people rant about the state of martials in 5e (basically so boring my players want to kill their in game characters after 2 sessions of trying out the class), the more likely it is wizards will release a good supplement for martials.
>>47186887
But I enjoy it.
>>47186905
A failed attempt at summing up a complex backstory in a brief blurb.
I'm going to rewrite what I did and try to think of a less terrible summary, I guess. It's quite obvious that what I have now isn't going to cut it.
>>47186738
My favourite battlemaster trick is to dump all your superiority dice into the pushback attack. Especially funny if you can somehow get the enemy into the air and get underneath them so they take a bunch of fall damage.
>>47186904
If your players like ham, go for it.
I have no idea what your delivery style is. I read all of your wall-of-text in an obnoxious lisp because I assume you're a spindly, milquetoast, low self-esteem shut-inbecause you're asking for advice from 4chanbut if you're a good actor, well... a good actor can turn even a shitty script into something passable.
>>47186822
It's purposely gimping yourself because you want to plAy a fighter but the system punishes you for playing one.
>>47186906
If we ignore all the parts where a fighter is better than a cleric, the point remains that wanting to play a martial is not like wanting to cut off your leg to play a pirate.
It would be more like cutting off your leg to play a peg-legged pirate. Or cutting off your balls to play an eunuch. You can play an eunuch who has balls, but then he wouldn't be an eunuch.
>>47186906
>>47186788
>fighter is useless! casters can do anything better than a fighter!
See >>47186349 ; a fighter can alternate between mean 100 damage and mean 84 damage per turn
I agree with you though; the fighter who literally just stands up to 400 feet away from the fight and fires bolts literally every turn is as boring as it gets. casters get to combine spells and martial techniques to form unique and varied combat strategies.
>>47186945
>the squeaky wheel gets the grease
>this is what millennials actually believe
>>47186945
>(basically so boring my players want to kill their in game characters after 2 sessions of trying out the class)
This has not been the case for myself or for the other martial players in my 5e groups. Sorry to hear you feel that way.
>>47186945
>it's not fun unless I have a bunch of fancy toys.
Why not focus on making a *character* that's fun to play instead of a spreadsheet that's fun to look at?
>>47186951
I can't even tell who the BBEG is supposed to be based on your greentext. Am I missing something or did you make a mistake and forget a line or two in there?
>>47187026
I could ask wizards virtually the same question:
Why not focus on making character classes that can't be contained merely by a DPS spreadsheet.
>Be arcane cleric
>Use BB or GFM
>Deal 2d6+15+3d8+5+d8
>Average 45
I mean, I not as good as a fighter, but I outdamage monks and rogues!...and maybe some barbarians.
Thought someone might like this. Bunch of monsters like phaerimm, allips, that sort of thing.
>>47186957
You can do this already, nothing in the rules says "away from you" means "horizontally"
In other words, if you have the crossbow expert feat at level 3 you can rush in, uppercut a guy 15 feet, shoot him with the crossbow for another 15 and let him drop for 3d6 damage
>>47187037
BBEG introduces himself in the linked blurb. The players have no idea who is he going in, so I figured would put readers in the same position.
>>47186979
I'm asking for advice from 4chan because all the people I normally go to for writing advice are my players.
I hesitate to call myself a good actor, but I'm definitely not timid when it comes to delivery. I think I can pull off a giant ham if I run through the lines once or twice.
My main concern is tone. It's supposed to have somewhat of a creepy edge to it, which I think it currently lacks. I'm not sure of how to fix it, unfortunately.
>>47187123
Until your DM shuts you down for not being realistic, while letting the wizard get away with murder.
>>47187123
>uppercut a guy 15 feet
How
>shoot him with the crossbow for another 15
Falls are instantaneus you can't keep firing at him, you have to wait till he falls, this is not, sadly, DMC
>>47187123
Eh, a lot of DMs would rule against using the pushback to knock someone vertically up, I think.
Don't tell me you faggots are still going on with the "martials suck" troll shit.
>>47187069
>outdamaging rogues, paladins and barbarians
Now that's a good joke anon
>>47187157
You should go back to preschool, seems you can't read.
>>47187146
>how
up·per·cut
ˈəpərˌkət
noun
1.
a punch delivered with an upward motion and the arm bent.
verb
1.
hit with an uppercut.
>falls are instantaneous
Says where?
>>47187149
I'm the DM for my group and I wouldn't
>>47187005
Squaky wheel gets the kick!
>>47187157
>paladins
Wut? who said paladins
As for barbarias, the average barb deals 2d6+30+12, average of 54, so yes, you can outdamage SOME barbarians
>>47187174
You don't outdamage monks either
Does trying to insult people for minor mistakes make you feel better somehow?
>>47187192
>Says where?
PHB
>>47187222
>4d10+20
>Average 41
>"You don't outdamage monks"
Ok, I should go back to school, now 41 is more than 45, good to know.
>>47187228
Sorry, I don't mean to be recalcitrant, but where in the PHB does it say that if you are thrown in the air you fall before any further actions can be taken by the one who threw you?
>>47187026
You do relize their is an actual game in this right? There is more to a RPG than just waxing poetic and while one can enjoy a character they can also be disappointed by what that character can actually do when considering the system of the game.
>>47187212
No barb is going to go TWF or SnB, so I don't think you can outdamage barbs.
>>47187212
Barbs crit harder.
>>47187069
>2d6+15+3d8+5+d8
I don't follow how you're calculating this? 3d8 from the cantrip's damage, 5 from Strength, 5 from Wis and 1d8 from the weapon would be 4d8+10, average 28.
>>47186996
A fighter is no better than a cleric. Same to hit, and the hit die difference is easily closed by magic.
>>47187003
> damage
> damage
>damage
Literally the only thing the fighter can do, and the wizard STILL does it better
>>47187255
I think it's a shame barbs don't work with TWF. Raging dual wielding maniac is a common trope, and the mechanics should support that.
>>47187302
> expecting the 5e rules to give Martials anything good
>>47187233
So while you're using a cantrip to attack (and adding a bunch of dice that make no sense) the monk, regardless of subtype is just flurrying? Talk about moving goalposts famalam
>>47187273
I misremembered arcane cleric having martial weapons, also I didn't add Wis twice (one from GFB and one from arcane cleric feature)
Tempest with magic initiate should work better I think
2d6 (weapon)+10 (GWM)+5 (Stat)+3d8(GFB)+5(Stat)+2d8(divine strike)
total 49.5
>>47187283
Guess the 3 extra attacks and 2 additional ASI are useless then.
>>47187408
Because magic can still beat them. And a fighter can do nothing b combat while a cleric can literally overtake the fighters role.
>>47187283
Action Surge, Fighting Style, Superiority Dice and Manoeuvres, extra ASIs. These are all very relevant.
>>47187212
A level 20 Barbarian using a greataxe (IIRC Brutal Crit and lack of fighting style pushes that ahead of greatsword) is making two swings of 1d12 + 10 (GWM) + 7 (strength) + 4 (rage) which is an average of 55 before taking into account crits (adding an extra 3d12 damage to ~10% of your attacks made and getting an extra attack everytime you crit is pretty huge)
>>47187302
It is viable at lower levels, and would be viable later on if there was a feat that let you pick up fighting styles
A totem barb with 2 battleaxes could do some serious damage, though I guess it wouldn't be as great as twf
3d8+15+3×rage
Vs
2d12+35+2×rage with the possibility of an extra 2d12+15+rage on a crit
Maybe they should come up with some sort of "battle trance" guy ala viking mad axeman that gets to flurry when using twf?
4d8+20+4×rage is still rather meh
Gotta think about this
>>47187438
>and getting an extra attack everytime you crit is pretty huge
He didn't use the possible extra attack from GWM either.
>>47187433
How?
>>47187499
That's the extra attack, gwm extras trigger off crits and you only have one bonus action per turn
>>47187438
Not really when the wizard can just turn invisible and rain fireballs on you til you die
>>47187507
Spells can overcome fighters because of overpowered spells like fly, fireball, and invisibility.
>>47187531
Or when the martial can just backstab the wizard before he has a chance to react.
>>47186930
You're telling WotC to go back to Pathfinder? Because they make the campaigns.
Maybe you're the one with the wrong idea of the system.
>>47187541
Ranged weapons are a thing, dear.
>>47187543
Except he can't because the wizard can detect him first.
Casters are objectively better because they can do everything and Martials can do one thing. 4e fixed this problem but Wizards abandoned it for a watered down ADND with feats.
>>47187404
How do you have 20 Int, 20 Strength, GWM and Magic Initiate? You planning on having any Wis and Con? With Point Buy and Human you could start with 16 Str / 8 Dex / 12 Con / 16 Int / 12 Wis / 8 Cha but man, that sounds like a dumb one-trick pony just to maximise cantrip damage.
Also, GFB doesn't work that way. You deal [melee attack] +3d8 to your primary target and spellcasting ability modifier + 3d8 to the secondary target.
>>47187555
except a wizard has far better ranged weapons. Called spells. And you can't shoot at something you can't see.
>>47187530
There's some miscomunication here...he only counted one attack (because he can only make one as action) but if he crits or kills someone with his 49.5 damage he gets another attack (that deals less because it doesn't get GFB shenanigans, 2d6+2d8+15 only)
Normally the barb makes two attacks like you said, averaging in 55 (more if he crits) and gets a 3rd attack if he crits of fells an enemy.
What I meant is that the first anon didn't even took into account the 2nd possible attack from the cleric (if he crits of fells an enemy).
>>47187569
He's trying to pretend Martials are viable in 5e, of course he's giving himself maxed out stats, it's the only hope he has.
>>47187586
>He's trying to pretend Martials are viable in 5e
He's doing the opposite; he's claiming Martials are terrible by coming up with a minmaxed caster build to try and compete with martial damage.
>>47187561
Is this a 'I expected that all along and teleport behind u' fight? Becaude you're making it seem like one.
>>47187576
Sure you can. You ready an action until he starts casting, then you shoot where the sound/magical lights are coming from.
>>47187569
Depending on what you seek you don't need high Wis, is the magic of 5e.
As for GFB, what did I do wrong? Ah, ok, I understand, no Int for the primary damage, well, better for me, I don't need to optimize Int then
2d6 (weapon) + 10 (great weapon master) + 5 (str) +3d8 (GFB) + 2d8 (divine strike)
>>47187671
Or even better. Ask your wizard friend to make enemy wizard visible. Because a party is supposed to cooperate.
>>47187438
The Cleric against many enemies is going to fell more enemies than the Barb, because he's dealing in one attack as much as the barb in two while also dealing 3d8+Int to secondary target
Cleric loses the secondary damage against solitary enemies though
>>47187671
Or throw a flask of alchemist's fire at them
Just got my PHB with rest arriving on Friday(thanks Amazon shipping to backwoods). It's looking nice, as was expected from PDFs.
But one thing I noticed was that paper on pages is really thin, especially compared to 3.5 books. I never got ones for 4E, did they also have this, or is this change for current edition?
So, I was wondering; with the new Traditions aspect of the 5e Wizard, could some of the Archetypes from Pathfinder be ported over? I'd really like to try and make the 6 Elementalists (Earth, Air, Water, Fire, Metal, Wood) into Traditions for the game, if possible... would anyone be willing to brainstorm how they might convert?
>>47187671
Except you can't do that without a huge penalty past even what disadvatnage does. Hence why advantage and disadvatnage are shut; they can't handle larger bonuses and penalties.
DnD 5 is shit, QED
>>47187721
>>47187696
That works too. Also, he seems to be ignoring that invis and fly are both concentration spells, so it's one or the other.
So I may be joining a 5e campaign. I've mostly played Pathfinder, but also have some experience with 4e. What are some crazy/silly yet functional character concepts I could go with?
>>47187831
Why are people that come in from PF obsessed with gimmick builds? Just play something normal and work on your character development.
>>47187831
>What are some crazy/silly yet functional character concepts I could go with?
Almost none, 5e is very simple.
>>47187797
Casting is commonly depicted as making all sorts of magical lights fly around the caster, his hands in particular. That coupled with clearly uttered magical words make it a very possible. Unless you're a sorc with still spell I guess.
>>47187844
I dunno man, that's just been me since I've started. Everything else seems...kinda mundane, I guess? Maybe? I don't know. Maybe I just can't come up with a decent character unless they have some interesting quirk or what have you to them. Sorry.
>>47187855
I'm starting to realize that.
>>47184804
Too many people say skill checks like it's one thing. There are six ability scores eightteen different skills and a number of possible tools to come into play.
Meanwhile Wizards don't learn all the spells, they learn 44 spells for free, and can memorize up to 25 of them. And a lot of them only do what skills can already do or only interact with combat. If they don't, you're going to suck when it comes down to combat. Any spells beyond that were given by the DM.
Then doing more things, more successfully, in the same amount of time is actually important. Any elf can swing a sword, but there's a clear difference in effect when the fighter does it.
Finally, classes don't have to do the same kinds of things to have the same amount of power.
>>47184964
The DMG has some advice about how to handle checks. It's only binary because that's how you want it.
>>47185191
You can codify when it happens, like hitting the cover, but for the actual effect it's going to be DM fiat every time. You can't make a random event table for everything.
>>47185221
It would count as a monk weapon, so 1d10.
>>47185329
Sounds fun, but you hve to admit that's more swingy than the d20. Yeah, dramatic.
>>47185942
All I see is bare assertions.
>>47186349
Can't you just take your bonus action after the first attack for turn 2, then switch, since you can take your bonus action whenever it's legal. Like shoving before attacking with shield master.
>>47186429
It was bait because it left out some facts from the original post, and wasn't true.
>>47186737
> Fighters are worthless. Prove me wrong.
No you.
>>47186788
>a wizard who can do everything you can do, except better, while doing loads of hints you can't do.
Doesn't happen. People have tried, and been shown for fools. You're welcome to try to prove it.
>>47186906
The last cleric that tried to take the fighter's job found he did less damage, had less defense, and provided less healing than his competition.
>>47187797
> QED
I wasn't aware explosives-grade spergery qualified as demonstration.
You've demonstrated nothing beyond what is, at best, a tangential grasp of the rules. Nothing you've called proof has been, in my experience, a fun-breaking issue in-situ.
I'm sorry you don't enjoy 5e. I'm not sorry that you're incapable of allowing others to enjoy what you don't.
>>47187887
>The last cleric that tried to take the fighter's job found he did less damage, had less defense, and provided less healing than his competition.
>Less defense
How? the both have access to the same armors, maybe only 1 point less due defense style, but that's not much
>Less healing
The fuck? how can fighters do more healing that clerics? or healing at all
>>47184804
>>47187944
Less damage or defence than a fighter, and less healing than a regular Cleric is I think what he's saying.
>>47187944
>how can fighters do more healing that clerics
A Cleric that attempts to supplant a fighter is less effective at clericky things.
> how do i subtext?
>>47187831
Variant human rogue with healer feat and soldier: healer background. Also trade vehicle proficiency for herbalism kit proficiency so you can brew your own healing potions at half cost.
The balance problems aren't as obvious as in 3.5 and most of the time they don't even appear
>>47187831
Make a loli ninja.
>>47187944
> Deliberately being a retard
> Calls it "proving a point"
Never change, anon.
>>47187976
And yet a fighter can't even try to be clericky at all.
>>47187881
I have the same problem. For me the reason I like having a quirk as its potentially and probably the only interesting your character will have going for them. Mostly due to 98% GM's being shit at their job
>>47187999
>Calls it "proving a point"
I reread that post 10 times, still can't find where he wrote "proving a point", so here's my question, the fuck are you talking about?
