Thread 96165516

Nine of Wands edition

>"New" Arcane Subclasses UA: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/arcane-subclasses/zepvK7DBkeSt6dqv/UA2025-ArcaneSubclasses.pdf

>2024 PHB Scan (No more fingers edition)
https://files.catbox.moe/g8oo9h.pdf

>Cropped and rotated, but more artifacty
MjAyNCBQSEIsIE5vIFRodW1icywgT0NSZWQsIEFub24ncyBCb29rbWFya3MgdHJhbnNmZXJyZWQgb3Zlci4gCgpodHRwczovL2Vhc3l1cGxvYWQuaW8vd2Fvcm9h

>2024 DMG
https://files.catbox.moe/fd04pq.pdf

>2024 Monster Manual
https://files.catbox.moe/atd38s.pdf (D&D beyond version)
https://pomf2.lain.la/f/1en5qwum.pdf (scan, use at your own risk)

>2024 Official free rules
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules
>2014 Official Free Rules
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014

>2024 UA
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/ua

>2014 Errata
https://dnd.wizards.com/dndstudioblog/sage-advice-book-updates

>5etools (2024)
http://5e.tools
>5etools (2014)
https://2014.5e.tools/

>Trove
The Trove Vault (seed, please!): mega(dot)nz/folder/uktzzTAI#KfV-EWdhd15FhHNn5HndHg

>Resources:
https://pastebin.com/X1TFNxck

Previous thread
>>96127744

>TQ
How hard are your games? Do you just breeze through the encounters, do you have to use tactics, or do characters regularly die?

>BTQ
Should PCs get scars or other signs of a life of violence over time?

>>96165516 (OP)
>TQ
I always ask my DM to run things on hard-mode. I leave it up to them woth what that means.
>BTQ
I always roleplay stuff like that. Burns scars especially, getting fireballed in the face would fuck you up.

>>96165516 (OP)
>How hard are your games? Do you just breeze through the encounters, do you have to use tactics, or do characters regularly die?
My group of four (Whispers Bard, Moon Druid, Champion Fighter and Fiend Warlock) will always be on the edge of dying after encounters with one or more having been unconscious at least once, we have to think about everything that we do and we all find that very enjoyable.

>>96165516 (OP)
>How hard are your games? Do you just breeze through the encounters, do you have to use tactics, or do characters regularly die?
I've had many characters nearly die lately. As DM I've been having my monsters try to finish people off too while they're on the ground. I think I can be a bit too lenient sometimes as well trying to avoid people dying but the D&D day is in the middle of my work week so I'm always very tired. I'd reschedule but it's also the best day because of daycare.

5e should have more animal kin races

>>96165893
You can't be trusted with the ones it already has, anon.

>>96163504
reposting

>i looked through a video and it just seems so much worse now
>what were the buffs? do you get more than 2 per short rest?
-free skills are nice, it previously gave nature or arcana and now gives both
-You get shots base on INT/short rest. So if you invest in 16 INT, you get at least 1 extra shot per vs the previous version, easy enough to get with a starting INT of 15 and a feat like fey touched or shadow touched. you could dump INT if you think you can reliably get a headband of intellect and if you really invest, you could get up to 5 shot/short rest.
-scaling damage dice. The old version just has 0d6/2d6 and doubles at 18th level. Now all shots do damage, and progressively get stronger at 10th, 15th, and 18th
-Every ready shot moves down to 7th from 15th so you get more shots in a day for most of the campaign

Grasping was nerfed, but every other shot was buffed to either do damage initially or do more damage, or buffed via the scaling granted at other levels.

Beguiling now let you choose yourself as a target of admiration, so the enemy can't attack you. piercing now deals 2 die rolls of damage, if you can line up two targets, that's (d8+2d6+DEX)x2, save for half. Even better if you can line up a third in a hallway. And I suppose being able to use any ranged weapon should also go without saying. Obviously a buff, even if it was handwaved by some DMs.

Y'all, when dey gonna fuckin' fix the skill system?!

>>96166832
>ai slop and vague question about issues
they aint, they just pushed their revision that kept the skill system as is, with additional clarification on how to use skills w/ items

>Should PCs get scars or other signs of a life of violence over time?

Yes

>>96166832
It's not broken, but it's not impressive either. Really wish that if a feature gave you a skill or a list of skills, and another features did the same, that it gave expertise. Excluding features that say "choose any skill"

Pic related is a good example because it references a barbs class skills. The skilled origin feat is a good example of what wouldn't count.

>>96166832
What's wrong with it?

>>96165516 (OP)
>How hard are your games? Do you just breeze through the encounters, do you have to use tactics, or do characters regularly die?
As a DM I like running campaigns that start off easy, leading to an "ohh shit" moment, and throwing in overwhelming encounters with outs and cheats so players feel autonomous.

>>96166898
Personally, I think players should get scars. That way they'd get into character easier. Always carry my knoife for that reason.

>>96167077
Or axe

>>96167080
Axes aren't subtle, might hurt them. I just wanna scar them.

>>96167042
It's very narrow and isn't a good display of skill. For the former, outside a rogue or bard, you can only be mediocre at 1-2 things. I mean having pb+6 over someone who is not skilled in the same check is a 30% higher chance for success. A 20th level wizard and a 1st level wizard have only a difference of 30% difference between each other aside from INT.


5e is like 85% magic, and 15% other.

>>96166898
>>96167077
Scars are a gateway to girl cringe. They're fine to have, but bring up your own scars to talk about as a topic of conversation is lame.

>>96166832
I'm not sure what there is to fix about d20+stat+prof

>>96165893
The existing ones are already too much bloat
>hippos
FUCK OFF

>>96167167
>>96165893
The only reason to gain more animal races is if there is a 3rd party Redwall book released. We have far too many races as it is.

>bout to play 2024 for the first time
>looking at it mechanically
>considering wizard-dipped or magic initiate cleric OR armor-dipped wizard
If I do that and then the usual 2014 things, spirit guardians, web/hypnotic pattern/fear/sleet storm, is this just fine at a table not super optimizing?

>>96167508
You'll be outed as a meta fag but, otherwise, nothing really.

>>96167530
>You'll be outed as a meta fag
They already know, and I don't care.

I wanna kick one of my players but it would objectively be immoral. He's ok I guess, shows up on time, a bit of a metagaming cunt. Has some horrible soulless optimized bladesinger stupid character that he 100% pulled from some dumb website and that doesn't really work for the table because you cant really give him any interesting loot since he uses very specific shit, and then the character concept he described as a warrior doesnt actually match at all with how he plays him (casting fireball and ritual detect magic non stop). Every time I decide to stop feeding attacks into his AC so he feels good and instead throw a blight at him he dies instantly, so combat is just binary. Also he tends to act without checking with other players which is just eye rolling
I wonder if I should just find a satisfying way to kill the character and then see if he fares better with something else, or if these kinds of players are just gonna be a problem no matter what

>>96167548
This is what most people do
>Cancel the game with some bullshit excuse
>Remake the discord or group chat, whatever the fuck without him
>Continue as normal
Personally I just completely ignore their character like they don't even exist. Nobody attacks them, NPCs barely acknowledge them, and I never add in anything related to their character or backstory.

>>96167563
yeah but that would be immoral, since I wouldnt want it done to me, I am not gonna do it to someone else
I think im gonna throw some extra spotlight at him to have one last chance to see if I can get some enjoyment out of his character and his playing of it, and if not im gonna have a conversation and explain what's going on, and give him a choice of changing or playing something else or leaving

>>96167581
>yeah but that would be immoral, since I wouldnt want it done to me, I am not gonna do it to someone else
You sound deeply autistic

>>96167548
>doesn't really work for the table because you cant really give him any interesting loot since he uses very specific shit,
Unless he's buying shit (MAGIC ITEMS SELL FOR HALF), tough luck. He gets what he gets, and he has no reason to get upset.

>Every time I decide to stop feeding attacks into his AC so he feels good and instead throw a blight at him he dies instantly, so combat is just binary
And if he wasn't a blade singer, everything would kill him just as quickly, so what really is the difference?

>>96165893
But it already has several flavors of gnomes.

>>96167548
he is a wizard, of course he is going to use spells like fireball, what the fuck?
he could potentially use shadow blade and a shortsword, attacking with shadow blade, booming blade with short sword (since bb needs a weapon with a cost) and then twf bonus action attack with shadowblade again if you want him to be more martial oriented from level 6 but are you going to force that on him?

>>96167077
Full comic btw

>>96168499
I just want a character that works for me as an unpaid dm who gets paid in satisfaction of designing loot for PCs and designing encounters that match strengths and challenge weaknesses and in seeing PCs that fit the world in which they adventure.
Bladesinger is just so terribly designed I should have just banned from the start. The flavor doesn’t work and the optimal play is to just be a wizard. This combined with a low creativity player creates a character that just doesn’t become well rooted and interesting

>>96169238
This issue is your own fault. Not because you didn't ban Bladesinger, but because you refuse to adjust your own play. Stop creating situations where the solution is just run away and Fireball. Like anon said, any other Wizard and he would be playing the same way regardless, except you'd be knocking him down with one attack instead of one saving throw.

>>96169527
What an absolute retarded comment. A class is so badly designed flavor wise that the optimal way to play is to go against the flavor, and your answer is to completely eliminate a specific combat scenario as if that was the issue. Way to completely miss the whole point

>>96169617
you could look at old illrigger (not revised) and at architect of ruin because it is kinda like eldritch knight but it can both use extra attack and then cast any illusion spell as a reaction which i think is pretty cool, it does also get up to 6th level spells so the progression is faster than a paladin
you could try rewriting bladesinger that way

>>96169638
yeah I think the options are
new character
different class
rework bladesinger so it doesnt just play like a wizard. The problem is there is a lot (ritual casting, lvl 9 spells, scroll scribing, etc) that is so fundamentally "wizard" because of this stupid simplistic 5e where subclasses cannot alter the main class, it's almost impossible to extricate the wizardness

>>96167508
Just play cleric or wizard. What do you need the dip for?

Well, it's good to see that people are still actually talking about playing, these days, I suppose.

>TQ
I made three books of character sheets, back in the day. I wish I could say that I had a chance to use them, but alas.
>BTQ
Scars are for important wounds, lol

>>96169959
>Handbook of eros
L-lewd

>>96169851
The best option is removing bladesinger.

>>96170333

I probably should have seen that coming.

It's probably why the pages stick together.

>>96166832
Niggas need to make a Fartfaggotable's Tome of Skillz n' shiet to give guidance on how to use skills.

>>96169617
Maybe don't be such a fag about the "optimal" way to play, then. The fact is that as a Wizard, there are countless situations where melee attacking is simply worse than casting a spell. In order to equate standard Wizard play, a gish Wizard would need to at least be able to package a full spell into their attack action. Otherwise, it's straight up wasted resources.

Ideally, a Bladesinger is supposed to be able to take advantage of bonus action spells more, but nobody gives a fuck about that rule. But thousands of DMs run Bladesinger players fine, so it sounds like a skill issue on your part.

>>96170906
I think you're just too much of a video game player to understand the problem but ill try one last time. The class may be wizard, but that's not the character's concept. The concept is of a warrior who uses spells to enhance himself. However, because the bladesinger is so poorly designed and 5e is so simplistic, its features lead to a playstyle that is exactly the same as any other wizard, ie cast fireballs. I dont care about optimal play, I care about characters that make sense. His character doesnt

>>96167743
No, that's empathy, which is kind of the opposite of autism.

>>96169238
I've never DMed, so I can't really offer advice on encounter design, but why is it so hard to design loot for him? He's a wizard who also uses a weapon, so give him a magic weapon of the type he uses, or stuff to enhance his spells, or give him spell scrolls to copy into his spellbook. If he uses an unusual weapon type, create a magic item that shapes itself into any weapon the user wants. It doesn't seem like a hard problem to fix, unless there are some details you haven't mentioned that make it impractical.

>>96171022
Most normalfags have zero empathy and will gladly ghost people. Having strict rules as well as black and white thinking is autism.

Why are they all smiling? It looks retarded.

>>96171251
I'm not a huge fan of designing hyper specific items or flat vertical upgrades. He basically picked one weapon type at lvl1, and the class design and finesse rules only allows him to use that weapon type effectively. I generally dislike characters that are "i only use this", "im bound to this" because it limits the possibilities of thinking of cool weapons. I've been dropping scrolls and other stuff, and yeah I dropped a cool shortsword. But then 5 lvls later I have to drop... another shortsword or rapier. The most boring shit ever.

Now if he was any other class with all kinds of proficiencies, you could play with different kind of loot. For example a ranger archer, suddenly finds a badass crossbow, that's fun and interesting. Do they switch, they learn how to use, etc. Lots of flavor there and tiny rp moments to be had just from that. Then some other type of ranged weapon. They finally, the most badass longbow ever and we come full circle. That's interesting, that's fun.

If he was a proper wizard, I could drop all kinds of staffs, rods, wands, focii, etc, that reinforce that vibe and style. But this class is so moronic, you're a gish in name only, you don't actually know how to use different weapons, and again, above all else, casting fireballs is still better than anything you could do.

Again, the point is character fit. He's been playing a wizard. I can let him play a wizard the way he's been playing. I can give him wizard loot. But that's not the fucking character I was sold. He's not supposed to be a "wizard" in the traditional sense. And I cannot blame him, because playing this subclass like a wizard is what the mechanics incentivize

>>96170943
NTA but it sounds like you think he should engage in melee more often. There are ways to encourage that. Use enemies with high Dex saves or rogues with Evasion. Include hostages or other noncombatants to discourage indiscriminate fireballing. Have other mages counterspell him.

>>96171404
Modern fantasy art is so shit. What are they doing, posing for a fucking picture or some shit?

>>96171405
>But then 5 lvls later I have to drop... another shortsword or rapier
You are playing 5e right? You are under no obligation to even give out magic items. Retarded take

>He’s just playing a wizard but his background is a warrior
Wizards are warriors too at least in 5e. Just because they fight with spells doesn’t mean they’re any less heroic. With the change to cantrips being all day wizards and other casters have been fundamentally changed. Magic is now something they can do all day.

Sounds like it’s more that you don’t like the character than the player.

>>96171404
Part of the larger trend of 5.5 art being less serious overall.

>>96171404
The only character that looks half-decent here is the futa demon.

>>96170943
>The concept is of a warrior who uses spells to enhance himself
That's Eldritch Knight. A Bladesinger is a Wizard first and foremost.

>>96171405
You are, in fact, autistic. Just be a little creative you retard.
>Magic amulet that allows him to cast any spell as a bonus action
>But cursed so that you can only cast within 5 feet
If he unattunes from it, it permanently breaks his fingers.

>>96171467
I think that’s for two reasons
>Designed by Larian not WoTC
>White male couldn’t be allowed to look manly or threatening

>>96171404
Jarlaxle is smiling because he's the only male Drow with a licence to do so.

>>96171522
That's goofy. Minsc is the archetypal big burly idiot hero. In his own words, there is strength in numbers, and he is two or three at least.

>>96171543
Yup, and they made him shorter than Karlach. WoTC are fucking retards.

>>96171405
Well, ultimately, it is his character, not yours. If he wants to just sling spells and ignore the other stuff, that's his right. I also don't personally think there's anything wrong with a character sticking to one weapon. Some people just enjoy that as a character concept.

>Now if he was any other class with all kinds of proficiencies, you could play with different kind of loot. For example a ranger archer, suddenly finds a badass crossbow, that's fun and interesting. Do they switch, they learn how to use, etc. Lots of flavor there and tiny rp moments to be had just from that. Then some other type of ranged weapon. They finally, the most badass longbow ever and we come full circle. That's interesting, that's fun.
Perhaps, but they'd have to sacrifice their extra attack to use that crossbow, or they'd have to take Crossbow Expert, but if they do the latter, it would feel like a waste if they later find a great longbow. Or you could make it a special crossbow that ignores the loading property somehow, like a repeating crossbow, but it sounds like that's not something you'd want to do.

It would probably be best if you just treated his character as a wizard. I have to admit I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you're so upset. It kind of seems like you're just bothered by him not playing his class the way you'd play it, which I can't say I agree with.

>>96171404
Probably because that’s how those characters are?

It’d be like asking why is Drizzt look like an emo

>>96171575
That's also goofy. Karlach's definitely taller than most men even without her horns, but Minsc is huge.

>>96171635
>I have to admit I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you're so upset. It kind of seems like you're just bothered by him not playing his class the way you'd play it, which I can't say I agree with.
the concept of the character was a warrior who uses magic to fight better. The concept is not being realized, because instead there's a wizard throwing fireballs. I want the actual events happening to fit the concept, or the concept to change, but I cant have both mismatch, it's simple. The subclass flavor sells a concept, the way to actually play the subclass is 180 degrees from it.s

>>96171650
I think the issue is more with what exactly the image is telling as a story. It looks like a posed shot someone would take with a camera. Not us peeking into an adventure and seeing them in action. There are generic ruins or something in the background. They’re smiling like someone just said “say cheese”. It looks like shit.

>>96171685
>the concept of the character was a warrior who uses magic to fight better
A fireball isn’t fighting? What else would it be a cheap way to demolish a house?

>>96171714
In the earlier editions, a quick way to wipe the party because someone didn't know how explosions expand in enclosed spaces.

>>96171685
Was that what the player said the character was, or are you just saying that yourself because they picked Bladesinger?

>>96171405
This shit could be so easy
>elven longsword/greatsword, can be used while in the bladesong
>ring of evasion, to help with DEX saves if that's an issue
>amulet of health
>magic ring that can be used to convert AC points into % HP healing

the champion is the best class in the game!

>>96172090
It feels more like parts of the main class being broken off to make a subclass. The same way Open hand and Mercy should really be rolled into primary monk.

>>96171404
D&D's target audience is middle schoolers you know. They have book deals with schools and colleges

>>96171404
I really hope WotC never touches Gord, even if they are publishing Greyhawk now. I hate how they've flanderized Minsc.

>>96169238
>Bladesinger is just so terribly designed I should have just banned from the start
Its design is that it doesn't fall lover in melee combat and it succeeds at it.
>The flavor doesn’t work and the optimal play is to just be a wizard.
The optimal play for a wizard is to be a wizard. Yea, that checks out

>fireball deals 6d6 damage.

Does the wizard still spam it, or are weapon attacks now more viable?

>>96172756
The Wizard spams Lightning Bolt.
Weapon attacks are already viable though, that's not the issue with martials.

>>96172789
lighting bolt doing 8d6 is fine because of how unwieldy it is. Unless you're in a hallway, you're lucky to hit 3 targets.

>>96172789
If he's not in danger of running out of spells that's on you retard.

>>96171839
>Was that what the player said the character was, or are you just saying that yourself because they picked Bladesinger?
it's what he said when pitching the character

>>96172981
I'll be real with you. You sound like the problem not the player.

>>96172756
No weapon hits everyone in a 20-foot radius, so the wizard will still use Fireball often. Also, wizard weapon attacks are beyond viable with 5.5's version of True Strike:
>https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2619204-true-strike?srsltid=AfmBOopnGhO8M-GJgDO0uPwPh1li_n71pLyiRetWQ29gpK418n7ubiT8

>Guided by a flash of magical insight, you make one attack with the weapon used in the spell’s casting. The attack uses your spellcasting ability for the attack and damage rolls instead of using Strength or Dexterity. If the attack deals damage, it can be Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).

>Cantrip Upgrade. Whether you deal Radiant damage or the weapon’s normal damage type, the attack deals extra Radiant damage when you reach levels 5 (1d6), 11 (2d6), and 17 (3d6).

I know the old version was completely useless, but they massively overcorrected here.

Why are weapon AOE considered bad here?

>>96173066
More viable is the operative term. Other spells need to comprise between size and damage, and weapon attacks are in the same boat, they hit one target but deal very good damage. While it's a better strat to focus damage on one target rather than spread it over multiple, fireball doesn't have to compromise and does both.

But if tier 3 and 4 were more common, fireball wouldn't be as talked about.

>>96173019
His entire spergout is about hiw a player isn't playing g his character they anon wants him to. No shit anon is the problem.

>>96173208
>But if tier 3 and 4 were more common, fireball wouldn't be as talked about.
True, instead it would be upcasted Fireball.

>>96172821
The range helps, though. You can hit one guy and the guy standing 50 feet behind him. That could be useful.

>>96173019
I veto and approve character concepts when receiving game applications. The character I approved (a fighter that uses magic to enhance himself) isnt the one that is actually in the game right now (a fireball chuker with extra ac). Either we will find a mutually agreeable adjustment, retire the character or the player will leave. I have no obligation to keep something I do not enjoy in my game since I do it for free. The cohesiveness of the whole world is important to my enjoyment of it, and having a Bladesinger in it damages it, because it's simply a wizard that has extra AC for no flavorful reason, and for which the "blade" part is completely anecdotal, and in fact detrimental. It's just as stupid as some homebrew shit, and it's even worse because it's official content. The class shouldnt exist, but absent that it will not exist in my game as is.

>>96173449
>the class shouldn't exist
Imagine getting filtered by a wizard using their spells this fucking hard.

>>96173449
Run your game however you want. You sound to me like an asshole of a DM but I’ll run my own games how I want and you do you. I would encourage you to examine if you have some sort of god complex based on what you’ve said but I don’t expect much self reflection from you.

>>96173449
dude, you've gotta learn more about the forgotten realms lore

>>96173449
That sounds a little strict. I'm genuinely sorry that you're not having fun, but I also think you might want to see if you can relax a bit on things like this. I can totally understand wanting a cohesive world, but I guess I don't see how this character could be so damaging to that. It's not like he wants to play a Transformer with lasers and missiles who can turn into a fighter jet at will. He's a wizard who's adopted certain parts of an old elven tradition to boost his defenses a bit. I think that would fit into most fantasy worlds just fine.

>>96173811
>He's a wizard who's adopted certain parts of an old elven tradition to boost his defenses a bit.
but that's not his character
"my character is a fighter who uses magic to enhance himself"
why do you all think you know more about the character than the dm who literally workshopped it with the player?

>>96173614
>dude, you've gotta learn more about the forgotten realms lore
wtf does forgotten realms have to do with anything?

>>96173829
while the bladesinger isnt explicitly from any setting (due to the neutrality of d&d), the forgotten realms has a lot of information that might help shape your understanding of the classes

>>96173871
it doesn't matter
a monk isnt necessarily a character that comes from a monastery. It's a way of fighting
The way of fighting for bladesinger is to throw fireballs. It doesn't fit "a warrior who enhances himself with magic"

Goddamn, he still going?

>>96173975
Being able to throw fireballs seems like a pretty good enhancement to me. Faggot

>>96173823
Okay. He doesn't fight the way you thought he would. You expected more stabbing and less fireballing. At least that's how it seems, based on this discussion. Apart from that, you haven't said anything that makes him sound like a particularly bad player. Are you upset because you feel like he lied to you about his character? Maybe you two just had a misunderstanding and it's irritating you because you feel like you can't openly address it? I don't know, maybe I'm overanalyzing it.

>>96173823
Why are you expecting an eldritch knight from a wizard subclass?

>>96174017
nobody is upset except all you no games asking me questions. I am gonna discuss the mismatch between the character concept and how he presents his character and the actual realization of it in game, and I am certain we will arrive at a mutually satisfying solution.

>>96174069
I sincerely hope that works out.

>>96174069
>nogames
My friend, we all know to expect fireballs from a wizard. I would argue the person who doesn't understand the game is you.

What are some cool feat combinations? DM is giving us a free starting feat and I was going to be a variant human.

>>96174449
Whacha playin?

>>96174461
Undecided yet. I was going to look through feats and see if I can find anything that sticks out to me that I can maybe pair with the abilities of some class. I find that having two feats to start with can make things really interesting.
Its pretty open ended I guess, I'm just looking for some ideas.

>>96174449
The classic is polearm mastery and sentinel. Lucky with pretty much anything is great too.

>>96172119
Its something that one of my gm, rolling off some subclass into the base progression, but some felt a little bit too busted (or led to being stuck with subclasses flavor i didn't like)
>Part of Drunken Master into Monk
>Battlemaster into fighter
>Hunter into Ranger
>Berserker into Barbarian

Is there a name for a 5e campaign variant rule, where everyone is a half caster? Like how gestalt has parallel class progression?

I'm trying to think of how to make a half caster work for every class. Martial are easy enough, they get a small list of spells that augment something physical, or some other spell like speak with animals for barbarians etc. Bards and clerics are also a fine to just covert into martials with extra attack at 5th level. What I'm left with is artificer, sorcerer, warlocks, and wizards

>Artificer
Doable, but would need a rewrite for a lot of subclass features. I'm debating on just scraping the whole class and making a new "alchemist" class as an item based class that crafts consumable like potions and grenades (acid vials, alchemist flire, holy water etc.) rather than actual magic items.
>Sorcerer
Scraping the whole class and granting the other former full casters free meta magics could be cool.
>warlock
thirsting blade would be made standard, and their spell level would be scaled down to that of a half caster (5th level would give them two 2nd level spell slots which would both upgrade to 3rd at 9th level)
>wizard
Giving every wizard bladesong is out of the question. Leaving it as a subclass option just means everyone is going to play it. Without either option, would anyone actually want to play a wizard with extra attack at 5th level? Maybe I could just turn a lot of its features into feats for other classes to take.

>>96173449
Dude if you want to force a wizard to not use their spells so much, add enemies and things to your encounters to disincentivize fireball. Fire resistance, floors covered in grease, enemies with shields that bumrush him, even plain old counterspelling.
Even IF the character was a warrior who sometimes used Fireball (which that is not what a Bladesinger is, that's closer to a Sorcadin), why would a warrior willingly fight in melee combat if they have ample opportunity to use their magic?
You should be creating situations to deal with this. Hell, just make them have several encounters in a row and only give short rests, to force him into conserving his spell slots. You're complaining about fireball spam as if that's not an issue with wizards as a whole: DMs have to take steps to craft meaningful and tough battles over time or wizards can just spam Fireball and long rest every session.

As an aside, not all magical items are swords. Hand out cursed artifacts, give cloaks and amulets and rings. Frankly, you don't have to give the guy anything at all.
Next time read up on a character class beforehand if you'll be this unwilling to adapt to an unexpected playstyle.

>>96174579
3.5 had gestalt rules you could steal but it’s more like having the best of both classes. So are full casters plus a martial class. You could plan around it and make the encounters tougher. https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm

>>96174579
Artificer literally is a half caster. What are you on about?

r8 the two parties running my campaign

Wrathion's visage form and voice so unbearably sexy is a decent consolation prize for all this Ny'alotha.

>>96175194
Obvious slop/10

>>96175194
>only 1 non-ai portrait and its a BG3 screenshot (not sure about the tiefling on bottom row)
Absolutly soulless
I wager that the sunglasses dwarf on top and the blond knight on bottom row are the most fun character in the campaign. Can't infer much on the parties in general anon

>>96174537
The only ones in that group I disagree with are drunken master and battle master. Otherwise, it's stupid to just move one to one without the necessary adjustment and tuning to account, especially if you're going to keep subclasses.

>>96175194
Just by the token choice, the slop party on the bottom looks more fun.

>>96175194
i'm not a miracle worker, but I did my best.

>>96175647
The only thing to disagree with on battlemaster is it being only rolled into fighter, instead of all martials.

>Cleric, I think we need to kill this guy.
>My God.

>>96175926
The sad part is the DNA of the Battlemaster comes from the Bo9S but was rejected for being spellcasting for martials.

Honestly, they should have really invested in the fighting styles making them more comprehensive and putting manuevers into them that would make sense for it and into the weapons .

If I had my way about things, I would completely retool Battlemaster as the new Warlord/Legendary Leader reinforce the role I feel the Fighter should always have which is being the front guy of every battle.

What are some good websites or image boards i can go to to look for roman or Phoenician inspired character designs? I thought there was usually a thread on /tg with character art dumps but I can't find one currently

>>96176240
isn't that what purple dragon knight tried to do?

>>96176240
Warlord is a bard btw, like a swords or valour bard.

>>96176417
No it’s not. I’m not going to argue this retarded line of thinking again. Bards are mages and musicians, warlords are martials and warriors. It’s like saying clerics are warlords.

>>96176716
Which is why I suggested the swords/valour which dip into the warrior-support theme that the warlord fits into?

Caught up on all my podcasts and looking to fill the void between new episodes with an Actual-Play. Any good recommendations. I've played DnD for 15 years or so and never actually tried listening in on others. I fired up CR for the first time the other day on my hunt for an Actual-Play and legitimately the DM and PC's are talking about dikes, trannys, and their PCs being They/Them's so...yeah anything not completely fucking cringe would be a bonus here. Plus it felt so scripted, not sure if it's because they do this as a business now or what, but didn't feel like a real table.

>>96176773
The current conception of bard is absolute shit. I would keep Valor but completely retool it. It's not a commander or warlord in any regard and should probably be more like the hypeman. The one who carries the battle flag while also carrying a sword or gun or whatever.

>>96176773
Still a bard and still a spellcaster. Warlord is not a bard, it’s not a fighter subclass, it’s not any of your stupid fucking 5e pigeon holes. It is its own unique class. Shut up you stupid fucking cunt.

>>96176245
Unironically pinterest if you can avoid aislop

>>96176965
>it’s a super special leader class designed to support allies with their words and tactics while still being able to fight in combat
Sure thing bud, keep telling yourself that 4e is super special and unique

>>96176823
If I would homebrew any class it would be the bard, lower it to a half or a 2/3s caster then push further into the songs / supporting actions

>>96174704
Why are you fixating on fireball when it's just provided as example of the discrepancy between the character concept and the actual character? I am not gonna design encounters are limiting a playstyle when the problem is not the playstyle. The problem is not that a wizard is casting fireballs, the problem is the character that was supposed to be something more than is instead just a wizard. That's it. That is due to the bad design of bladesinger, which does not incentivize a different playstyle. There is nothing in bladesinger that encourages anyone to play in melee or do anything differently than any wizard. The concept and flavor of the class is badly designed, and it fooled my player. I knew about the class design, but assumed the player would restrict himself from playing like a wizard based on the flavor he had described for the character

I have spoken to him and he said it has been bothering him for a while that the most optimal thing to do is to cast spells rather than fight with his weapon, so we will switch him to EK after an appropriate in-game event, and trade heavy armor prof for some other benefit.

>>96176240
Warlord should be a subsumed into base fighter to help anchor the class fantasy.

>>96177153
>Why are you fixating on fireball when it's just provided as example of the discrepancy between the character concept and the actual character?
nta, but >>96167548

>I wanna kick one of my players but it would objectively be immoral.
>He's ok I guess, shows up on time, a bit of a metagaming cunt.
>Has some horrible soulless optimized bladesinger stupid character that he 100% pulled from some dumb website
>and that doesn't really work for the table because you cant really give him any interesting loot since he uses very specific shit,
and then the character concept he described as a warrior doesnt actually match at all with how he plays him (casting fireball and ritual detect magic non stop).
>Every time I decide to stop feeding attacks into his AC so he feels good and instead throw a blight at him he dies instantly, so combat is just binary.
>Also he tends to act without checking with other players which is just eye rolling
>I wonder if I should just find a satisfying way to kill the character and then see if he fares better with something else,
>or if these kinds of players are just gonna be a problem no matter what

Only one line in your post is complaining that his character idea didn't match what he played and that can be a matter of taste, some media anime, it's anime. Usually isekai shit. will cite a character as a melee fighter, but also have access to all kinds of magic to make sure they are powerful.

That line aside, your post was complaining about how he played his character, with half of those targeting the actual player and not the wizard. As to why people are fixated on the blade singer part of your post and not the character concept? It was the first thing you complained about after metagaming.

>tl;dr
Just cut the player. He sound like the kind of guy who will jump from one build to another, like moon druid barbarian or twilight cleric.

>>96176802
not dnds but close enough, I listened a bit to the Bestow Curse and Carrion Crown by Hideous laughter podcast, lost interest because well, ttrpgs podcast are definitely not for me but maybe you'll like. Felt much more like a real table compared to CR.

>>96176802
watch the first campaign of CR towards the end of the vampire arc and beginning of dragon one, that is absolute peak and the reason they became famous

>>96166754
>that's (d8+2d6+DEX)x2, save for half
It's actually much better than that, because it does damage "as if you hit them." So you add GWM bonus damage and magic weapon damage
At level 6 with a +1 Heavy Crossb.ow, that's 1d10+2d6+4+3+1, or ~20.5 damage in a line.
At level 11 with a +2 bonus, that does 1d10+2d8+5+4+2 or ~25.5 damage in a line. That's basically a Lightning Bolt that only requires one third of your attack action!
Pretty good on a class that can use their other attacks to shove enemies around.

>>96177454
>as if you hit them.
I want to agree, but would that include poisoned arrows, do you think? would the first target be affected by poison or would each target?

>>96177480
RAW and RAI, all of them. The arrow is piercing everyone in the line

>>96171635
>Perhaps, but they'd have to sacrifice their extra attack to use that crossbow, or they'd have to take Crossbow Expert, but if they do the latter, it would feel like a waste if they later find a great longbow. Or you could make it a special crossbow that ignores the loading property somehow, like a repeating crossbow, but it sounds like that's not something you'd want to do.
I think a "Dwarven Giant Feller" crossbow that takes action to reload but has 2x damage dice and a STR DC on prone would be cool horizontal upgrade to the ranger. She still use the bow regularly but occasionally pull out this bad boy for an important target or flier

>>96177976
*strength DC or prone

>>96177328
>kind of guy who will jump from one build to another
sounds like he has to when the DM spergs out over a wizard casting spells

What makes a character exciting for you to play
I'm sitting here staring at a blank character sheet with no idea what I want to do besides "not another wizard"

>>96178322
a character idea and everything necessary to make that character a reality.

Need help making a racial feat (2014 era version) for a centaur. Was thinking of giving them passive benefits to improve their racial features like increasing hooves attack to d8 and make it count as magical, making them count as large size for the purposes of allowing creatures to mount them (though not control them) and maybe something else. Would making it a half feat make it worth it or too much?

>>96177083
The more I look back through old splats the more I realize there is a lot of flavor left on the floor. They could have easily repurposed a lot of PrCs to make Bard and went with this college non-sense which is a shame.

I think the only part of Bard I liked was College of Dance and thats only because I had a similar idea myself but it doesn't go as far as I would like.

>Have a Bahamut cult Monk as one of the other guys in the table
>DM wants us to just work with some Tiamat cultists
>The guy doesn't even bat an eye or roleplay any sort of rejection on the idea, just a dead fish stare.
I get that "it's what my character would do" can be pretty stupid, but the other spectrum of ignoring your own OC's background and stuff takes me out of the game more.
The guy playing is nice and all but he's frankly an idiot too.

>>96165516 (OP)
What are the best premade adventures?

>>96179094
Odyssey of the dragonlords mogs everything wotc has officially released

>>96179094
LMoP, CoS, and ToA
>>96179258
kek and then they rushed Theros to try and distract from it

>>96178322
Characters are exciting when they are formed through play. D&D character builds aren't exciting to me in a vacuum. My characters always start off pretty generic with little background, just how they got their class and maybe a fun quirk or something.

>>96176240
>>96177320
I don't think every basic fighter needs "leader" mechanics. It should definitely be an option, maybe a subclass or something, but not every fighter is a battlefield commander. Some are just soldiers. Or guys who are just really good at fighting for some other reason.

Fighters need more passive buffs.

>>96176802
The Drakkenheim series is pretty good. Dungeons of Drakkenheim is the first campaign, Shadows of Drakkenheim is the second, and Fate of Drakkenheim is the third.

>>96177431
This is also true. CR's first campaign is just friends having fun. No weird identity politics.

I've been out of the loop for a few years. Is there a significant difference between 2014 and 2024? For those that have experienced both versions, do you have a preference, and if so why? I'm particularly curious about any differences in the process of character creation and class selection and how the decision making process for building a character is influenced based upon which version a person would end up playing.

>>96179861
both versions are equally bad, they broke some things while fixing others. Most people play their own frankenstein homebrew mix of both versions + custom changes

>>96179903
What's the most common type of homebrew mix of both versions that you have encountered so far?

>>96179861
All of the classes were significantly changed. Also, racial ability modifiers are gone. Instead, you get ability bonuses based on your background. Every character also starts with at least one "Origin" feat based on their background. Humans get two origin feats, one from their background and one just for being a human. It's really restrictive unless you use a custom background, and there are rules for doing that, but they're presented as optional, so DMs technically don't have to allow it.

Some feats and spells were changed.

They changed "race" to "species" for stupid political reasons. Annoying, but easily ignored, so not a huge deal. They also removed half-elves for some reason.

>>96179946
>It's really restrictive unless you use a custom background
outside the fact that all the good feats for each class kind of already line up with the ability scores associated with them and its super easy to roleplay out from any starting background sure.

All full martials should get extra feats like fighter and rogue do

>>96179976
That's bullshit. As one single example, the only background that has cha and con, i.e. the only background that materially benefits Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard, is Merchant.

>>96179258
I ran that campaign. It's not that great. A lot of the encounters are in rooms where the monsters don't actually fit. It felt like a rush job especially towards the end.

Rate my encounter design, /5eg/.

>Dragonborn Vengeance Paladin 5 built with PC rules, unarmed and unarmoured, but with the Dragon Hide feat
>Half-Elf Scout Rogue 3/Bard 2 built with PC rules, optimized around skills, not combat, and using verbal-only spells in combat
>Undead version of a former PC from a one-shot, Human Champion Fighter 5, built to be good at grappling and otherwise simple to play, has a Berserker Axe
>Human Enchantment Wizard 10 built with PC rules, has to use his action every round to complete an almost finished ritual, concentrating on the ritual as if casting a spell
>If and when the ritual is complete after however many rounds is dramatically appropriate, an undead Swashbuckler Rogue 11 joins the initiative order in the next round

The three 5th level characters are trying to stop the party from interrupting the ritual, the Enchanter uses his Instinctive Charm to redirect one attack every round, and as soon as the minions are defeated, the combat shifts to a 6v2 which may turn into a 5v3 or even 4v4 depending on the saves against Dominate Person from the Enchanter. Their WIS saves range from decent to great, and they have advantage on the save since they are fighting, so it shouldn't be a disaster unless all four rolls are shit.

>>96179923
>What's the most common type of homebrew mix of both versions that you have encountered so far?

I think both due to preferences and continuing legacy most people use older char creation rules, but maybe play with new classes (terrible classes and boring ones were buffed) and then cherry pick spells/rules because some became stupid OP/immersion breaking like true strike, others are preference based like counterspell

>>96180119
>Built with PC rules
I tell my players at the start I can do whatever I want with NPCs. I find PC rules for NPCs run into two issues
>PCs at higher level are increasingly complex. They have a bunch of abilities that are annoying to use while trying to DM
>PCs are designed with multiple encounters in mind to draw out their resources. When they can go Nova in a single fight they're significantly stronger

It's fine if this is what you're going for but I personally just use the table in the DMG or this one and base their abilities around CR. I often steal many abilities from PCs but not entirely make one because it's a waste of time and not as much fun to run. I also steal ideas from 4e especially recharge abilities and adapt them to 5e.

That being said as long as you're familiar with how the PCs work. And feel it won't be unfair if they can use all their spells. It might be okay.

>>96179976
I want to make a human sorcerer and take Magic Initiate twice to get some extra spells. I think it makes thematic sense that a sorcerer would intuitively pick up a few more spells, being naturally magical and all that. I can get Magic Initiate once for free, since I'm a human. Cool. But I don't want to be an Acolyte, a Guide, or a Sage. I'm fucked, since those are the only three backgrounds that give Magic Initiate, and of those three, only Acolyte lets me boost my Charisma, and it also forces me to choose my Magic Initiate spells from the Cleric spell list. So the only way to get some more spells while also boosting my spellcasting ability is to be an Acolyte. That's pretty damn restrictive.

What if I'd prefer some Druid spells? Now I have to be a Guide, which restricts my background *and* gimps my spellcasting ability, because Guides don't get to boost Charisma.

And that's not even getting into how the old version of Magic Initiate gave you a lot more spell lists to choose from.

>>96180052
>i've not looked at the backgrounds and am making assumptions on the stat distributions

>>96180265
that sounds retarded but if you want to take the same fucking feat twice for (2) extra spells and (4) extra cantrips on a sorc I think you should be punished for being dumb

>>96179976
>>96180052
In my game I explicitly told them to just pick their ability score bonuses. Now that it's a floating bonus you can just choose with custom backgrounds might as well not have 100 sailor monks.

>>96180319
>if you pick a specific background you must RP as that thing for the rest of your life instead of someone who just had some experience there then left for the life of adventuring

>>96180312
>i've not looked at the backgrounds and am making assumptions on the stat distributions
He's mostly correct. The only other backgrounds that boost Charisma and Constitution are Charlatan and Hermit, and Hermit boosting Charisma doesn't even make sense.

>that sounds retarded but if you want to take the same fucking feat twice for (2) extra spells and (4) extra cantrips on a sorc I think you should be punished for being dumb
>Getting more spells as a spellcaster is dumb

>>96180382
>Hermit boosting Charisma doesn't even make sense.
It does when you realize CHA is the will stat in 5.X

>>96180471
have neither of you heard of a reclusive artist?

>>96180475
I have, but that has literally nothing to do with my post.

>>96180520
then the reclusive hermit w/ higher charisma makes sense

>>96179833
You're right. Not every fighter needs to be a "commander. It's what I love and hate about the subclasses because I believ the subclasses should really emphasize a unique but complimentary gimmick to the main class' identity.

This is where I wish more emphasis was put on fighting styles making them more fleshed out and with way more options that grow with your character.

like, the Knight from 3.5 wasn't necessarily a good class on its own but it's bones would have been great to make a defensive/shield using fighting style. Instead, we have a "fighting style." that just gives you +1 AC to when wearing armor and another "fighting style" that lets you go "MISTER PRESIDENT!"

>>96180583
That's what I said, yes.

>>96175194
is that... Luigi Mangione in the bottom right pic?

Are there any cordyceps style zombies in a 5E book? Want something similar for an adventure.

>>96178511
>making them count as large size for the purposes of allowing creatures to mount them
Babe that’s messy
I would advise against it

>>96181058
Just take a zombie, describe it as having some fungi on it, give it a “whenever it takes damage, all creatures within 5 ft have to pass a DC (whatever is appropriate for the level) Con save or take (whatever is appropriate for the level) Poison damage as they are covered in spores” ability and then a breath weapon that does essentially the same but more potent. Maybe a Command effect that rides on the above if you want to be extra fancy. Jack up hp/attack roll/saves as you feel appropriate.

It’s so easy to homebrew monsters there’s practically no need to ever look for specific stuff

>>96181164
>homebrew monsters
That's a good point, makes me wonder if anyone that's ever bought 3rd party monster lists ever really get anything out of them or whether it's really just cashgrab/filler releases.

>>96181164
>It’s so easy to homebrew monsters there’s practically no need to ever look for specific stuff
I often just make my monsters entirely myself. Just follow the guidelines. I usually give monsters lair actions, triggers when bloodied, legendary actions if they're meant to be solo or tough, and use paragon monsters from the Angry DM's website. The vanilla monsters can be a bit bland sometimes so it helps to spice things up. You do want to avoid the pitfall of adding too much and making it too hard but so far I haven't had that issue.

>>96181248
Art can be nice? But yeah, bestiaries provide a lot less intrinsic value to a gm than say a module

Would it be weird to have lair actions in a goblin warcamp. Maybe like traps and spells and stuff? Or would that feel too "gamey" if traps suddenly spring up without warning?

>>96181342
>Would it be weird to have lair actions in a goblin warcamp.
No
>Maybe like traps and spells and stuff?
Why wouldn't there be those?
>Or would that feel too "gamey" if traps suddenly spring up without warning?
That's what perception is for.

>>96181385
>That's what perception is for.
Should it be a perception check to avoid the traps?

>>96181473
If they scouted it out, or mention it. Sure. If they just run in and start shit, that's what passive perception is for. Hell, if they run in throwing spells and attacking that a penalty to that. Reward them if they play it well, but is there any reason why a goblin war camp wouldn't have defenses? Are you aware of Tuckers Kobolds?

>>96181480
>Tuckers kobols
Yeah, with all their crazy traps and kobolds in holes etc doing Vietnam shit?

Here are the lair actions I've come up with so far. They have a fence and a watchtower as in the first pic. I feel like there are more interesting ones but will keep thinking. If anyone has ideas feel free to share them.

Snatch and Grab
A sneaky goblin attempts to grab something from an enemy. One creature within 5ft of a goblin must succeed on a DC 12 dexterity saving throw or have one small item (potion, scroll, etc.) snatched and thrown across the battlefield, landing up to 20 feet away in a direction chosen by the goblin. If it is a potion it breaks affecting whoever is in that square.

Rabble Rousing
The goblin boss or witch doctor points at one enemy within 30ft. That enemy takes a DC 12 charisma check or all goblins gain an extra 1d4 to hit them until next lair action.

Tripwire Trap
One creature within the goblin camp takes a DC 12 perception check or falls prone taking 1d4 bludgeoning damage. If the party scouted out the camp for traps they gain advantage on this check.

>>96181513
I guess my question is - if you have this big ass map prepped, why make the wires lair actions at all? Just pick spaces where they go on the map.

The other two feel a lot less like lair actions and more like just things the monsters could do on their turn - probably as bonus actions.

>>96181248
the tome of beasts are really good ones
see the perfect monster pic related
thematic consistency, simple mechanics, synergy
so simple yet nothing official material manages to do

>>96181513
>Snatch and Grab
Extra bookkeeping, bad. Drop it. or convert it into a disarm.
>Rabble Rousing
drop the charisma check, just make it an order and the gobli9ns follow it. +1d5 to any roll against them
>tripwire trap
DC 12 is pretty low. any character with proficiency in perception will see it with passive perception. You could also just put them on the map, because you have a map.

I'd suggest adding some barghest/enslaved wolf to the encounter and have a lair action
"gang up" where the barghest/wolf dashes out to start grapping any target that is knocked prone

also, fucking nets. Goblins capture people. They use nets religiously. you can have the folks in the towers toss nets

>>96181725
>1d5,
1d4, fat-fingered that

>>96181725
I like the net idea and the wolf. The map does have an area for the wolf or something else. If I put traps on the map it’s not a lair action but I think goblins would have traps they’ll just be outside the lair action mechanics.

Will work on it and come up with some more ideas. I appreciate the feedback anon.

>>96181342
>>96181513
>>96181648
>>96181725
>>96181883
One way to make random traps work is

>lair action: CHANGE PLACES
>choose a point on the gropund. Small goblins scurry in a 90f radius around that point, placing down things

Until the end of the next round, if any creatures pass through the area using their full movement, they make a Dexterity saving throw or falls victim to a makeshift tripwire trap. Makeshift raps fall apart after a round do to poor quality of materials used.

DC is based on movement
>less than 15ft
no trap
>15ft or more
DC13
>30ft or more
DC 15
>Dashing
DC17


the players won't know what this is, if they are traps, or what triggers them but you can give hits based on goblin behavior

>The goblins engaged in the area don't kmove more than 15ft on tehir turn
>mention how they are carful of where they step

and if you're gonna use wolves, use LotR wild wolves. They have a few minor buffs and a weakness.

>>96181965
>using their full movement
Scratch that, I got distracted while typing the post and forgot to remove it.

>>96181965
I like that and the wolf stat block. A lot of the party use true strike so it’ll probably come up. They went a bit too far buffing true strike imo but whatever.

>>96182015
>A lot of the party use true strike so it’ll probably come up.

yea, the wolf reacting to radiant damage will through them for a loop

>is it undead?
>to the goblins have necromancers
>is it a demon?
>maybe they have warlocks?
>maybe its not a wolf
>can make an arcana check to...

and that 20 passive perception is kino. Imo, a lot of beasts should have a healthy fear of fire.

>>96181669
>more AC as an object than alive
This sort of stuff makes me scratch my head, unless AC is also supposed to represent pain tolerance on top of difficulty in making *effective* hits which would explain why it's lower while alive.

>>96182125
in this case it's just the material hardening, like in its reaction

Are they going to fuck it up? What even is there to fuck up?

Should the cultists serve Orcus or Tharizdun?

>>96182854
Keep on the Borderlands is the best starter module ever made, so there's a lot of room to go down. If WOTC doesn't structure the Caves of Chaos as a setup for a miniature war game with many competing factions that can be played off each other and instead it's just a mostly linear dungeon where you kill 10 goblins then 10 orcs then 10 gnolls etc. it will be shit.

Is it generally better to have 14 DEX and 12 CON as a Sorcerer, or 12 DEX and 14 CON?

>>96183591
Depends on the level
I'd rather have 14 dex at tier 1 and 2
I'd rather have 14 con at tier 3 and 4 because by that point ac is worthless unless you've been stacking it like crazy

>>96183612
Starting at 4th level, the specific character build is a Tiefling Draconic Sorcerer with Flames of Phlegethos at 4th to get CHA from 17 to 18, for extra spicy Fireballs throughout tier 2.

>>96183626
Specifically the race and feat lend themselves to taking constitution over dexterity, since the retributive damage effects trigger on a hit. More hit points and better constitution saves will serve you better in the long run.

>>96183612
Where do you put the tiers? Every 5 levels?

>>96183667
1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17-20. It is well known.

Is battlemaster SS/CBE still the go to archer fighter?
How does ranger compare to fighter in 2024? I see lots of hunter's mark features which looks kinda shitty. Is beast master good yet

>>96183686
You’d want to consider grabbing GWM in 2024 even if you’re sticking strictly to range (it’ll help for melee anyways) because Sharpshooter lacks the extra damage and GWM applies to anyways heavy weapon so ranger works w/ it too.

Really though, why why WHY is the rogue stuck with their second subclass feature all the way at 9th level? Up until the release of the artificer, it was the only one stuck with a 9th level subclass. No wonder everyone multiclasses out of rogue.

>>96183931
rogue base class is stacked

Can Bigby's Hand be used for non-lethal damage? The PHB says only melee attacks can be non-lethal, but it doesn't say if that includes melee spell attacks. I would think that at the very least the Grasping Hand attack should work, since it does bludgeoning damage instead of force.

>>96182854
Whoa, there's no nig-nog on the cover?!

>>96183937
Rogue is the worst class in 5.5e

>>96184437
not really, but go off king. rogue is probably one of the strongest classes right now especially thief

>>96184437
no
>>96184541
lmao no

>>96184541
Thief feels fucking cracked now. The changes with the Utilize and Magic actions really benefited it. And 4 attunement slots is always nice

>>96184541
>>96185298
Thief has entered the "gloom stalker zone" where the subclass is very good, but the class is mediocre and the rest of the subclasses are ass by comparison

If I'm going into a 14th level mini-adventure, how stupid would it be to play a Half-Elf Scout Rogue 11/Lore Bard 3, with both Skilled and Prodigy, who can get no lower than 18 on any given skill check?

>>96185423
No less stupid than any other race & class combo
As in, not stupid because why the fuck would it be?

>>96185435
Am I wasting my time with optimizing for skills if I play something without Extra Attack and barely 2nd-level spells in a world where full casters have 7th level spells?

>>96185454
You'll be fine

Which online sources are still good for the 2014 rules, and which ones are made useless? Beyond seems particularly bad now.

>>96185594
5etools as always

I'm doing stupid nonsense.
Specifically, since the two SRDs are both CC-BY, I'm combining them into a single document/system for free rerelease.

For most of things I can just combine them, many things removed from 5eR were SOVLful RP/flavor ribbons like Favored Terrain or Tongue of the Sun and Moon, but I need advice on one specific feature.

>5e0 has Paladin able to smite on literally every attack, plus spell smites. This is 3 times per round, 4 if they provoke, even before common multiclass nonsense which can let you hit 6 or more.
>5eR has Paladin able to smite only once per turn, on their turn, as a bonus action.
Both of those have been pretty contentious, so what is an actually reasonable amount of smites per round?

I have an idea banging around in my head, but I want to hear everybody's uninfluenced takes before I put in my own two cents.

>>96185594
why are you using Beyond? do you still use AOL and Netscape too?

>>96185717
The reasonable amount is, in my opinion, the 2014 version. If a paladin wants to burn every single resource they have on a single enemy in a single turn they should have the freedom to do so.

>>96185736
it incentivizes bad play on multiple fronts.

1. strategically it's bad, because smites are generally worse than buff spells of equivalent level, they exist just like Favored Foe as a spellcasting outlet for when no other spell would be applicable or you just really need some hail mary emergency damage, but FEEL clicky-clacky big dopamine to the uninitiated. It tells monkeybrain they're going in the right direction, even when they're actively kneecapping themself and hindering the party in the long run. And it tells the naive player that instant fight removal is properly tactical, when in fact it only is in an immediate short term sense he way they're doing it, because while that one fight may have gone insanely smooth, all the rest will be harder with nothing to work with.

2. Balancewise, either it fails to first strike annihilate an encounter, in which case the party is practically down a player, or it actually does more or less nuke a fight singlehanded. In either case it's an issue both for making fights sufficiently challenging for the DM and also an issue intra-party because now players don't feel like they contributed or feel like they're pulling dead weight.

3. Class-identity-wise it's bad because when the two classes whose job are supposed to be HEE HOO BIG BURST DAMAGE are still getting outshined by something that's supposed to be half support, you feel invalidated. Like yeah he's basically an NPC the rest of the day, and was beforehand too when he was hoarding all those slots, but in the moment it counted, he ran up and stole your thunder.

It's the same reason you can only bank a single Inspiration at a time, to keep players spending them regularly to avoid lost opportunity. If you could save a million, they'd horde them, then dump them all at once and pull all the tension out of critical moments.
And the reason pure Hexblade isn't an issue as a smiter, because 2 short rest slots instead of 10 long rest

>>96185717
Meet half way. Smites are once a turn, but used as part of the attack, not a bonus action. Frees up the bonus action and makes it available for attacks of opportunity on other attacks, but you can't use it to nova anymore.

>>96185717
I don't have a problem with the 2024 divine smite. It's the worse, yes, but Paladin also received better lay on hands, and every other smite spell is better too. People bellyaching are just butt-hurt because something got worse and they can't cope.

>tfw my players just blew up a gang of wererat thieves I had plans for
god...dammit
back to the drawing board

>>96186069
Just use the werecat thieves that were extorting them

>>96186069
If your players' response to a gang of thieves is that violent and notable, just keep giving them more rope and they'll end up hanging themselves with it.

>>96186028
>in which case the party is practically down a player,
Anon, you can only spend a single spell slot per smite.

>>96186143
He only plays tier 1, don't worry so much.

Are there any valid reasons to use the 2024 rules if I have already used and enjoyed the 2014 rules for almost a decade?

>>96186158
not really, but there's also no valid reason why you shouldn't take a peak at the rules and see if there's things you want to steal

>>96186158
Your players wanting to use the new rules.

See, that's kind of what my idea was.
Just making 5e0 feature the same as Eldritch Smite, literally even renaming the feature so that you can only pick to Paladin or Warlock smite that turn, and then keeping the separate 5eR feature where you get Divine Smite the BA spell as a free prep and can cast it free once a day.

So you'd cap at Action class feature smite, BA spell smite, reaction class feature smite if they somehow provoke. It's still pretty generous, but gates them at 2, sometimes 3 a round max, period, no cheesing anymore.

That's what base Hexblade has had since its creation, and no one has ever complained about basic hexblade, only weird multiclasses.

>>96186134
well they're first time so naturally they're murder hoboish

>>96186143
>Anon, you can only spend a single spell slot per smite.
Right, and if you're smiting 4 times a turn and only have 8 slots, and the fight lasts 2 rounds...

8-(4x2)= how many left to spend the rest of the day?

OR let me guess, you're one of those 1 fight a day groups?

>>96186187
You still have a 3rd level slot left. And if something has 20d8+X health, even at level 9, that is absolutely a once per long rest fight.

>>96186187
>4 smites a turn
That's a difficult number to hit on Paladin, certainly possible but not typical. Scimitar of Speed could get you there but I would expect you to have more than 8 slots by the time you're getting Very Rare items. Dual Wielder would also get you there but that feat is kinda ass, I can see someone building it but I don't think it should be the comparison point.

>>96186143
Original 5e did not have the one spell slot spent per turn rule, anon.

Divine Smite
Extra Attack Divine Smite
BA PAM Divine Smite or a Spell Smite
Reaction Divine Smite, they provoked by attacking an ally and you have sentinel, or entered your range and you have PAM, or you're a vengeance pally and get to reaction attack your vowed, etc.

>>96186227
>That's a difficult number to hit on Paladin

>>96186237

>>96186028
Strategically there's nothing wrong with dumping everything into the biggest thing in the room when the situation calls for it and usually that situation is very obvious such as "this Zariel type enemy is in initiative please for the love of God kill it"
It's pretty much always obvious when the important thing is around and even in campaigns where I regularly ran into 5+ legitimately hard fights a day and routinely made use of buffs sometimes the job of intercontinental ballistic missile is simply what you need.
Because when I see a wizard, I'm killing the wizard before it can get a bunch of spells off. High priority target removal is good if you know what to look for and don't do it every fight
Because no, you probably aren't going to have more combat after you kill a CR15 demon named goatfucker scourge of the east and it's 5 hours into a 4 hour long session

>>96186219
1. No encounter in the game is designed as a once per long rest fight. Period. Bare minimum you're expected to get in 3 deadlies in a long rest based on the XP rules, though a more reasonable execution for that same XP would be 4 mediums 1 deadly.

2. 20*4.5, that's only 90 damage. Giant Ape has nearly double that and is only a CR7. Abjurer Wizard, squishy caster medium encounter for a lvl9 party, has 104, and that's not even including its barrier ability.

You absolutely can spend your entire spell slot pool in a single fight if you're a triggerhappy simpleton. It's highly-inadvisable unless its your only combat that day, and sometimes not even then, because smite is pretty bad when it comes to spell slot to damage efficiency. Thunderwave can hit an entire 15ft cube for the same amount of damage per slot, and push, and have partial guaranteed damage on a miss. Even just bless can be more damage in the long term depending on party comp. But it's very easy to do. Even a subclassless level 20 paladin with no feats can deplete their entire spell slot reserve in only 5 turns of full tilt.
Surely you fight more than 5 turns a day, don't you?

>>96186252
First of all this isn't original 5e, this is a hypothetical ruleset with 2014 smites in what's (mostly) 2024. Second PAM reaction attack is not even close to consistent, I would bet on getting it for no more than half of my turns, and if we are assuming higher level play where enemies are much more likely to have strong ranged options, then I would bet on it even less than that.

>>96186357
1. Yes there is, shut the fuck up
2. No, 20d8+X where X is ALL non-divi e smite damage the party is putting g out, shut the fuck up
Not even bother to read the rest of your retard post, you're too stupid to understand what I've already said.

>>96186357
>1. No encounter in the game is designed as a once per long rest fight.
Ehhh yes and no? I do run a lot of encounters where I don't have any others planned for the adventuring day, but those are never fights that are supposed to challenge or push the party, they're more spacing and filler to lower tension and have the party drop their guard, if that makes sense.

>>96186357
>No encounter in the game is designed as a once per long rest fight. Period. Bare minimum you're expected to get in 3 deadlies in a long rest based on the XP rules, though a more reasonable execution for that same XP would be 4 mediums 1 deadly.
Don't care, going back to the tavern penthouse with Teleportation Circle after one fight.
>But the MacGuffin is onl
Don't care.
>But there's only 5 more days befor
Don't care.

>>96186372
>First of all this isn't original 5e, this is a hypothetical ruleset with 2014 smites in what's (mostly) 2024
Anon, I'm the one writing the hypothetical ruleset, and I hadn't explained my proposed changes at the point you responded to me saying you can only smite once a turn. I don't know what game you're trying to play, but it doesn't work when anyone can just look at the comments and read them.

My comment >>96186028 was in response to this comment >>96185736 who said that there's nothing wrong with 2014 rules.
So I explained in it why 2014 rules had issues, where even if paladins weren't actually "OP" as many whined, they did have counter-intuitive disruptive play patterns that made them not operate as intended in the game at large.

Then (You) responded to that. Incorrectly.

then anon said >>96186055 said it should limit the class feature to once per turn, and I concurred that something similar was my idea >>96186175.

>>96186357
The tone of your post is a bit aggressive, but I think that 3 deadlines/4mediums a day makes the game more fun. Managing spell slots is part of the game, if you're not doing that you're taking away fun things.

What's the character concept you'll only ever play if you roll very good ability scores, and why?

>>96186357
>1.
So you never once input encounters that have a purpose beyond strict soulless resource drain?
Because i can think of hundreds of scenarios where a single encounter is the sensible and smart thing to include even if i know for a fact its unbalanced and piss easy. A gang of bandits extorting local citizens at a bridge crossing, a pack of marauding centaur warriors, an owlbear defending her nest, a group of giants at a mountain hurling boulders at people below, a band of outlaw knights going against their former lord, and so on. It's easier to come up with 1 off single fights in a day than it is to have constant 5-6 multi encounter battles of attrition because the latter practically requires massive megadungeons full of dozens of enemies all oblivious to the sudden lack of interaction between groups they've spent years alongside as if they're living in a video game and will never interact with anything outside of their designated fight room and a ticking clock narrative that requires the party to press onwards instead of safely and freely long rest with any one of the many sources of secure resting available in this edition
The fine line between verisimilitude and game balance is why for over a decade now people have been trying and promoting hundreds of different "solutions" to the problem of encounters per rest and even official modules have these 1 off fights in them

>>96177153
I am that anon, and I fixated on fireball because 90% of your complaints was about the player just spamming fireball and slinging spells or then dying and being a drag for the game. You said he was a metagamer and that you couldn't throw Blight at him without instagibbing him, I proposed alternative ways for you to structure combat and appeal to Bladesinger's melee aspects.

I'm glad you worked things out with the player, but next time do be sure to read on what a subclass does and how it plays. Generally, subclasses don't deviate significantly from class gameplay: if your player wants to have more swording in their Gish-soup, have them play a Bladelock or a paladin-caster hybrid or an EK. I'd actually suggest the others over an EK here, since it's less focused on mixing swords and spells and more just on a few spells.

>>96186455
I'm not that anon retard, the first line was just a throwaway in case YOU weren't following the conversation because maybe you didn't notice but we don't get ID tags on this board. The point of that post is PAM reaction is still inconsistent and in almost no circumstance are you reasonably getting 4 attacks per turn.

>>96186390
>1. Yes there is, shut the fuck up
Show it. Point to me in the book where there's an encounter difficulty that gives an entire long rest's worth of XP, or there's a monster that gives an entire long rest's worth of XP at a challenge rating that won't immediately ream a party of a level that needs that much XP.
>2. X is ALL non-divi e smite damage the party is putting g out, shut the fuck up
Goalposts, also makes your point even worse because that's even more damage = even less of a threat to the party = more fights later, also we're still back to total number of turns. A 20th with no extra opportunities can full dump in 5 turns, a level 9 can full dump in 3. Even with your party helping, surely you fight more than *3* rounds a day don't you?

L

>>96186470
3 deadly + 4 mediums a day is like 2/3rds over what a party is expected to be facing in a day. If they can handle that all power to them, I hope they're getting their short rests in.

And of course it's aggressive, if someone is going to call me wrong they had better at least know what they're talking about.

> Rogue -> Bruiser
>Sneak attacks no longer no need Finesse Weapons to activate
Would it be broken?

>>96186555
not really. i played a one shot where i had a light hammer instead of a proper weapon and used crusher (which was really funny because we all grabbed crusher as a group) and it didn't seem broken or anything

>>96186568
>Not breaking things with a hammer
Sounds like you're doing it wrong, anon.

>>96186555
I long for a rogue subclass that's thematically all about eschewing stealth in favor of the brutish enforcer type. A charisma/intimidation type side focus all about frightening targets using bludgeons and other non-finesse weapons

>>96186630
Five levels in Barbarian and the rest in Rogue is what you need.

>>96186652
its not the same

>>96186538
That slash was an "or" not a "plus"
>And of course it's aggressive, if someone is going to call me wrong they had better at least know what they're talking about.
this isn't about being right or wrong, they're playing a less fun way. You could also play with no roll autohit, it'd be wrong but the issue is that it'll be less fun on the long run. The important part if how the game works best.

>>96186455
Personally anon, I think the simplest solution is to cap Divine Smite at only once per turn, but besides that keep the 2024 rules. Making Divine Smite a spell and requiring a bonus action for it handicaps it a bit too much IMO, and was unnecessary. Besides those changes the 2024 setup isn't bad, since the other smite options are nice and you also get a free Smite + Eldritch Smite works the old way so if you really have a smitehappy Paladin they can multiclass into that if they want.
Burning all your smites on a single target is about as lame as a Wizard nuking the entire room, since regardless of how limited the resources are, the players were looking forward to actual combat. It's both tactically disadvantageous as well as not fun compared to a consistent, if capped smite.

>>96186726
*keep the 2014 smite rules and the 2024 Paladin changes
brain melt, my bad. The changes to most everything else + maneuvers are cool, it's really the fact that Smite is capped AND a spell AND needs a bonus action. Only one of those (the cap of once per turn) is really needed.

>>96186630
Isn't that just an evil fighter?

>>96181164
Yeah, no shit I can just make something up. Why the fuck would I play D&D 5e other than the massive amount of content? If I wanted to do homebrew, I would play literally any other system.

>>96186772
no?

>>96186772
its actually just a berserker barbarian

>>96186847
>If I wanted to do homebrew, I would play literally any other system
Maybe it's just that I know 5e well but I find house ruling the game is part of the fun. I have a 3 page document with all of my house rules. It's well known that 5e needs some house ruling to make it better. The original concept of 5e was a modular game where the DM picks and chooses mechanics he wants from many splatbooks. That vision never came to pass but here we are.

I change the monsters constantly as DM. I add abilities, change HP, change damage, you can do whatever you want as DM. If you're playing 5e just for the premade content go for it but you'll unlock so much more potential from the game once you embrace making it and the monsters your own. You better go buy or pirate tome of beasts, monster manual expanded, and some other 3rd party monster manuals.

>>96186772
Nah
I want the baseline rogue gameplay
I just want some intimidating brutalism from the subclass

I wanted to make normal humans closer to variant humans in terms of power. I gave them 2 free skills in addition to the +1 to all stats. Is this balanced?