>>96944667
>Has your party ever really built something impressive, like a kingdom, or castle, demiplane etc?
uuhhh... we built a great friendship!

File: IMG_6434.jpg (636 KB, 1125x1628)

636 KB JPG

>>96944746

>>96944667
My party explosively (and accidentally) created a tesseract dungeon that spans eight planes of existence.

File: beholder_mini.jpg (77 KB, 1080x1080)

77 KB JPG

Is 5e a good system to make a 1-10 adventure path for now? I originally made it for Pathfinder for my group and I realized my campaign would actually be a decent adventure path, with a timeline of events and I already ran it so I know what to change and adjust. But would it be better to convert it to 5e? I know 5e. I know Pathfinder 1e. I don't know Pathfinder 2e but if it's way better then it might be worth learning to convert this. I just want to publish my adventure and have it do as well as possible.

File: 1762301256703095.jpg (586 KB, 1200x937)

586 KB JPG

So I'm planning a level 1-10 campaign. What's a good smart BBEG pulling the strings? Should I go with the old reliable dragon? Demons? Vampire Caster?

>>96945347
>Is 5e a good system to make a 1-10 adventure path for now?
Those are the best levels of 5e. The higher you go the more OP casters get and the more HP bloat you deal with.

>But would it be better to convert it to 5e?...I just want to publish my adventure and have it do as well as possible
It's difficult to say. 5e is definitely a bigger market. However aiming for a bigger market isn't always a successful strategy. I don't play PF but you'd probably have to make it 2e to have any success with those faggots. I imagine you'd have better luck with 5e but it really depends on how you market it either way. Unless you find a way to advertise your game nobody is going to know it exists or want to buy it. Maybe some facebook ads and shit, I see those all the time for 5e games and sometimes consider buying them.

Maybe a 5.5e game could be useful as that market isn't super big right now. Although any 5e campaigns work just fine in 5.5e.

File: Planetar.png (137 KB, 250x344)

137 KB PNG

>>96945492
>What's a good smart BBEG pulling the strings?
Depends on the setting. If Mind Flayers are around they make good villains. In one of my old games I made it a Planetar who set herself up as a God. She turned out to be a tyrant.

>>96945492
Level 1-10? Evil Wizard serving their cruel god. You can't open with a plot run by Asmodeus or Dracula or Arcunax the Cruel, that shit's wayyyy above a 1st level party's paygrade, so the party should only ever be going up against the BBEG's lackey

>>96945492
The real BBEG that kills parties is scheduling

File: ranger bm.jpg (914 KB, 1920x2560)

914 KB JPG

I'm planning to play a ranger in the next campaign, and I’m interested in the Beast Master subclass. I’d like to confirm something about the Beast Master features:
>In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its Reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a Bonus Action on your turn to command it to take a different action.
Does this mean I can order the beast to move somewhere without spending a bonus action?
>You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
Does this mean I can command the beast to attack either by using a bonus action or one of my attacks?
Sorry if the questions are a bit obvious.

>>96945492
Just pick literally any enemy that sounds cool and has a motiff you're interested in running. You can always tweak stats to fit the party.

I'm a big fan of hags and fae shit. Their my go to for straight up horror plots involving the kidnapping or eating of children. You can always springboard a coven into serving some fairy lord.
Vampires are more dignified horror, put a castle out in the reach with its own dedicated village or maybe a countryside mansion outside the city housing a local noble.
Dragons are more classic adventure, go to the mountain/ruins for treasure. Rescue the governor's daughter.
Yuan-ti are similar adventure classics. The snake people that live in a desert/jungle temple, real indiana jones type shit.
I tend not to do too much demon stuff personally since I find the whole heaven/hell and plane jumping tropes a bit played out. In dnd I prefer sticking to the material realms.

Start with a theme and build out.
If you're truly not sure then donjon has adventure and campaign generators you can run until something piques your interest.

>>96945931
>Does this mean I can order the beast to move somewhere without spending a bonus action?
Yes. Move isn't an action, so you can make it move where you like.
>Does this mean I can command the beast to attack either by using a bonus action or one of my attacks?
I understand the confusion given how poorly they word it. Given the only Action on their stat block is "Beast Strike" then the only reasonable interpretation is that you can have then attack either as a replacement for one of your attacks or for a bonus action. Honestly you'd have to stretch the wording to even let you order them to make any action OTHER than attacking with your bonus action since that's the only option present in their stat block. In typical WotC fashion it's incredibly poor design and wording.
You're essentially giving up your bonus action for an extra attack

>>96944667
>Has your party ever really built something impressive, like a kingdom, or castle, demiplane etc?
Many times, in fact in every longer campaign I've ran the party did something of note like that. My favorite though was when they set up a kind of a global alliance to fight off the incursion of fiends to earth.

how do you stop yourself from murdering people because of how funny it is to abruptly cut a crucial plot thread. Like i'm 90% roleplayer but whenever i'm talking to a dygnitary of a king or a powerful ancient mage i just can't stop thinking how funny it would be to roll to grasp my entire hand around their skull and squish it as hard as i can.

>>96947098
same as IRL, consider the negative consequences

>>96947309
>
the consequences only make it funnier

>>96947098
I don't experience that urge in the first place because I'm not a goddamn psychopath.

>>96947342
not really, you presumably can't shitpost on 4chan from jail

>>96947352
Ok but have you never thrown rocks at speeding cars as a kid?

>>96947395
Who the fuck would do that?

File: DeanSpencer-SwordAndSorce(...).jpg (678 KB, 600x840)

678 KB JPG

>>96941342
No lean into it, play it completely straight Sword and Sorcery style and I guarantee it'll be fun.

>>96947395
No, edgelord-kun.

Is it worth taking a half feat or a multiclass dip to get medium armour and shields as a rogue?

>>96947098
do it but just make sure you wear a sign that says you're retarded and easily amused by stupid shit so we all can avoid having you in our games

>>96947859
Generally, no. With DEX is capped light armor is equally effective as medium armor, so there's going to be a very small window in which you actually benefit.

>>96947969
>>96947656
you guys have no whimsy in you

>>96947098
You should do it and see if the DM gives you any consequences for it.

>>96947098
I never had the urge to kill civilians. But I love trash-talking bad guys.

>>96948960
>I never had the urge to kill civilians.
Come to think of it, how much experience does /5eg/ have of playing evil campaigns? How to navigate party dynamics and roleplaying situations differently from playing more conventionally heroic adventurers seems to rarely come up ITT.

>>96947859
If you're playing a STR Rogue, yes (assuming you're not a dwarf). Otherwise, not really.

>>96948878
>casual destructive crime is whimsy
You need medical help.
When I was a kid I'd climb trees, explore bamboo groves, build dams in the stream or when the rain turned it into a river tossed stones into it where a stone bed had been installed and listen to the crack of the stones smacking.
You don't need to break people's stuff to have whimsy weirdo

File: g.png (455 KB, 581x734)

455 KB PNG

>>96944667
>party is exploring a massive library, entering a secret section with heavily protected book
>find a room full of gold
>a player immediatly goes to pick it up
>gets attacked by a mimic
>almost dies, my barbarian saves his ass
>complains to the gm afterwards that he could have had a roll to notice something was off
I feel like everyone else in the group has been taking retarded decision lately
Granted that was quite in line with the character who has debt to pay to his patron. He went nuclear again when all of his money was stolen when he read a cursed book about money lending/stock exchange in the same section of the library.

>>96949513
That sounds like the exact situation passive perception was designed for.

File: IMG_7988.png (364 KB, 719x1000)

364 KB PNG

Alright lads, here’s the situation.
I’m doing a campaign in Greyhawk, and when the party visited Unearthed Arcana, Morley lent them a rare magic item (from a 25 rolled on persuasion) and rolling on the random table bestowed the monk +2 Wraps of Unarmed Power at level fucking 3. Of course, they’ve been tearing it up at every combat, but they’re on loan. The player wants to keep the items upon return (party will likely be lv. 4-5 at that time), so I’m trying to come up with a game of wits Morley can play with the monk to see if he’ll be generous enough to let him keep those wraps.
Or I could just have Morley challenge the party to a fight, but that doesn’t seem too befitting of the Copper Dragon that he is.

>>96949513
>He went nuclear again when all of his money was stolen when he read a cursed book
should have taken the invocation for free detect magic

>>96949513
>He went nuclear again when all of his money was stolen when he read a cursed book about money lending/stock exchange in the same section of the library.
Fuck me that's hilarious. Just vanished out of his inventory, or forced him to make stupid decisions with it?

>>96950683
It told him about this totally legitimate coin that really valuable. No you can't carry this coin with you. Or hand it over to someone else. Or physically interact with it at all. But it's totally worth something, just give me all your gold bro, trust me.

>>96949766
You dun goofed. If I were you, I'd crack the whip and tell him to pass the goods over. And for the sake of your other players, give them a small power boost to be taken away as well, lest you play favorites.

File: 1745319207947253.png (70 KB, 480x455)

70 KB PNG

What are some spells you wish were good but aren't?
Maybe a spell that doesn't do enough damage, or something that has a unique gimmick to it that it just doesn't pull off well, or something so niche that it just never comes up?

>>96951257
Flame Blade is the main one that comes to mind. Particularly because Shadow Blade exists and fills almost the exact same sort of idea, but for some reason one gives you an actual weapon, while the other just gives you a mediocre spell attack.

>>96950683
Just vanished, with the librarian explaining the concept of stock exchange & speculation. The in-character group was dumbfounded of course and failed to understand it
>>96950863
i'm sure the GM was one book away from making crypto joke if we kept on exploring that room further

>>96951257
I think practically the entire DnD spellbook is completely busted design because WotC is incompetent. They make some spells so OP that using anything else is just. Many spells just have no rules so illusions have entirely nebulous utility while spells like Suggestion just logically would be apocalyptic by mere existence

>>96951257
Otiluke's Freezing sphere. If you choose the delay option and nobody brought a slight for their high level spell, you *will* get caught in the 60' sphere that you can only throw 40'.

For a while, Hunger of Hadar, a warlock only spell with no scaling for higher levels until 2024 (and I still don't really like the option, I think progressively larger dice would be better)

File: fr_hof.jpg (499 KB, 1282x1669)

499 KB JPG

Anyone got the pdf? I want to consume slop. I can read it here but want to look at the shitty pictures https://5e.tools/book.html#frhof

File: IMG_7994.jpg (1.01 MB, 1920x1080)

1.01 MB JPG

How do you fully Human Male Fightermax?

>>96951562
You go with a subclass that has no magic nonsense. Champion, Battlemaster, Cavalier, or Samurai. Then, you decide what you want to do. Are you going to swing for the fences with a great weapon build, stickmaxx with polearms, go for two with dual wielding, or stand tall with sword and board in the front? Search your feelings.

File: Templ4.png (778 KB, 1152x896)

778 KB PNG

https://files.catbox.moe/b2hm2m.pdf

I've been writing a witch PC lately, more for fun then for actual use unless I get to throw her into a one shot, and I've been disappointed by the lack of a 'witch on broomstick' archetype. Just casting Fly repeatedly while saying you use a broom doesn't do it for me so [with a bit of AI help] I wrote a witch subclass where 'fly on broom' is nine tenths of the gimmick. I also wrote a number of Lovecraft inspired spells so I'm sharing those too. Basic progression is starting off on a slow flying broom mount that has to stay low to the ground, then getting the power to make it fly occasionally and fly faster, and then finally getting at-will flight in higher levels. I'm sure someone will tell me the Shoggoth is too weak, I wanted a fifth level Spell. If you think it should be better pretend its a 'young' shoggoth and there's a successor spell in the 8th or 9th level range called Summon True Shoggoth.

>>96951450
the shitty pictures are usually on 5etools too

>>96951583
I’m thinking battle master fighter and potentially taking both commanding presence (for dialogue checks) and commanding strike (there’s a rogue in the party). Still not sure on what kind of melee I want to do.

>>96951598
Wizard? I feel like hags are sorcerers. Hags are the closest thing to witches, and they cast from charisma.

>>96951598
>>96951710
Hags are closer to Artificers, oddly enough. But if you look at them they're all about making magic items, just in very weird ways.
Sadly Broom of Flying is on the Replicate Magic Item list.

File: little-witch-academia-dia(...).gif (2.36 MB, 640x346)

2.36 MB GIF

>>96951710
There's really nothing wizard specific in the subclass. You could easily port it to Druid, Sorcerer, or even Warlock by just adding the free Spells Known for it. Default is wizard because it's more of a Little Witch Academia or Harry Potter witch I had in mind. I just wanted a PC who could fly on a broom without begging the DM to have you find a Broom of Flying in a chest.

File: Love these fucking things.png (174 KB, 1944x466)

174 KB PNG

>>96950863
I mean, yeah?

>>96937016
1. Pick your spells better, hex is supposed to be a "well nothing else works here, so i'll just go for some bonus damage." It's literally Hunter's Mark but warlock, and you're not even getting free uses. You should primarily be using your slots for something big and impactful. Ideally taking some number of people temporarily out of the fight. Bane, Tashas Hideous, Enthrall, Fear, Suggestion, Banishment, Darkness. You get the idea.

That said, you are remembering to upcast your hex right? Its duration scales with slot level, and your slot levels grow automatically. By default it last an hour, by warlock lvl3 it lasts 4h, warlock level 5 it lasts 8, and at warlock 9 it lasts 24. You really shouldn't need to be recasting it all that often, unless you're dropping concentration because you have something stronger to cast like CC or you're a tomelock ritual casting.
Well, unless you're running from all your battles, constantly getting hit despite having only light armor d8 HD and a very solid ranged option to hang back with, or you're letting baddies escape to alert their buddies so you're not free to move your hex. In which case we have bigger tactical remediation to make.

2. Learn 2 ration noob. Unless you're like 17th level or a long rest after every fight weenie hut junior kind of group, not even full casters should be casting a leveled spell every turn.
The game expects you to be short resting about every 1/3rd of an adventuring day, i.e. 2 medium encounters or 1 deadly.
You have 2 spell slots per short rest. I.e. you're expected to have 6 max level spell slots a day. 9 at 11th. Get the idea? You cast one leveled spell per combat, 2 if it's a bossfight, then everything else is your at-wills, primarily your solid damage baseline either from EB or from cha-based martial weapon prof with extra attack. Warlock (and Artificer) are meant to be the caster versions of half-martials like Ranger or Paladin.

>>96952012
>That said, you are remembering to upcast your hex right?
By the time you get 3rd level spells you should just be using those instead of Hex. Yeah, the damage *might* add up over time, but you can just be nuking the encounter right then and there or shutting it down with crowd control.

Musing about a minor Ranger redesign that keeps the "fuck this guy in particular" concept but replaces the Hunter's Mark spell with a class feature that offers more options, similar to the Hunter subclass features. Ranger subclasses either increase your general not-necessarily-single-target effectiveness or give you more flavourful options, or a combination.
Bonuses to hit, bonuses to damage, improved crit chance, extra advantage dice, imposes disadvantage on saves you cause, retaliatory strike, tracking, enemies can't be hidden from you – what are some other features that could be wrapped up in this concept?

>>96952104
Just make it not require concentration, and then steal options from the 2024 Rogue to swap out the damage die for.

>>96952053
I mean, yes. You probably shouldn't even be using it a lot at 1st level.

But like I said, its use is as a "well none of my CC applies so fuck it, damage is still CC in a ways, it's just slower and more final" option. It fills a similar niche as witchbolt, it's just cheaper.

And if you ARE in that kind of situation, which I have been (it was on a bard but the point still stands, it's a lot of the same CC spells), then Hex makes sense as something you pop in your first encounter of the day, while you use non-concentration blasts for everything else that day, still concentrating on Hex. There's no rule saying you can't concentrate on a spell all the way through a short rest after all, you just can't cast anything new that's not a cantrip. One spell slot at the beginning of the day for all your eldritch blasts over the next 4+ hours to do an extra d6 is not bad. Hypnotic Pattern is probably objectively better in the majority of cases, but if you're fighting, say, a lot of constructs that have low int but immunity to frighten and charm, suddenly most of your CC toolbox is gone, and in lets say 18 rounds of combat a day (3 rds * 6 enc), 5 of those are your leveled blasts which are saves so no hex damage, 13 remaining turns of eldritch blasts, 2 bolts each, an extra 13*2 = 26d6 worth of damage potential in a day, that isn't awful. Even accounting for miss chance, lets say 40%, that's an average of 54 damage? A 3rd level fireball is only getting about 19 per target hit after save, and force is a much more reliable damage type.
And that's not even accounting for the fact that warlock has the other bard problem of having jack shit for blasts unless they're fiend or genie.

So...
I'm going to have my players discover something that they have to take to the king, the whole time being attacked by the king's enemies.

What should it be?
A letter, a mechanical owl that identifies traitors, a royal bastard?

What's the best MacGuffin for this scenario?

>>96951562
Dex Champion abusing Piercer and Vex on a Rapier to just dump massive crits all day. With Skilled you'll have plenty of proficiencies to play with out of combat

>>96952204
A princess frozen in crystal. Still being human-sized, so transporting her is cumbersome and hard to conceal. Which explains why a group of mercenaries was hired for protection, rather than a spy just having a letter in their pocket. It also makes her more difficult to steal though, since if you need a cart to lug her around, then likewise an enemy spy can't just swipe her while the party isn't looking.

>>96951562
>>96951583
>>96952205
background farmer or soldier? which feels more Human Male Fightermax

A sealed letter to the king played up as being very very important and not to be opened at any cost. When the players get it to the king and he opens it, having risked life and limb with the king's enemies who also thought it was valuable, everyone learns its junk mail/a letter from a secret admirer/something else that's essentially a punchline of how much trouble you went through for nothing.

>>96952224
>Which explains why a group of mercenaries was hired for protection, rather than a spy just having a letter in their pocket.

My idea was the spy/courier was killed and they come across the body in the wilderness, finding the thing.

>>96952227
That's going to fall flat because there's a 0% chance of the party not deciding to open the letter before they get to their destination. Because even if that'd get them in trouble, it's probably less trouble than if the letter was secretly cursed to kill whoever read it.

>>96952204
the sacred seal/weapon/etc that guarantees his claim/rule and that the treacherous brother/cousin wants so he can usurp him

>>96952225
>using stock backgrounds
Yikes. Your DM does that?
Well Soldier is booty because Savage Attacker is kinda booty. If your DM is forcing you to stick to book backgrounds then you want Charlatan for a DEX Fighter or Farmer for a STR fighter.
Alternatively you can convince your DM to not be a retard and just make your own background

>>96952246
If they do that there's a second letter inside with a warning to absolutely not open the letter. If they open that letter there's a single card from the Deck of Many Things and the opener of the letter draws to decide which one.

>>96952225
I'd say Guard unless you were planning to go for Dex. It's a good middle ground between Soldier and Farmer where you have some training, but didn't stray far from your hometown.

>>96952227
How did the secret admirer trick everyone into thinking it was so important when they're anonymous?

>>96952104
Well, its spell kit is primarily Druid's area CC and healing / defensive support. And summoning, but that's arguably just a weird form of area CC and temp HP that's not on your body, action economy too i guess but most summons aren't capable of using it for being anything other than secondary CC effects, area denial/damage, or soaking hits.

Hunter's Mark exists as a backup for when concentration spells aren't really applicable.

So if you want to make it "fuck that guy in particular" instead of just more damage, i'd suggest making it still CC and just apply CC conditions that ignores immunities, which feels kind of flavorful, as Rangers were sort of originally dedicated monster hunters, of course they'd know the trick to making it stick. Fear, charm, poisoned, prone, blinded, there's a lot of normal conditions that a lot of things are immune to, it's identity defining in terms of uniqueness and flavor, and despite being unprecedented is still engaging with the rules normally so should be totally fine.

Or else it should be leaning into soft CC and party defense, and be things that make it difficult for that enemy to affect your allies. Disadvantage to attack anyone other than you, stealing an ability from 4e warden granting advantage on it if it targets anyone other than you, sentinel-esque retaliation rather than berzerker retaliation, chaining to within 15ft of a specific square, shovebacks or slows to waste movement, pursuit abilities so they're always in your threatened squares, that type of stuff.

>>96952204
Details of an assassination plot.
Antidote for the King's poisoned condition.
Signed treaty with ambassador that if waylaid could start or exacerbate a war.
The missing Dragonball.
His lost pocket pussy.

>>96952204
The owl, but provide plenty of bait for the party to just keep the owl to protect them from double-crossing.

Only for it to start pinging on them if they do keep it, because they double-crossed the king.

>>96952277
Wtf is a fighter supposed to do with Int or Wis?
Just stop using book backgrounds. They're retarded

>>96952317
>Wtf is a fighter supposed to do with Int or Wis?
>Wis
Wis is the third most important stat for any Fighter. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>96949560
Mimics are fully indistinguishable from regular objects when still, without true seeing or interaction you can cannot spot them no matter how high your perception is.

>>96952333
Nah. I'll almost always go CHA because my characters yap.

>>96949513
Did he declare a Search action or did he declare a Utilize action?
Sounded like trying to pick up gold is Utilize so that guy can get fucked

>>96952341
That's the point. He didn't do anything active, and so there's no roll. Only passive perception, which is obviously insufficient for a mimic.

>>96952225
Wayfarer, not only because Lucky is a good feat but because "just a guy doing odd jobs to survive" is extremely mudcore, which is ultimately what Human Fightermaxxing is about

>>96952369
>>96952341
>>96949560
Mechanically the way it would go is
>Player: "I reach for the gold."
>DM: *rolls Mimic's +5 Stealth vs Passive Perception of all player's present in the room*
>Mimic grows teeth and attacks
>If it succeeds the player is Surprised, otherwise they notice the Mimic lunging them and you just do initiative.

If the DM just declared Surprise with no roll, yeah he fucked up. If the player expected a chance to notice the mimic before reaching for gold and avoid combat altogether, I'm pretty sure that's not possible since it just looks like a mundane object with no tells whatsoever until it attacks.

>>96952369
>>96952412
That's not how the word "indistinguishable" works. This is the reason a 10' pole exists.

>>96950863
>The evil book convinced him to buy fucking magic crypto
Tell your GM some random fa/tg/uy thinks he's genuinely hilarious

File: Mimic.png (405 KB, 386x436)

405 KB PNG

>>96952423
The mimic has to stop being indistinguishable to attack. Once it does so, you check for Surprise. Narratively this is to check whether the Player notices the Mimic mid-lunge and can defend himself, or does not and therefore cannot. There is nothing in the Mimic statblock that says 'This bypasses the normal rules for establishing Surprise'.

>>96952451
With the way that's worded, it's entirely up to the GM's interpretation and how mean he's feeling to decide whether you get a perception check or not.

>>96952477
Only in the loose sense that everything is up to the GM. The wording itself is clear that it only applies while the Mimic is motionless, and the mere fact they thought to give it +5 Stealth, its only Skill Proficiency, makes it pretty clear you're supposed to be able to passively notice Mimics. This is purely a case of a DM applying an old school mindset to a modern game. Player was right to bitch.

>>96952477
Sure. But giving the PC a passive perception check as a last-minute way to avoid being surprised is a valid ruling.
In either case though, the PC still doesn't get an actual roll to notice the attack, because they didn't do anything to actively check for danger. No matter what, the player is wrong for expecting a roll when even if this weren't a mimic, they wouldn't get a roll.

>>96952494
>Only in the loose sense that everything is up to the GM
Not really. It gives some pretty clear examples in the first paragraph under Surprise that if you're unnoticed, you get Surprise. Therefore if the Mimic is indistinguishable from an ordinary object and the players do nothing to try and determine whether something is or isn't a mimic, there's no reason they should get to make a test against it or make it roll a test.

Besides anon, you forgot, the player is bitching that HE didn't get to roll, not whether the mimic did or didn't.

>>96952497
>Sure. But giving the PC a passive perception check as a last-minute way to avoid being surprised is a valid ruling.
Agreed.

>>96952509
>Besides anon, you forgot, the player is bitching that HE didn't get to roll, not whether the mimic did or didn't.

That part is fair enough, but I just fundamentally don't agree with the rest of what you said. The rules say if nobody tries to be stealthy there is no surprise, otherwise you check Stealth. There's no third option presented, just automatic failure and Stealth vs Passive Perception. The alternative strikes me personally as bad GMing in this case. This isn't OSR where the game expects you, the Player, to be thinking critically about everything you touch, handle, or step on.

>>96952526
>This isn't OSR where the game expects you, the Player, to be thinking critically about everything you touch, handle, or step on.
Getting attacked by a mimic is almost a cliche thing for a gaudy treasure room. You, the player, should know to at least give it a college try with the 10' pole.

>>96952543
Again this is what passive Perception vs active Perception is. If you don't check for something as a player there is still a chance your character notices it. There's nothing in the Surprise rules that says "If you don't say you look for the invisible man he gets Surprise for free". It says auto-failure, or you check passive. No third option. Nothing in the Mimic itself contradicts that either. The RAW is clear here.

>>96952526
>but I just fundamentally don't agree with the rest of what you said.
That's fine, but none of what you're saying is authoritative either. It's a valid interpretation as a GM. But the alternative is also valid.

>The rules say if nobody tries to be stealthy there is no surprise, otherwise you check Stealth
The rules also tell you the other side gains surprise if you fail to notice a threat. I think someone throwing sticking their hands on a mimic and throwing its mouth open would count for that, which is a valid interpretation. Otherwise, by a similar logic, a gelatinous cube should still make a -4 Stealth Check to gain surprise even when somebody walks right into it.
Further, I think you should generally only call for a roll if there's a chance of failure. If someone decides to stick their head into the mimics mouth, I don't see them having a chance to suddenly notice it's a mimic and pull their head out before it bites down on them.
Personally there I wouldn't even have it roll to attack, let alone having it check stealth to see if it surprises them.

>This isn't OSR where the game expects you, the Player, to be thinking critically about everything you touch, handle, or step on.
I've never played or ran anything OSR so I wouldn't know, unless 3.5e counts. I'm just taking the rules as I read them and applying them in a way that would properly reflect the scenario. I also don't think giving the mimic an even higher failure rate after people fall for its trick (And they rarely do anyways) would be very interesting.

>>96952351
enjoy those wis saves buddy

>>96952494
or that mimics are stealthy even when just slinking about to a new spot to pretend to be a coatrack.

>>96952583
oh no not -5% odds whatever will i do lol

>>96952555
>Surprise. If a combatant is surprised by combat starting, that combatant has Disadvantage on their Initiative roll. For example, if an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting, that foe is surprised.

A candlestick suddenly growing teeth and biting at you is being surprised by combat starting, as candlesticks do not normally bite people.
Mimics do bite people, thus would not be surprising, but because the mimic is indistinguishable until the bite that starts the combat, they are indeed surprised by it.

I wouldnt flavor the attribution of a roll as "notice the mimic opening its mouth". By the time you notice, things are already happening - ie you're already surprised if the first thing you notice is the mouth opening.
I would make the stealth/perception contest to notice "the sound of something faintly breathing in the room" or something. Mimic doesnt have anything denoting it doesnt need air or water, so we can assume it breathes, and probably holds its breath for a minute or so once something gets close enough.

So first player to walk into the room would passive perception against the stealth "you swear you heard a faint breathing, but it stopped". And if they just ignore it, or approach the table/chair mimic whatever while checking something else, they would be surprised, but if they stop draw their weapons and stand still, and the mimic decides to attack while they're alert, they are not surprised

File: Mimic2.png (274 KB, 378x338)

274 KB PNG

>>96952581
You fail to notice the threat if you fail passive Perception. The rules only list two options. It says "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares Stealth with passive Perception". What you're suggesting is a valid enough GMing style in some games, but it's not supported at all by the RAW and is against the intent of the passive perception stat. Because RAW, yes, if you stick your head into a mimic's mouth you do exactly that. You check Surprise, then roll initiative, and then roll attack. You're free to say 'No it just grabs you, I'm rolling damage', but that's not what the rules say and if a player would be right to call bullshit. The rules say if you're flying invisibly down a hall and try to stab someone whose not paying attention you check Surprise, and you get Advantage. Nothing else. This is purely an instance of your personal GMing style not lining up with the rules of fifth edition. What you're suggesting is less a valid interpretation and more a vaguely dickish house rule.

>>96952618
>Repeating yourself
Anon, it's already been pointed out that this line of logic isn't very functional and why.

>but it's not supported at all by the RAW
You keep saying that, but you haven't actually demonstrated this, you just talk about "intent", when RAW it's entirely valid. If you want to say that actually, you should still have the cube make a stealth check when someone runs into it because Surprise says so, that's fine, but then that's also retarded.

>>96952618
>The rules only list two options. It says "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares Stealth with passive Perception".
Except, you know, the part where it says "The DM decides who might be surprised".
>What you're suggesting is less a valid interpretation and more a vaguely dickish house rule.
NTA, but I believe that if you make a poor decision, you may suffer consequences from them as a player. Sure, we're not dealing with AD&D Doorknobs of Death, but a mimic getting the jump on a party is very unlikely to end in serious repercussions.

>>96952583
>wis saves
Lol. Humans get heroic inspiration daily. Champions get it every turn at level 10.
You can also use one of the extra ASIs for resilient WIS.
Fighters also have Indomitable at 9.
If you're truly that concerned about WIS saves you can save your inspiration for the first WIS save every day until you have a billion ways to mitigate it.
Also it's not like CHA saves aren't a thing and also if you yap your way out of fighting the wizard then it's a non-issue

>>96952640
having a high save makes the rerolls better, so that's all the more reason to invest in it.

and indomitable at *9* you have 8 levels until you get there. And even at 9 it's once a day.

>>96952640
>Also it's not like CHA saves aren't a thing
To his credit, there are a LOT more WIS saves, especially at lower levels, than CHA saves.

>>96952628
The rules for Surprise are fairly unambiguous. I'm going to keep repeating myself because its the truth, there's nothing in the rules that gives a third option for checking if Surprise happens, only automatically noticing and checking Stealth. Retarded? If you want, but its RAW.
>>96952631
It says the DM *determines* who might be surprised, then immediately explains the rule by which he does so.

>NTA, but I believe that if you make a poor decision, you may suffer consequences from them as a player. Sure, we're not dealing with AD&D Doorknobs of Death, but a mimic getting the jump on a party is very unlikely to end in serious repercussions.

Fair enough, if it was a clear instance of stupidity I'd give someone advantage or disadvantage. But personally as a GM my mantra is 'There is always a Save'. I almost never have a bad thing 'just happen'. Dumb decisions are prompts to roll for peril, not peril itself, as a rule. But we're getting off topic, the original question was whether the Player was right to be upset that just reaching for gold gave him an assfucking without a save, and yeah, I'm on the player's side and so are the rules broadly speaking. Assuming of course it happened as interpreted, where the Mimic got some big combat advantage or free Surprise or whatever for not being noticed.

>>96952669
>The rules for Surprise are fairly unambiguous
And yet, you seem not very good at understanding them nor arguing for them.

>I'm going to keep repeating myself
"I do not need reason, I just need to be louder cuz im right!" isn't very convincing either.

>Retarded? If you want
I mean you quite literally argue that the rules are inherently contradictory, "intended" to be inherently contradictory, and that a player is entitled to bawl out the DM if the gelatinous cube he walked into doesn't have to make a stealth test before eating him, or the mimic he decided to grab bites him.
So less "want", and more that everything you're arguing for IS retarded.

>>96952640
There's less than dozen spells with Cha saves a PC would realistically need to worry about.
And even if you want to argue about monsters, then sure, a Ghost can possess you with a Cha save, but it can also frighten you and age you 40 years with a Wis save.

>You can also use one of the extra ASIs for resilient WIS.
Likewise, you can get Skill Expert with Persuasion or Deception, and then you'll have a respectable social skill regardless of Charisma score. And then just spend your Second Wind as a skill check bonus otherwise, because it's a short rest feature instead of long rest like Inspiration or Indomitable.

>>96952655
I'm aware. That's why I mentioned they exist instead of implying they're equally prevalent.
>>96952654
>higher number is better
No duh. That's why I want the higher number to be on the thing I'll be doing constantly, like yapping, instead of inconsistently, like rolling against spellcaster save or suck spells without inspiration in my pocket.

Regardless this is about picking a background that doesn't support your second best attribute. I'd much rather get an extra +1 to WIS from a feat than from a background.

File: Mimic3.png (78 KB, 384x96)

78 KB PNG

>>96952682
You keep mentioning the cube so I looked it up. It has a power that specifically says the DC to notice a motionless cube is set by the power, not by its Stealth. So RAW if someone walks up to a cube without saying they look for it they check passive Perception against DC 15. So in the case of a gelatinous cube if a careless player walked down a hallway one was in, they would check passive Perception to establish Surprise yes. This is the opposite of your case for ignoring passive perception rules if you feel a player is being dumb or careless enough.

>>96952704
>You keep mentioning the cube so I looked it up. It has a power that specifically says the DC to notice a motionless cube is set by the power, not by its Stealth.
This does not negate its stealth check, per RAW. So first, the person gets a check. Then the cube must pass a check. And then if someone tries to enter the cube's space, they may automatically notice the cube since it's Int 1 and the DM may decide it's not even trying to be stealthy as it's mindless enough to lack the mental faculties to do so.

So au contraire, the opposite of your arguments.

>>96952704
>So RAW if someone walks up to a cube without saying they look for it they check passive Perception against DC 15
They make a perception check, not passive perception. Learn to read the rules, retard.

>>96952688
>Skill Expert with Persuasion or Deception
That's a good point. Though it would seem that having advantage on Wis saves is better than expertise on a single CHA skill.

>>96952726
Passive Perception is a Perception check. A character with 16 passive perception spots a gelatinous cube automatically.
That's the entire reason passive perception exists.

>>96952739
Nope, you'd make a Perception check. Read the rules.

File: Mimic4.png (599 KB, 388x673)

599 KB PNG

>>96952722
You don't double check for the same thing. The rules say if you aren't actively looking for something you use passive perception, that an enemy trying to ambush you rolls for Surprise, and that an unseen foe gains Advantage. Your desire that a dumb player be punished by instantly establishing Surprise or as you said 'not even rolling to attack' is not supported by the rules.
>>96952726
Passive perception is a passive check. If you're not looking for someone you usually use it.

>>96952744
5e doesn't have anything called a "Perception check". Try again.

>>96952726
Nobody makes a perception check unless they take the Search action. As per the rules.
I think y'alls whole argument is dumb. If a dude walks up to an armchair and it attacks him then he'd be surprised. The armchair wouldn't necessarily have advantage, since it isn't invisible, but it would 100% get the first attack in. Though in 2024 they don't necessarily even get the first attack, they just get normal initiative while everyone ignorant to the danger gets disadvantage so luck or superhuman skill may allow some characters to attack the armchair faster than it can close its mouth

>>96952762
Nope, it says it does right there. Try again.

>>96952779
Hmm, no it doesn't anon.
Are you perhaps referring to a Wisdom (Perception) check? Maybe you should read the rules better.

>>96952781
Got 'em

>>96952781
Specifically, a passive check for Wisdom (Perception)!

>>96952781
Nope, it says it does right there. Guess you have no Wis :)

>>96952760
>You don't double check for the same thing.
You aren't. You are making a Stealth check vs passive for Surprise and a perception check per the Cube's rules. "Passive" is written nowhere on there.

>Your desire that a dumb player be punished by instantly establishing Surprise or as you said 'not even rolling to attack' is not supported by the rules.
The latter, ehhh yeah actually it does.
But as far as establishing Surprise? Everything I've said is 100% in line with the rules and a valid interpretation. And I mean shit dude, you weren't even aware of what the original point was about, so I don't really trust your reading comprehension.
Actually, are you sure you've played this game before? Post your last game logs if you would to prove you aren't just NARPing.

>>96952763
Nope. Perception checks do not exist in the game. You're reading the rules wrong as usual.

>>96952763
>If a dude walks up to an armchair and it attacks him then he'd be surprised. The armchair wouldn't necessarily have advantage, since it isn't invisible, but it would 100% get the first attack in
How many times does it have to be repeated? No he doesn't! He gets passive perception against its stealth check. Do you get off on fucking over your players or something? Goddamn.

>>96952801
You are making two checks to determine if you see the cube. It does not need to state passive, because if you're actively looking it would be a rolled check. Passive Perception is assumed if you are not looking. I've provided numerous citations clipped from the books, you've degenerated to insults. I think we're done here.

>>96952824
>You are making two checks to determine if you see the cube.
The player is making a perception check against DC 15. The cube is making a stealth check against his passive perception. These are both done separately, and RAW, must be done separately.

>It does not need to state passive
It does need to state passive, otherwise it's up to the GM. It says "Can be used", not "Will be used".

>I've provided numerous citations clipped from the books
And somehow ALL of them went against you.

>You're insulting me
Can you show me where I insulted you? Because I've only pointed out that you've demonstrated poor reading comprehension ITT, and questioned whether you've played the game while asking for proof that you have.
Maybe you're taking questions and reference to factual statements as evidence of competency or lackthereof as an insult because the truth hurts, but that's your fault, not mine.

File: 2S784J6H_400x400.jpg (24 KB, 400x400)

24 KB JPG

>>96952839
I accept your surrender.

>>96952845
I'll accept yours since you don't play the game and couldn't bring a single thing up to back up your claims.

>>96952848
Lol. Lmao.

I accept your concession.

>>96952823
Firstly, wrong. You don't roll checks unless you declare an action.
Secondly, also wrong. The Mimic isn't hiding. You could search and roll a 30 on perception and you still wouldn't notice anything except an armchair. You could say "is this a mimic? I rolled a 30 searching specifically for a mimic" and the DM would still be required by the rules to call it an armchair because to do anything else would DISTINGUISH it from an armchair.
That's.
The.
Rules.

>muh fucked over players
I don't think one round of combat is going to kill the players. Also it's not like the mimic gets free damage, it still has to make its attack roll. Do you just not have combats because you're afraid the players might get hurt Mr. "I don't do anything without letting my players roll". How did you have goblins in that cave if the players didn't roll for it to happen?

>>96952839
Perception checks only happen when a player takes the Search action.
Players don't roll outside of actions unless they're saves.

>>96952351
>because my characters yap
Does your DM call for a Charisma check every time you have a conversation? When my players' characters try to use their social skills to meaningfully change a situation I'll often call for a skill check but I don't get in the way of roleplay by constantly demanding rolls to see if an NPC believes something they'd have no reason not to.

>you can only be surprised by things that are hiding
this is the most retarded rawtism i've ever heard
you can be surprised by things that are hiding (if you fail perception vs their stealth) and you can be surprised by things that are disguised, unexpected, or if you are unable to perceive even if they're not hiding

example: retard anon is blind and deaf and cannot perceive me punching him in the face, therefore is surprised when I do, even though I never hid

>>96952823
This thread is gradually getting consumed by OSRtards who think players should be herded around on the GMs whimsy and that rules are just pure suggestions.

>>96952893
They're called when they're supposed to, because the yapping is generally done to express my character's will on his surroundings

>>96952875
>You don't roll checks unless you declare an action.
Doesn't matter, Passive Perception is not a roll.
>Secondly, also wrong. The Mimic isn't hiding. You could search and roll a 30 on perception and you still wouldn't notice anything except an armchair.
Doesn't matter, Passive Perception is not a roll.
>B-but it's not fucking them over tooooo hard
Lol. Lmao. You're using any excuse to fuck them over and pretend it's fine because it's not a TPK. The Mimic has to make a roll to get surprise, end of discussion.

>>96952885
Nope, it happens whenever the GM calls for it. He can do so because of the rules or just because he wants to. But in the case of a gelatinous cube, they directly call for a perception check, so it's entirely up to him whether it's passive or not.

>>96952904
>the GMs whimsy
to follow rules that say mimics are indistinguishable from items and that if combat starts when you weren't expecting it you are surprised

>>96952901
>you can be surprised by things that are hiding (if you fail perception vs their stealth)
If they fail their stealth vs your passive perception, you mean. You insulted my reading comprehension so you better get it right.
>and you can be surprised by things that are disguised, unexpected, or if you are unable to perceive even if they're not hiding
Wrong. If they aren't trying to be stealthy, they automatically get noticed.
>anon is blind and deaf and cannot perceive me punching him in the face
Still has his sense of smell. Maybe you should have read the rules better, you're still failing all your checks for this.

>>96952923
The rules say the mimic has to roll stealth. What now?

>>96952914
>Nuh uh! BECAUSE I SAID
Lol. Mimics don't have to make a roll to get surprise. Nothing requires a roll to get surpise since the Incapacitated condition exists and doesn't require a roll to obtain. The surprise section of the rules mentions no rolls besides initiative, which is a roll resulting from surprise, not causing it.
You're just a baby with bad reading comprehension

>>96952953
The rules said.
>Mimics don't have to make a roll to get surprise.
Rules say they do.
>Nothing requires a roll to get surpise
Rules say they do.
>The surprise section of the rules mentions no rolls
Yes it does.
Back to insults I see. I accept your second surrender.

>>96952958
>Rules say they do
Rules say they don't.
I accept your submission. Now assume the position.

>>96952937
No rules say they have to roll stealth. It'd be silly if they did because the Hide action doesn't work when you aren't concealed and have been found. If Mimics required a roll it would be Disguise, but they don't require a roll so the point is moot

>>96952978
>Rules say they don't.
Rules say they do.
>No rules say they have to roll stealth.
They do. The rest of your cope fails.
I accept your third surrender.

>>96952989
>They do
They don't.
Hide action doesn't even work when you aren't concealed. What is a mimic hiding behind? Itself? Rays of light?
Mimics don't hide, they disguise. And they do it so well that it doesn't require a roll, they just appear to be whatever object they want.

>>96953025
>They don't.
They do.
>Hide blah blah blah
Lmao don't care, rules say you roll a stealth check vs passive perception.

>>96953031
Actually you roll stealth vs DC 15 and note the result down. But Mimics don't generally hide because they aren't trying to sneak up on people

>>96953045
>Actually you roll stealth vs DC 15
Wrong again, stealth vs passive perception. Learn the rules before you pretend to play a game!

File: 1740110206656.jpg (539 KB, 1079x784)

539 KB JPG

>>96953053

>>96953056
>Pic
Irrelevant, it calls for stealth vs passive perception nogames.

File: 1750440267188.gif (1.98 MB, 400x300)

1.98 MB GIF

>>96953060

>>96953077
Concession accepted.

>>96953060
In 5.0 it's versus the passive perception of each creature that could see or hear you. You can be hidden from Alice but not from Bob, if Alice has a passive perception of 10 and Bob has a passive perception of 12, and you rolled an 11.

In 5.5 you have to beat a DC of 15 and also the passive perception of all the creatures that could perceive you, and then YOU gain a condition if you do so (it's not series of relative statements between you and each potential creature any more).

File: 1751337254612399.webm (1.5 MB, 576x732)

1.5 MB WEBM

Has anyone run a long-form campaign using Weird Wizard / Shadow of the Demon Lord system? Only asking since it shares a lot of DNA with 5e. I like 5e but I want something with more player choice and customization when it comes to classes.

>>96953092
Nope, you make a stealth check vs passive perception.

>>96953092
Technically, in typically incompetent DnD fashion, it's more confusing than that. The Invisible condition granted by Hide actually stipulates that the condition ends if you make noise, attack, or "are found"
RAI your Stealth roll is still compared against everyone's passive perception for the "being found" bit. It's not like you can Hide is an empty dark room then go out and be invisible regardless of context. RAW it's obfuscated by inexact language

>>96953092
Also he's trolling, which is actually a breach of the board rules

>>96953098
I was in a longuish campaign for Demon Lord as a player and know the system pretty well. It went on for around 25 session before fizzling out.
The campaign format is technically envisionned as one session per adventure to reach level 10; but thats easily stretchable. My gm did something like 2 sessions per adventure and one session of downtime between each; felt like a pretty good rythm.
regarding player choices and customization, its still a class based system deep down, except that it has a lot more classes and the split into tier leads to more branching path/combination.
However, some choices are more natural to go for than other, especially regarding magical classes due to how the "Power" sub-system work, the more magical class you took, the more power (and thus higher level spells) you would end up having. This was reworked with Weird Wizard along with an optional rule pdf for Demon lord.

>>96953128
That was my issue with it that each session is intended to be 1 level up each with a max of 10 and some wonky rules for going beyond that. I liked WW's class sytem since taking a magic casting class down the line doesn't fuck you over like in DL.

>>96947395
No we had parents that cared about us as kids.

haven't played dnd in ages and i have been summoned. going to make a low level rogue, lvl 3 or 4.

any advice for a general build? I'm allowed 2 uncommon items but not sure what to pick

>>96953267
For items I’d go cloak of elvenkind and gloves of thievery. Both will make your core rogue skills amazing.

For “build” most rogues are the same. Go either soulknife or arcane trickster subclass depending on what you want.

>>96953278
great items cheers anon. gonna take the cloak and grab a rapier too since it seems to be the done thing

>>96953312
A magic item is also good it lets you get by resistances depending on which monsters your DM is using. None of the core subclasses are bad so just go with whatever you like. Outside of core the inquisitive and mastermind subclasses are the only ones that are kinda bad. They’re just focused on social stuff instead.

>>96953347
*Magic weapon

>>96953267
If I was going full rogue I'd do Trickster. Focus on illusions, maybe be a forest gnome and befriend a mouse buddy.
If I wasn't married to rogue, but instead wanted the Archetype I'd do Ranger6/Soulknife Rogue X. Get additional expertise, extra attack, a climb/swim speed, Thrown Weapon Fighting, Hunters Mark from Ranger. Get psychic stronger thrown weapons, more expertise, another bonus attack, and sneak damage from rogue.
You take also hold off on the 6th level of Ranger or even never take it if you don't care about the movement bonuses.

>>96953098
Yeah, I did a very long sotdl campaign. It's doable but not perfect, but then 5e is even worse for it.

Why don't they stop putting the word fighting in the fighting styles? Having to say "the great weapon fighting fighting style" sounds fucking retarded.

>>96953053
It's actually mimic's deception vs character's passive carpenter's tools

>>96953098
Played in a Sotdl campaign before.
It's meh and was extremely overhyped by very dumb people. There's not much more player choice, if any at all really, and the customization is pretty mediocre. There are technically a ton of path variations, but you're probably going to use something effective so you don't suck ass and have clashing talents. It's a bit like multiclassing, unless you have a specific benefit or reason, you're not going to do it, and it doesn't actually give you hundreds of possible variations to try, just a few tricks and gimmicks that are kinda fun. And the customization past that basically doesn't exist.

ive started a campaign for an irl friend group. one of them is super invested and really wants an opportunity to do some serious roleplay, another is sort of on the fence but definitely seems open to the idea of getting into his character, and the last has little to no investment (didn't even make his character sheet ahead of time despite having like a month's notice and we had to make it before starting at the first session) and just wants to get drunk. him getting drink then spurs the fence-sitter to get drunk and the sessions are just dominated by the two of them asking if they can sexually harass every npc they meet.

is this recoverable or is there no point in continuing? i don't want to just kick him out as this is an irl friend group of 5+ years so whatever i do id like to minimise drama

After playing 5e for a couple campaigns i think i much prefer levels 1, 2 and 3 than any other level in the game. Around level 5 the challenge and flavor of the game seems to disappear because everyone becomes insanely good at everything. im not just talking about EZ encounters either, but just skill checks in general feel less and less interesting because most people are getting like +5 or +6 to rolls. idk i get bored of 5e around this level but find levels 1,2 to feel like gritty fun fantasy adventuring. 3rd level feels like the sweet spot to cap on because thats when you "are" your class. all the best encounters, good stories of fights and survival were from levels 1 or 2 and 3, everything about that and it felt more like tactical nukes and boring HP bloats that went back and forth lifelessly. cant say the game holds up well beyond level 3.

>>96953658
If someone doesn't even make a character sheet than they clearly are not interested in playing. It's not about "kicking" someone out, it's about not wasting anyone's time. If he isn't interested in playing (proof: he didn't make a character sheet) then there is no point in inviting him to play a game he clearly does not want to play. That's it. There's nothing dramatic about it ffs, not everyone likes these kinds of games.

>>96954376
You should browse dnd threads on reddit if you want a good laugh, so many "issues" that would be easily avoided if anyone at the table had any semblance of normal communication skills

>>96953658
>>96954376
why is no investment guy even there at all? how did he join?

>>96954376
>>96954531
i think hes interested in playing in the sense that he had fun playing his way, its just that playing his way derailed it completely and detracted from it for everyone else. hes just not into the effort required to play "properly". hes there in the first place because this is an irl friend group. the plan to play was made as a group.

>>96954572
I also play with IRL friends and most of my IRL friends do not like DnD, so I don't invite them to play. The few times I did were mostly as guests to play once in a session and I prepared a very bare bones character sheet for them. Again, if someone has not even made a character then they don't want to play so don't force them.

>>96954595
well that's why i asked him, it doesn't sound like the guy was forced to play, he chose to, but then isn't actually interested in playing, just getting drunk and sexually assaulting imaginary peasants. And that's odd.

I have 2 ideas.
1. he may just be too used to video games. Load up skyrim, kill every NPC, romance option or loverslab the ones you think are hot, if anything goes wrong reload save and do it all again. In which case he needs to experience that TTRPGs are built on consequences for actions and there's no undo. Or at the very least goofy liveplays like Avantris.
In which case solution is two things,
>1. no torch and pitchforks, just he gets a reputation among the npcs for being a pervert, that he will never fully live down for the rest of the character's life. That becomes the new silly haha joke. If they seem confused, remind them that he has hit on or groped every breathing woman they've seen for a week. Even when he's reformed himself and hasn't done anything like that in months and in towns far away it should still be in the back of every NPCs mind as a rumor.
>2. Whatever quests they've been ignoring needs to have their countdown clocks moved forward. If they seem confused by things worsening, you point out that "hey, nobody did anything about it, so the situation got worse."

2. If he's not that kind of person normally, maybe just ban the drinking. Bring up that super invested and you aren't really having fun and are getting bored because they're not really like, "playing the game" anymore, when they get drunk they just start hogging the narrative spotlight with all their dicking around.

>>96954595
hes not being forced. >>96954777 is pretty spot on. invested and i had played before, but fence sitter and uninvested hadnt. we had no reason to think either of them wouldnt be into it (uninvested in particular has played a lot of vidya rpgs) so we just extended the offer to everyone. if he didnt want to play, the situation would be a lot easier since he could just not play. the issue is that he does want to play; he just wants to play his version of dnd, which is just skyrim

>>96954777
i think your number 1 is pretty spot on and largely aligns with what id kinda been thinking about. ill dial up everything going to shit for the next session and hopefully that will lock him in a bit. ive already had one important npc basically deny them a lot of stuff because he creeped her out. sucks to punish the others who are trying their best but if things continue as they are then its all going to be a bit pointless anyway

I've been running a game for frens.

One of them had a falling out with me. We talked. It didn't work out, and we've gone our separate ways. The other players, to my knowledge, are still fine with me.

Issue is, prior to this, we were all very close. And the players had a very tight party dynamic. Probably one of the best I've seen, and they seem to agree as well.

But now that that player has left and is gone, some of them insist they don't want to keep playing this game without that person, as it has broken the party dynamic and it would feel "wrong".

On one hand I get it. On the other, we've been playing this game for 2 years. But it seems like they've made up their mind about it.

Is it unfair for me to want to see the story through or reach some sort of resolution?

>>96954821
>he just wants to play his version of dnd, which is just skyrim
you have to make him see the cool part of what makes TTRPGs TTRPGs.

And to a vidya addict, that's

>It's hardcore mode, no do-overs, no save reloads
>You're not limited to just the options the DM presents, the obvious solutions, or the buttons on your character sheet. It's a true sandbox in every sense of the word.
>It's like a Tell-Tale game, choices matter and "Everyone will remember that" even to the very end

>>96955694
it feels like theres context missing here. was your falling out dnd-related? what happened to outright end your friendship?
if the players dont want to continue the game, then its a moot point whether you want to see it through. but imo the question is do they not want to see it through because itd feel wrong without the one whos gone, or because theyve picked their side in whatever this drama is and its not you?

>>96956000
Nah if it was dnd related, we could've done something about it, I feel. Not gonna get into the drama itself however.
As for what you asked, it's the first one. I've talked to them outside of it, and they're still fine. However, they feel it would be disrespectful and won't feel the same without that person in the game. I don't think they players have really picked any side, in fact they don't even want to be part of the drama which is fair I feel.

>>96954365
>dnd sucks
Fucking duh. Only fools prefer DnD to the myriad of other ttrpgs.
Also I'm not sure how lvl 3 is supposed to be where all classes feel distinct when literally every character just makes one attack with prof bonus. At that level fighters are just clerics without spells.

Thinking of a clarification/house rule. Humans have Speed 30 [60 with Daah]. Horses have Speed 60 [120 with Dash]. Rather than try to translate movement per round, I’m thinking of putting in an overland movement rule that your speed in MPH is your Speed/3. Humans run at 15-20 MPH [faster if athletes, up to 27 MPH]. A riding horse runs at 25-30 MPH with a rider and the fastest horses up to 55 MPH. So by this rule a human while Dashing could go 20 MPH and a horse 40, which is on the higher end of competence but still reasonable. So it’d become a rule of thumb for extrapolating anything else’s Speed [30 is human, 60 is horse, go from there to map dragons and such]. Is there any immediately obvious problems that result from this shorthand?

>>96956678
Yeah you're rucking at marathon pace retard

>>96957088
I’m what?

>>96957102
What you are describing is a 6 minute mile pace, which is a high level marathon pace, for people to travel all day while weighed down with gear. It's an insane idea. Humans can run at 15-20mph, but that's not sustained over a traveling day. You are morbidly obese or have never exercised a day in your life after state mandated education.

>>96957145
I wasn’t talking about a traveling pace. I was asking “If we assume that Speed 30 while Dashing is the speed of an athletic human, and Speed 60 while Dashing is the speed of an athletic horse, does anything break by using that as a linear scale to determine the max speed of a dragon, roc, Monk, etc’. My use of ‘overland’ was perhaps incorrect. Though I DO intend to also add a house rule to let higher level characters with Athletic proficiency keep up their full speed much longer then a real human could. So a Level 10 Fighter with Mobile could run 30 MPH across country. But that wasn’t the point of the question, which was more about the specific concept and whether there was a better equation than Speed/3 to map out a linear scale for top sprinting speed.

>>96957207
>So a Level 10 Fighter with Mobile could run 30 MPH across country.
That's faster than the world record 100m pace.

>>96957216
I’m aware.

>>96956678
The only issue is that humans can't sprint for an hour. Also if you're really being that specific about spatial relativity then just use hexes. People walk at 3mph, run at 6mph, and sprint at 12mph. The horizon is about 3 miles. Just make hexes 3 miles wide and you can cross them in an hour with a decent footpath/road.
US Army standard for going 12 miles with a 40lb load is 3 hours. So minimum fitness is over 4mph with load, but even that pace will exhaust you.
A hex an hour is fine, then add exhaustion for two an hour or 1 under load.
You're conflating running and sprinting speeds. Zero horses can run 55mph for even a half mile, let alone a mile. Horses also tend to walk at around 3mph, but can do something like 12mph for distance.

>>96957277
Again the point is not travel it’s purely maximum speed over short distances. I plan on saying powerful heroes and monsters can sustain travel at such a pace, but I’m well aware of the travel pace of 3-4 MPH. The question is twofold. Firstly, if we assume Speed 30 is the average runner and Speed 60 is the average running horse, does it seem odd if a Speed 120 Roc moves twice as fast as running horse? And secondly what’s a good linear equation to represent that? Speed/3 gives me a human sprint speed of 20 MPH, a horse spring at 40, a Roc at 80 and a Solar Angel at 100. Which I’m fine with, but the bottom of the scale is slightly high for what it’s representing. Though I do like that the fastest thing in the Monster Manual hits 100 NOH exactly.

Is there anything more terrifying than an awakened Phase Spider?
>now has the intelligence to simply wait or go after other party members if the party tries to ready actions to hit it when it reappears
>can't be otherwise interacted with by the party unless they have See Invisibility (which absolutely nobody takes) or True Seeing (which is a 6th level spell) because it will just make stealth checks (+6 btw) until successful, shift to the Material, attack and then BA back to the Ethereal Plane
Like, legitimately, how do you deal with that?
Mostly just a thought experiment since no sane DM would ever actually engineer this situation

>>96957340
MPH* exactly

>>96957348
Evocation wizard with Sickening Radiance

File: warlock.jpg (100 KB, 400x606)

100 KB JPG

I did some math, comparing warlock (hex + eb + ab), ranger (archery + hunter), and barb (berserker + gwm + greatsword). The hunter has more dpr in tiers 1 and 2, but at level 11, the warlock takes the lead until the end.
The barbarian is a murder machine; at level 5 the barb does almost as much damage as that warlock does at level 20.
>But anon, why did you do that? DND isn't an MMO, and that comparison feels random and obvious.
My GM canceled this week session, and I wanted to do something related to the game. The barbarian is my current PC, and the ranger is the next one I'll play.

File: damn.gif (3.8 MB, 480x270)

3.8 MB GIF

Guys I made the mistake of putting my sorcerer boss enemy in a small room with only one entrance, they just silenced him

>>96957382
>The barbarian is a murder machine; at level 5 the barb does almost as much damage as that warlock does at level 20.
In exchange for having to run up to an enemy and get exposed to all sorts of cancerous abilities like take 4d8 acid damage for daring to touch the enemy with your weapon.

>>96957432
did you make the fight 1vParty

File: file_(1).png (22 KB, 600x263)

22 KB PNG

I think I just figured out a dumb low-level abusable strategy as a Wizard/Wiz&EK multiclass.

>Use Levitate (Never much rated it as a spell at all but whatever, available earlier than Fly) or Fly
>Hover 15ft. above enemies
>Use Lightning Lure
>Str. Save, so typically low for most enemies
>Pull them up, 2d8 Lightning at lvl. 5, they fall, 1d6 damage from going back down 10ft. and prone
>Repeat as needed

There's nothing in there that prevents this from working, right? Dumb fun little dickass interaction that can sort of lock something down, waste its move speed and get prone, and do decent repeat damage with a cantrip and one spell slot. By the time you get Fly there's better shit to do, but it's a thought. And gives Levitate something to do other than be worthless.

>>96957581
No, but the idea was to summon stuff to help him after appearing like he was all alone

>>96957599
>enemy readies an action to grab you when you are within reach
Not to mention levitate is concentration, so a half decent ranged attack and you eat shit. If no ranged attacks, you're still probably safer just firebolting from maximum altitude.

File: FB_IMG_1703451472972.jpg (33 KB, 387x469)

33 KB JPG

>>96957757
Eh, fair point. But I came upon this idea as an EK/Wizard multiclass. Grab me? Good luck getting that grapple. Same with the Concentration checks, especially with War Caster. That'd only come up on repeat uses too, since it'd be bullshit if a DM had that readied beforehand, not like they can use it as a reaction.

You are correct that you'd get more reliable damage and safety out of Firebolt et. al. even from cantrips, and probably be more reliably savage using other attacks, but this does have the added benefit of the prone and battlefield control with the pull. Even if they get up, that's half their movement and they're still in range by the time they move. So it's a very bullying immobilization with an out.

Plus, could always do it over a cliff or pit something with some extra safety (Rope tied to me, etc) and just drop fuckers in. I ain't saying it's advisable, but it's funny if you find yourself having Levitate for some reason.

I think I was just permanently converted from a milestone to XP DM as my party just stealthed, sleeped, and ran away from every encounter in my dungeon to blitz the boss

>>96958442
Good. They’re being creative and smart. I would love if my party did that but they always say
>What if anon gave them good magic items again. We’ll miss out on loot.

>>96958897
>>96958442
Some groups prefer combat, others don't
>Group is being pursued by enemies
>Group rolls well while also blocking enemies paths
>Group manages to get away
>OOC Group asks DM to run the encounter anyways
>DM sets up encounter
>We roll initiative

>>96957340
>it's purely for maximum speed over short distances
Then why are you extrapolating ft to miles if you're only trying to measure short distances.
Sounds like a counterintuitive waste of time

>>96957382
>4d6+2d6+12 is the same as 4d10+4d6+20
Huh?

>>96958070
>an EK/Wizard multiclass.
then it's not really all that low level anymore. Wizard 2 EK 3 is level 5. By that point you could have been casting fireball instead of levitate + cantrip fuckery.

>>96959212
>4d6+2d6+12
4d6+2d6+18 actually (2 rage + 4 str + 3 gwm)
Hmm, I’ve checked several times, and the results of both are almost the same
the advantage from Reckless gives a big boost in damage.
.

>>96957725
Secret trap door that leads to a mini-dungeon full of traps that he manually triggers while the party is in pursuit. Turn the fight into Micolash.

>>96959338
>+18
Oh yea, I was thinking of GWF instead of GWM.
I think it's difficult to really extrapolate advantage into damage, especially since that's ignoring the extra damage you receive by giving enemies advantage.
Also GWM is the kind of illusion of choice feat that makes DnD such a grabage game. "You have all these weapons to choose from, but if you don't choose this specific weapon you're giving up like 20% of your damage

>>96959386
>Also GWM is the kind of illusion of choice feat that makes DnD such a grabage game
I agree, it makes it seem too much like an MMO when creating an "ideal" build, like in WoW, where there are always only one or two options to choose from the skill tree.
The resistance to normal damage makes up for it a bit, until I face an enemy that does more than that, then I really start to feel the hits lol.
Anyway, don’t put too much thought into it, I just wanted to compare my PC and the ranger with the classic hex + EB + AB warlock while I wait for game day.

>>96959516
Ranger isn't amazing, though it'd make more sense to compare the beast master's 4d8 + 3d6 + 20 at lvl 11

>>96959572
It depends on how far you want to go; a build like HM + Archery + Longbow + Hunter Colossus Slayer is very similar in dpr to a build like Hex + EB + AB Warlock from level 1 to level 10.
The Warlock has the advantage at first level thanks to Agonizing Blast, but the Ranger takes it back at second level with the Archery fighting style, and increases it a bit more with Colossus Slayer at lvl 4 and Extra Attack in lvl 5
However, the Warlock gets a big boost at level 11, and the Hunter Ranger never catches up.
Beast Master Ranger is a different story. The combination of Hunter’s Mark (especially without concentration at level 13) and the beast (especially at level 11) gives the ranger a higher DPR at every level. Keep in mind that I’m only using a few casual builds that I’m interested in and focusing on attacks that don’t use many resources. Comparing damage beyond level 10 doesn’t really matter anyway, since my group never goes past tier 2.

File: file.png (918 KB, 1212x614)

918 KB PNG

Anyone here listens to CR while doing stuff?
Recently went through a bad depression and decided to get into new stuff to try to keep my mind distracted and got into CR while I work at home.

Not exactly paying close attention the whole time to the campaign but it's nice to hear the game going while workign.

>>96959691
/crg/

>>96959691
That sorcerer player looks like a nice guy. I hope he has a fruitful run with the group and part ways amicably if at all.

>>96959714
I don't think I found crg on the catalog.

>>96959732
Oh yeah, I'm aware of what happens in that regard.

>>96959691
I find it difficult to get into live plays or whatever they're called because if I'm not focused on it, I lose track of whats happening.

Adventure is Nigh has visuals so its easier for me to focus on it.

>>96959740
>I don't think I found crg on the catalog.
well look through the archive
anyway the general pops up on thursdays

>>96959690
It's all just a thought exercise. I'd never play any of those builds besides Warlock. I prefer RP maxing over damage maxing

Anyone know of a good module or suggestions for running a murder mystery?

My rough idea for the adventure is, Murder on the Orient Express turns into Weekend at Bernies.

The party is contracted to escort an escort by the name of Lady Berniece, and are tasked to ensure her safety to meet up with her client, a Baron of some note for a weekend Gala. After picking her up from the brothel the part rides a train where she is to be murdered.

The party has a necromancer, so we'll see how they play that. They're level 3.

That said I don't have a great reason as to why she'd be murdered. Ikd if she was meant to be a sacrifice or if she was special in anyway. Not sure what's the best way to tackle this.

>>96959976
Something always important to remember for a D&D mystery is that the victim can't have seen their killer. Speak with Dead is too easy of a spell for that.
I'd also mention methods of preventing them from just getting returned to life, but for a level 3 party finding a priest to cast Raise Dead would be its own quest and you could let them have it at that point.

Other broad suggestion for murder mysteries as a whole would be to include plenty of clues, and to ensure any red herrings loop back around to the main culprit. It's surprisingly easy for players to get sidetracked and fixated on the wrong suspect, or to hit a dead end if they miss clues.
Having it be a crime of passion or something done in haste, where the criminal was clumsy and didn't have time to cover their tracks, helps to ensure the mystery is actually solvable and things keep moving forward.

As for a motive, it might work a bit better if instead of a random prostitute, it's whatever woman owns the brothel, going to see the Baron for a business meeting regarding some outstanding debts or some rumors of how he treats previous escorts, or something along those lines. That opens up a few more avenues.

>>96959976
Is there any particular reason why Speak With Dead wouldn't end the quest after five minutes?

>>96959976
you should probably figure out a motive since you'll need one if you have to improvise anything

>>96956000
betcha a grand it's over some whore

>>96959177
1) Because most people can visualize 80 MPH a lot better than 117 FPS?
2) Because for certain monsters and certain high level characters I do intend to use this for travel.

>>96959307
Eh, fair. The concept just occurred to me. To that end, is there anything else that can actually pull enemies from a distance that isn't a moderately high, like Lvl. 5+ slot? All I can think of is LL, Grasp of Hadar, and Thorn Whip.

>>96960528
Nobody can visualize a person running 20mph anyway. It's an asinine an superfluous task you're doing

>>96960906
Never watched the olympics? Or even a high school track meet?

>>96960058
>Is there any particular reason why Speak With Dead wouldn't end the quest after five minutes?
The murderer killed her while her back was turned to them, so she didn't see it happen

As of today my last D&D playing friend has moved away for work. Down from 6 to just me now, officially a no gameser

>>96957348
Huddle around the Polearm Master/Spirit Guardians/any other discriminating Emanation and go complete your objective. Either the spider phases face first into damage and dies and you win, or it lets you complete your objective and you win

>>96957348
>which absolutely nobody takes
The party I DM for always has it, and I don't even do invisibility shenanigans all that often.

File: 1737243794337937.png (874 KB, 536x886)

874 KB PNG

One of my players sent me a whole google drive of cze peku patreon maps. Is it just me or are they kind of useless eyecandy? Yes the maps are drawn very well but there's very little in terms of anything interesting going on mechanically speaking. I personally use a bunch of cover against LOS, multiple vertical levels, things that discourage blobbing up in the middle and making 90% of the combat encounter static after the first 1-2 turns of movement, but with these maps unless I add those myself they're just a pretty image.

>>96962431
Well yeah that's why the premade maps are pretty stupid

>>96962431
>>96962693
Well in that sense, are there premades/mappers that include that intentionally or do parallaxed maps? Or do you just kind of have to add things in in Foundry and the like? I agree that stuff is necessary, entirely warps the game from boring to much more active, but even the book maps don't make easy work of that. Was especially apparent after BG3 how much elevation and cover can add.

>>96962431
>cze peku
yeah they are 90% garbage eye candy that doesnt add anything to the game
however some map makers actually make maps that add something to the game

>>96960260
Does it matter what the cause was? Gimme some tips man

I'm thinking of just letting them go since as the former anon said, it is a moot point. And I find some other players at this point

>>96962431
I mostly use them for cinematic showdowns, but god do I hate most of these maps. And it sucks that these are the most popular ones too. Like gimme a whole ass dungeon man. I've been trying to use dungeon making tools myself and I suck ass at it, so I'm just using what I can find online

>>96963104
I feel dirty even suggesting it but AI is actually pretty good at generating custom dungeon maps. I've had good looking results from Gemini with only a a couple of wonky grid lines to give it away.

>>96962431
It's cool eye candy and you could make use of some cover and maybe a bit of height differences, but that's a pretty boring map

Elf sex

>>96964095
Djinni weenie

>>96962431
I like a lot of Tom Cartos's work. You can find most of it for free.

What would be a good monster stat block to represent halo's flood?

The game I run is in a few hours; anyone got the text or screenshots of the new feats and magic items from the two D&D beyond DLC that dropped today so I can see if my players want 'em?

>>96962431
Got a link? I don't mind some pretty maps.

File: Zombie-Stats-5E-768x1024.jpg (125 KB, 768x1024)

125 KB JPG

>>96965476

Hey does anyone have a link to the new e book, Astarion's Book or Whatever? Not paying fifteen dollars for a handful of feats and a reprint of the dhampir race, but I want to see what people are talking about.

>>96966594
looking for this as well, I'm an Astarion simp but I'm not about to drop money on a digital book

Can I get some theorycrafting/build help for an archer in the 2024 version of 5e by any chance?

I want to make an archery focus character using 2024 rules and classes but we are allowed to take 2014 stuff if there is no 2024 equivalent. I started 1st level as fighter. Goliath (Cloud ancestry) for story purposes. She has 18 dex, 16 str and con, 15 wis, 12 int and 10 cha.

I want to do something interesting with her build path besides strait battlemaster with maneuvers and attacking every turn with the occasional trip or disarm, etc. I'd like to use longbow specifically but any ranged 'archery' weapon should do.

Anyone have any advice for me on how to build this dex fighter themed after being trained in archery?

>>96966811
Arcane Archer

>>96966811
Rune Knight seems ideal for this. Flavor works well with Cloud Giant, and while you would still mostly be making standard attacks, there's some neat options there. Plus it uses your Con as the saving throw DC, so you'll get some mileage out of having that 16.

>Want to play a spellcaster
>Have to write down my spells and all their little rules
>No longer want to play spellcaster

I need to just get some note cards and copy them all down once so I don't need to do this every time.

>>96966946
spellcasting isn't for brainlets, buddy

>>96966946
wotc even sells prewritten spell cards for people just like you!

>>96967109
lmao you think copying down notes is smart and difficult? How fucking retarded are you?

>>96966811
>I want to do something interesting with her build path besides strait battlemaster with maneuvers and attacking every turn with the occasional trip or disarm, etc.
There really aren't many "interesting" builds in 5e. Archer options are mainly BM, Ranger, or EK.
EK could use magic initiate to get some better combat spells like Shield of Faith or Entangle.
Alternatively you could go Rogue and use cunning action to "do something interesting". Assassin or Scout would do well.
Ranger is self explanatory. Beast Master is the strongest in 2024, Fey Wanderer lets you do some funky stuff bouncing Charmed/Frightened around, Monster Slayer and Swarm Keeper also have their own use cases.
Then you could go really off the wall and be a Warlock with your EB reskinned as a magical bow. You could get Jump at will for mobility, Levitate at will to incapacitate melee enemies. EB push and pull. Celestial will let you spread healing around as a bonus action. GOO buffs your Hex a bit and gives you more OoC toys.

>>96966811
>>96968025
I guess I glossed over the part where you already made the character, which begs the question why you're even asking about a build path when you've already locked yourself into something.
Just be a Battlemaster since that's really your only option with how you built your character. Your INT is too low to do EK. Only "interesting" options I could suggest is BM with the Poisoner feat or go Champ or BM 6 then multiclass Rogue Assassin, Scout, or Thief. With Champ you could use Vex on shortbow to crit fish for Sneak attack burst damage in the midgame. Even take Piercer for extra dice. It's still a "just attack every round" build until Champ5/Rogue5 when you get cunning strikes, but you could take your 6th level of champ whenever for whenever you want the ASI. Thief speeds up your extra actions to C5/T3 when you can use your bonus action to do some batman stuff.

>>96968127
>or go Champ
Champ? Who is Champ?

My level 7 warlock got his subclass changed from Efreeti Genie to Archfey. What are some good damage spells that'd replace fireball? The only other damage spells my warlock has is Hunger of Hadar and a summon spell.

>>96968127

Because I have never made a fighter before and was just looking to advice on how to make it a good archer. I have no experience with it or with like meta multiclass builds, etc. Just wanted to know what people thought was good in that world.

>>96968145
...Champion Fighter

>>96968145
Are you fucking serious?

>>96968145
I got it, I laughed.

>>96968145
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqcRJEDx5vA&t=5s

>>96968145
THAT QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED THIS SUNDAY NIGHT

>>96968192
It's DnD. All martials do is attack every round and all spellcasters do is throw out spells every sound.
BM is always going to be your most "interesting" option as a fighter because you get frequent effects that aren't just damage. EK gives you a couple extra options with less frequency, but you have no INT.
Are there interesting Archer builds? Maybe.
Are there interesting Fighter Archer builds? Kinda.
Are there interesting Fighter Archer builds when you have no INT or CHA? Not really. It's BM or multiclass rogue or a Wis spellcaster. Some feats will add small variety, but with a lvl in fighter and no Int or Cha most of your turns will be BM manuevers if you don't want them to be "roll attack, deal damage, done"

File: 5d424088d0e37afd68fb69551(...).jpg (104 KB, 613x870)

104 KB JPG

In a month, I’m going to play a Beast Master ranger, and I’ll name my pet "Lightning"

I happen to think halberds and other such polearms are dope, and want to buff them a little bit in my game. Given the mechanics of the weapon, I want to make it so that the wielder can choose whether to attack with the listed attributes (1d10 slashing, Cleave) or to use it as a makeshift spear (1d8 piercing, Sap).

>>96968365
They're already arguably some of the best weapons in the game thanks to Polearm Master. That said adding extra mastery property options is unlikely to cause any balance issues, aside from making every other weapon worse by comparison.

>>96968334
Don't owls fly particularly slowly to better approach prey unnoticed?

File: Blood Hawk.png (302 KB, 512x512)

302 KB PNG

>>96968453
will look more like this but more magical

Why don’t they just make maneuvers a baseline fighter feature?

how do you flavor a mounted lance-user so it doesn't come off really fucking silly?

>>96968592
why dont they make a good game with interesting options and depth that supports a variety of playstyles and regularly expand it with new systems and options that cover different scenarios and augment it with regular series of lore, adventures, and other supplemental material?
BECAUSE THEY DONT GIVE A SHIT

>>96968625
Lance + musket winged hussar

>>96968592
Because they're wholly incompetent. They thought weapon masteries were better despite them mostly just breaking the game or obfuscating the rules. Why aren't Unarmed Strikes considered light weapons? Why do they print busted spells? Why do they build entire subclasses around misty step?
Because they're retarded.
One example of their incompetence is the illusion of choice they create to pat themselves on the back. I'll give an example: The opened Agonizing Blast up to any Warlock Cantrip now. You know what relevant options that opens up? None, because no other spells can use it well. Well technically two could KINDA: Thunderclap and Word of Radiance. They both use CON saves, but other than that they're halfway comparable.
Heck, Celestial Warlock even gives a bonus to radiant damage. Wouldn't it be interesting design to give Celestial Warlocks Word of Radiance for synergy? No, because apparently it's more interesting to give them Light and Sacred Flame! So if you want to make an interesting Warlock that takes advantage of AB being cantrip agnostic you're required to get Pact of the Tome JUST for Word of Radiance.
Another example is Unarmed Fighting. Want to make a pugilist fighter? Have we got the thing for you! You can take Unarmed Fighting, where, at the cost of a feat and your shield, you can to do the same damage as a 1H Longsword. Also we took Unarmed Strike off the equipment table so that it doesn't have a weapon mastery. Look at all these choices! You can have +2 AC and deal 1d8+2 with a Sap mastery OR deal 1d8. You're welcome

>>96968592
Back in the playtests of 5e, they were a baseline martial feature. But they dropped that angle because they thought it would make the game too complicated.

File: 73fe6faafffec19512f1b30b7(...).jpg (99 KB, 528x653)

99 KB JPG

>>96968625
What's silly about thundering forward in a full tilt to impale someone on a huge fucking spear?

File: G5F1bGxacAASgmh.png (1.36 MB, 1700x2174)

1.36 MB PNG

I’m a bit interested in making a Dex-based fighter, but the two-weapon style seems like a nightmare.
I’m talking about using (Scimitar, Shortsword) + Two-Weapon Fighting + Dual Wielder.
1. Let’s say I’m level 3 and have 16 Dexterity.
I can attack twice in the same action with nick and Two-Weapon Fighting, which adds the modifier: 2d6 + 6.
2. At level 4, I can get the Dual Wielder feat, which gives me a third attack: but it’s unclear whether it adds the modifier or not (TWF says yes, but DW says no, so who knows): 3d6 + 6.
3. Then, I get Extra Attack at level 5, that’s just another 1d6 with a modifier, making it 4d6 + 9.
Also, the Shortsword might grant advantage, which can get confusing:
first attack: Scimitar to activate Nick,
second atack: Shortsword to give advantage to the next hit,
third atack: Scimitar with advantage thanks to Dual Wielder,
fourth: Extra Attack with Shortsword (so only the third attack actually benefits from the Shortsword’s advantage?).
I’m speaking from complete ignorance about fighting styles.

>>96968592
They did. I am They.

>>96968633
>>96968819
it becomes silly when you do it in a dungeon

>>96968830
Nick is badly written. It doesn't even specific you need to use the Nick weapon in the regular or bonus Light property attack, but any sane person will rule that it should. I let people attack with a Vex weapon and then make their Nick attack at advantage if it hits.
I don't have the exact text to reference but TFW adds mod to Bonus Action and Dual Wielder light attacks. Designers confirmed that's RAI.

>>96968830
It all comes down to how the DM reads their poorly written rules. Technically the extra attack of DW is a result of the DW feat and not the Light property, but it's ambiguous. Personally I'd just change DW to say all weapons that lack Two Handed are considered Light instead of their half baked questionably intended 3rd attack.
Honestly I'd prefer to rewrite DW, GWM, and PAM entirely, but also spells need a complete overhaul. So we're in a catch 22 where we don't want to nerf martials because magic is overtuned to hell, but martials' strength relies on poorly written feats that funnel into only 2 or 3 weapons being viable

>>96968631
Fuck of to your own general you miserable cunt.

>>96968860
In fact, the light property says the same thing as Dual Wielder. It convinces me that the third attack gets the mod too
>That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don't add your ability modifer to the extra attack's damage unless that modifier is negative.

File: 2 033043.png (460 KB, 755x457)

460 KB PNG

>>96969072
forgot pic

>>96969072
TWF adds mod to attacks of the Light property, not of the DW feat. Light is a prereq for the DW attack, not the source of it.

>>96968830

Two Weapon Fighting:
> When you make an [extra attack] [as a result of using a weapon that has the Light property], you can [add your ability modifier to the damage of that attack if you aren't already adding it to the damage.]

First, nobody reads [extra attack] as the fifth level martial feature because then the fighting style would be stupid and pointless. When it says "extra attack" it means any "additional attack"..

Secondly, what generates the bonus action attack from dual-wielder? "When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property" which is the exact same wording the Light property has, and both also have not adding your modifier unless it's negative. The only limit is that it applies only on your turn.

TWF already applies to bonus action attacks, and it already applies to non-bonus action attacks (from Nick Mastery), because it has nothing to do with what part of the action economy the attack is. It only is about attacks generated from attacking with light weapons.

So when you have both the nick mastery and dual wielder

>You attack goblin with your sword (Or scimitar, idr what is the most technically correct)
>You generate an additional extra attack with a different Light weapon,that normally doesn't add your modifier (unless negative), and that normally costs a bonus action
>It doesn't cost a bonus action anymore because you have the Nick mastery
>You generate an additional extra attack with a different weapon as long it's not a Two-Handed weapon, that normally doesn't add your modifier, and costs a bonus action
>You have TWF, which adds your damage mod to any attacks generated from attacking with a Light weapon. Which all of these are.

Essentially, if TWF didn't apply to the bonus action attack from using a sword and scimitar, then it wouldn't apply to the bonus action attack from using a sword and flail. "You're not getting it from Light, you're getting it from dual wielder"

>>96969329
Also, all this is is just the "max damage" configuration for this feat. The reason you wouldn't ALWAYS use two light weapons is because the dual wielder feat also enables you to use properties together you can't normally get. Slow+Push for example,

>>96969329
>>96968990
>>96968860
Thanks for the help, although I feel like my GM will really hate me for having to roll 4 dice for attack, two of them with advantage. lmao

>>96966946
Spell/Ability Cards are huge.
It was basically the only way 4e was playable even.

You can even color code them by the kind of action they use, so that action economy is easy. "Oop, i've played a red and a blue this turn, but i still have my green"

>>96970071
Oh don't worry, it's even more annoying, because Vex only applies on a hit, so you need to resolve the attacks one at a time instead of rolling all at once.

>>96969005
Don't have one, so I'm gonna squat here.

>>96968856
Then don't do it in a dungeon?

>>96966594
I'm interested in it as well, can't believe they stuck the harvester devil in there when those fuckers were the main devil deal breakers in 3e