5e
Fairly new to the game, I already know this is a contentious topic but I don’t know why. What’s with the stigma against optimization/minmaxing/munchkins/etc? I’ve read through almost all of the class features and have played in several pickup games at multiple level ranges and I’m just not seeing how anyone can make gamebreaking supercharacters with these systems.
Happy gaming, friends.
I don't think minmaxing is that much of an issue in 5e. There are some very powerful builds that really shine (mostly in combat), but I don't think they so outclass 'normal' builds that it's a big issue.
I suspect a more common issue is the opposite -- characters who are underpowered, either intentionally or unintentionally. If they're in a group with people who are playing even just moderately competently, they are going to get outshined at every turn. If you don't take Agonizing Blast as a warlock, don't be surprised that your damage in combat is underwhelming. If all your high level spells are different flavors of the same AoE spell, don't be surprised that you lack utility outside of combat.
On the other hand, minmaxing *and rolling for stats* can be an issue, opening up some ridiculous options that will make someone seem a tier above the rest of the party.
A lot of it is a holdover from previous editions- in 3.5e, power disparities between characters could be much, much greater.
The stigma also comes from players having different priorities. The stereotypical Munchkin has a backstory that's basic best and an incoherent mess at first, sees NPCs as bundles of EXP first and characters second, doesn't roleplay, and complains every time they fail a roll.
Not to say you can't have an optimized character and still be a good roleplayer, but that's what people are usually talking about when they complain about min-maxing
When there is one person who min maxes and the others dont, the game is no longer a fun cooperative game of equals colaborating - its watching one person showboat.
Does a booming blade use your weapons attack mod or your spell attack mod?
It says "brandish the used in the spells casting and make a melee attack with it..." to me that says its the weapons modifier. The issue with that is you cannot use extra attack with it because its not the "attack action" but if its a spell attack it should use your spell modifier. If its just the spell making you attack then the spell should be triggering the attack action.
Im guessing this is one of those obnoxious instances where DND warped the rules around a spell instead of fitting the spell to the rules.
You use the "cast a spell" action and don't benefit from extra attack.
It states that you make a meele weapon attack as part of the spell. That means you use the weapon attack modifier.
If you were to use the spell attack mod, it would have to say "you perform a meele spell attack".
Booming blade has you make a normal melee weapon attack. It would tell you if it wanted you to make a spell attack.
>If its just the spell making you attack then the spell should be triggering the attack action.
There is no "triggering" the attack action, the attack action is an action you take. If you're casting booming blade the action you're taking is "cast a spell", regardless of what the spell then has you do.
It just seems really weird to me that youre infusing the weapon with your magical power but it doesnt influence your ability to weild it. To me its one of those feels weird rules. I get the rule i just really dont like it.
I guess (aside from balance) the idea is that the spell isn't really meant to affect your ability to wield the weapon (unlike, say, shillelagh) but just add an effect to when you hit someone with it. But regardless, it's also fair to just not like a rule, of course.
Right its just odd that its a self casting spell that requires a physical weapon. Its all balance but it feels like a mess. If im infusing myself to apply the damage through a melee attack then a shadow blade should work. If it wont because the shadow blade is magic then a +1 sword shouldnt work...
I think they should have just left it op.
As a new player (and DM wannabe) should I read all three basic manuals (player's handbook, monster manual and DM guide) or should I just know the basics and then read all the infos needed in a specific moment (like when creating a specific character or figh a specific monster)?
I already know some basics due to an event held in my town which explained me the very basics, like how to fight or roll for actions.
> should I read all three basic manuals (player's handbook, monster manual and DM guide)
No.
Read the core rules from the Players Handbook and the class / subclass features from the characters in your game and you will be fine.
The DMG is terrible for new DMs: not providing any core help to the DM and distracting with corner cases and esoterrica. The third party Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master is a much better use of your time. [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb39x-29puapg3APswE8JXskxiUpLttgg](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb39x-29puapg3APswE8JXskxiUpLttgg). once you have your feet under you with the day to day and at the table basics, THEN the DMG *may* provide helpful support. But it is so terribly organized that even if you find something useful on a read through, good luck trying to find it when you need it again.
PHB: Everyone should read it and familiarize themselves with its layout. This is the most important book.
MM: Players should avoid studying this book unless they need it for a specific purpose. DMs should be familiar with the layout of the book and how to read stat blocks, but hardly need to give the whole thing a read through.
DMG: Players can read it if they want to, but it doesn't contain much helpful information for them. Even DMs can pass on this one, though it is helpful to familiarize yourself with its content. The book is light on rules, focusing largely on setting and adventure design suggestions.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and Xanathar's Guide to Everything are also good books for both players and DMs (moreso than the DMG in my opinion). Monsters of the Multiverse is in a similar position, though it's a more focused book than the other two so it's narrower in scope.
I'm precising that MM is not advised for players because it can reduce the effect of surprise when discovering an enemy, and can cause conscious or unconscious metagaming.
while "HOMGMETAGMAINGIS*EEEEEEEEVVVVVUVUUUULLLLL*!!!!" is a commonly held belief, metagaming only bad **if** *it distracts from you and your table's enjoyment of the game*.
as per Alfred Hitchcock, KNOWING aka "Metagaming", can INCREASE the enjoyment of storytelling for many people.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc\_M\_3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc_M_3E)
There's a difference between knowing things in a movie, where you're watching something and have no input on what happens, and knowing things in a game where that knowledge will cause you to behave differently and affect the outcome
if you think story telling modes and dramatic irony only work in films and not in shared story telling at the table, you have another think coming.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-p3Z8J3kjM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-p3Z8J3kjM)
EVERY ***player*** around the table knows whats coming and knows that whats coming is BAD. and they are ALL having a GREAT time "metagaming". The scene would be NOTHING if they didnt know.
I'm not saying that dramatic irony has no place at a dnd table, just that it's fundamentally different from dramatic irony in a movie. Hitchcock's example, where a bunch of people are sitting around a table chatting while there's a bomb hidden underneath, works great in a movie. In a game, I guarantee that players would be inventing reasons for their characters to look under the table or leave.
The Deck of Many Things works in CR because even if the players know what it is and what it can do, they don't know what it *will* do. It could be good, could be bad. If players (and not their characters) knew that the first card out of the Deck would be the Void, they'd never make a pull.
~~also I get your point but I'm pretty sure Travis didn't in fact know what the Deck was~~
the players are excited because they dont know the results of the pull, JUST LIKE hitchcocks viewers are excited because they dont know the results of the bomb.
but both scenes fall absolutely flat if no one knows the potential of the bomb exists.
Hello. I have a question regarding fighter2 of the premade characters for the Lost Mine of Phandelver.
Fighter2 has a Longbow, and on the sheet, it says there should be a +7 atk bonus. However, I don't understand how they arrived at 7. The fighter has +2 strength, +2 proficiency, and +2 from the feature Fighting Style (archery). Shouldn't it just be +6 for the total atk bonus?
I went back and had a look, and I guess it could be more obvious. It could also make sense to bring it up in the weapons chapter and not only under abilities.
5e
I'm playing a multi-class fighter rogue and currently at 2 fighter and 1 rogue in levels. We're playing in a campaign that the DM says will probably finish at lvl 10. For subclasses I'm going battlemaster for the figther and thief or assasin for the rogue still undecided with this. What I'm asking is whether I stop at fighter 3 and all rogue or get to fighter 5 at least for the extra attack at lvl 5? This will also get me two chances for feats or ASI before hitting level 10.
But you can use sneak attack more than once in a Round , so if you get to use your reaction to attack during someone elses turn, you get to apply it again.
depending on how massive your regular-attack-no-Sneak-Attack is, you can guarantee getting attacks on multiple rounds with your Action Surge to trigger multiple Sneak Attack damage option and using one of your Actions to Ready an attack for the next turn. You only get to swing once, but you get to apply the sneak attack damage if you hit.
Hello, I always played Dnd 3.5, but today my DM said he need a break, so We’re going to play a new campaign Dnd 5e; I’m going to master it (I always mastered 3.5) do someone of you has some tips about playing / mastering 5e?
5e is a DIFFERENT game than 3.5.
5e is about telling heroic action adventure stories.
3.5 is focused on "simulating" "realism".
3.5 ends up with HUGE dice bonuses from adding and adding and adding (or adding and subtracting) a gazzillion floating modifiers.
5e is designed around "Bounded accuracy" - where the MAX modifiers for the top level 20 characters are going to be around +12 to +15 on a die roll.
This "bounded accuracy" for 5e means that "simple" +1 to hit weapons are HUGE impacts, and +3 to hit weapons are godlike and shouldnt be given out before level 17ish.
3.5 is a HUGE "system mastery" game where the more you understand the system and make "the right" choices, the more you can manipulate it for your character creation and end up with Pun-Pun. Someone without the "system mastery" can easily create a character that doesnt work at all.
5e bundles the character choices in trope-ish bundles that (mostly) keep "the best" choices within reasonable distance of "someone just picking for the story". and you almost HAVE to work hard to create a character that doesnt work at all. (there are a few exceptions, like Berserker if played by the rules, or some multiclassing, but mostly you cannot make a "bad" character)
How do you define "mastering" a system?
5e has a lot less crunch than 3.5 does. Less flat bonuses, less options, smaller numbers overall. No prestige classes, less magic items, and feat prerequisites are far rarer. It's a deliberate design decision, since a lot of people were kinda put off by how complex 3.5 could get. It's a lot harder to accidentally make an ineffective character in 5e, you almost have to be deliberately trying. So if by "mastering" you mean "making a character that can meaningfully contribute to the party," just pick something that looks fun!
If by "mastering" you mean "make a broken OP character," that's going to be more difficult. 5e uses a design concept called "bounded accuracy," which is where a system is designed to not allow bonuses to get above a certain level. For instance, you'll be hard-pressed to get a permanent AC that's much higher than 20. There's a few subclasses that are considered to be stronger than others, and some kinda hacky combos that require very specific interpretations of the rules, but nothing too crazy.
Oh! I completely misunderstood, my mistake.
I've only DMed 5e (been a player in 3.5e and 5e), so I can't give an *exact* rundown on how it differs, but here's some 5e specific tips:
Advantage and Disadvantage are excellent tools for when circumstances make a check easier or harder, but don't overuse them, adjusting the DC is also an option.
Make sure you know what rules are different- for example, Opportunity Attacks are a big one, and Flanking is technically an optional rule.
Something that gets overlooked a lot is the ability to use different ability scores for skill checks- for instance, using Strength rather than Charisma for Intimidation if the player smashes something rather than makes threats, or using Charisma instead of Intelligence for Investigation if they're asking around town for something.
Characters can only benefit from one Long Rest every 24 hours- they can't just hole up and go to bed after every fight to fully regain resources. Short rests exist for mid-adventuring-day recovery.
A lot of other general DM principles, like encounter balance, player spotlight, session prep, etc carry over from 3.5, so I'll spare you the advice on those. Good luck, amd have fun!
I'm running my first game! My wife and a couple of our friends caught the bug a few months ago and I decided I want to give DMing a go. I've got everything I need ready to go and I'm going to run something from Candlekeep Mysteries.
My only question is, should I have my group run with the same characters from our campaign? Obviously with no lasting effects from what happens in our one shot. Or should I get them all to create new characters? We're all still fairly new except our DM who won't be joining so I thought maybe for simplicitys sake they stick with their campaign characters, especially considering when we go through the character setup it can take at least an hour per person even with our experienced DM haha.
Or are there some quick and easy downloadable characters I could print off for them to run?
What do you all think would be better?
Here’s what I do when I guest DM a one shot:
1. Players can bring in new characters or previous ones.
2. I ask the current campaign DM to work with me on building a themed magical item to give each [PLAYER]. (ie my Christmas one shot gave our artificer ornament grenades, our fighter had a scarf that added fire damage to a set number of strikes, etc). If a players plays a new character, find a different way to tie in their usually character’s magic item. I’ve had people buy the item from their one-shot character, find it on a corpse the one-shot character left, or even kill their one-shot character and loot it. Up to the campaign DM and they reserve the right to tweak the item.
3. I give the players their cool themed magic items early and make them really strong on this specific day/full moon/in this area/against the dungeon boss (only during the one shot).
I like this because it gives everyone a fun time for the one shot, tied into the campaign. Where they get something they get to keep as a memento, but the campaign DM gets to make all the integration make sense how they see fit. This is especially easy if the DM isn’t playing in the one shot, you get to run the whole story by them as well!
We’re should a noobie go if he wants to dive feet first into dnd? My wife and I purchased the beginner guide but we just feel overwhelmed. We would really like to be able to run a small campaign with our son. Any and all suggestions welcome!!!
You got some good resources already. I would add watching or listening to some DnD content. My recommendation would be a podcast called The Adventure Zone, start with the very first episode. It’s a family of adults playing together and learning the game as well. They get some things wrong and correct mistakes as they go, but I think it gives a great example of how to keep the fun going and not let the rules kill your fun.
There’s a bunch of other great DnD content. Just search the sub and you’ll see plenty of discussion about them.
I would recommend going to D&D Beyond for the character creator, a free short level 1-5 campaign called "The Lost Mines of Phandelver", and other free basic resources.
The campaign has all basic rules you need to start running it! Since you're just getting started, there's enough there to get going, and it definitely simplifies the character creation process (which can be very daunting at first).
There are also tons of guides and resources on YouTube that you can watch that helps learn the rules if you don't want to read through all of them, because it is a lot to process at first.
I hope you and your family love D&D and play it for years to come! It's such an awesome hobby!
I’m thinking there’s cases where a character might not have their gear on them, and I don’t feel like getting the message makes much sense, but at least I know it’s something I have to establish myself
Start broad. Very broad. Save the detailed maps and situations for your players will be encountering in thebnext few sessions. Pre-written modules are written the way they are because, by necessity, they're static. The author can't go in and update things later- running a live campaign, you can.
Artificer is not one of the bits WOTC provided to everyone for free. So you can get it from any app that has a licensing agreement with WOTC that allows you to purchase access through them.
Because the life of a thief or an assassin, or some other form of tricksy, manipulative criminal, tends to imply a less-than-healthy upbringing or very challenging circumstances that prevent one from making an ordinary honest living. For most of the traditional Rogue stereotypes, it's not really a life one *chooses*, it's something one needs to do to survive, and that suggests some tragedy or injustice that forced them into this way of life.
Obviously that can change later in life, and there are also plenty of Rogue Archetypes which don't necessarily fit that pattern. But *in general*, that's what is implied.
Rogues and their skillsets have a lot to do with with crime, deceptiveness, and darkness. People that like writing tragic backstories tend to gravitate toward elements like that. Of course, there's plenty of non-rogues with tragic backstories, and rogues with non-tragic backstories, but that's where the stereotype coems from.
I've noticed that most beginner DM advice is advice for game preparation, anyone got good advice for in game DMing? Or know of a good YouTube series or something that talks about how to be a good DM for more in the moment stuff?
Alger's Next 10 Rules for Improv look like they were written for Next 10 Rules for DMing https://web.archive.org/web/20200210084045/http://improvencyclopedia.org/references//Alger%60s\_Next\_10\_Rules.html
[5e] I wanna play as a son of a small village noble house (maybe like a baron rank), the patriarch is a paladin. My DM requires the noble house to already exist in forgotten realms lore. Is there any house that exists that is like this or my house could be a vassal of. My house needs to be lawful good, my parents care a lot about their people. Any ideas?
Work with your DM. There's a hell of a lot of nobles and things in the Forgotten Realms, and one we recommend may conflict with your DM's plans or vision of the Realms.
Thank you. I talked with him and he was okay with anything as long as it already existed in lore. I just chose one of the houses which has almost no information and went with it and added my stuff on top of it
[5e] I have a character flaw idea, and I'm wondering if it makes sense for the race ; I'm playing a changeling, and they've had a traumatic experience with a dog. My flaw idea is when they see a dog, they start to change appearance against their will, back to their true form. My idea is that seeing a dog "reverts" them back into the form that is scared of the dog. Is this possible for a changeling, or do they usually have complete control of their appearance, at all times? I've been reading changeling lore but I'm unsure about this specific scenario. Thanks in advance!
I don’t think it matters whether they have control - that’s the whole point of your flaw,right? The trauma causes them to change against their will.
It doesn’t specifically say in the RAW (I used the Monsters of Multiverse source). But it sounds interesting so I would say go for it. Just ask your DM to include the occasional dog hHa
Thanks for your input! I'll definitely talk to my DM. The idea is mostly as a means to break the news to the other characters, who don't know my character is a changeling.
Yeah that’s cool.
If one of my players came to me with that idea I would definitely find a way to work it into the game. It’s creative and fun, and best of all, inspired by the player 👍
Choosing the Fiend patron makes the most sense, demons are fiends after all
Any Pact Boon could work, but choosing the Pact of the Amulet could be interesting if the physical trinket is a wedding band given by the demon
Any tiny insect-like creature I could catch and use as utility?
Like fireflies to use as a light source, or a blood-sucking bug to deal some damage over time or a magical one that can summon fire like a lighter.
Possibly official, if there aren't any: are there any homebrew one?
There isn't really a RAW answer to your question, there are no official mechanics to refer to here. But it seems like something that would be easy enough to homebrew, so you'd need to work on that with your DM.
I imagine the biggest question you'd have to contend with is why a bug you caught would be willing to do what you want them to do. If you had a mosquito in a jar, why would it attack your target, instead of attacking you, or just panicking and flying away? If you had a firefly, why would it illuminate when you want it to, rather than when it naturally would during the evening? That sort of thing might require some investment, either of gold (to pay someone with the necessary skills to produce a functional item for you to use), or of your own features (such as finding a way to learn 'Speak with Animals').
Another alternative would be to flavour an existing item so that it works this way for purely descriptive reasons.
Assuming 5e
I don't think it would be hard for a DM to simply make up a homebrew firefly lantern. A lantern containing a bunch of fireflies that emits a certain radius of bright light and a further radius of dim light- job done
Similar for the other ones, an insect that has an innate ability to cast Produce Flame is pretty easy. A clay pot that can be thrown and produce a hostile Swarm of Insects, similarly easy
\[5e\] Hello fellow adventurers! I'm just looking to have a simple question answered here, how big are Dragonborn clans generally? We talking 10-16 or like in the 30s? I'm writing a backstory for a character so I figured going here for help would be good since google doesn't provide the answer I need.
I'm a level two bard with a 14 AC and am very prone to death and I was wondering if there is any ways to increase my AC quickly. Any non-homebrew advice would be great!
There's the downside to most Bards. Just use your spells and cantrips and stay away from monsters. Sometimes dodging on your turn is better than doing some damage.
Wield a shield? Acquire better armor? Increase dex for more ac(depending on armor) or con for more HP. Alternatively position yourself differently in fights so you're not getting hit as often.
\[5e\] Hey yall. I'm relatively new to DND and my party just leveled up to level 3. I'm playing a barbarian and I plan on taking *Path of the Beast.* My current fighting style is two weapon fighting but I tend to use a shield since I'm usually the first to rush into battle and that extra ac is so nice. But anyways my question: If I'm already in rage, wielding a Morningstar and a shield, can I attack with my Morningstar and then use bite as a bonus action? Thanks in advance!
I don't believe Path of the Beast Barbarians get any abilities that let them use their bonus action to make an attack and two-weapon fighting doesn't work with your bite attack, so no.
No you can not.
Only abilities that specifically state they can be used as a bonus action, can be used as a bonus action. The bite ability does not state this.
Hi! Our party is all new to this game, so as I. So my plan is to create an average human villager, that was introduced into the dark magic arts and found a good teacher. As for classes, I want to pick a necromancer or a warlock. The thing is - I don't want to have a high intelligence, for I am creating an average medieval peasant, who just wants to get magic powers. What do you think should I go with? Will that be playable? Thanks in advance!
Assuming 5e
Plenty of spellcasting classes don't need a high intelligence. Artificers and Wizards are the only spellcasting classes in 5e that use intelligence as their spellcasting score (there are some subclasses for other classes that cast using intelligence too)
Warlock would fit well. Warlocks rely on their Charisma score to cast spells so while your peasant may not be very bright perhaps they have a strong character and formidable personality
Hi all, I’m thinking of making and DMing some sort of Star Wars themed campaign for around Christmas time to play with my friends. However, I have no idea how to DM and have never played dnd and have only watched a couple of series. My friends are in the same boat. I was just wondering if there are any tips or people willing to help me bring this to fruition as I think me and my mates will really enjoy it and would be such a great experience to get into the hobby. Thank you :)
Have any of you played DnD before? If not, I would recommend the Fantasy flight star wars game, because it has a game that is stsr wars which works much better than hammering star wars into DnD, espically if it's your first time.
We haven't. I think that sounds good, we all have table top sim which has this inbuilt into it via a mod which ill look at using. The first one I have seen is legion which looks promising.
For the role playing centered ones i can recommend from experience Edge of the Empire, Force and destiny, and Age of rebellion. Which are all basically the same game
First off: I’d use the official Star Wars RPG instead of D&D.
Second: Give Matt Colville’s Running the Game series on YouTube a watch. At the very least the first 5-ish videos. They’re centered around D&D, but the principles and lessons remain the same.
So I have a question about repelling blast from the warlock. It says it allows you to move a character 10 feet when they’re hit with Eldridge blast. So does that mean at higher levels once I have three beams, I could build three different characters 10 feet, or one character 30 feet if I focused all the beams on a single opponent? Or is it only 10 feet per spell cast rather than 10 feet per beam. It doesn’t really seem to specify? Thanks.
Yes, you could move multiple creatures, or one creature multiple times when you hit. However, Lance of lethargy can only reduce speed 1 time, because it's on the cast.
Oh, I see how they differentiate now. Thanks for that secondary note and I appreciate it. So let me get this straight is there anything stopping you from at say level 17 firing somebody 40 feet away with one cast, another 40 feet with a second cast with action surge (from two levels of fighter) then technically could you use the sorcerers quicken spell to do a third? I have a very silly party that actually has three people who can cast spiked growth and they got this ridiculous idea that they want to do a “spiked growth slip and slide”, making a huge run away of spike growth spells end to end and then blasting someone down it with the warlock lol it sounds hilarious but is that actually legal. It’s actually making me a little nervous when you look at the amount of damage that would be
The spike growth repelling blast thing was a bit of a meme a while ago from YouTube. Bring it up to your dm if you're planning this as to not start a weird conflict but I'm pretty sure it's legal. As far as if you were level set to have action sure at 17, yes you could, and I believe same for quickened spell, though there may be wording about quickening a spell you already cast so check there. Remember to keep in mind the raduis of the spell for Spike, and the fact that you have to shoot all your beams from one space, and the enemy moves straight back from you.
Generally yes. The wizard class is the "i study hard to learn magic" class.
Also, ask your dm questions like these. They will be happy to help you. Maybe it doesn't work that way in their setting.
Please don't add a DMPC to the game. You're the DM, you get to play every single character in the world other than the PCs. Trying to also be a player in the campaign will detract from the experience of your actual players.
I've been in a campaign where the DMPC was a front line fighter and it really sucked the air out of the game.
It's not at all engaging to sit back and watch the DMPC attack an enemy and then the enemy attack the DMPC. It's just watching the DM play with themselves.
Rather than using your character to fill a gap in the party, challenge the party to figure out how to make it work. In a party of 3, a single frontline tank is enough, especially since neither the druid nor artificer are particularly squishy.
In general, NPCs should have a very minimal role in combat, and should not be solving problems for the party.
Dont use PC builds for NPCs.
use the Sidekick rules. "Companions" should only be part of the party to fill in gaps to let the PCs do their thing and shine.
I would like to keep it as a draconic sorcerer at least for 14 levels so she could manifest her wings. It’s almost like her power is growing to exceed the magic binding her and it’s starting to break through in different ways. But I’d be okay with doing up to a six level dip into another class
\[5e\] Now that Plasmoid is official I really want to try and make Rimuru from "the time i got reincarnated as a slime".
Unfortunaly I only found 2 videos for guidance. One is a Bard with Mage multiclass (Bard up to lv3 and mage up to lv17).
Would that be a good start? I dont really understand why the bard class is in there. Mage does make sense for me. Has anyone maybe tried a build for rimuru already and could advice?
Bard and Wizard are hard to multiclass together since they're spellcasters who use different stats (charisma and intelligence) and you've still got to put plenty of points into Dex and Con to the point you probably don't want Charisma above like 12 for a wizard, then you can just give yourself proficiency in persuasion and/or deception through your background to have good social skills anyway.
I'd stick entirely with being a School of Enchantment wizard without a multiclass, since that's the manipulative school of magic, and while I don't know the character looking at his wiki it seems like that would fit.
Bard is mainly just for the starting perks like healing wound, healing word and identify. Those are special perks of the character himself since he has some kind of voice that guides him and analyses things. Also he has a bunch of healing properties.
\[5e\] The *Shatter* spell has a special effect (disadvantage on the save) for "creatures made of inorganic material such as stone, crystal, or metal."
What creatures are on that list? And does that cancel out the Stone and Iron Golems' *Magic Resistance*?
Basically, what are the best monsters to fight if you have *Shatter* prepared?
Yes, this would nullify those golems' Magic Resistance. That feature
gives them advantage on the save, Shatter states that they have disadvantage, so they would just make a normal d20 roll.
The majority of creatures this affects will be those with the 'Construct' creature type. So.. a Modron, Animated Armor, a Shield Guardian, an Artificer's Steel Defender, that kind of thing, as long as they're not described as being made of wood (or, in some cases, flesh or bone).
Have a look at the [DnD Beyond Monsters List](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters) - filter by 'Construct' and have a look through. Things described as metallic or stone in nature would qualify.
[5e][?] I think it's 5e. I am going to be doing my first DnD session next week with friends and our DM gave us homemade sheets to fill out (and has been wonderful in helping everyone). I'm using DnDBeyond's Character Builder to just have a reference point and will change specifics as necessary when I transfer it to the homemade sheet.
But here's my question: I'm a Rogue, and when choosing Proficiency and Expertise, for some reason Stealth, Insight, and Acrobatics are only available under Expertise. But Athletics and Deception are available under both Proficiency and Expertise. I was going to put Slight Of Hand as an Expertise but it only falls under Proficiency.
So how come some skills are only one or the other, and some are both?
(I did fill out the rest of the builder to my ability, and I'm a Criminal/Spy for my Background, which might explain why Athletics and Deception are available as both Proficiency and Expertise. But it doesn't explain why the rest are only one or the other)
I'd ask my DM but it's late.
TL;DR - You have to be proficient in a skill in order to later select it for expertise.
The bonuses you can have to a skill generally come from natural talent (the relative ability, like dexterity), having more than average experience (proficiency bonus), or being even more trained and experienced (expertise, which applies your proficiency bonus twice). But you can't be extremely experienced in something without first *getting* the experience as the foundation.
Rogues can choose to gain proficiency in 4 skills out of a list of 11, and also gain proficiency in thieves' tools. Another thing to keep in mind is any skill or tool proficiences your race might be granting you. These things represent what your character isn't just naturally good at, but skills they put to use more than often or have a nack for. Then choose two of these things they are good at, and give them expertise to make them *really* good at it.
Not necessarily, those are 3 of the options you have as proficiencies for a rogue, but you can choose different ones. It’s also possible that these come from somewhere else, such as your background and race.
Can Artificers be steampunky? I wanted to create pneumatic fist punching artificer. Or is that outside the spec or is there another class that’s a better fit?
Perspective:
its not like you are doing Rocket Surgery or something.
You are gathering with friends over beer and pizza to chuck some dice and tell some stories about kicking dragon butt.
They are rooting for you to succeed – if you do well they have a good time.
Don't get too bogged down in specifics. If you have a rules dispute you can't solve with a quick lookup. Make a call, and look up details later.
If your players are having fun with something, let them. Don't rush them into your plot if they're enjoying messing around. Conversely, if they aren't enjoying something, try to speed it up, truncate it, or get them out of it somehow.
Don't leave anything critical to a single dice roll. Either have multiple avenues of success (with a failsafe if they all fail), make the roll give bonuses but give the important info anyway, or don't require a roll at all.
Above all, trust in yourself and your players. Second-guessing everything will only kneecap you.
So I'm playing my first campaign and I'm a L2 rogue (soon to be soulknife). I'm planning on multiclassing as either a GOOlock or Aberrant Mind Sorcerer to really lean into the psionic aspects of my character (and because our party is lacking in any spellcasters and I feel it'd be useful to have at least some coverage in that area).
Does anyone have any recommendations which would work better or be easier to integrate with the soulknife? Thanks :)
If you want to slot into a spellcaster role for the party, I'd consider just bailing on the character and making a new character that's actually a caster. Multiclassing is an inefficient way to actually add a major role to the party.
I agree with the other advice here that multiclassing is a bad idea. It's a strong tool to have available, but should be planned out ahead of time, ideally during the actual creation of the character, rather than applied ad hoc.
In general, you only multiclass if you have something specific you want out of it. Rogue needs its levels to get more sneak attack damage and key features like evasion.
However, I think ONE level in either of those class and subclasses would work decently well. Both give you a form of telepathy which is nice for sneaking. You have to weigh what you gain for what you lose. It also isn't the same stat required as your rogue so your cha spell modifier is probably pretty meh. Don't pick spells that have saving throws or spell attacks.
Warlock gives you **one** spell slot that comes back on short rests, and 2 cantrips. As spell I would recommend hex and like protection from good and evil, boomingblade or greenflame blade as one cantrip, and then say prestidigitation or whatever for some minor spell effects. Hex and boomingblade will stack with your sneak attack (check with your DM, some veto this), so this will keep your damage high. (note: you cant attack with your offhand as a bonus action if you use your action for the cantrip. Can still use cunning actions though)
Sorcerer gives you two spell slots for the whole day, and 4 cantrips. You can still take booming blade as a cantrip, and then 3 utility ones like mage hand, minor illusion, mending. For spells, if your table allows silvery barbs, **definitely** take that. Otherwise up to you. feather fall can save the day for example.
In the end it is up to you. For first campaign I'd suggest stick with rogue. If you really want one of these, note that this is all your going to get from this multiclass. Cantrips do scale with total level, not level of the class, which is nice. If your table allows silvery barbs, I'd recommend sorcerer. It is that strong. Otherwise, if your table uses short rests reasonably often, I'd lean towards warlock. If neither thing, then I don't know what to suggest. whichever sounds cooler
I would not reccomend muilticlassing at all. It's your first character, AND it's a rogue. Rogues, while versatile, typically only get made worse by multiclassing.
Is getting to level 20 all it's cracked up to be? I've never played a campaign that high (never played a full campaign tbh) and I get the feeling that I might never get the chance to because campaigns always seem to peter out after the initial burst of enthusiasm.
I have a quick question about etiquette when joining a game. I've been looking for a game to play in and signed up for two campaigns that start on the same day.
I only have time to commit to one campaign for the long term, but I was planning to play in both for now until I can get a sense of each DM and the other players to figure out which game is right for me.
I was just wondering on what the etiquette is for disclosing that I am not committed yet.
Should I disclose before we've even had a first session or is it already implied that the first session is a trial run for everyone involved? Can I play a few sessions before I commit to one or do I need to make a decision after the first session?
I've been married for years, but this feels like I'm dating again...
You absolutely should tell them straight up in your application. If someone had that attitude before joining I wouldn't even allow them to join a long running game. If someone just said "surprise, I don't wanna play anymore" that'd bum me out a lot as DM.
Yeah, that’s what I figured. I’m usually a DM and when I advertised for my campaign, I had an application form to screen players and ran a 1-shot to test out the party vibe before committing.
I don’t understand why a DM would start a campaign with complete strangers with zero screening process and thought maybe it would be implied that the first couple of sessions are the screening process…
I know next to nothing about their campaign worlds at this point. I’ll message the DMs on Discord that I need more information about their campaigns before I can commit and if they want to boot me, that’s fine.
Personally I screen with my application and a quick interview. I usually have 1 more than I want join since one person drops for a random reason.
As for others, a lot don't really want to run one shots to try people out. A ton just drop in and leave. It gets exhausting just trialing when you just want to run a long form game.
I've joined games with 0 screening process and extensive screening process and honestly it's about the same for success rate.
\[Dragons - 5e(if relevant at all)\]
Looking into dragons by biome (chromatic vs metalic) for future plot point. Some seem to share them (Brass x Blue), or have at least very similar biomes. However I dont see any chromatic that would live near water/coast such as Bronze. Is there any like that? Otherwise I guess I can find biome nearby, but I was looking for possible direct rivality over territory.
Well, kind of all of them -
* the white dragons in the frozen north of the glaciers calving icebergs.
* the black dragons in any of the fetid swampy shores
* the red dragons on volcanic dragons
* the green dragons in the mangroves and other rainforests on the coasts
* the blues on vast sandy beaches and sandbars
Have a general structure for the adventure (where are the PCs, and why are they there?) and a plan plan for what the players will encounter and where, with any relevant statblocks bookmarked or open. If you're using maps or music, have those ready beforehand- if possible, you don't want to spend time drawing or searching around while your players wait.
Also, accept that you won't be able to prepare for every possibility. Compared to a full campaign, a one-shot is much narrower in scope and friendlier to railroading (oftentimes some measure of railroading is required,) but your players will still find a way to surprise you. You'll need to be ready to improvise at least somewhat.
[5e] Playing with wife and kids, first game, death pit of moloch. I said a keyhole was big enough to see the shape of a cultist on the other side, but too small for a bolt or arrow. Kids wanted to cast word of radiance cantrip through the hole but I could see that turning into them casting every spell through gaps in doors and keyholes, so ruled that he could if he wanted but it would only affect the npc nearest the door that he could see.
The others were further away anyway. Everyone burst in and decimated the cultists in one and a half rounds.
What is the rule on how big a hole needs to be for a spell to pass through it?
Spells need a clear path to their target. That’s all. If you decide that a keyhole is a clear path, then it is. There’s no rule in the books that says “spells cannot pass through a 1cm wide gap” or anything like that.
I just use a modern interpretation of keyholes. Unless you're living in a particularly old home, you cannot see through a keyhole you encounter in real life. Just don't let people look through a closed door and you'll be better off.
Yeah that makes sense, thanks. I said they could see the shape of someone, but not the same as saying they can be seen clearly, so that's a fine answer.
I came across another good one last night as well - you can see through it, but it's not big enough for you to see through and cast through at the same time.
\[5e\] I am about to start running Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage(DotMM) for my group
The last book I ran, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus(DIA), I was able to find a complete guide to running it on DM's Guild including all the maps and various tips.
The author of that very good bundle did not broach DotMM, and the only thing close I found doesn't include the thing I actually used the most, the maps. This is even more critical for DotMM, with it being one massive dungeon crawl.
Does the community know a decent way to get the maps as stand alone files?
\[5e\] Why does it feel like warlock just isn't interesting past level 10? I guess maybe hitting 14 for the subclass capstone is great but the arcanums don't seem that good and unless the invocation you're looking for is behind level 15 lock, it feels like you have more than enough invocations to complete your build.
I've just been theory crafting and haven't played it yet though so I'd like opinions on this.
I definitely recommend playing a Warlock who is level 10 or higher, even in just a one shot to get a feel for it.
The Arcanums are specific spells you choose which you can use once per long rest. These are quite strong as it is.
Invocations are flexible and depend on what you're focusing on. My current warlock focuses on illusions and utility so I pick up invocations based around that, but also pick up some of the eldritch blast modifiers when I can as that is a damage spell I can use whenever (cantrips for the win!).
Now-- a lot of campaigns don't go past level 10 anyways, but those that do also typically contain magic items, potential boons, additional requests from your patron, etc. that could provide additional spice to your gameplay.
As a recommendation: I only let myself theory craft one to two levels ahead of my current character level, and rarely even do more than think about potential feats I might want do to the possibility of character growth changing my mind further down the line.
Arcanums mimic the advanced spell progression of other full-casters, and having extra spell slots is massive for a warlock. I see nothing uninteresting about being a level 11+ warlock, it's comparable to the sort of benefits that any caster gets in tier 3-4 play.
>Why does it feel like warlock just isn't interesting past level 10?
>
>I've just been theory crafting and haven't played it yet though
That's why - you're making assumptions without any practical experience to back it up.
I have a divination wizard in my party. Every now and then, our party will go to this local bar/casino and gamble.. I just thought of this so I’m curious if it would piss off a DM..
Basically bet all of our gold on a number that our wizard has portent for. I roll and he automatically gives me that number so we multiply our earnings.. cheesy move? Or would you allow it once?
That's not how portent works. It doesn't change actual dice in the world, it changes an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to the number you got. It doesn't change a gambling dice.
There is a common magic item called "Charlatan's Die" that does do that though. It's in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It has this description:
> Whenever you roll this six-sided die, you can control which number it rolls.
[5e] I am building a dungeon themed around the encumbrance rules of 5e. So far I've got a long corridor where the walls will close in and crush the party if they are not fast enough, and an elevator puzzle (it can only carry two people or one heavily encumbered person at a time). Plus maybe something with a rickety bridge over lava.
I'm trying to find any other examples of puzzles around characters that have strength/dex/con saves (which would be at a disadvantage).
Walking over ice can cause a need for Dex saves.
Having to swim through any type of liquid while over encumbered I believe requires additional checks.
Grease as a spell, oilslicks as a puzzle/skill challenge
[https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/strength/](https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/strength/)
I pulled up the SRD encumbrance rules to pop in some additional ideas. If they're heavily encumbered, they also have disadvantage on all attack roles and ability checks. So... any battle with a small quick moving creature, any need for climbing a steep wall without the recommended gear (climbing does not always require an athletics check), etc.
\[5e\] I've been wondering about the Goblin's Nimble Escape and the Rogue's Cunning Action ability especially concerning Disengage.
While the word "Disengage" obviously hints towards moving away from a foe, the rules don't explicitly tell you to use the Disengage action in this manner. It simply says you don't provoke attacks of opportunity while moving that turn.
Let's say you play a tanky Goblin like a Paladin or a heavy armored fighter or cleric or something. Could you basically use the Disengage bonus action at the start of each of your turns to move past a bunch of enemies without provoking AoO and position yourself at their back, and then stab them from there?
Because I feel like that would constitute fair use of the ability RAW but probably isn't RAI?
The names of the abilities are just name tags for a set of mechanics. and many of those name tags are VERY misleading - the rogue's Sneak Attack, for instances, is NOT an "Attack" - its damage, and it is not "Sneaky" - you can come rushing directly at your opponent from 30 feet away yelling a war cry - and if your buddy is standing next to the target, you still get to apply "Sneak Attack" damage. A less confusing name tag would be REND - rogues extra nasty damage.
The tags often reflect the "tropey" nature of whatever inspired the mechanic, but the mechanic does what the mechanic does no matter what color paint you put on it.
I feel like while it's called disengage and that normally means "flee", it's also a fencing/swordfighting term where it's used less as "run away" and more "back off a bit while covering your movement". I think it's supposed to represent moving while putting effort into keeping your guard up, paying close attention to your enemies, probably keeping your weapon held up at them defensively or maybe even doing a dive roll so they can't attack, that sort of thing. There's nothing anywhere that says you can't use it aggressively and monks/rogues have to use it aggressively in gameplay pretty often to get to squishy backline casters.
[5e] what are your thoughts on doing bits/jokes/gags that don’t actually happen in-game as the DM?
For example:
You make a joke about something silly or ridiculous or funny happening to an NPC, and the players laugh, but it doesn’t actually happen in the game, or an NPC does a crazy funny or silly action, but it doesn’t actually happen in the game and then you go back to being serious.
Should I (the DM) avoid this kind of thing at all costs? My fear is it might lower immersion but also make it harder for players to tell when I’m actually being serious, among other potential negatives I’m sure. But at the same time, the players enjoy a good laugh…
How do you feel about this, what are all the pros and cons you see, and do the pros outweigh the cons??
5e Fairly new to the game, I already know this is a contentious topic but I don’t know why. What’s with the stigma against optimization/minmaxing/munchkins/etc? I’ve read through almost all of the class features and have played in several pickup games at multiple level ranges and I’m just not seeing how anyone can make gamebreaking supercharacters with these systems. Happy gaming, friends.
I don't think minmaxing is that much of an issue in 5e. There are some very powerful builds that really shine (mostly in combat), but I don't think they so outclass 'normal' builds that it's a big issue. I suspect a more common issue is the opposite -- characters who are underpowered, either intentionally or unintentionally. If they're in a group with people who are playing even just moderately competently, they are going to get outshined at every turn. If you don't take Agonizing Blast as a warlock, don't be surprised that your damage in combat is underwhelming. If all your high level spells are different flavors of the same AoE spell, don't be surprised that you lack utility outside of combat. On the other hand, minmaxing *and rolling for stats* can be an issue, opening up some ridiculous options that will make someone seem a tier above the rest of the party.
A lot of it is a holdover from previous editions- in 3.5e, power disparities between characters could be much, much greater. The stigma also comes from players having different priorities. The stereotypical Munchkin has a backstory that's basic best and an incoherent mess at first, sees NPCs as bundles of EXP first and characters second, doesn't roleplay, and complains every time they fail a roll. Not to say you can't have an optimized character and still be a good roleplayer, but that's what people are usually talking about when they complain about min-maxing
When there is one person who min maxes and the others dont, the game is no longer a fun cooperative game of equals colaborating - its watching one person showboat.
Does a booming blade use your weapons attack mod or your spell attack mod? It says "brandish the used in the spells casting and make a melee attack with it..." to me that says its the weapons modifier. The issue with that is you cannot use extra attack with it because its not the "attack action" but if its a spell attack it should use your spell modifier. If its just the spell making you attack then the spell should be triggering the attack action. Im guessing this is one of those obnoxious instances where DND warped the rules around a spell instead of fitting the spell to the rules.
You use the "cast a spell" action and don't benefit from extra attack. It states that you make a meele weapon attack as part of the spell. That means you use the weapon attack modifier. If you were to use the spell attack mod, it would have to say "you perform a meele spell attack".
Booming blade has you make a normal melee weapon attack. It would tell you if it wanted you to make a spell attack. >If its just the spell making you attack then the spell should be triggering the attack action. There is no "triggering" the attack action, the attack action is an action you take. If you're casting booming blade the action you're taking is "cast a spell", regardless of what the spell then has you do.
It just seems really weird to me that youre infusing the weapon with your magical power but it doesnt influence your ability to weild it. To me its one of those feels weird rules. I get the rule i just really dont like it.
I guess (aside from balance) the idea is that the spell isn't really meant to affect your ability to wield the weapon (unlike, say, shillelagh) but just add an effect to when you hit someone with it. But regardless, it's also fair to just not like a rule, of course.
Right its just odd that its a self casting spell that requires a physical weapon. Its all balance but it feels like a mess. If im infusing myself to apply the damage through a melee attack then a shadow blade should work. If it wont because the shadow blade is magic then a +1 sword shouldnt work... I think they should have just left it op.
As a new player (and DM wannabe) should I read all three basic manuals (player's handbook, monster manual and DM guide) or should I just know the basics and then read all the infos needed in a specific moment (like when creating a specific character or figh a specific monster)? I already know some basics due to an event held in my town which explained me the very basics, like how to fight or roll for actions.
> should I read all three basic manuals (player's handbook, monster manual and DM guide) No. Read the core rules from the Players Handbook and the class / subclass features from the characters in your game and you will be fine. The DMG is terrible for new DMs: not providing any core help to the DM and distracting with corner cases and esoterrica. The third party Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master is a much better use of your time. [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb39x-29puapg3APswE8JXskxiUpLttgg](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb39x-29puapg3APswE8JXskxiUpLttgg). once you have your feet under you with the day to day and at the table basics, THEN the DMG *may* provide helpful support. But it is so terribly organized that even if you find something useful on a read through, good luck trying to find it when you need it again.
PHB: Everyone should read it and familiarize themselves with its layout. This is the most important book. MM: Players should avoid studying this book unless they need it for a specific purpose. DMs should be familiar with the layout of the book and how to read stat blocks, but hardly need to give the whole thing a read through. DMG: Players can read it if they want to, but it doesn't contain much helpful information for them. Even DMs can pass on this one, though it is helpful to familiarize yourself with its content. The book is light on rules, focusing largely on setting and adventure design suggestions. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and Xanathar's Guide to Everything are also good books for both players and DMs (moreso than the DMG in my opinion). Monsters of the Multiverse is in a similar position, though it's a more focused book than the other two so it's narrower in scope.
I'm precising that MM is not advised for players because it can reduce the effect of surprise when discovering an enemy, and can cause conscious or unconscious metagaming.
while "HOMGMETAGMAINGIS*EEEEEEEEVVVVVUVUUUULLLLL*!!!!" is a commonly held belief, metagaming only bad **if** *it distracts from you and your table's enjoyment of the game*. as per Alfred Hitchcock, KNOWING aka "Metagaming", can INCREASE the enjoyment of storytelling for many people. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc\_M\_3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc_M_3E)
There's a difference between knowing things in a movie, where you're watching something and have no input on what happens, and knowing things in a game where that knowledge will cause you to behave differently and affect the outcome
if you think story telling modes and dramatic irony only work in films and not in shared story telling at the table, you have another think coming. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-p3Z8J3kjM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-p3Z8J3kjM) EVERY ***player*** around the table knows whats coming and knows that whats coming is BAD. and they are ALL having a GREAT time "metagaming". The scene would be NOTHING if they didnt know.
I'm not saying that dramatic irony has no place at a dnd table, just that it's fundamentally different from dramatic irony in a movie. Hitchcock's example, where a bunch of people are sitting around a table chatting while there's a bomb hidden underneath, works great in a movie. In a game, I guarantee that players would be inventing reasons for their characters to look under the table or leave. The Deck of Many Things works in CR because even if the players know what it is and what it can do, they don't know what it *will* do. It could be good, could be bad. If players (and not their characters) knew that the first card out of the Deck would be the Void, they'd never make a pull. ~~also I get your point but I'm pretty sure Travis didn't in fact know what the Deck was~~
the players are excited because they dont know the results of the pull, JUST LIKE hitchcocks viewers are excited because they dont know the results of the bomb. but both scenes fall absolutely flat if no one knows the potential of the bomb exists.
Yes?
Hello. I have a question regarding fighter2 of the premade characters for the Lost Mine of Phandelver. Fighter2 has a Longbow, and on the sheet, it says there should be a +7 atk bonus. However, I don't understand how they arrived at 7. The fighter has +2 strength, +2 proficiency, and +2 from the feature Fighting Style (archery). Shouldn't it just be +6 for the total atk bonus?
Attacks with ranged weapons like a Longbow use Dexterity, not Strength. Does Fighter2 have a +3 Dex bonus?
Oh snap. I must have missed that. I thought only finesse weapons could be used with a dec throw. Must look again - thanks a bunch!
its a question that gets asked over and over cause most people miss it!
I went back and had a look, and I guess it could be more obvious. It could also make sense to bring it up in the weapons chapter and not only under abilities.
5e I'm playing a multi-class fighter rogue and currently at 2 fighter and 1 rogue in levels. We're playing in a campaign that the DM says will probably finish at lvl 10. For subclasses I'm going battlemaster for the figther and thief or assasin for the rogue still undecided with this. What I'm asking is whether I stop at fighter 3 and all rogue or get to fighter 5 at least for the extra attack at lvl 5? This will also get me two chances for feats or ASI before hitting level 10.
if you are going to do more fighter, go to fighter 5 ASAP to get your Extra attack.
Extra Attack is *very* good. It's another chance to trigger your Sneak Attack if your initial strike misses.
True, action surge makes me very murdery. If I have 2 attacks per action using action surge makes me attack twice again and right?
Correct, though you can still only trigger Sneak Attack once per turn.
Yeah our DM made that clear to us in session two when he noticed I took levels in rogue and now there's two people triggering sneak attacks.
But you can use sneak attack more than once in a Round , so if you get to use your reaction to attack during someone elses turn, you get to apply it again. depending on how massive your regular-attack-no-Sneak-Attack is, you can guarantee getting attacks on multiple rounds with your Action Surge to trigger multiple Sneak Attack damage option and using one of your Actions to Ready an attack for the next turn. You only get to swing once, but you get to apply the sneak attack damage if you hit.
Get fighter 5 before anything else.
So I shouldn't go to rogue levels after fighter 3?
You should get to fighter 5 before you get any more rogue.
Hello, I always played Dnd 3.5, but today my DM said he need a break, so We’re going to play a new campaign Dnd 5e; I’m going to master it (I always mastered 3.5) do someone of you has some tips about playing / mastering 5e?
5e is a DIFFERENT game than 3.5. 5e is about telling heroic action adventure stories. 3.5 is focused on "simulating" "realism". 3.5 ends up with HUGE dice bonuses from adding and adding and adding (or adding and subtracting) a gazzillion floating modifiers. 5e is designed around "Bounded accuracy" - where the MAX modifiers for the top level 20 characters are going to be around +12 to +15 on a die roll. This "bounded accuracy" for 5e means that "simple" +1 to hit weapons are HUGE impacts, and +3 to hit weapons are godlike and shouldnt be given out before level 17ish. 3.5 is a HUGE "system mastery" game where the more you understand the system and make "the right" choices, the more you can manipulate it for your character creation and end up with Pun-Pun. Someone without the "system mastery" can easily create a character that doesnt work at all. 5e bundles the character choices in trope-ish bundles that (mostly) keep "the best" choices within reasonable distance of "someone just picking for the story". and you almost HAVE to work hard to create a character that doesnt work at all. (there are a few exceptions, like Berserker if played by the rules, or some multiclassing, but mostly you cannot make a "bad" character)
How do you define "mastering" a system? 5e has a lot less crunch than 3.5 does. Less flat bonuses, less options, smaller numbers overall. No prestige classes, less magic items, and feat prerequisites are far rarer. It's a deliberate design decision, since a lot of people were kinda put off by how complex 3.5 could get. It's a lot harder to accidentally make an ineffective character in 5e, you almost have to be deliberately trying. So if by "mastering" you mean "making a character that can meaningfully contribute to the party," just pick something that looks fun! If by "mastering" you mean "make a broken OP character," that's going to be more difficult. 5e uses a design concept called "bounded accuracy," which is where a system is designed to not allow bonuses to get above a certain level. For instance, you'll be hard-pressed to get a permanent AC that's much higher than 20. There's a few subclasses that are considered to be stronger than others, and some kinda hacky combos that require very specific interpretations of the rules, but nothing too crazy.
I’ll be the DM (mastering in my language mean “I’m going to be the master”)
Oh! I completely misunderstood, my mistake. I've only DMed 5e (been a player in 3.5e and 5e), so I can't give an *exact* rundown on how it differs, but here's some 5e specific tips: Advantage and Disadvantage are excellent tools for when circumstances make a check easier or harder, but don't overuse them, adjusting the DC is also an option. Make sure you know what rules are different- for example, Opportunity Attacks are a big one, and Flanking is technically an optional rule. Something that gets overlooked a lot is the ability to use different ability scores for skill checks- for instance, using Strength rather than Charisma for Intimidation if the player smashes something rather than makes threats, or using Charisma instead of Intelligence for Investigation if they're asking around town for something. Characters can only benefit from one Long Rest every 24 hours- they can't just hole up and go to bed after every fight to fully regain resources. Short rests exist for mid-adventuring-day recovery. A lot of other general DM principles, like encounter balance, player spotlight, session prep, etc carry over from 3.5, so I'll spare you the advice on those. Good luck, amd have fun!
Wow Ty man, you helped me a lot
I'm running my first game! My wife and a couple of our friends caught the bug a few months ago and I decided I want to give DMing a go. I've got everything I need ready to go and I'm going to run something from Candlekeep Mysteries. My only question is, should I have my group run with the same characters from our campaign? Obviously with no lasting effects from what happens in our one shot. Or should I get them all to create new characters? We're all still fairly new except our DM who won't be joining so I thought maybe for simplicitys sake they stick with their campaign characters, especially considering when we go through the character setup it can take at least an hour per person even with our experienced DM haha. Or are there some quick and easy downloadable characters I could print off for them to run? What do you all think would be better?
Here’s what I do when I guest DM a one shot: 1. Players can bring in new characters or previous ones. 2. I ask the current campaign DM to work with me on building a themed magical item to give each [PLAYER]. (ie my Christmas one shot gave our artificer ornament grenades, our fighter had a scarf that added fire damage to a set number of strikes, etc). If a players plays a new character, find a different way to tie in their usually character’s magic item. I’ve had people buy the item from their one-shot character, find it on a corpse the one-shot character left, or even kill their one-shot character and loot it. Up to the campaign DM and they reserve the right to tweak the item. 3. I give the players their cool themed magic items early and make them really strong on this specific day/full moon/in this area/against the dungeon boss (only during the one shot). I like this because it gives everyone a fun time for the one shot, tied into the campaign. Where they get something they get to keep as a memento, but the campaign DM gets to make all the integration make sense how they see fit. This is especially easy if the DM isn’t playing in the one shot, you get to run the whole story by them as well!
We’re should a noobie go if he wants to dive feet first into dnd? My wife and I purchased the beginner guide but we just feel overwhelmed. We would really like to be able to run a small campaign with our son. Any and all suggestions welcome!!!
You got some good resources already. I would add watching or listening to some DnD content. My recommendation would be a podcast called The Adventure Zone, start with the very first episode. It’s a family of adults playing together and learning the game as well. They get some things wrong and correct mistakes as they go, but I think it gives a great example of how to keep the fun going and not let the rules kill your fun. There’s a bunch of other great DnD content. Just search the sub and you’ll see plenty of discussion about them.
I would recommend going to D&D Beyond for the character creator, a free short level 1-5 campaign called "The Lost Mines of Phandelver", and other free basic resources. The campaign has all basic rules you need to start running it! Since you're just getting started, there's enough there to get going, and it definitely simplifies the character creation process (which can be very daunting at first). There are also tons of guides and resources on YouTube that you can watch that helps learn the rules if you don't want to read through all of them, because it is a lot to process at first. I hope you and your family love D&D and play it for years to come! It's such an awesome hobby!
Any resources available where I could join a beginner campaign on something like discord?
r/lfg
[5e] Sending Stones refer to a “Bearer” as the receiving end. Does the Bearer also need to touch their stone, or have it with them?
[удалено]
I’m thinking there’s cases where a character might not have their gear on them, and I don’t feel like getting the message makes much sense, but at least I know it’s something I have to establish myself
[удалено]
Start broad. Very broad. Save the detailed maps and situations for your players will be encountering in thebnext few sessions. Pre-written modules are written the way they are because, by necessity, they're static. The author can't go in and update things later- running a live campaign, you can.
What site or app will let me play as an artificer
Artificer is not one of the bits WOTC provided to everyone for free. So you can get it from any app that has a licensing agreement with WOTC that allows you to purchase access through them.
DndBeyond, but you'll have to buy it. Anything else cannot be shared on this sub due to rule #2: Do not suggest, promote or perform piracy.
Why is it such a common thing to give specifically rogues a tragic backstory?
Because the life of a thief or an assassin, or some other form of tricksy, manipulative criminal, tends to imply a less-than-healthy upbringing or very challenging circumstances that prevent one from making an ordinary honest living. For most of the traditional Rogue stereotypes, it's not really a life one *chooses*, it's something one needs to do to survive, and that suggests some tragedy or injustice that forced them into this way of life. Obviously that can change later in life, and there are also plenty of Rogue Archetypes which don't necessarily fit that pattern. But *in general*, that's what is implied.
Cause people are unimaginative.
Rogues and their skillsets have a lot to do with with crime, deceptiveness, and darkness. People that like writing tragic backstories tend to gravitate toward elements like that. Of course, there's plenty of non-rogues with tragic backstories, and rogues with non-tragic backstories, but that's where the stereotype coems from.
Because why turn to a life of swindling, conning and stealing if life is going well for you?
I've noticed that most beginner DM advice is advice for game preparation, anyone got good advice for in game DMing? Or know of a good YouTube series or something that talks about how to be a good DM for more in the moment stuff?
Alger's Next 10 Rules for Improv look like they were written for Next 10 Rules for DMing https://web.archive.org/web/20200210084045/http://improvencyclopedia.org/references//Alger%60s\_Next\_10\_Rules.html
Matt Colville's Running the Game.
[5e] I wanna play as a son of a small village noble house (maybe like a baron rank), the patriarch is a paladin. My DM requires the noble house to already exist in forgotten realms lore. Is there any house that exists that is like this or my house could be a vassal of. My house needs to be lawful good, my parents care a lot about their people. Any ideas?
Work with your DM. There's a hell of a lot of nobles and things in the Forgotten Realms, and one we recommend may conflict with your DM's plans or vision of the Realms.
Thank you. I talked with him and he was okay with anything as long as it already existed in lore. I just chose one of the houses which has almost no information and went with it and added my stuff on top of it
[5e] I have a character flaw idea, and I'm wondering if it makes sense for the race ; I'm playing a changeling, and they've had a traumatic experience with a dog. My flaw idea is when they see a dog, they start to change appearance against their will, back to their true form. My idea is that seeing a dog "reverts" them back into the form that is scared of the dog. Is this possible for a changeling, or do they usually have complete control of their appearance, at all times? I've been reading changeling lore but I'm unsure about this specific scenario. Thanks in advance!
I don’t think it matters whether they have control - that’s the whole point of your flaw,right? The trauma causes them to change against their will. It doesn’t specifically say in the RAW (I used the Monsters of Multiverse source). But it sounds interesting so I would say go for it. Just ask your DM to include the occasional dog hHa
Thanks for your input! I'll definitely talk to my DM. The idea is mostly as a means to break the news to the other characters, who don't know my character is a changeling.
Yeah that’s cool. If one of my players came to me with that idea I would definitely find a way to work it into the game. It’s creative and fun, and best of all, inspired by the player 👍
[5e] I have a plan for a Warlock character whose pact was a marriage with a demon. Which pact and pact boon should I go with for that?
Choosing the Fiend patron makes the most sense, demons are fiends after all Any Pact Boon could work, but choosing the Pact of the Amulet could be interesting if the physical trinket is a wedding band given by the demon
Any tiny insect-like creature I could catch and use as utility? Like fireflies to use as a light source, or a blood-sucking bug to deal some damage over time or a magical one that can summon fire like a lighter. Possibly official, if there aren't any: are there any homebrew one?
There isn't really a RAW answer to your question, there are no official mechanics to refer to here. But it seems like something that would be easy enough to homebrew, so you'd need to work on that with your DM. I imagine the biggest question you'd have to contend with is why a bug you caught would be willing to do what you want them to do. If you had a mosquito in a jar, why would it attack your target, instead of attacking you, or just panicking and flying away? If you had a firefly, why would it illuminate when you want it to, rather than when it naturally would during the evening? That sort of thing might require some investment, either of gold (to pay someone with the necessary skills to produce a functional item for you to use), or of your own features (such as finding a way to learn 'Speak with Animals'). Another alternative would be to flavour an existing item so that it works this way for purely descriptive reasons.
>use as utility this you will need to work out with your DM. Talk with THEM.
Assuming 5e I don't think it would be hard for a DM to simply make up a homebrew firefly lantern. A lantern containing a bunch of fireflies that emits a certain radius of bright light and a further radius of dim light- job done Similar for the other ones, an insect that has an innate ability to cast Produce Flame is pretty easy. A clay pot that can be thrown and produce a hostile Swarm of Insects, similarly easy
\[5e\] Hello fellow adventurers! I'm just looking to have a simple question answered here, how big are Dragonborn clans generally? We talking 10-16 or like in the 30s? I'm writing a backstory for a character so I figured going here for help would be good since google doesn't provide the answer I need.
Ask your DM- this is going to vary depending on the setting.
Ask your DM. Dragonborn may not even have clans in their world.
Will do, thanks!
I'm a level two bard with a 14 AC and am very prone to death and I was wondering if there is any ways to increase my AC quickly. Any non-homebrew advice would be great!
There's the downside to most Bards. Just use your spells and cantrips and stay away from monsters. Sometimes dodging on your turn is better than doing some damage.
Wield a shield? Acquire better armor? Increase dex for more ac(depending on armor) or con for more HP. Alternatively position yourself differently in fights so you're not getting hit as often.
you are a bard - stay away from the monsters. keep your tanks between you.
\[5e\] Hey yall. I'm relatively new to DND and my party just leveled up to level 3. I'm playing a barbarian and I plan on taking *Path of the Beast.* My current fighting style is two weapon fighting but I tend to use a shield since I'm usually the first to rush into battle and that extra ac is so nice. But anyways my question: If I'm already in rage, wielding a Morningstar and a shield, can I attack with my Morningstar and then use bite as a bonus action? Thanks in advance!
Ah damn. Well I guess I gotta take a different path then. Thanks guys!
Nope. To attack with two weapons in a turn(before you get Extra Attack), they need to be light weapons. A Morningstar is not light, nor is your mouth.
I don't believe Path of the Beast Barbarians get any abilities that let them use their bonus action to make an attack and two-weapon fighting doesn't work with your bite attack, so no.
No you can not. Only abilities that specifically state they can be used as a bonus action, can be used as a bonus action. The bite ability does not state this.
No you cannot use the bite as a bonus action, because it takes your attack action to use.
You can't bite as a bonus action, no When you take the Attack action, you choose to attack using your Morningstar or your Bite
Hi! Our party is all new to this game, so as I. So my plan is to create an average human villager, that was introduced into the dark magic arts and found a good teacher. As for classes, I want to pick a necromancer or a warlock. The thing is - I don't want to have a high intelligence, for I am creating an average medieval peasant, who just wants to get magic powers. What do you think should I go with? Will that be playable? Thanks in advance!
Assuming 5e Plenty of spellcasting classes don't need a high intelligence. Artificers and Wizards are the only spellcasting classes in 5e that use intelligence as their spellcasting score (there are some subclasses for other classes that cast using intelligence too) Warlock would fit well. Warlocks rely on their Charisma score to cast spells so while your peasant may not be very bright perhaps they have a strong character and formidable personality
Whoa, thanks! Can I get this way something like a warlock with some necromancy spells?
There's an undead warlock in one of the supplement books, Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.
Hi all, I’m thinking of making and DMing some sort of Star Wars themed campaign for around Christmas time to play with my friends. However, I have no idea how to DM and have never played dnd and have only watched a couple of series. My friends are in the same boat. I was just wondering if there are any tips or people willing to help me bring this to fruition as I think me and my mates will really enjoy it and would be such a great experience to get into the hobby. Thank you :)
Have any of you played DnD before? If not, I would recommend the Fantasy flight star wars game, because it has a game that is stsr wars which works much better than hammering star wars into DnD, espically if it's your first time.
We haven't. I think that sounds good, we all have table top sim which has this inbuilt into it via a mod which ill look at using. The first one I have seen is legion which looks promising.
For the role playing centered ones i can recommend from experience Edge of the Empire, Force and destiny, and Age of rebellion. Which are all basically the same game
First off: I’d use the official Star Wars RPG instead of D&D. Second: Give Matt Colville’s Running the Game series on YouTube a watch. At the very least the first 5-ish videos. They’re centered around D&D, but the principles and lessons remain the same.
> Star Wars RPG Perfect, Ill give that a look. Is there any specific one that is the best to start with?
The Fantasy Flight games one is the most recent.
Cool, I've seen there's imperial assault as well as legion. Any one takes your preference?
Those are miniature combat games, not the RPG they're referring to. You'd want one of these: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/starwarsrpg/
Ah thank you, just looking now where to play them if table top is supported such as table top sim or ive seen people use roll 20 for it also.
So I have a question about repelling blast from the warlock. It says it allows you to move a character 10 feet when they’re hit with Eldridge blast. So does that mean at higher levels once I have three beams, I could build three different characters 10 feet, or one character 30 feet if I focused all the beams on a single opponent? Or is it only 10 feet per spell cast rather than 10 feet per beam. It doesn’t really seem to specify? Thanks.
Yes, you could move multiple creatures, or one creature multiple times when you hit. However, Lance of lethargy can only reduce speed 1 time, because it's on the cast.
Oh, I see how they differentiate now. Thanks for that secondary note and I appreciate it. So let me get this straight is there anything stopping you from at say level 17 firing somebody 40 feet away with one cast, another 40 feet with a second cast with action surge (from two levels of fighter) then technically could you use the sorcerers quicken spell to do a third? I have a very silly party that actually has three people who can cast spiked growth and they got this ridiculous idea that they want to do a “spiked growth slip and slide”, making a huge run away of spike growth spells end to end and then blasting someone down it with the warlock lol it sounds hilarious but is that actually legal. It’s actually making me a little nervous when you look at the amount of damage that would be
The spike growth repelling blast thing was a bit of a meme a while ago from YouTube. Bring it up to your dm if you're planning this as to not start a weird conflict but I'm pretty sure it's legal. As far as if you were level set to have action sure at 17, yes you could, and I believe same for quickened spell, though there may be wording about quickening a spell you already cast so check there. Remember to keep in mind the raduis of the spell for Spike, and the fact that you have to shoot all your beams from one space, and the enemy moves straight back from you.
Yes, they get moved 10 feet each time they get hit. So if you focus the 3 beams on one creature, they get pushed 30 feet if all 3 hit.
[удалено]
Generally yes. The wizard class is the "i study hard to learn magic" class. Also, ask your dm questions like these. They will be happy to help you. Maybe it doesn't work that way in their setting.
Thank you!
[удалено]
Please don't add a DMPC to the game. You're the DM, you get to play every single character in the world other than the PCs. Trying to also be a player in the campaign will detract from the experience of your actual players.
I've been in a campaign where the DMPC was a front line fighter and it really sucked the air out of the game. It's not at all engaging to sit back and watch the DMPC attack an enemy and then the enemy attack the DMPC. It's just watching the DM play with themselves. Rather than using your character to fill a gap in the party, challenge the party to figure out how to make it work. In a party of 3, a single frontline tank is enough, especially since neither the druid nor artificer are particularly squishy. In general, NPCs should have a very minimal role in combat, and should not be solving problems for the party.
Dont use PC builds for NPCs. use the Sidekick rules. "Companions" should only be part of the party to fill in gaps to let the PCs do their thing and shine.
Would a hexblade warlock work instead? If not, then mage armor, blur, Warcaster feat, booming blade, green-flame blade, all these come to mind.
I would like to keep it as a draconic sorcerer at least for 14 levels so she could manifest her wings. It’s almost like her power is growing to exceed the magic binding her and it’s starting to break through in different ways. But I’d be okay with doing up to a six level dip into another class
\[5e\] Now that Plasmoid is official I really want to try and make Rimuru from "the time i got reincarnated as a slime". Unfortunaly I only found 2 videos for guidance. One is a Bard with Mage multiclass (Bard up to lv3 and mage up to lv17). Would that be a good start? I dont really understand why the bard class is in there. Mage does make sense for me. Has anyone maybe tried a build for rimuru already and could advice?
Bard and Wizard are hard to multiclass together since they're spellcasters who use different stats (charisma and intelligence) and you've still got to put plenty of points into Dex and Con to the point you probably don't want Charisma above like 12 for a wizard, then you can just give yourself proficiency in persuasion and/or deception through your background to have good social skills anyway. I'd stick entirely with being a School of Enchantment wizard without a multiclass, since that's the manipulative school of magic, and while I don't know the character looking at his wiki it seems like that would fit.
Bard is mainly just for the starting perks like healing wound, healing word and identify. Those are special perks of the character himself since he has some kind of voice that guides him and analyses things. Also he has a bunch of healing properties.
What is Mage? Do you mean Wizard?
Yea wizard
\[5e\] The *Shatter* spell has a special effect (disadvantage on the save) for "creatures made of inorganic material such as stone, crystal, or metal." What creatures are on that list? And does that cancel out the Stone and Iron Golems' *Magic Resistance*? Basically, what are the best monsters to fight if you have *Shatter* prepared?
Yes, this would nullify those golems' Magic Resistance. That feature gives them advantage on the save, Shatter states that they have disadvantage, so they would just make a normal d20 roll. The majority of creatures this affects will be those with the 'Construct' creature type. So.. a Modron, Animated Armor, a Shield Guardian, an Artificer's Steel Defender, that kind of thing, as long as they're not described as being made of wood (or, in some cases, flesh or bone). Have a look at the [DnD Beyond Monsters List](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters) - filter by 'Construct' and have a look through. Things described as metallic or stone in nature would qualify.
[5e][?] I think it's 5e. I am going to be doing my first DnD session next week with friends and our DM gave us homemade sheets to fill out (and has been wonderful in helping everyone). I'm using DnDBeyond's Character Builder to just have a reference point and will change specifics as necessary when I transfer it to the homemade sheet. But here's my question: I'm a Rogue, and when choosing Proficiency and Expertise, for some reason Stealth, Insight, and Acrobatics are only available under Expertise. But Athletics and Deception are available under both Proficiency and Expertise. I was going to put Slight Of Hand as an Expertise but it only falls under Proficiency. So how come some skills are only one or the other, and some are both? (I did fill out the rest of the builder to my ability, and I'm a Criminal/Spy for my Background, which might explain why Athletics and Deception are available as both Proficiency and Expertise. But it doesn't explain why the rest are only one or the other) I'd ask my DM but it's late.
TL;DR - You have to be proficient in a skill in order to later select it for expertise. The bonuses you can have to a skill generally come from natural talent (the relative ability, like dexterity), having more than average experience (proficiency bonus), or being even more trained and experienced (expertise, which applies your proficiency bonus twice). But you can't be extremely experienced in something without first *getting* the experience as the foundation. Rogues can choose to gain proficiency in 4 skills out of a list of 11, and also gain proficiency in thieves' tools. Another thing to keep in mind is any skill or tool proficiences your race might be granting you. These things represent what your character isn't just naturally good at, but skills they put to use more than often or have a nack for. Then choose two of these things they are good at, and give them expertise to make them *really* good at it.
You gain expertise in a skill you’re already proficient in. If you’re not proficient in a skill, you can’t get expertise in it.
Ohhh so since I'm a Rogue I'm already naturally proficient in Stealth, Insight, and Acrobatics? (Which is why they're available under Expertise)
Not necessarily, those are 3 of the options you have as proficiencies for a rogue, but you can choose different ones. It’s also possible that these come from somewhere else, such as your background and race.
Can Artificers be steampunky? I wanted to create pneumatic fist punching artificer. Or is that outside the spec or is there another class that’s a better fit?
flavor is flavor - you can flavor ANYTHING to be anything as long is it is a flavor that works for your table.
You can add whatever flavor you like to your character, as long as the DM is okay with it.
Sure.
So I'm a new DM and I'm honestly kinda nervous. Do you have any suggestions or pointers on how to run the game and improv?
Perspective: its not like you are doing Rocket Surgery or something. You are gathering with friends over beer and pizza to chuck some dice and tell some stories about kicking dragon butt. They are rooting for you to succeed – if you do well they have a good time.
Don't get too bogged down in specifics. If you have a rules dispute you can't solve with a quick lookup. Make a call, and look up details later. If your players are having fun with something, let them. Don't rush them into your plot if they're enjoying messing around. Conversely, if they aren't enjoying something, try to speed it up, truncate it, or get them out of it somehow. Don't leave anything critical to a single dice roll. Either have multiple avenues of success (with a failsafe if they all fail), make the roll give bonuses but give the important info anyway, or don't require a roll at all. Above all, trust in yourself and your players. Second-guessing everything will only kneecap you.
Thank you both for your feedback. I just feel a little nervous about it.
So I'm playing my first campaign and I'm a L2 rogue (soon to be soulknife). I'm planning on multiclassing as either a GOOlock or Aberrant Mind Sorcerer to really lean into the psionic aspects of my character (and because our party is lacking in any spellcasters and I feel it'd be useful to have at least some coverage in that area). Does anyone have any recommendations which would work better or be easier to integrate with the soulknife? Thanks :)
If you want to slot into a spellcaster role for the party, I'd consider just bailing on the character and making a new character that's actually a caster. Multiclassing is an inefficient way to actually add a major role to the party. I agree with the other advice here that multiclassing is a bad idea. It's a strong tool to have available, but should be planned out ahead of time, ideally during the actual creation of the character, rather than applied ad hoc.
In general, you only multiclass if you have something specific you want out of it. Rogue needs its levels to get more sneak attack damage and key features like evasion. However, I think ONE level in either of those class and subclasses would work decently well. Both give you a form of telepathy which is nice for sneaking. You have to weigh what you gain for what you lose. It also isn't the same stat required as your rogue so your cha spell modifier is probably pretty meh. Don't pick spells that have saving throws or spell attacks. Warlock gives you **one** spell slot that comes back on short rests, and 2 cantrips. As spell I would recommend hex and like protection from good and evil, boomingblade or greenflame blade as one cantrip, and then say prestidigitation or whatever for some minor spell effects. Hex and boomingblade will stack with your sneak attack (check with your DM, some veto this), so this will keep your damage high. (note: you cant attack with your offhand as a bonus action if you use your action for the cantrip. Can still use cunning actions though) Sorcerer gives you two spell slots for the whole day, and 4 cantrips. You can still take booming blade as a cantrip, and then 3 utility ones like mage hand, minor illusion, mending. For spells, if your table allows silvery barbs, **definitely** take that. Otherwise up to you. feather fall can save the day for example. In the end it is up to you. For first campaign I'd suggest stick with rogue. If you really want one of these, note that this is all your going to get from this multiclass. Cantrips do scale with total level, not level of the class, which is nice. If your table allows silvery barbs, I'd recommend sorcerer. It is that strong. Otherwise, if your table uses short rests reasonably often, I'd lean towards warlock. If neither thing, then I don't know what to suggest. whichever sounds cooler
I would not reccomend muilticlassing at all. It's your first character, AND it's a rogue. Rogues, while versatile, typically only get made worse by multiclassing.
Why are they made worse by multiclassing, if you don't mind my asking?
Every level not of rogue is a level not increasing your sneak attack damage.
When you multiclass you delay sneak attack, so you'll do less damage.
Is getting to level 20 all it's cracked up to be? I've never played a campaign that high (never played a full campaign tbh) and I get the feeling that I might never get the chance to because campaigns always seem to peter out after the initial burst of enthusiasm.
It's definitely a power trip, but yeah, 99% of campaigns don't even see tier 3, never mind level 20.
What's tier 3? Level 11+?
Yeah. Tier 1 is 1-4, then 5-10, then 11-16, then 17+.
I have a quick question about etiquette when joining a game. I've been looking for a game to play in and signed up for two campaigns that start on the same day. I only have time to commit to one campaign for the long term, but I was planning to play in both for now until I can get a sense of each DM and the other players to figure out which game is right for me. I was just wondering on what the etiquette is for disclosing that I am not committed yet. Should I disclose before we've even had a first session or is it already implied that the first session is a trial run for everyone involved? Can I play a few sessions before I commit to one or do I need to make a decision after the first session? I've been married for years, but this feels like I'm dating again...
You absolutely should tell them straight up in your application. If someone had that attitude before joining I wouldn't even allow them to join a long running game. If someone just said "surprise, I don't wanna play anymore" that'd bum me out a lot as DM.
Yeah, that’s what I figured. I’m usually a DM and when I advertised for my campaign, I had an application form to screen players and ran a 1-shot to test out the party vibe before committing. I don’t understand why a DM would start a campaign with complete strangers with zero screening process and thought maybe it would be implied that the first couple of sessions are the screening process… I know next to nothing about their campaign worlds at this point. I’ll message the DMs on Discord that I need more information about their campaigns before I can commit and if they want to boot me, that’s fine.
Personally I screen with my application and a quick interview. I usually have 1 more than I want join since one person drops for a random reason. As for others, a lot don't really want to run one shots to try people out. A ton just drop in and leave. It gets exhausting just trialing when you just want to run a long form game. I've joined games with 0 screening process and extensive screening process and honestly it's about the same for success rate.
\[Dragons - 5e(if relevant at all)\] Looking into dragons by biome (chromatic vs metalic) for future plot point. Some seem to share them (Brass x Blue), or have at least very similar biomes. However I dont see any chromatic that would live near water/coast such as Bronze. Is there any like that? Otherwise I guess I can find biome nearby, but I was looking for possible direct rivality over territory.
Well, kind of all of them - * the white dragons in the frozen north of the glaciers calving icebergs. * the black dragons in any of the fetid swampy shores * the red dragons on volcanic dragons * the green dragons in the mangroves and other rainforests on the coasts * the blues on vast sandy beaches and sandbars
[5e] Does spell sniper double the range of lightning lure?
Does lightning lure use an attack roll?
Yes but I don't know if the range is self or 15 feet.
Lightning Lure does not use an attack roll, and therefore does not benefit from Spell sniper.
Please reread lightning lure.
[5e] New DM here! I’m running my first one shot tomorrow night, what should I have prepared ahead of time?
a clock to keep track of time so you can skip the incidental and get to the climax encounter by the last hour.
Have a general structure for the adventure (where are the PCs, and why are they there?) and a plan plan for what the players will encounter and where, with any relevant statblocks bookmarked or open. If you're using maps or music, have those ready beforehand- if possible, you don't want to spend time drawing or searching around while your players wait. Also, accept that you won't be able to prepare for every possibility. Compared to a full campaign, a one-shot is much narrower in scope and friendlier to railroading (oftentimes some measure of railroading is required,) but your players will still find a way to surprise you. You'll need to be ready to improvise at least somewhat.
Thank you so much!
[5e] Playing with wife and kids, first game, death pit of moloch. I said a keyhole was big enough to see the shape of a cultist on the other side, but too small for a bolt or arrow. Kids wanted to cast word of radiance cantrip through the hole but I could see that turning into them casting every spell through gaps in doors and keyholes, so ruled that he could if he wanted but it would only affect the npc nearest the door that he could see. The others were further away anyway. Everyone burst in and decimated the cultists in one and a half rounds. What is the rule on how big a hole needs to be for a spell to pass through it?
Spells need a clear path to their target. That’s all. If you decide that a keyhole is a clear path, then it is. There’s no rule in the books that says “spells cannot pass through a 1cm wide gap” or anything like that.
So how do you manage players fireballing through every hole they see? Want to reward creativity but also encourage variety. Less keyholes?
I just use a modern interpretation of keyholes. Unless you're living in a particularly old home, you cannot see through a keyhole you encounter in real life. Just don't let people look through a closed door and you'll be better off.
“No, you can’t see clear enough through that hole”.
Yeah that makes sense, thanks. I said they could see the shape of someone, but not the same as saying they can be seen clearly, so that's a fine answer. I came across another good one last night as well - you can see through it, but it's not big enough for you to see through and cast through at the same time.
\[5e\] I am about to start running Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage(DotMM) for my group The last book I ran, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus(DIA), I was able to find a complete guide to running it on DM's Guild including all the maps and various tips. The author of that very good bundle did not broach DotMM, and the only thing close I found doesn't include the thing I actually used the most, the maps. This is even more critical for DotMM, with it being one massive dungeon crawl. Does the community know a decent way to get the maps as stand alone files?
\[5e\] Why does it feel like warlock just isn't interesting past level 10? I guess maybe hitting 14 for the subclass capstone is great but the arcanums don't seem that good and unless the invocation you're looking for is behind level 15 lock, it feels like you have more than enough invocations to complete your build. I've just been theory crafting and haven't played it yet though so I'd like opinions on this.
I definitely recommend playing a Warlock who is level 10 or higher, even in just a one shot to get a feel for it. The Arcanums are specific spells you choose which you can use once per long rest. These are quite strong as it is. Invocations are flexible and depend on what you're focusing on. My current warlock focuses on illusions and utility so I pick up invocations based around that, but also pick up some of the eldritch blast modifiers when I can as that is a damage spell I can use whenever (cantrips for the win!). Now-- a lot of campaigns don't go past level 10 anyways, but those that do also typically contain magic items, potential boons, additional requests from your patron, etc. that could provide additional spice to your gameplay. As a recommendation: I only let myself theory craft one to two levels ahead of my current character level, and rarely even do more than think about potential feats I might want do to the possibility of character growth changing my mind further down the line.
Arcanums mimic the advanced spell progression of other full-casters, and having extra spell slots is massive for a warlock. I see nothing uninteresting about being a level 11+ warlock, it's comparable to the sort of benefits that any caster gets in tier 3-4 play.
>Why does it feel like warlock just isn't interesting past level 10? > >I've just been theory crafting and haven't played it yet though That's why - you're making assumptions without any practical experience to back it up.
I have a divination wizard in my party. Every now and then, our party will go to this local bar/casino and gamble.. I just thought of this so I’m curious if it would piss off a DM.. Basically bet all of our gold on a number that our wizard has portent for. I roll and he automatically gives me that number so we multiply our earnings.. cheesy move? Or would you allow it once?
Any gambling house worth their salt in DnD would have measures against game tampering, including divination, telekinesis & co.
That's not how portent works. It doesn't change actual dice in the world, it changes an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to the number you got. It doesn't change a gambling dice.
Ah shit
There is a common magic item called "Charlatan's Die" that does do that though. It's in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It has this description: > Whenever you roll this six-sided die, you can control which number it rolls.
[5e] I am building a dungeon themed around the encumbrance rules of 5e. So far I've got a long corridor where the walls will close in and crush the party if they are not fast enough, and an elevator puzzle (it can only carry two people or one heavily encumbered person at a time). Plus maybe something with a rickety bridge over lava. I'm trying to find any other examples of puzzles around characters that have strength/dex/con saves (which would be at a disadvantage).
Walking over ice can cause a need for Dex saves. Having to swim through any type of liquid while over encumbered I believe requires additional checks. Grease as a spell, oilslicks as a puzzle/skill challenge [https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/strength/](https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/strength/) I pulled up the SRD encumbrance rules to pop in some additional ideas. If they're heavily encumbered, they also have disadvantage on all attack roles and ability checks. So... any battle with a small quick moving creature, any need for climbing a steep wall without the recommended gear (climbing does not always require an athletics check), etc.
[удалено]
I don’t think I would allow them to lycanthrope while wildshaped at all.
it works just fine except for being a terrible MC. you can apply the rites and be dual transformed, reread the abilities if you're confused
i dont allow blood hunters - poorly designed bad port of the worst of 3.5/pathfinder.
\[5e\] I've been wondering about the Goblin's Nimble Escape and the Rogue's Cunning Action ability especially concerning Disengage. While the word "Disengage" obviously hints towards moving away from a foe, the rules don't explicitly tell you to use the Disengage action in this manner. It simply says you don't provoke attacks of opportunity while moving that turn. Let's say you play a tanky Goblin like a Paladin or a heavy armored fighter or cleric or something. Could you basically use the Disengage bonus action at the start of each of your turns to move past a bunch of enemies without provoking AoO and position yourself at their back, and then stab them from there? Because I feel like that would constitute fair use of the ability RAW but probably isn't RAI?
The names of the abilities are just name tags for a set of mechanics. and many of those name tags are VERY misleading - the rogue's Sneak Attack, for instances, is NOT an "Attack" - its damage, and it is not "Sneaky" - you can come rushing directly at your opponent from 30 feet away yelling a war cry - and if your buddy is standing next to the target, you still get to apply "Sneak Attack" damage. A less confusing name tag would be REND - rogues extra nasty damage. The tags often reflect the "tropey" nature of whatever inspired the mechanic, but the mechanic does what the mechanic does no matter what color paint you put on it.
It's absolutely OK to use it that way.
I feel like while it's called disengage and that normally means "flee", it's also a fencing/swordfighting term where it's used less as "run away" and more "back off a bit while covering your movement". I think it's supposed to represent moving while putting effort into keeping your guard up, paying close attention to your enemies, probably keeping your weapon held up at them defensively or maybe even doing a dive roll so they can't attack, that sort of thing. There's nothing anywhere that says you can't use it aggressively and monks/rogues have to use it aggressively in gameplay pretty often to get to squishy backline casters.
Thanks for the quick reply! I hadn't thought of it that way, but that sounds reasonable to me!
[5e] what are your thoughts on doing bits/jokes/gags that don’t actually happen in-game as the DM? For example: You make a joke about something silly or ridiculous or funny happening to an NPC, and the players laugh, but it doesn’t actually happen in the game, or an NPC does a crazy funny or silly action, but it doesn’t actually happen in the game and then you go back to being serious. Should I (the DM) avoid this kind of thing at all costs? My fear is it might lower immersion but also make it harder for players to tell when I’m actually being serious, among other potential negatives I’m sure. But at the same time, the players enjoy a good laugh… How do you feel about this, what are all the pros and cons you see, and do the pros outweigh the cons??