|
pretty soft girl posted:ZoT opinions: how should things play out if a PC uses it on another PC? Our campaign recently had a turn of events where our paladin was knocked unconcious during an escape from a castle, and while we got him onto the escape boat, a personal and important trophy from the raid was taken from him while he was knocked out. The escape happened at the end of the session, so we had some in-character discussion afterwards. It's unclear from what you wrote whether another PC took the item or whether the enemies you fled from did. I do think it's odd that your monk finds another PC robbing the party to be no breach of trust, but using magic to uncover the theft is unthinkable. If a PC used magic to steal from the rest of the party, would that be less objectionable than using magic to expose the crime? Sounds like there may be a need for an OOC conversation before anything happens in-game. There is NO innate requirement that PCs traveling together be friends, but if they aren't, there's often good reasons for a PC to leave a group of non-friends who he can no longer trust. I will say that if the motive is "to spare his pride" and the outcome is either "he does something that ends the adventure" or "he leaves the party," then that seems an insufficient in-game motivation to have such a strong in-game consequence. Even if none of the other PCs have meaningful social skills, all you need to do is explain to the paladin that he can better uphold his oaths by not doing what I presume you're lying to keep him from doing (going back to retrieve the item). If a PC took the item, and multiple PCs are prepared to tear the party apart if the paladin tries to use magic to expose the theft, then I'd advise the paladin's player to find another group, again barring a successful OOC conversation about what people want out of the game.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
My group has an Arcane Trickster rogue, and I can confirm that he's having a lot of fun backstabbing dudes, mucking about with Mage Hand, and Uncanny Dodging everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
So I've been playing in a a weekly 5e game, and I gotta say that Oath of Conquest/Hexblade is pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Pendent posted:It's weird to me seeing that rogue is considered bad. I've been looking into making a dex based battlemaster/rogue multiclass and people generally online agree the way to go is couple levels of fighter and mostly going into rogue. Eh, I did it the other way around for more ASIs and am sill having a blast (archery-focused with sharpshooter, if it matters though)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Is there anything interesting you can do with like battlemaster/ranger?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Is there anything interesting you can do with like battlemaster/ranger? Lots of control with trip/goading/disarm attacks from a distance, plus extra mobility from cunning action, or hiding to ensure advantage on a sharp shooter attack that has -5 to accuracy? The added expertise bonuses are nice if you invest in acrobatics and don’t want to break your legs when jumping off of things, even though you can tank the damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Is there anything interesting you can do with like battlemaster/ranger? No, but you could Gloom Stalker + Champion with Elven Accuracy. Dread Ambusher and Action Surge stack so by level 8 you could open your turn by casting Hunter's Mark as a Bonus Action, then go into the shadows for Elven Accuracy 3d20 advantage (crit on 19) and make 6 attacks, two of which deal 1d8 extra damage and all carrying the 1d6 Hunter's Mark buff. Also Sharpshooter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:All the way through their progression, Rogue damage is merely okay. They don't have scaling issues like Barbarian or Ranger, but it's nothing spectacular either - cookie cutter build Fighters/Paladins/Warlocks are ahead of their curve. Rogue damage is fine so long as you are always getting sneak attack bonus die
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Pendent posted:You guys aren't making me feel good about my cool duelist character idea. Not that it sounds particularly unique or anything I guess I'd encourage you to try it out - I think that you'd probably have a good time with it. If you check out this optimisation guide, they have a much more supportive take on the concept than you're finding in this thread. In particular they suggest BM6/Swashbuckler3+: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502248-Ultimate-Optimizer-s-Multiclassing-Guide quote:Human V. (SM)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
The problem with the martial classes isn't their relative damage output it's their relative utility for everything not related to hpgodown. Rogue > Fighter because the rogue can express narrative agency outside combat in ways other than "I athletics at it" (and can athletics better than the fighter if they choose), and don't sacrifice meaningful amounts of hpgodown to do so. Not as much narrative agency as a full caster obviously but way more than a fighter or barbarian. Arcane Trickster is the most narratively agenciful of all the rogues, though also the most dependant on taking all your MSIs. e: though scag cantrips + war caster at level 12 = fun times Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jun 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The problem with the martial classes isn't their relative damage output it's their relative utility for everything not related to hpgodown. Rogue > Fighter because the rogue can express narrative agency outside combat in ways other than "I athletics at it" Except not really. What declarative narrative power do Rogues get? +3 to some skill checks is marginal. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jun 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Except not really. I wasn't in the mood for delivering the full lecture on the "mother may I" of skills vs the "does what it says on the tin but maybe more???" of spells. Just rolling my eyes at people who thought their hp go down rate was the problem. Fighter < Rogue <<<<<<<<<< Non-Bard Casters < Bard
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:They can also acrobatics, stealth, and sleight of hand at it! In that case you can just dip Rogue on Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Specifically Conspirationist, if you listed "dip classes", what would be on the list? Do you think you could take the existing game, restrict those classes to a 1-3 (1-4?) level dip, and come up with something hard to screw up? Or do you think that might be a good way to approach a future version?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Classes that you're generally better off multiclassing: Ranger, Rogue, Warlock. If we're keeping to form with an hypothetical future edition then I'd get rid of Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlock, and fold their mechanical niches into the remaining classes and archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
On the other side of the spectrum I got a fun Half-Orc STR-based 15 Rogue/5 Barbarian build I'd love to try sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Appearntly following the Dragon of Icespire Peak Adventure in the new Boxset there will be to three more adventures for level 7, 9, and 11th level characters following it up. From the sound of it elsewhere the people that submitted their Boxset code on the site may get them free. This is genuinely something they should have done from the start, give an incremental one adventure into the next part from the starter adventure all the way to level 20 and give good helpful encounter guides and designs for the GM across all levels. It kills me that they dont ever stop to explain why an encounter is built and why and when these things should be used in the adventure themselves. Additionally its pretty important to hand hold and show the kind of problems and threats that evolve as the players get higher and higher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Going to be playing 5e again for the first time in a while, after going hard for a year or two and then moving on to other systems. It's an OoTA game and I really want to reprise a druid concept I've played before but that has shiny new mechanics courtesy of the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica: the Circle of Spores druid. But the rules for the Circle of Spores blow. Luckily, the DM/group are okay with me pushing reasonable fixes to it. This is the best analysis of why and fix I've seen so far, I'm curious what folks think, and if there are other obvious and reasonably simple fixes that would work better. EDIT: The TL;DR of actual updated rules text: u/Omicron_Mechanix posted:CIRCLE SPELLS CaPensiPraxis fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Arthil posted:On the other side of the spectrum I got a fun Half-Orc STR-based 15 Rogue/5 Barbarian build I'd love to try sometime. If you do that I've got a fighter doublespec house rule for you to buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
kingcom posted:If you do that I've got a fighter doublespec house rule for you to buy. Go on? It's not really super optimal I guess, but the nice thing about Rogues is they aren't required to be Dex based. That and you get to play around with Expertised Athletics+Rage grappling shenanigans at a level range where it can actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Go on? The houserule I use for Fighters (assuming no multiclassing) is to let them pick 2 archetypes instead of one and I've been working out ways to have that 2nd archetype be from a different class too. Rogue being the big obvious candidate. I've only run 1 game of it with a Battlemaster / Cavalier and it worked out super well and them from a pretty dull character that rapidly falls off in effectiveness to consistently being a combat star. BM/EK seems like the most powerful thing you can do it with in terms of raw damage but the paladin was still dropping bigger burst damage while the warlock and bard were the ones winning the fights with their big spells. Fighter that gets Battlemaster + Mastermind Rogue stuff sounds like it suddenly branches out that class to be able to properly play a Conan type character. kingcom fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
conan's not so hard to make, he's just multi-classed to hell and back by the end of his career
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
1994 Toyota Celica posted:conan's not so hard to make, he's just multi-classed to hell and back by the end of his career Yeah and thats dumb as hell though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:50
|
|
kingcom posted:Yeah and thats dumb as hell though. I mean is it? Not that I think the martial classes are very good in 5e, but the point of Conan's story is that he starts out as a very capable but one dimensional barbarian who only ventures out of his boring village because of greed and wanderlust, and by the end he's learned politics, archery, fencing, horse-riding, leadership, poetry, etc. and is a leader of men.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
I don't think you should have to be able to represent every classic character without use of multiclassing. Just because "the Barbarian" is in his title doesn't mean that he's defined by barbarism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
1994 Toyota Celica posted:conan's not so hard to make, he's just multi-classed to hell and back by the end of his career Building a single classed Conan is easy, just play a wizard and reflavor your spells as your character being non-magically yet preternaturally competent at action man things. Fake edit: I meant this as satire, but even in 5e with its nerfed casters, I'm still struggling to think of what essential Conan-centric bases a Bladesinger wizard couldn't cover.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I mean is it? Not that I think the martial classes are very good in 5e, but the point of Conan's story is that he starts out as a very capable but one dimensional barbarian who only ventures out of his boring village because of greed and wanderlust, and by the end he's learned politics, archery, fencing, horse-riding, leadership, poetry, etc. and is a leader of men. Conan solves most problems by sneaking around to be honest. Very little he does is how a D&D barbarian operates. Fighter Battlemaster + Mastermind archetype stuff is way more in line with Conan from what I've read. lightrook posted:Building a single classed Conan is easy, just play a wizard and reflavor your spells as your character being non-magically yet preternaturally competent at action man things. Valor Bard also fits very well. EDIT: Also I appreciate that the topic is already shot off and away from my houserule being too much/too little for a fighter to be able to better engage with the game and do their role + off role tasks and into the territory of 'But Conan???' kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:In that case you can just dip Rogue on Fighter. Yeah, this is where I pretty much come out on Rogue. You dip 1 level if you just want the skills, you dip 2 levels if you want to actually be sneaky and slippery. Then just staple that onto whatever class you want to actually be: if you're going martial, you wanna rush Extra Attack asap; if you're going for spellcaster, I'd say do something to get medium armor so you can stick at 14 in DEX, and then be maxing your casting stat the rest of the way. If you feel a particular archetype really completes a build/theme you're going for (IMO arcane trickster and scout are prime candidates) then I can see maybe going 3 levels (for the multiclass spellcasting, especially) or 4 levels to get the ASI. But by 6th or 7th level, you really want Extra Attack if you're going martial, and you probably want to dip into a spellcaster class around 5th (when cantrips scale up.) In terms of mechanics/design, I think that Rogue needs Extra Attack, or else Cunning Action needs to just be a free action (kinda like Action Surge) rather than a bonus action, so they can use it with TWF. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
kingcom posted:This is genuinely something they should have done from the start, give an incremental one adventure into the next part from the starter adventure all the way to level 20 and give good helpful encounter guides and designs for the GM across all levels. It kills me that they dont ever stop to explain why an encounter is built and why and when these things should be used in the adventure themselves. Additionally its pretty important to hand hold and show the kind of problems and threats that evolve as the players get higher and higher. I also learned that the people who bought the Box will indeed get those adventures for free. Hope they do more box sets like this in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:If we're keeping to form with an hypothetical future edition then I'd get rid of Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlock, and fold their mechanical niches into the remaining classes and archetypes. Back to my Rogue defending: why on Earth do you think the Monk is worth preserving while axing both the Bard and Rogue? Its fluff/tone/theme/archetype is basically a bunch of vaguely-racist cliches about the mystical orient and how the only way to be good at unarmed combat is to do kung fu, and its mechanics are a hodgepodge of clunky gimmicks that range from attacking too many times to a variety of peculiarly-specific powers inherited from prior editions like speaking every language. If Battlemaster Maneuvers became the Fighter's core mechanic (which they should), there's really not a lot of ground you don't cover by making it an unarmed Fighter spec/build path. Baku fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 10:50
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Its fluff/tone/theme/archetype is basically a bunch of vaguely-racist cliches about the mystical orient and how the only way to be good at unarmed combat is to do kung fu, and its mechanics are a hodgepodge of clunky gimmicks that range from attacking too many times to a variety of peculiarly-specific powers inherited from prior editions like speaking every language.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 11:14
|
|
|
I guess I'm just the only person out there that actually likes monk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I guess I'm just the only person out there that actually likes monk.  about monk but I realised is was just "merge str and con" again
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I guess I'm just the only person out there that actually likes monk. I like monk more now that subclasses open up the flavors of monk (even if four elements is hot trash the concept was in the right place and my idea of a ninja character falls more in line with shadow monk than any kind of rogue), they got rid of pointless alignment restrictions, and they don't need to worry about having to 16+ on 4 different stats to not feel completely lopsided I'll admit I don't have a ton of tabletop experience so the above issues are probably addressed by something I overlooked/having a better GM, but across 4e and both editions of pathfinder I found their inherent flavor and mechanics to be really unappealing despite wanting to play a martial arts fightman I would probably be happier seeing monk stuff just get selectively sucked up into fighter and rogue and getting to define my martial arts guy in my own way, though
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
Is dipping 1 level to a Hexblade Warlock as a Half Orc Battlemaster a good idea for the improved crits and cantrips/spells that work off regular attacks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Back to my Rogue defending: why on Earth do you think the Monk is worth preserving while axing both the Bard and Rogue? I actually totally forgot Monk existed. Miftan posted:Is dipping 1 level to a Hexblade Warlock as a Half Orc Battlemaster a good idea for the improved crits and cantrips/spells that work off regular attacks? Only after level 12, or after 8 in case you know the campaign won't get to 11+. Keep in mind the SCAG melee cantrips don't work with Extra Attack, the latter being almost always the superior option. Shield and Hex are nice to have, though, as is Hexblade's Curse. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I guess I'm just the only person out there that actually likes monk. Monk is my favorite class. Not the 5e one specifically, just like in general. Shadow Monk is rad, even if it's still not super optimal or anything. It's always been kinda Okay at best, and requires more min-maxing than it should just to be barely servicable, but it's so ridiculously fun and over-the-top that I just don't really care. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
I dunno I feel like having a class where the entire thing is "martial arts guy" is fine, especially as they are now where they have their own resource, and their own niche of move fast, punch lots, be slippery. I think that's unique enough of a martial niche to justify its own class with its own variations. Doesn't mean fighter can't have its own punchman variant. I mean there's more than one way to be sword and spell dork, and I think, putting aside quality differences (spoilers the full caster version is better,) there's difference enough between Sword Guy Who Does Spells and Spell Guy That Does Swords to justify being different things. I feel like the urge to collapse everything into broader and broader categories is kind of trying to turn the system into a different game. If we can have a dozen different casters who do mostly the same thing except they have different spell lists and armor restrictions and like, a handful of per day powers or something, we can have a number of different martials. Edit: Also I'll always go to bat for monk because for a class that's been traditionally kinda trash, turning it into a passable martial class is great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
I forgot about monks but everyone else here seems to be forgetting that monks in 5e use weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Yeah, Monk isn't 'unarmed combat/martial arts, the class', it's 'wuxia, the class' effectively. There's absolutely plenty of room for an entirely mundane (for a given, Gilgamesh/Cu Chulainn level of mundane) punchman/rassler build somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 15:06
|
|
