|
MonsterEnvy posted:That and you can see Lesser restoration right on the stat block. Real talk, this seems like the perfect example of how much better D&D would be if it was okay using keywords and common use phrases like this character is a 'Priest (MM pg XX)' because I'm going to be real here. At no point would I have ever imagined that the intention is that that character should use the Priest monster statblock.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Normally the 5E modules bold references to statblocks, like "so-and-so is a LG commoner" so I guess they just dropped the ball here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
They are bolded and linked on the D&D Beyond version so I imagine it was an oversight in the print. Because all of the NPC's are stated as being one of the NPC statblocks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Real talk, this seems like the perfect example of how much better D&D would be if it was okay using keywords and common use phrases like this character is a 'Priest (MM pg XX)' because I'm going to be real here. At no point would I have ever imagined that the intention is that that character should use the Priest monster statblock. BattleMaster posted:Normally the 5E modules bold references to statblocks, like "so-and-so is a LG commoner" so I guess they just dropped the ball here. They typically do. Here's a blurb on a shopkeep from Dragon Heist: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:They typically do. Here's a blurb on a shopkeep from Dragon Heist: I mean thats better but I'm not sure what it's hurting by not just going Dem Corkie is a Priest (MM pg 23) , of Pelor. Without the section earlier that I'm not going to remember in the middle of a session it just seems like it's making it more difficult to read and work through for not much effort to have a consistent and uniform stylesheet? When I see something bold I think 'oh this is an important character detail' not that its a reference to something else. I don't have it for dndBeyond but I'd take a while guess and say its got it in that underlined blue hyperlink out format that lets you know this is supposed to be an actual statblock without even needing to hover over it. Would that be correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
change my name posted:My party is trekking through a swamp to find a hag coven's crystal ball so they can use it to locate the BBEG. There are 4 level 4 players, a level 4 NPC mercenary they hired, plus the party's pet blink dog, are they going to get wrecked by this coven? I was thinking of maybe lowering the difficulty to 1 green hag and 2 sea hags to compensate for the needle blights the hags will use as minions during the battle. Update: they didn't even fight the hags, instead deciding to do them a favor and allow the swamp to reclaim the small town they had set out from. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
change my name posted:Update: they didn't even fight the hags, instead deciding to do them a favor and allow the swamp to reclaim the small town they had set out from. Oh well. Players will attempt to befriend everything but the characters trying to help them
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Killed an ancient red dragon tonight with six other level 15s. I got tagged with a breath weapon early but made the save to stay alive. My sorlock spent the rest of the time swooping around on flying boots while concentrating on greater invisibility and making GBS threads out EB damage because of elven accuracy + quickened spell. I didn’t manage to use hexblade curse or the hound of ill omen due to flying dragon and needing to keep far away. We haven’t had many big boss fights and it was pretty satisfying to see a near-optimal time for my build to shine. I think I did close to half of the total damage on the critter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Piell posted:Players will attempt to befriend everything but the characters trying to help them They were actually pretty split and spent at least half an hour deliberating, most of them are lawful good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I mean thats better but I'm not sure what it's hurting by not just going Dem Corkie is a Priest (MM pg 23) , of Pelor. Without the section earlier that I'm not going to remember in the middle of a session it just seems like it's making it more difficult to read and work through for not much effort to have a consistent and uniform stylesheet? When I see something bold I think 'oh this is an important character detail' not that its a reference to something else. The modules I've read have this little bit right at the start where the conventions are explained:  That's from Ghosts of Saltmarsh but a few of the others at least have essentially the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:The modules I've read have this little bit right at the start where the conventions are explained: Yeah thats what I'm saying you don't even need that if you put a pg reference and capitalise it to make it stand out because just bolding something is a different meaning in all other context. It's definitely better than nothing but I just don't think the way it is done currently is very helpful. kingcom fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Aug 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Killed an ancient red dragon tonight with six other level 15s. I got tagged with a breath weapon early but made the save to stay alive. My sorlock spent the rest of the time swooping around on flying boots while concentrating on greater invisibility and making GBS threads out EB damage because of elven accuracy + quickened spell. I didn’t manage to use hexblade curse or the hound of ill omen due to flying dragon and needing to keep far away. We haven’t had many big boss fights and it was pretty satisfying to see a near-optimal time for my build to shine. I think I did close to half of the total damage on the critter. Sorlocks don't deserve the bad rep they get for the crime of being a good, fun build.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Sorlocks don't deserve the bad rep they get for the crime of being a good, fun build. Sorlock own and so do Palocks and I don't like that people feel compelled to ban them or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
Wow, the diseased giant rat not giving a save every 24 hours is... Bad. Really Bad. I've been running Rappan Athuk for my group and while it's touted as a brutal module, and is filled to the brim with all kinds of nasty diseases/poisons/infections to inflict upon the players. All of them have allowed more than one attempt to get rid of it through CON saves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Would that be correct? Yes. kingcom posted:Yeah thats what I'm saying you don't even need that if you put a pg reference and capitalise it to make it stand out because just bolding something is a different meaning in all other context. It's definitely better than nothing but I just don't think the way it is done currently is very helpful. I am used to it by this point as it's been like this since the start. Bold means it's in the Monster Manual, Bold plus (See Appendix 2 or whatever) means it's at the back of the book. Bold plus page reference would be more helpful yes, but the current method works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Wow, the diseased giant rat not giving a save every 24 hours is... Bad. Really Bad. I mean I think thats genuinely bad game design in general, having a penalty mechanic that doesn't just clear itself after a period of safety and/or has a clear cure and solution that you need to get to for you to resolve it causes pain. MonsterEnvy posted:I am used to it by this point as it's been like this since the start. Bold means it's in the Monster Manual, Bold plus (See Appendix 2 or whatever) means it's at the back of the book. Bold plus page reference would be more helpful yes, but the current method works. I think the real answer is to just use a digital service for adventurer that physically put that link in for you cause its 1000x easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Got paid to run a one-shot last night, and while I was brainstorming the adventure at happy hour across the street I had the thought what if I threw every ooze in the Monster Manual at the party? Turns out Grey Oozes are literally indistinguishable from puddles, so thanks to it raining the night before the trade road the PCs were hired to inspect was covered in puddles. By the end they were tempting every pool of water they found with illusory cows, terrified that everything was an ooze in disguise. During the final fight, the Barbarian's great axe made the Black Pudding split in half, which allowed it to secure back to back crits, downing the Barbarian in one shot and Actually, Factually, No Foolin' No Takesies Backsies killing the Wizard. Oozes are great, everyone use oozes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Got paid to run a one-shot last night, and while I was brainstorming the adventure at happy hour across the street I had the thought what if I threw every ooze in the Monster Manual at the party? I was guest-starring in my DM's Wednesday night game about a year ago. The party was 6th level, 6 players counting myself, and since we met in an underground passage the DM threw a black pudding at the party for the standard "you bound over killing a monster" fight. The pudding knocked 3 players unconscious and outright killed the healer to the point where the healer's demigod* had to come down after the battle to pretty much give her a free resurrection while telling the rest of the party, in no uncertain celestial terms, "guys. It was a BLACK PUDDING."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
The one player I've ever killed in my short time DMing got offed by Gray Oozes. He used meta knowledge to reason that the psychic blast is a recharge ability and unlikely to hit him with an alpha strike as painful as the first one after he split from the party. So instead of running or hiding, he stood his ground. Like 3/4 of them got their recharge. RIP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Got paid to run a one-shot last night, and while I was brainstorming the adventure at happy hour across the street I had the thought what if I threw every ooze in the Monster Manual at the party?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Wow, the diseased giant rat not giving a save every 24 hours is... Bad. Really Bad. It's the disease from the variant box for Giant Rats in the MM. I am suspicious about the RAI here, especially as MM seems to treat disease as a monster-unique thing instead of directing people to the rules in the DMG. I'm guessing they changed how diseases work during development and somebody forgot to change this particular description. House-correcting it to work like every other disease in the game (repeat the Con save every 24 hours) seems not only sensible but required. Either that, or change the name of this particular variant monster to the Giant Errata. Since the thread's doing oozechat, here's a solo ooze encounter that worked well against five L8 characters (probably a CR 12). Somebody was experimenting on Gibbering Mouthers and had basically bound a bunch of them inside a "sausage skin" of Black Pudding: Mutated Black Pudding Huge ooze, unaligned AC 7, HP 228 (19d12+95) Spd 30 ft, swim 30 ft, climb 20 ft Str 23 +6 Dex 5 -3 Con 20 +5 Int 2 -4 Wis 12 +1 Cha 1 -5 Damage immunities Acid, cold, lightning, slashing Damage resistances: Fire Condition immunities: Blinded, charmed, deafened, exhaustion, frightened, prone Senses Blindsight 60 ft (blind beyond this radius), passive Perp 11 Amorphous: can move through a space as narrow as 1 inch wide without squeezing Corrosive form: A creature that touches the pudding or hits it with a melee attack within 5 feet of it takes 1d8 acid damage. Any nonmagical weapon made of metal or wood that hits the pudding corrodes (taking a permanent cumulative -1 penalty to damage, destroyed at -5, ammo is simply destroyed). Can eat through 2 inch thick nonmagical wood or metal in1 round Spider Climb: Can climb upside down without a check. ACTIONS Multiattack: Make three attacks, two with pseudopods and one with engulfing pseudopod or “bite”. Pseudopod: Melee wpn attack: +10 to hit, reach 20 ft, one target. Hit 3d8+6 bludgeoning plus 3d8 acid damage, nonmagical armor dissolves (-1 to AC), and a huge or smaller creature is grappled (escape DC 16). Until the grapple ends, the pudding can’t use this Pseudopod on another target. It has four pseudopods. Bite: Melee wpn attack: +10 to hit, reach 5 ft, one target. Hit: 3d10+6 piercing damage plus 3d8 acid damage, and the target is absorbed if it is Medium or smaller. An absorbed creature is blinded and restrained, has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the pudding, and takes 6d8 acid damage at the start of each of the pudding’s turns. If the pudding takes 20 damage or more on a single turn from a creature inside it, it must make a DC 20 Con save at the end of that turn or regurgitate all absorbed creatures, who fall prone in a space within 10 feet of the pudding. Engulfing Pseudopod: The Pudding targets one Medium or smaller creature that it can see within 20 feet of it. The target must make a DC 18 Strength save. On a failed save, it is pulled into an unoccupied space within 5 feet of the pudding and the pudding can make a “Bite” attack against it as a bonus action. The pudding must have an unoccupied pseudopod in order to make this attack. REACTIONS Bud: When the pudding is subjected to damage, it may spawn a normal Gibbering Mouther within 10 feet of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
That's a pretty cool boss monster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Narsham posted:It's the disease from the variant box for Giant Rats in the MM. I am suspicious about the RAI here, especially as MM seems to treat disease as a monster-unique thing instead of directing people to the rules in the DMG. I'm guessing they changed how diseases work during development and somebody forgot to change this particular description. House-correcting it to work like every other disease in the game (repeat the Con save every 24 hours) seems not only sensible but required. Either that, or change the name of this particular variant monster to the Giant Errata. Giant Diseased Rat does have errata. Diseased Giant Rat (p. 327). Bite: +4 to hit, 4 (1d4 + 2) damage [each was 1 lower].
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
In other news, my last actual session had me run a Selesnya Horncaller with his Giant Boar pet up against the PCs, and it turns out that the Horncaller is completely busted. 39 HP, access to Conjure Animals, and two attacks per round (three if it can see any of its summoned critters) on a CR 1. The druid got the drop on them and two rounds later they were all either in the process of being eaten by summoned Giant Toads or bleeding out. Monster's bullshit, don't run it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:39 HP, access to Conjure Animals, and two attacks per round (three if it can see any of its summoned critters) on a CR 1. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
I was thinking of joining a friends 5e campaign. I am thinking of either some sort of Wizard Conjuror or maybe an Artificer Artillerist. My questions: -In pathfinder you could be a sort of summoner that had an Eidolon, which I think was basically like having a Stand from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. Is there something that is vaguely similar to this in 5e? -Does an Artificer basically let me be Tony Stark as-in a sort of genius inventor who always have a device to solve a problem or when presented with a problem I don't have a device for, I can always come back and create the device to solve said problem? If not, what would?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
The Battle Smith is the closest thing 5e gets to having a proper pet class. Ancestral Guardian Barbarian is the closest kinda flavor/thematically if you are good to reskin. Failing that, a cleric with reskinning and heavy use of Spiritual Weapon/Guardian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:-Does an Artificer basically let me be Tony Stark as-in a sort of genius inventor who always have a device to solve a problem or when presented with a problem I don't have a device for, I can always come back and create the device to solve said problem? If not, what would? The Battlesmith Artificer gets a robot animal friend. e: Also the Battlesmith makes you better at crafting magic armour. Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Aug 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good homebrew for fighting with one weapon and no shield? Flavourwise, using a rapier one handed with an empty hand makes sense, but mechanically not using a shield is just pointlessly shooting yourself in the foot. Also, given that the thread title is about sorlocks, what's everyone's opinions on running elemental draconic sorcerors? Worth playing without sorlock eldrich blasts, or purely a "flavour over power" choice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Does anyone have any good homebrew for fighting with one weapon and no shield? Flavourwise, using a rapier one handed with an empty hand makes sense, but mechanically not using a shield is just pointlessly shooting yourself in the foot. I would just mechanically hold a shield, and say flavor-wise that my character isn't using a shield but is actually phenomenal at dodging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Does anyone have any good homebrew for fighting with one weapon and no shield? Flavourwise, using a rapier one handed with an empty hand makes sense, but mechanically not using a shield is just pointlessly shooting yourself in the foot. Not sure about homebrew, but having a free hand can still be useful, whether it's for grappling enemies or casting spells. Coincidentally, Arcane Tricksters are pretty good at doing both, and also don't have anything better to do with their free hand. Note that it takes two hands to swing a two-handed weapon, but only one hand to hold it, so that's technically better than a rapier, unless you're a rogue that doesn't have the proficiency and can't sneak attack with it anyways. Dragon Sorcerer seems pretty fine to me, if unexciting. I'm playing a dragon sorcadin that's heavy on sorcerer and light on paladin, so I appreciate the extra hit points, even if it's pretty marginal. Your best elemental cantrips are probably Firebolt and GFB, which are both pretty good at what they do, but nothing massive in a vacuum either. The base power level of sorcerer is pretty darn good, so it's hard to really go wrong, but neither does it scream for me to pick it as a single classed sorcerer. Then again, not a lot about sorcerer in general really compels me personally to play a single classed sorcerer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Does anyone have any good homebrew for fighting with one weapon and no shield? Flavourwise, using a rapier one handed with an empty hand makes sense, but mechanically not using a shield is just pointlessly shooting yourself in the foot. Rapier + main gauche, where the latter is mechanically treated as a shield, is how I'd probably want to handle that. Main gauches were primarily for parrying anyway; as I understand it they were pretty much only used offensively if you got up close in a bind or your rapier was lost/damaged.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:Also, given that the thread title is about sorlocks, what's everyone's opinions on running elemental draconic sorcerors? Worth playing without sorlock eldrich blasts, or purely a "flavour over power" choice? The Draconic bonuses are good, but Fire is the only one worth picking due to synergy with Fire Bolt / GFB / Fireball. Other elements worth considering if the DM lets you swap damage types on those spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I was thinking of joining a friends 5e campaign. I am thinking of either some sort of Wizard Conjuror or maybe an Artificer Artillerist. Dont bother with artificer. Its not a well thought out class and actually fairly unfun to play. A player in my strahd group began with one and eventually forcibly killed him off as we was sick of doing not much all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Dont bother with artificer. Its not a well thought out class and actually fairly unfun to play. A player in my strahd group began with one and eventually forcibly killed him off as we was sick of doing not much all the time. The most recent version? To what level? I'm playing a Battlesmith-to-be (level 2 rn) in a Dragon Heist game and my character is both an extremely lethal archer (the combination of heavy x-bow proficiency, Arcane Weapon, and the Repeating Weapon infusion is nasty at low levels) and a handy utility character in and out of battle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
When is the book that is supposed to tie into BG3 gonna come out? I think its soonish?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Rapier + main gauche, where the latter is mechanically treated as a shield, is how I'd probably want to handle that. Main gauches were primarily for parrying anyway; as I understand it they were pretty much only used offensively if you got up close in a bind or your rapier was lost/damaged. I highly recommend heading to DrivethruRPG and getting a copy of of Beyond the Damage Dice by Kobold Press. Tons of relatively well designed optional rules for different melee weapons. Here's what they have for rapiers: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:The most recent version? To what level? It was about 10 months ago so if theyve updated it recently it wont have been. About lvl 5 or 6 from memory. NeurosisHead posted:I highly recommend heading to DrivethruRPG and getting a copy of of Beyond the Damage Dice by Kobold Press. Tons of relatively well designed optional rules for different melee weapons. Here's what they have for rapiers: A few of these abilities suffers from the Truestrike issue of using an attack roll to give advantage on a subsequent roll. Outside of some very niche situations its basically useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:A few of these abilities suffers from the Truestrike issue of using an attack roll to give advantage on a subsequent roll. Outside of some very niche situations its basically useless. You know I thought about that, but it's worth noting that there are functions written both "as an action" and "as an attack". You're probably referencing the "Short Draw" trait for most straight swords, where you draw and strike dealing no damage and granting advantage on the next attack roll against the target. Given the text containing distinctions between "as an action" and "as an attack", and further with "attack" being defined as a type of action RAW, my table felt that it was a fair interpretation to say that the short draw ability could be used as one of the attacks within an attack action. Crawford has said on twitter several times that the "attacks" within an attack action don't explicitly have to be "weapon attacks" - grappling and shoving being prime examples of other "attacks". There's a whole other thing to be said about rules clarity coming from the developers on twitter, but I don't know how much it benefits anyone to have the conversation about how 5e is sloppily designed yet again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:When is the book that is supposed to tie into BG3 gonna come out? I think its soonish? Some time in September.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 16:14
|
|
