|
Libertad! posted:Hey folks. I recently made a product you might be interested in, particularly due to the fact that it's my answer to the one-trick-pony nature of 5th Edition martials. I'm in a campaign where I've made a fighter and the DM is pretty permissive when it comes to homebrew material from established sites like Drive-Thru RPG, so I'm quite interested in this. With that said, given that I've already made the fighter, the custom class is already out for me, and obviously I can't really change my ability scores much, so I'm curious how the archetype design is before I necessarily commit to dropping the money on it right away--does it depend on ability scores, or some other factor? I'd love to pitch the idea to this DM, but I doubt I'd be given permission to redesign my character around it (we're level 2 currently, will probably get to level 3 at our next session next Saturday, so there's time to select an archetype). So my main question I guess is--are non-STR/CON ability scores much of a factor in how the abilities work?
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Libertad! posted:Hey folks. I recently made a product you might be interested in, particularly due to the fact that it's my answer to the one-trick-pony nature of 5th Edition martials. My first impression: this is pretty rough. I left some reasons why on the DriveThruRPG discussion. The wording suggests shaky rules knowledge and I flat-out can't find one of the referenced tables. I'm not sure the archetypes actually work at all using this PDF.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Anyway I keep forgetting to add +4 to all my saving throws is there any way on roll20 to, like, bold or highlight some text inside your character sheet so it sticks out to you like you could do in real life with a sheet of paper? Even if it requires goofy chrome apps? Depends on which sheet you're using, but all of them should have a way to just flat-out add a bonus to your saving throws, and the shaped OGL sheet has a toggle for modifiers like that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Unrelatedly, got an instrument of the bards, do the spells require concentration and what level are they cast at? Page 141 of the DM's Guide has the rules for spells cast from magic items. Basically, unless stated otherwise, the spell is always cast at the minimum level and requires the user to concentrate if the spell requires concentration.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
So, is there actually any place to get good feedback on 5E homebrew stuff? Prospects on reddit, GitP, and Enworld seem rather slim.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Ambi posted:Right here my being. Well, I was thinking the thread might be sick of "hey I tried to fix the fighter" posts, but this was my attempt. My thinking was, "okay, the last time the fighter was fun to play was DnD 4th edition. How can I take that fighter, translate it to 5th edition, and also meet the Legends and Lore goals from way back in 2012 that I feel the 5th edition fighter failed utterly to meet? That's tricky, and even drawing influence from the Tome of Battle, I did a lot of thinking, but that's what I came up with. I plan to clean it up and submit it to the DM's Guild later (pay what you want), and then maybe work on other "hit thing with weapon" classes along the same lines.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I love what you did with the martial practices in this Most of the inspiration for those came from posts in this thread a few hundred pages back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Though I'm not currently DMing anything in Roll20, the only feature I really feel like it's missing (more advanced dynamic lighting) is supposed to be added before the end of the month, and it's hella cheaper than Fantasy Grounds. I personally think the 5E Shaped OGL sheet in Roll20 is pretty easy to use if you can understand the most basic pseudocode, it'd be fairly easy to code in a completely new feat or bonus yourself. And of course anything in the OGL is already there to drag-and-drop, on the player side at least.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Spiteski posted:It's only cheaper if you don't use the subscriptions on Roll20. If you use the R20 subs for access to the API etc, you can get FG for the same subscription price instead of buying the lifetime license. Then the official content is cheaper on FG, and the SRD/OGL is on FG there too. Even when I DM'd I never felt like I needed the API, and I certainly never bought anything beyond the most basic subscription (which gives dynamic lighting). Felt like I had all I needed there. I understand the desire to have maps and stuff from the official material though, and not having to input archetypes would be nice. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Sep 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Spiteski posted:Yea, being able to just go and play and straight up DM without paying anything is nice, but I was under the impression that you had to have API access to unlock most of the "functionality" that R20 offers? Happy to be corrected though I guess it depends on what functionality you mean? The API lets you write/input your own scripts afaik, but you don't need that functionality for, say, dynamic lighting, or writing basic custom abilities to a character sheet. Granted this depends on you using roll20 to play a game that has a very good character sheet, and 5E has a few options which seem quite good (the 4E DnD doesn't seem as well-done to me at first glance). The 5E OGL Shaped Sheet is my personal favorite if just because of how flexible it is, but that's mostly due to me being experienced in making it do what I want. At first glance it may seem overwhelming. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Sep 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What Roll20 is missing is auto-population of spell information. It's all there if you search the compendium, but you have to retype it into your character sheet. It would require some data entry, but not that much and drat would it be nice. I don't have this problem. Drag-and-drop has worked for the paladin spells I've used it for that are actually in the SRD.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Where do you drag from? The compendium? I use the search function to find the spell I want and then just drag it into my spell list.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
I do know the sheet is updated constantly so maybe it wasn't working at one point, wouldn't surprise me at all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I gave that sheet a try and the big issue i've been having is whenever I add a second class or second level to the class/levels modification it seems to freak out and add 3 extra rows and im not exactly sure why. This then loads up a tonne of abilities a class shouldnt have at that level. Ironically I'm probably going to just use it to make monsters than run on that table. That's a very recent bug and it's really weird and it's supposed to be fixed when they push an update Tuesday/Wednesday. I was able to fix it myself by going to Attributes and Abilities and finding all references to those levels and deleting them. The major annoying thing about having a sheet like this is that the owner seems to introduce new bugs into it every now and then and it bugs out temporarily. There's a simpler 5E OGL Sheet that has less features but is less buggy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
User0015 posted:How balanced is this homebrew? The first major problem I see is it doesn't actually have a "spells known" column on its table so there's no way to tell how many spells it actually knows at a given level. Given that, the class flat-out doesn't really function. The major offender besides that is probably the Animate Major Undead thing, if your DM is generous enough to give you a good corpse to animate with it. Having what is essentially a pet manticore at 7th level is a bit much, way to make martials even more pointless. At higher levels you can have things like chimeras and medusas. Though I'm not sure what the part at level 15 where it says "In addition, the major undead now lasts until its hit points reach 0 " means. I don't see any rules for it expiring before that, unless it's referring to needing to use the feature to retain control of the undead, though that seems mostly pointless unless it also removes the "can only have one at a time" restriction (which isn't specified). Also, the level 6 feature strikes me as redundant, unless it's meant to just be "you no longer need to know animate dead". The flavor part of the wording might also suggest that it doesn't require corpses but that isn't clear. As strictly read it might also let you turn level 1 and 2 slots into animate dead which presents problems. Some of the other features are fuzzily written too. Like, is the level 2 grim reaper feature supposed to add those to your spells known? The flavor part sounds like it is, but the mechanical part is not very clear, even considering this is 5E. Finally, the "multiclass" part is really strange. 50gp? Do you spend it or what?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Thank you for crushing my nascent desire to venture into gaming with Roll20 random. If anecdotes count for anything so far I've played in a handful of roll20 random games, one I left because it was Princes of the Apocalypse and the DM wasn't really doing anything to reign in problematic players, and I found the sandbox nature if it directionless and dull, one I stayed in for a few months and it was pretty solid before it fell apart due to lack of player/DM interest, and one's been going on strong for over a year now, so much so that I've joined another campaign the same DM has been running on off-weeks (with two of the same players). That DM also allows most optional combat options from the DMG like Marking and Climbing onto Larger Creatures which helps martial characters at least feel like they're contributing a little more (and doesn't really help spell casters very much). So, I don't think it's all bad. My recommendation would actually be to try and get in as a replacement for a game that's been running for a little while if you can, since you know they're likely to be somewhat more reliable.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Of course playing with friends/people you know is ideal, but I think occasionally one does run into situations where it's either no game or playing with randoms.kingcom posted:Apparently orc pub cut a deal with wotc to sell their stuff through their DM guild. So now wotc gets a cut and orc pub 2 is continuing to be a thing. Speaking of DM's Guild, I did cleaned up, edited, and added to that homebrew I posted earlier and put it on the DM's Guild.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I have literally no idea why they didn't mimic the 4E Character Builder/DM Tools/Compendium but for 5E. There has to be a reason, like maybe dumb licensing stuff/contracts/whatever, but.... why? I wish. Eventually I reached the point in my 4E game where I very rarely used monsters I didn't make myself using Adventure Tools (with MM3 Math on a Business Card as guidelines) and when I tried to DM 5E it was really rough to do anything remotely similar.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
When someone says they're playing a warlock in 5E I just assume they mean warlock2/3+sorcerer rest because that's how I'd play it. Quickened Eldritch Blasts (or any other Quickened Spell + Eldritch Blast) plus short rest slots that can be converted into sorcery points. Why play a straight warlock over that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Because if you're going for pure damage, then you probably don't want to play a Warlock to begin with. Min/Maxing is not all that fun for some of us. I just don't see a reason to go all warlock aside from multiclassing being not permitted. Even as far as utility goes the sorcerer can get a fair amount of it, really the main thing you'd lose out on is some of the higher-level invocations, but you'll get a lot more spell slots to compensate so it's probably a wash at worst. Edit: Unless you really have your heart set on one of those mid-to-high-level invocations that gives you a specific all-day guaranteed benefit, I suppose. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Because you want to roleplay a warlock Conspiratiorist posted:I mean, if you only take 3 levels of Warlock you aren't really a Warlock, you're a Sorcerer who dipping Warlock at the cost of their spell progression because they want more cantrips and have a higher at-will damage potential. I guess my view on this is different since my main group (the one I DM for) has always had a pretty easy-going attitude about reskinning and flavor in general being mutable. I see nothing wrong with a warlock2/sorcerer6 roleplaying as, well, a warlock.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:Reskinning is just the absolute thing for character creation. I've got a player using a Lawful Good Rogue with the Soldier background. Thus, he decided that he's a police investigator, and even still has the badge. Not every rogue needs to be street scum! I agree 100%. I have a player in a 4E game of mine who is extremely in favor of reskinning; her shaman character is, according to her, actually just an empty human shell with no personality possessed by her spirit companions (multiple, because Elemental Priest theme), who are from Athas (the campaign takes place in 4E FR). She's actually really a shaman/warlord hybrid with all "lazy" powers which are fluffed as her spirits possessing the party members temporarily, so she effectively ignores all the warlord fluff. When we briefly considered switching the 4E campaign over to 5E our Twofold Star/Dark Pact warlock was actually going to be a UA Shadow Sorcerer with Warlock levels and GOO Pact, which we felt was good enough in terms of accurately representing his patrons (and the shadow dog was going to be refluffed into the owlbear he got from Fey Beast Tamer theme). With Shadow Sorcerer basically being reworked thematically into powers from his Dark Pact patron. I'm used to my players doing wacky stuff conceptually that don't always fit mechanics 100%, but I think we all make a good-faith effort to use mechanics we like and making them thematically appropriate to our characters rather than strictly staying within the class concepts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Of course, if short rests were only 5-10 minutes (which I highly recommend a DM who's running 5E to make happen), this wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Technically, short rest powers are supposed to be one every two encounters, rather than every encounter. I think a short rest every 2 encounters may work out when you have a 6-8 encounter day. Problem is I don't seem to have many of those (do others?). For a 3-4 encounter day, presumably the encounters are all kinda tough and meaningful, which would mean a short rest every encounter is probably good. Any less than that and I don't think short-rest-dependent classes will balance out well against long-rest-dependent classes. Unless you get mid-battle rests or something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:
I can't wait to be a dragonborn from the Grrrmmballhyst clan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
I agree on Battlemaster maneuvers and hell I homebrewed 22 new ones, but at the same time I feel like it's a pretty big design problem right now that BM maneuvers are tied to one single fighter archetype and that makes me really not want to play any other fighter archetype. Really, all fighters should get BM maneuvers and the martial archetypes need to be overhauled. Like, Knight is kinda neat, but picking it means no maneuvers at all and that's sad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There was a time when the archetype you picked determined the maneuvers that you got access to And yeah if they added a bunch more maneuvers that'd be feasible. Still need the overhaul to do it though. That'd be a much better state than the current one. Makes me miss the playtest packets and how some of the earlier ones handled martial damage dice. The end result is still disappointing these many years later.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:That does, however, require concentration; also, that's not caster level, it's slot level- 3rd or 4th for 8 hours, 5th or above for 24. That's a lot of work for +1d6 damage per round. Hex is 1d6 necrotic damage per attack rather than per round, so each Edritch Blast beam deals an additional 1d6. It's clearly designed with a full warlock in mind, since they always cast it at a higher level. On the other hand, a MC warlock will have plenty of level 1 slots to use for it. Main drawback is that concentration means you can't use both it and the Darkness + Devil's Sight combo simultaneously.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Also doing the Darkness + Devilsight combo will get you murdered at any table without asking permission first. I'm pretty sure that's at least 85% of the intent behind the Devil's Sight invocation. Like, you don't even need to MC for it. It's baked into the class. I don't see why it'd require any more permission than any other class using their class features in tandem for good effect.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:The question is not "does the game encourage this interaction." It's very clearly intended. It is also incredibly unfriendly to the rest of your party if it's the core thing your character is doing. Maybe for a Bladelock. A normal warlock who stands back and blasts generally won't inconvenience his or her allies. Even a Bladelock might be able to find a way to use it, depending on some combination of these factors: how far they can move, what objects they can cast it on, the presence of familiars to handle the objects, and how strict the DM is about stowing/drawing items. Probably lose the defensive benefits though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Trebuchet King posted:wait, what do objects and familiars have to do with making it so your party can't see? i think maybe we're talking past each other about different things? You can cast Darkness on an object, and if you can fully cover the object it blocks the Darkness. The idea being that you cast Darkness on an object on your person, then after you make whatever attacks you want you can cover up the object to let your allies see again. How exactly you do this is shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Your Lottery posted:These are really good and flavorful. Except Execution sounds to good, especially if combined with a crit. NachtSieger posted:execution is not as good as youre making it out to be. My general inclination is that since Execution basically boils down to "more damage" I'm okay with it being how it is, as there's more than one "if" statement to clear before the second part kicks in (which is the specific reason for the extra "oomph" with the maxed WD dice). With that said it's one maneuver I've done a lot of tinkering with based on feedback and personal flip-flopping so I may do more. Thanks for having a look at them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I recommend if you are doing EK to take some of the melee cantrips from the SCAG. They tend to work well with how the EK works. People tend to underestimate the EK, but every time I have seen it in play it tends to be really solid. I think the EK is probably better than the battle master in its current state, as "fighter who can have a familiar and cast shield/absorb elements" and maybe some other spells at higher levels is an improvement over the base fighter. Which likely makes it the strongest fighter. Whether or not it's better at being a gish than the Valor Bard/Bladesinger is another matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:My DM was trying to come up with magic weapons and asked my opinion on the following. Have the disarm require using a bonus action means it can't be (annoyingly) spammed. It's something of a band-aid and locks out any other bonus action things you might have, but it should work. It fits in with your "yes there is a sacrifice required" at any rate, as well as limiting its potential to be spammed in one turn over and over for each attack. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
It would be a fair point to say that Arcane Archer's Arcane Arrows are kinda like maneuvers. There's a lot to dislike about them: they're worse in several key ways (they are universally wasted on a miss, you only ever get two per short rest), their flavor is magical and they only work for a ranged fighter (which I could never really see myself playing), but there are some maneuver-like options for fighters in the book, assuming the Arcane Archer is very much like the UA version (hopefully they get more shots per rest? scale as they level up like superiority dice). Personally that does nothing for me because I can't imagine why I'd ever want to play a magical archer character who wasn't a bard, but hey, at least there's something there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Hey folks, I'm looking to get into a 5E campaign here soon having only glanced at it in the past. Coming from mostly a 4E background, and mostly preferring 4E, what kind of game imbalance pitfalls should I be on the lookout for? Non-casters in general are back to boring, as in having only the barest fraction of tactical, strategic, and narrative options available to spellcasters, not just fighters. It's just more pronounced with fighters because they get very little flavor aside from "guy who fights" but a fighter's only way to fight is "swing a weapon".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Battlemaster can do a few interesting things. Personally, I think the scope of most maneuvers doesn't really eclipse the damage boost of Sneak Attack, rogues will also generally be better at out-of-combat skills than fighters and can even have a few interesting things come of their actual class features if the stars align correctly, like a high-level thief in a campaign with a magic-item-happy DM. Meanwhile fighter maneuvers don't really get any better and their class features top out at the underwhelming indomitable. I think rogues have more potential to be interesting than fighters do with the current in-game material, at least, if just because they generally interact with more of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:A little while ago someone posted a list of new Battle master manoeuvrers that they'd written - does anyone have the link? It's not the new archetypes just posted above. If you're referring to mine, it's a bit of a toned-down version of the material that was posted by gradenko: here. I basically reworked most of the exploit concepts into battle master maneuvers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Sion posted:I went for tiefling. I have int 18 currently and I've spent the feat or boost at level 4 on getting me to that point. I can get to 8 and get to 20 and 12 can be the feat. Warcaster seems pretty good? I would invest in one feat to boost your Concentration checks, either Resilient (Constitution) or War Caster depending on which you prefer. I like to start with an odd number in Con and take Resilient (Constitution) myself. mango sentinel posted:Battlemaster should have been the core of the fighter class and the subclasses should become built around superiority dice as a resource for doing cool stuff in different flavors. This would never happen because Mearls insists there must be a "very simple" fighter for people who want to sit at the table but not play the game. It seems to me the entire fighter class has to suffer because the Champion archetype must exist for Mearls' vision. At least, that's the impression I got looking back through the playtest articles and then looking at what we got.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
clusterfuck posted:That's some interesting context, the early intentions seem at odds with the outcome. Thanks for the work you put into the combat maneuvers, it's largely what I'm adapting at the moment to nut this out. It's just my impression, to be fair. And the articles are nearly impossible to scrounge up nowadays. But I did participate in some bits of the DnD Next playtest, and I remember one particular article where it was said something to the effect of "Right now we want to concentrate on making a very simple fighter". This was back when martial damage dice were a thing for multiple classes and seemed relatively promising as a concept, and from there it just seemed like they continually got scaled down further and further. I was looking forward to seeing what they'd come up with for higher levels since most of the playtest packets only went up to level 5 or so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 23:17
|
|