Yesterday we had the second session in the Star Wars group. Almost TPK'd, too! Good times.
Yesterday we had the second session in the Star Wars group. Almost TPK'd, too! Good times.
don't quote me on this
Hey there, guys! So, for those of you who are more familiar with D&D 5E, what's the best mechanical way to create a warrior minstrel-type character - that is, someone who's focused on social interaction and supporting allies in combat, while still being able to hold his own in a fight (spellcasting optional, but restricted to spells that fit the theme and can be flavoured as magical songs)? Should I just try out a Valor Bard, or would a Battle Commander (?) Fighter with Maneuvers focused on support (such as Rally) work better?
Heh. How did that go, exactly?Originally Posted by aldeayeah
Any of the bards should work. How much are you favoring melee combat is the question.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
If you specifically want music as the main theme, then Bard. Otherwise, consider Paladin (aura, half caster, smite), Sorcerer (full caster, offensive + buffs, but can get healing if Divine Soul), or Warlock since they're the classes other that gravitate to Charisma anyway.
Or just go Wizard with a decent Charisma score. Bladesinger can be good at melee + still being a full caster. Abjuration gets an easily charged temp HP shield (i.e. you should always cast Mage Armor before heading out), and can eventually extend that shield to others. Conjuration lets you summon stuff to help support your melee group members. Evocation lets you freely cast Fireballs and the like into a tight group of enemies+group members without the latter getting killed. If you go with Unearthed Arcana, there's also Theurgy, which is basically a Wizard that can snag Cleric spells + most of the Cleric Divine Domain features (can't get Armor and Weapon proficiencies).
In a lv1 group with two diplomancers, we keep shooting first.
don't quote me on this
Swashbuckler Rogue with Expertise in performance, and the Entertainer background for the instrument proficiency. They're less sneaky than normal Rogues, designed around having a lot of flair and style. They also like to have high charisma.
Basically, I want the character to 1) not be one of the squishies (very important goal!), and 2) be good enough at dealing melee damage that just hanging back inspiring / casting spells / firing arrows isn't the mechanically superior option, at least not by much.
I do, but as long as the DM is fine with it, I don't mind reflavouring - to a certain point. So no summoning, no blasting, or anything of the sort, but I'll take a look at the Paladin and the Warlock.
Thanks!
Hah! Why, though?
- - - Updated - - -
Hm! Interesting. But can they also somehow give any sort of bonuses to allies?
Swashbucklers get Panache at level 9, which lets you make a Persuasion check vs a hostile creature's insight check and basically taunt them - they get disadvantage on attack rolls against creatures other than you, and can't make opportunity attacks other than against you. It ends early if your allies attack it or affect it with a spell, but it can be a good way to give your allies a chance to safely disengage.
Also, the Swashbuckler does not provoke opportunity attacks from creatures it has made an attack against that turn, so it's highly mobile which is something that can be used in conjunction with the above to separate enemies from your allies.
That's not really direct support, but you could use one of the Swashbuckler's additional ASIs to pick up a feat like Martial Adept and take two Battlemaster maneuvers that would help.
Cool ability, but only level 9? I was kind of hoping for something which could be used earlier. Still, it could be fun to play if I go for a full melee character, so thanks!
Because the soldier and the force initiate are really trigger-happy, and the padawan is Lawful Stupid (is also the wolves GM :D).
don't quote me on this
I like the sound of this rogue build. I typically add at least two fighter levels for the weapon proficiencies and bonus feats… but a bombastic character would probably suit me…
Likes attention, shiny objects, and... a ball of yarn?
F/GO Supports
I joined two years too late...
Can't seem to find a definitive answer anywhere, so I'll ask here for everyone's opinion. Via RAW and RAI, is there anything that says how much gold it costs to Multiclass to Wizard? I'm assuming that it costs 50 gold since a Wizard needs a spell book, but I've seen other people say that you have to pay the costs of scribing your six first level spells into the book as described in the Wizard's class features, which is either an additional 300 gold + 2 Downtime Days or 50 gold + 1 Downtime Day.
As I've already said, I think just paying for the spell book is already a big enough expense, given that a person Multiclassing to Wizard gets no proficiencies or skills, as opposed to other Multiclass options. Also, no other Multiclass option absolutely requires paying for something just to use their class features, though someone that goes Fighter would obviously need to buy a weapon and/or armor if they intend to use said weapon. Granted, it's entirely possible that said someone already has in their possession said items from a fallen foe or as a reward, so even that expense could be negated.
Roleplaying justifications aren't too hard to think up for either case, which is why I'd really like something that's RAW, RAI, or a Sage Advice entry from Crawford about this.
Huh! I haven't thought about that in a long time.
I don't think there's anything on it, but we could try to extrapolate.
A wizard that loses their spellbook is also a character who needs to purchase and inscribe the spells to use their Wizard class features. A character multiclassing into wizard is essentially just that. So just like a wizard who has lost their spellbook, and needs to go out and acquire a new one, they would have to do the same.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
The problem I have with that interpretation is that it makes Wizard the only class that absolutely must have gold to multiclass, lest it lose features promised in its class features without having a specific stat (20 Int + Wizard 1 for six first level spells prepared, if not written down). Made a twitter account today to ask Crawford what his thoughts on it are, as I can see the following gold costs:
1. 50 gold for a spell book (I'm fine with this because you don't get a Spell Book RAW if you multiclass, just like a Fighter multiclass doesn't get to pick whatever Martial Weapons that they want for free)
2. Either 10 gold + 1 hour per first level spell if we go with the rules of scribing spells you already know to a new Spell Book, or 50 gold + 2 hours per first level spell if we go with the rules of trying to add a new spell to your Spell Book.
Speaking of 5e things, what is everyone's stance regarding Stealth checks to remain unnoticed by enemies as you advance towards them, both in and out of combat? I think that it's possible to do so, but trying to Stealth in this way requires a Stealth check that takes up your Action to do so, and is not something that Rogues can get by via Cunning Action because it is not a function of the Hide Action.
It's not? But Hide requires making a Stealth check.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
Via the PHB and Crawford's comments about it, Hiding requires something to obscure a target's ability to see you. If you're out in the open, you can't attempt to Hide.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25...-they-ba-hide/
It goes into further detail about attacking from range while benefiting from Hide, but that's not relevant to trying to move into melee unnoticed.Q: I am curious: when the rogue starts round hidden behind wall, moves out, attacks... is she hidden during the attack? Or, broke cover and no?
JC: Are you referring to an attack from behind cover, or are you referring to a rogue who moves X ft. in the open and then attacks?
Q: Lat(t)er. Rogue starts hidden, moves out to see foe, attacks. Players like to argue they are still hidden on attack.
JC: You can attack while hidden and gain the benefit. But if you run out into the open and then attack, you're not hidden when you attack.
Hidden is explicitly defined as unseen because of something obscuring vision + unheard. My argument is that simply moving quietly does not mean that you're hiding, as walking quietly down a hallway is not described as being hidden. Since you're not hiding, you must actively try not to be noticed, which can fail if a target, for whatever reason, turns and sees you (knocked prone and can see behind, a mirror, or the would be Stealth person makes too much noise walking towards the target).
Last edited by Trubo; March 23rd, 2018 at 02:40 AM.
Unrelated, what are your views regarding spells like Disintegrate and Power Word Kill used on a Druid's Wild Shape?
https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/d...Compendium.pdf
With that established, a discussion I was in proposed that Power Word Kill could still instantly kill a Druid if its Wild Shape had 100 or less HP. I disagreed, citing the RAI clarification of Disintegrate indicating that you are to consider all of the HP a Druid has from both the Wild Shape and their HP before entering Wild Shape.What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points.
That’s the literal interpretation of the rules (RAW). In contrast, the intent (RAI) is that a druid isn’t considered to be at 0 hit points for the purposes of an effect like disintegrate until the druid’s normal form is reduced to 0 hit points.
Those in favor of Power Word Kill instantly killing a Wild Shape Druid said it's because that's what the Wild Shape description implies. I pointed out that the text explicitly says
The key word here is "assume". The text does not say that you replace all of your stats with the Wild Shape beast form, but that you assume the Wild Shape beast form. This implies that you need to consider both the Wild Shape and the Druid when it comes to resolving damage/death. To counter, they brought up this:
At this point, it's clear that "you" is referring to the Druid's normal form.You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points, or die. While you are transformed, the following rules apply:
They then point out later in the description:
And equated the previously quoted text's "you" with the above's quoted text "you". I disagree, saying that the second "you" is clearly in reference to the Wild Shape form that the Druid is in, not the Druid's normal form.When you transform, you assume the beast's hit points and Hit Dice. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed. However, if you revert as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. For example, if you take 10 damage in animal form and have only 1 hit point left, you revert and take 9 damage. As long as the excess damage doesn't reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren't knocked unconscious.
With this in mind, I came up with two scenarios to consider:
Case 1 = A Druid's HP is equal to the HP the Wild Shape currently has + the Druid's HP before entering Wild Shape
Case 2 = A Druid has two separate HP bars, one for the Wild Shape and one for the Druid's normal form.
For Case 1, Power Word Kill could only kill the Druid if the total amount of HP the Druid had was 100 or less. For Case 2, the Druid would not die from a single Power Word Kill since the Wild Shape form would "die", triggering the condition to revert the Druid back to its normal form.
I personally think Case 1 is the correct interpretation, as it matches the RAI described by Crawford regarding Disintegrate.
Haven't gotten a reply yet, and will probably have to wait until tomorrow morning.
Last edited by Trubo; March 23rd, 2018 at 02:59 AM.
Having a archdruid in rat form be just as tough as a rat is pretty hilarious.
Last edited by aldeayeah; March 23rd, 2018 at 10:26 AM.
don't quote me on this
Are you trying to figure out what the RAW would be, or the RAI, Trubo?
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
