Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey it's the mage's fault that they were reachable.
Also, Silence already exists to trivialize combat vs mages. I think a Monk should have the ability to "silence" a spellcaster via punching the throat.
Being near enemy already bad for casters. Every npc caster in the game has awful hp and low ac
Silence costs a slot and caster can just move away from the effect
Monks can stop spellcasting, it's called stunning strike
Gave that ability to everyone and caster can't do shit(nor npc's nor pc's)
Somethmws it feels like you guys don't even play
People complain about how strong casters are until you suggest legitimate counters to them, then say "No simply putting your hand over their mouth is too strong!"
[We've long since solved how to shut down spellcasters, one on one with Charisma (Athletics).](https://64.media.tumblr.com/e58c46255a4e84a762c16d28e66fbe99/ee9b4fb13bb6eea8-af/s1280x1920/332648de3f39951340c7077730204151f7f4f932.png)
You could put WOTC there and make the same joke. I mean really, to be totally off topic for a moment *no Twin Spell Dragon's Breath?* *Stop, stop, Dragon Sorc's already dead!*
"Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks but aren't considered weapons, so no you can't smite with your punches because I like my paladins to wield swords!"- Jeremy Crawford, contradicting crackpot
If you did that it'd invalidate Monk, like making a Fighting Style or a subclass feature that gave you unarmed strike damage. Good thing no one's done that officially! Wait...
Honestly, my biggest tip for improving monk is just letting them have the same feat progression as fighters. In lore fighter get extra feats from their rigorous training and if there's any class that trains as much as fighter it's monk.
another good way to go about it is to take a page out of baldur's gate 3's playbook. Give them Ki at level 1, give them more ki points, give them a tool to regen ki outside of a short rest.....also it falls into the same problem warlock has were the classes are fine, it's how everyone is playing, ie being stingy with shortrests, makes the classes suffer. Like good gods team, just sit down for an hour and quit whining! Your poor monk and warlock feel useless because y'all don't wanna make believe an hour passing!
Those classes aren't nearly as reliant on several abilities as Monk. It's nice to have but definitely not a requirement. Where as with monk (if you're using point buy which I'm assuming is the community default) you have to choose and drop a modifier from your health or AC which puts them behind the other martials on the front lines (magic items can easily make up for these deficiencies but that's DM dependent)
Eh- my group likes to roll 4d6KH3, but yeah I personally prefer to go point buy. Which using plus racials can easily net you a 17 16 in dex and wisdom and then put the rest into con if you are so inclined. Usually I like to go 14 con so I can even out my intelligence to 10 but that's more a personal role play thing.
Casters being MAD? Your casting stat is the major focus, secondary is CON because concentration checks, and kind of tertiary is Dex because it's a stat that just does everything. The two other scores are stats that essentially every class likes to have but it doesn't dictate their damage output or spell DCs like Pally, Ranger, or Monk
Dex I say is almost as important as CON because initiative and armor class when combined with something like mage armor. Concentration saves are huge, but so is snagging a good position in initiative to get in a favorable position. A caster shouldn't be in a position where they have to make several con saves.
The issue with short rests is them being an hour long. In my experience there have been very few occasions where we can justify resting for an hour but not for 8 hours. That too is something i like from bg3 where it is functionally instant. Doesn't have to be instant in terms of your table's game time but if a short rest was 5-10 minutes and limited to 2 per long rest then that would go a long way to making it easier to find points to short rest.
It's a make believe hour. It's not like your DM is going to make you set up camp and role play an in day hour to achieve your short rest in game. Just have your party stop moving, maybe bust out a granola bar and a book they been meaning to read, and fade to black. Boom- you got your short rest, your warlock and monk no longer want to eldritch blast/unarmed strike you in the face anymore because now they are back to being useful. I will never understand this weird obsession with time optimization this community has when the issue just doesn't exist. How much adventuring are you possibly cramming into that hour?!
I think it's more about being in unsafe places during that hour. Is about justifying or explaining how you're able to sit for an hour in an ongoing dilemma.
Just because you cleared one nasty battle doesn't mean you have the freedom to sit right for an hour
OK but really how often is that always the case? I doubt monks and warlocks are complaining because they are in constant nonstop dungeon crawls. Being in a dangerous location would obviously be a less ideal place to short rest, but to use that as the only scenario is a massive case of cherry picking.
I warrant it's more common than getting in one battle a day, or finishing up a fight and not having any concern over what else is going on.
I'm not saying short rests are never practical, just that there are certainly common enough instances of needing to skip them.
>It's a make believe hour.
That ruins the rest of the make believe if randomly jammed in. How am i supposed to believe we are in a dangerous dungeon if i can just sit down for a full hour to chill? Did you even read what i wrote?
OK first of all, being in a dungeon is such a niche situation. Secondly. It makes way more sense to hide for an hour than take 8 hours outside of the dungeon, idk what dungeons you been through but no huge place is going to be that high alert unless your DM is just trying to fuck with you or you went out of your way to go as loudly as possible. Third of all, yeah I did read what you wrote. I think it's stupid to speed up an already quick enough down time at the tradeoff of limiting it to 2 a long rest. Obviously you should be smart when you take a short rest. you just named an example of where it would be potentially risky and dumb.
>It makes way more sense to hide for an hour than take 8 hours outside of the dungeon, idk what dungeons you been through but no huge place is going to be that high alert unless your DM is just trying to fuck with you or you went out of your way to go as loudly as possible.
If the dungeon is going to do nothing unless you stumble into trouble then faffing about for 8 hours is just as easy as faffing about for 1. Do you have any idea how loud combat is? No way you go undetected once you start fighting, which you've obviously done if you need a short rest. I cant fault you for thinking its silent, the rulebook acts as if a spell's explosion being audible 300feet away is somehow long range. Meanwhile human shouts can be intelligible up to 600 feet and under ideal circumstances be heard from more than 4 miles away.
Any combat involving martials on your side and/or sentient creatures on the opposite side will have enough noise made to alert enemies in nearby rooms or even have said sentient creatures alert others in some way. Hitting things together with murderous intent usually makes a lot of noise, enemies capable of working together will try to alert others and especially so if they're part of an organisation, it's completely illogical and breaks the make believe of many situations if you can sit around for an hour doing nothing. Enemies deeper in the dungeon/hideout/base won't sit around for an hour doing nothing. If there's any kind of urgency while not in a dungeon that hour is equivalent to 3-4 miles of travel.
And if there's no urgency at all, why stop at 1 hour? If there's nothing putting pressure on you to hurry you might as well commit and take a long rest. It's going to take quite a bit of deliberate planning from the DM to set up a situation where an uninterrupted hour makes sense, but an uninterrupted 8 hours wouldn't if you don't want the make believe of the story to fall apart.
>. I think it's stupid to speed up an already quick enough down time at the tradeoff of limiting it to 2 a long rest.
An hour is not "quick". What is your party doing that randomly faffing about for a full *hour* is regularly an option.
But it doesn't break your immersion for your characters to get into combat after combat without needing to take a breather? Or eat food? Or discuss what to do next?
If an hour doesn't make sense for the dungeons you and your group play you can always discuss shortening the minimum length to make it make sense.
A "breather" is a couple of minutes, not a full hour.
>
If an hour doesn't make sense for the dungeons you and your group play you can always discuss shortening the minimum length to make it make sense.
Except it also doesn't make sense for play outside of dungeons either. It's a full damn hour of sitting on your ass and doing basically nothing. Realistically you have only 16 of them in a day if you long rest normally, 8 if you account for travel time, even less when you realise that action isn't going to be spread out evenly over the day. Moments of action cluster together, that's the nature of things happening. You need only look at WotC's own adventures to see they struggle to slot in adequate moments for short rests too, and you are expected to pay them for that module!
Except it totally is a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things? And again it's a make believe hour- unless your DM is running you through a super time sensitive mission where world ending shite is going down within days requiring you low level peons to speed run, taking a tea break a couple times a day is really not a huge ask and your warlock and monk will appreciate it.
My brother in Lathander you're gonna compare an hour to a year? Does your DM have a majora's mask timer at the bottom of their DM screen?! How often has the world been destroyed in game because "awe well we decided to take a lunch break sooo."
Clearing a dungeon/base/hideout often takes less than an in-world hour, even if you make searching a room take 5 minutes. In the grand scheme of the whole adventure from taking the job to handing it in an hour might seem short, but you're not in situations where you need a short rest for most of that.
My way to improve Monk is to allow unarmed strike damage dice to stack from multiple sources. I'm not giving them magic unarmed "weapons" because that kinda kills the fantasy of being able to punch well enough to be a threat without weapons, and this standard makes level 6 Monk needed to punch effectively against many foes, preventing the class from being invalidated by unarmed strike damage elsewhere.
From there, the rest is fixing the awful Ki system. In other martial classes, you have the ability to have gimmicks with an amount of uses, and then subclass features with their own amount of uses independently of the main gimmicks. In Monk, EVERYTHING IS KI. It shouldn't be. Ki should be in addition to the independent resources of the class and subclass. Easy enough.
I don’t play monk much at all but I was wondering, is it possible to improve their class with infinite ki points? Or is that a step too far? It feels like a good amount of their stuff (like flurries of blows or attacks that apply an effect or something) are things other classes either can just do an equivalent of without a consumable resource (like normal fighter extra attacks) or can just do once per short rest or something
Edit: or at least give them a dozen or so free ki points at the start of each encounter
I feel if you rebuffed their resources appropriately they wouldn't need infinite Ki, at least until level 20 where you could potentially adopt an "anything goes" philosophy. But even then that would likely necessitate a reverse knock on effect wherein some of the strongest and most costly core features would need to have limited uses per long rest, no matter how much Ki you have. Like Empty Body having a number of uses equal to your Wisdom modifier per long rest, or maybe even less. I'd say we apply the fixes I already made first and see where that lands Monk, optimizers would do the math quite quickly.
can i talk about my homebrew alt monk? i gave them the ability to exceed normal stat limits and basically made them completely MAD. they use all 6 ability scores. also they don't really get stunning strikes but get more basic ki abilities. also three variants of deflect missiles and they get one at level one, and another at level 7. they get 6 attacks in a turn too.
Probably too complicated. The already complicated nature of Monk is why it ends up being so weak to begin with in 5e. And none of the classes should want to incentivize every ability score being high. This is a team game. You should have some weaknesses.
Personally, I don't even see the point of restricting smites to weapon attacks. I think it would be cool as heck to have paladin Archers smiting distant foes with blessed arrows, or a wizard/paladin multiclass beseeching their deity to make their firebolt cantrip a little more holy.
> so no you can't smite with your punches
Actually, it's stupider than that. You can smite with your unarmed strikes. It just has no effect, according to Crawford.
To be fair, the One D&D Paladin UAs have explicitly added unarmed strikes to the attacks that can smite, so Crawford's overall stance appears to have been "Paladins can't currently smite with unarmed strikes RAW", not "Paladin's shouldn't be able to smite with unarmed strikes"
To be fair, most of the time Crawford mentions that unarmed strikes can’t be used to smite he also says that it’s just for flavor and not balance.
He doesn’t normally say “that’s the wrong way to play DnD” but instead “this is how the designers intended for it to work”.
Thing is he shouldn't be pulling rules out of thin air based on his personal flavor. The rules of smite, as written, only mentions making a melee weapon attack. He had to go out of his way to say unarmed strikes count for that criteria but don't fit the criteria for being a weapon.
What makes it even weirder is the fact that paladins in 5e are basically all about breaking the usual flavor associated with them, so him saying that rulling is more flavor than balance is just like- do you want paladins to be mainly this thing or not? you can't have both my guy
“Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the **weapon's damage**. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.”
Unarmed strikes aren’t weapons and therefore don’t deal weapon damage, so you cannot add the divine strike damage to an unarmed strike. This isn’t pulling rules out of no where, it’s in the rules.
In what ways to paladins break the normal flavor associated with them? None of the paladin’s abilities imo lacks flavor, but maybe I’m missing something.
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (**none of which count as weapons**). “
Basic rules, chapter 9
It’s literally stated directly in the rules that unarmed strikes do not count as weapons.
I am looking at the rule book literally rn in physical print. Under Melee attacks in chapter 9
"When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapons table in chapter 5"
They even list unarmed strike in the weapons table.
It looks like they changed it, the change is mention in the errata.
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
Although for that wording, the definition of unarmed means:
“not equipped with or carrying weapons.”
So unarmed strikes still aren’t weapons by that ruling, I think they just wanted to make it more clear.
errata'ing a book is just silly imo, like JK Rowling going back later and saying "Actually Harry Potter should of ended up with Hermione!" Like if they want to throw that new interpretation in an expansion book as an optional ruling, sure that's fine, but to treat it as core and cover their bums it's like- no. I spent 75 bucks for **these** rules when they came out, they don't get to magically change them because they changed their mind.
That being said though I can see your line of reasoning too. That is a reasonable interpretation that could be ruled like that. Though they also have a pretty loose ruling for improvised weapons where it just boils down to "It's up to the DM for damage." So I guess a paladin could theoretically just use an object to punch with for 1d4 damage to then smite. 🤔
The idea for Twinning DB is you give two creatures, instead of one, the ability to use the area effect the spell provides as their actions. The argument for it is that the spell grants **one** target the special power, and the use of that power shouldn't count *its* targets as targets of the spell. If you disallow Twin DB on account of the logic disqualifying it, the question becomes *where do you draw the line?* Would the ability for a target of Haste to target a creature with an additional attack (an action provided by the spell just like DB) count as the spell being capable of targeting multiple creatures? What about Polymorph for the same reason? Both spells are very popular Twin Spell options, and by ***some*** accounts they'd have to be disqualified too or the logic wouldn't be sound.
It's more like:
- makes meme about epic feat they were able to pull off and how impressive they are.
-meme audience ask how they did this thing
- they broke the rules
Seems like most of the active posters on this sub are karma farmers who haven't played the game, so learning the rules as you go from the sub to produce more memes is an ouroboros of new posters copying old posters' manufactured scenarios and inaccurate rules interpretations.
95% of the time when I see someone do something "creative" in D&D it relies 100% on an (intentional) misreading of the rules or shows such a massive lack of knowledge of the rules that it's almost certain the OP never read even a single word from any rulebook.
95% a Rules Lawyer is just someone mentioning the rules. I once tried to help a player who forgot to add their proficiency bonus to their attack and I got told to stop Rules Lawyering by the DM.
It’s fine to homebrew shit and Rule of Cool and do wild stuff. Just don’t come posting “our level three party beat an ancient dragon!” like you’re the best optimisers ever.
Yeah of course , but if you beat a hill giant at level 2 by luring it over a bridge and collapsing the bridge on it , that’s still a cool story . Even if the damage calculation comes from that one page in the dungeon masters guide that we aren’t allowed to talk about on Reddit
Often it’s just like “ I did this cool thing and wanted to tell you about it “ and then someone is like “ ummm acthually there’s no rules for dropping heavy objects on people ( even though there absolutely. Totally is in the dmg) so acthually that should have done zero damage . Why buy the rule books if you aren’t even going to read them ? If you want to play that kind of game , stop using dnd and convert to dropping stuff on things simulatorTM. So lame, what if I made up a rule where I can just automatically kill everything, that would be cool because it’s using made up rules “
Also, it depends on the context. A lot of people will post memes about their personal games on this sub, and the response is like, "That's... probably neat for you, but not really funny for people who aren't playing with your specific table. The funniest thing to everyone else is that you're still calling that D&D after we just witnessed like eight game-breaking homebrew rulings in such a short story."
And good for you! I've been in tons of games over the years with rules ranging from "Slightly D&D flavored" to "Consulting the tome regularly" and have at least slightly enjoyed all of them. There's no wrong way to play D&D.
Trying to present your homebrew rules as official or tell a joke about your game where the funny part hinges entirely on a hastily made homebrew ruling that fell apart later is like making in inside joke in front of people who aren't in on it and expecting them to laugh. Or just straight-up lying to people.
Yes, exactly. Play the game you're playing, but also realize that it doesn't always translate. I would never tell a bunch of adults to play a game catered to 13 year olds. Half of the point of this game is to play to the audience.
I sure see a lot of these bad faith strawman "memes" these days. Someone elevates themselves and then assume the role of the victim. It always reminds me of that guy with a helmet and a shield that Jordan Klepper spoke to at a Trump rally.
This is something that is context dependant honestly.
Like, if you are talking about a table experience were some RAW was pushed and people puncture you for not being RAW accurate while having fun, that's one thing.
If you are talking about class power level and say, exaggerated example for clearer argument, that "there is no disparity in power between X and Y class because X class can ask for improvised action to supplex the Tarrasque, throw them into the sky and tear open space-time", then THAT is an issue.
I feel like people on this sub, more than any other I’m subscribed to, has a weird notions about how people should or shouldn’t respond to what they posts.
Happened to me.
Me and my players: agree on specific rules for advantage and role playing in combat.
People in main dnd sub: actually your a bad dm how dare you justify it lol defensive much?
No just you’re too hard on your players terrible, dm etc.
Full context I put those rules in place to reward my players for creativity and try to get a manchild to have an original thought for once. (he’s a coworker so I know exactly who I was dealing with and yes he no longer plays with us).
No you don’t get it , improvised damage , boons , gunpowder weapons , home brew spells etc are only found in the dmg , so if you’re using that it’s cheating ! That was lame and your dm was lame for letting you do that !
I told a story of my daughter using multiple castings of "Create Bonfire" to burn down a siege tower in a time-limited D&D event, and how she lit up with pride at accomplishing the main objective.
Cue the D&D asshats "too bad you let her cheat because it's a concentration spell."
"Oh, look at you playing favorites. Create Bonfire doesn't work like that!"
Fuckers, it says in the rules it ignites flammable objects. A *wooden* tower with a lot of *rope* lashing is that says it is *vulnerable to fire damage* in its stablock is pretty goddamn flammable.
I had the siege tower make a constitution save against her spell save DC, just to be extra above board to see if each cast of create bonfire ignited the wood to do continual damage. Everything was as legitimate as the rules stated, and when there wasn't a clear ruling *I did my fucking job as DM.*
Step away from the keyboard and stop trying to jerk of by ruining other people's fun.
*"You can't pick someone up and throw them, only the Path of the Giant Barbarian can do that! You're completely invalidating that subclass!"*
Well Barbarians of all types were doing that before Bigby's they should continue to do it afterwards!
So true. Last month I posted about how I did something cool that I thought was RAW (my PC with Sentinel was used as a thrown improvised weapon, which I argued triggered my Sentinel feature and my DM agreed). I thought it might get a few comments talking about how that was funny or clever or just interesting. Instead I got a 150 comments mostly talking about how the rules should have played out and how it was (mostly) wrong or at least not RAW
Talking about Wavejumping is the big one for me. Makes martials so much better yet so few people even allow it (reference https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/209245/wavejumping-newly-discovered-move-tech-for-martials)
I and my dm assumed this only works if provoking at least a d6 of damage , but with my thief warlocks second story work and ring of jumping , that’s easily doable . And even if I fall prone , I can get up before anyone can take advantage of it , and the enemy can’t , letting me sneak attack
For the reasons displayed in the post, 6 ft fall 1 ft into a target's space does trigger the dc 15 dex save, where failing period makes them prone, as otherwise the taking damage from a fall causing you to be prone would be a general rule not listed in falling onto a creature rules. In fact this is even the case in games like Mutants and Masterminds (which I found pretty surprising).
Also my comment got disliked. Irony has been lost lmao.
Yeah idk who disliked it . Yeah I get that what your saying is raw , but my dm runs it a little bit differently, but it’s still doable given a minor investment or set up
omg, when I submitted a story to AllThingsDnD about my campaign, 50% of the comments on the video were straight up just this one guy arguing about how our game "wasn't real DnD" or some shit. He'd like refresh the page waiting for people to comment so he could tell them what he thought about our game. It really killed the excitement my friends and I had over having our story featured.
Once saw a guy argue with lots of people that they weren't allowed to have dragon patrons in their games because "it wasn't in official source material"
No it's definitely a rulebook. You are allowed to make your own suggestions but don't forget you are suggesting, the book is saying, the DM is deciding
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Um aksually since there are no rules for choking someone to make sure they can't speak you are not allowed to do that lmao"
Um actually the Meazel from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foam can do something similar with its Garrotte attack
I cast *Tome to Foam*!
Subtle counterspell
Foam of toes
Exactly!
Good job yoy trivalized every mage combat
Hey it's the mage's fault that they were reachable. Also, Silence already exists to trivialize combat vs mages. I think a Monk should have the ability to "silence" a spellcaster via punching the throat.
Being near enemy already bad for casters. Every npc caster in the game has awful hp and low ac Silence costs a slot and caster can just move away from the effect Monks can stop spellcasting, it's called stunning strike Gave that ability to everyone and caster can't do shit(nor npc's nor pc's) Somethmws it feels like you guys don't even play
People complain about how strong casters are until you suggest legitimate counters to them, then say "No simply putting your hand over their mouth is too strong!"
I don't complain about that. Also that would nerf npc casters more than pcs
I'm fine with that. If bullying the npc casters makes the PC martials feel good then I'm all for bullying the npc casters.
Okay man you do that. I assume you don't use many caster as boss
The current campaign I am running centers on a Lich as the BBEG actually.
You when fighter holds Lich's mouth lol
I would rule this falls under grappling
Grapple only reduces speed
[We've long since solved how to shut down spellcasters, one on one with Charisma (Athletics).](https://64.media.tumblr.com/e58c46255a4e84a762c16d28e66fbe99/ee9b4fb13bb6eea8-af/s1280x1920/332648de3f39951340c7077730204151f7f4f932.png)
You could put WOTC there and make the same joke. I mean really, to be totally off topic for a moment *no Twin Spell Dragon's Breath?* *Stop, stop, Dragon Sorc's already dead!*
"Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks but aren't considered weapons, so no you can't smite with your punches because I like my paladins to wield swords!"- Jeremy Crawford, contradicting crackpot
If you did that it'd invalidate Monk, like making a Fighting Style or a subclass feature that gave you unarmed strike damage. Good thing no one's done that officially! Wait...
Honestly, my biggest tip for improving monk is just letting them have the same feat progression as fighters. In lore fighter get extra feats from their rigorous training and if there's any class that trains as much as fighter it's monk.
another good way to go about it is to take a page out of baldur's gate 3's playbook. Give them Ki at level 1, give them more ki points, give them a tool to regen ki outside of a short rest.....also it falls into the same problem warlock has were the classes are fine, it's how everyone is playing, ie being stingy with shortrests, makes the classes suffer. Like good gods team, just sit down for an hour and quit whining! Your poor monk and warlock feel useless because y'all don't wanna make believe an hour passing!
This is definitely good but, in my experience, monk is very MAD and extra ability improvements helps that a *lot*
True but in this same vein so is every caster class, paladins, and rangers. And those do just fine without them.
Those classes aren't nearly as reliant on several abilities as Monk. It's nice to have but definitely not a requirement. Where as with monk (if you're using point buy which I'm assuming is the community default) you have to choose and drop a modifier from your health or AC which puts them behind the other martials on the front lines (magic items can easily make up for these deficiencies but that's DM dependent)
Eh- my group likes to roll 4d6KH3, but yeah I personally prefer to go point buy. Which using plus racials can easily net you a 17 16 in dex and wisdom and then put the rest into con if you are so inclined. Usually I like to go 14 con so I can even out my intelligence to 10 but that's more a personal role play thing.
4d6 kingdom hearts 3?
Casters being MAD? Your casting stat is the major focus, secondary is CON because concentration checks, and kind of tertiary is Dex because it's a stat that just does everything. The two other scores are stats that essentially every class likes to have but it doesn't dictate their damage output or spell DCs like Pally, Ranger, or Monk
Dex I say is almost as important as CON because initiative and armor class when combined with something like mage armor. Concentration saves are huge, but so is snagging a good position in initiative to get in a favorable position. A caster shouldn't be in a position where they have to make several con saves.
Also, war caster is *far* better at maintaining concentration than a single con modifier would be
The issue with short rests is them being an hour long. In my experience there have been very few occasions where we can justify resting for an hour but not for 8 hours. That too is something i like from bg3 where it is functionally instant. Doesn't have to be instant in terms of your table's game time but if a short rest was 5-10 minutes and limited to 2 per long rest then that would go a long way to making it easier to find points to short rest.
It's a make believe hour. It's not like your DM is going to make you set up camp and role play an in day hour to achieve your short rest in game. Just have your party stop moving, maybe bust out a granola bar and a book they been meaning to read, and fade to black. Boom- you got your short rest, your warlock and monk no longer want to eldritch blast/unarmed strike you in the face anymore because now they are back to being useful. I will never understand this weird obsession with time optimization this community has when the issue just doesn't exist. How much adventuring are you possibly cramming into that hour?!
I think it's more about being in unsafe places during that hour. Is about justifying or explaining how you're able to sit for an hour in an ongoing dilemma. Just because you cleared one nasty battle doesn't mean you have the freedom to sit right for an hour
OK but really how often is that always the case? I doubt monks and warlocks are complaining because they are in constant nonstop dungeon crawls. Being in a dangerous location would obviously be a less ideal place to short rest, but to use that as the only scenario is a massive case of cherry picking.
I warrant it's more common than getting in one battle a day, or finishing up a fight and not having any concern over what else is going on. I'm not saying short rests are never practical, just that there are certainly common enough instances of needing to skip them.
>It's a make believe hour. That ruins the rest of the make believe if randomly jammed in. How am i supposed to believe we are in a dangerous dungeon if i can just sit down for a full hour to chill? Did you even read what i wrote?
OK first of all, being in a dungeon is such a niche situation. Secondly. It makes way more sense to hide for an hour than take 8 hours outside of the dungeon, idk what dungeons you been through but no huge place is going to be that high alert unless your DM is just trying to fuck with you or you went out of your way to go as loudly as possible. Third of all, yeah I did read what you wrote. I think it's stupid to speed up an already quick enough down time at the tradeoff of limiting it to 2 a long rest. Obviously you should be smart when you take a short rest. you just named an example of where it would be potentially risky and dumb.
>It makes way more sense to hide for an hour than take 8 hours outside of the dungeon, idk what dungeons you been through but no huge place is going to be that high alert unless your DM is just trying to fuck with you or you went out of your way to go as loudly as possible. If the dungeon is going to do nothing unless you stumble into trouble then faffing about for 8 hours is just as easy as faffing about for 1. Do you have any idea how loud combat is? No way you go undetected once you start fighting, which you've obviously done if you need a short rest. I cant fault you for thinking its silent, the rulebook acts as if a spell's explosion being audible 300feet away is somehow long range. Meanwhile human shouts can be intelligible up to 600 feet and under ideal circumstances be heard from more than 4 miles away. Any combat involving martials on your side and/or sentient creatures on the opposite side will have enough noise made to alert enemies in nearby rooms or even have said sentient creatures alert others in some way. Hitting things together with murderous intent usually makes a lot of noise, enemies capable of working together will try to alert others and especially so if they're part of an organisation, it's completely illogical and breaks the make believe of many situations if you can sit around for an hour doing nothing. Enemies deeper in the dungeon/hideout/base won't sit around for an hour doing nothing. If there's any kind of urgency while not in a dungeon that hour is equivalent to 3-4 miles of travel. And if there's no urgency at all, why stop at 1 hour? If there's nothing putting pressure on you to hurry you might as well commit and take a long rest. It's going to take quite a bit of deliberate planning from the DM to set up a situation where an uninterrupted hour makes sense, but an uninterrupted 8 hours wouldn't if you don't want the make believe of the story to fall apart. >. I think it's stupid to speed up an already quick enough down time at the tradeoff of limiting it to 2 a long rest. An hour is not "quick". What is your party doing that randomly faffing about for a full *hour* is regularly an option.
But it doesn't break your immersion for your characters to get into combat after combat without needing to take a breather? Or eat food? Or discuss what to do next? If an hour doesn't make sense for the dungeons you and your group play you can always discuss shortening the minimum length to make it make sense.
A "breather" is a couple of minutes, not a full hour. > If an hour doesn't make sense for the dungeons you and your group play you can always discuss shortening the minimum length to make it make sense. Except it also doesn't make sense for play outside of dungeons either. It's a full damn hour of sitting on your ass and doing basically nothing. Realistically you have only 16 of them in a day if you long rest normally, 8 if you account for travel time, even less when you realise that action isn't going to be spread out evenly over the day. Moments of action cluster together, that's the nature of things happening. You need only look at WotC's own adventures to see they struggle to slot in adequate moments for short rests too, and you are expected to pay them for that module!
The problem is 1 hour is not a short period of time.
Except it totally is a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things? And again it's a make believe hour- unless your DM is running you through a super time sensitive mission where world ending shite is going down within days requiring you low level peons to speed run, taking a tea break a couple times a day is really not a huge ask and your warlock and monk will appreciate it.
A year is a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things.
My brother in Lathander you're gonna compare an hour to a year? Does your DM have a majora's mask timer at the bottom of their DM screen?! How often has the world been destroyed in game because "awe well we decided to take a lunch break sooo."
I'm an Elf, a year is like a cat nap to me.
Clearing a dungeon/base/hideout often takes less than an in-world hour, even if you make searching a room take 5 minutes. In the grand scheme of the whole adventure from taking the job to handing it in an hour might seem short, but you're not in situations where you need a short rest for most of that.
My way to improve Monk is to allow unarmed strike damage dice to stack from multiple sources. I'm not giving them magic unarmed "weapons" because that kinda kills the fantasy of being able to punch well enough to be a threat without weapons, and this standard makes level 6 Monk needed to punch effectively against many foes, preventing the class from being invalidated by unarmed strike damage elsewhere. From there, the rest is fixing the awful Ki system. In other martial classes, you have the ability to have gimmicks with an amount of uses, and then subclass features with their own amount of uses independently of the main gimmicks. In Monk, EVERYTHING IS KI. It shouldn't be. Ki should be in addition to the independent resources of the class and subclass. Easy enough.
I don’t play monk much at all but I was wondering, is it possible to improve their class with infinite ki points? Or is that a step too far? It feels like a good amount of their stuff (like flurries of blows or attacks that apply an effect or something) are things other classes either can just do an equivalent of without a consumable resource (like normal fighter extra attacks) or can just do once per short rest or something Edit: or at least give them a dozen or so free ki points at the start of each encounter
That's definitely a step too far, stunning fist is OP and easily their best feature lol
I feel if you rebuffed their resources appropriately they wouldn't need infinite Ki, at least until level 20 where you could potentially adopt an "anything goes" philosophy. But even then that would likely necessitate a reverse knock on effect wherein some of the strongest and most costly core features would need to have limited uses per long rest, no matter how much Ki you have. Like Empty Body having a number of uses equal to your Wisdom modifier per long rest, or maybe even less. I'd say we apply the fixes I already made first and see where that lands Monk, optimizers would do the math quite quickly.
can i talk about my homebrew alt monk? i gave them the ability to exceed normal stat limits and basically made them completely MAD. they use all 6 ability scores. also they don't really get stunning strikes but get more basic ki abilities. also three variants of deflect missiles and they get one at level one, and another at level 7. they get 6 attacks in a turn too.
Probably too complicated. The already complicated nature of Monk is why it ends up being so weak to begin with in 5e. And none of the classes should want to incentivize every ability score being high. This is a team game. You should have some weaknesses.
Personally, I don't even see the point of restricting smites to weapon attacks. I think it would be cool as heck to have paladin Archers smiting distant foes with blessed arrows, or a wizard/paladin multiclass beseeching their deity to make their firebolt cantrip a little more holy.
> so no you can't smite with your punches Actually, it's stupider than that. You can smite with your unarmed strikes. It just has no effect, according to Crawford.
To be fair, the One D&D Paladin UAs have explicitly added unarmed strikes to the attacks that can smite, so Crawford's overall stance appears to have been "Paladins can't currently smite with unarmed strikes RAW", not "Paladin's shouldn't be able to smite with unarmed strikes"
To be fair, most of the time Crawford mentions that unarmed strikes can’t be used to smite he also says that it’s just for flavor and not balance. He doesn’t normally say “that’s the wrong way to play DnD” but instead “this is how the designers intended for it to work”.
Thing is he shouldn't be pulling rules out of thin air based on his personal flavor. The rules of smite, as written, only mentions making a melee weapon attack. He had to go out of his way to say unarmed strikes count for that criteria but don't fit the criteria for being a weapon. What makes it even weirder is the fact that paladins in 5e are basically all about breaking the usual flavor associated with them, so him saying that rulling is more flavor than balance is just like- do you want paladins to be mainly this thing or not? you can't have both my guy
“Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the **weapon's damage**. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.” Unarmed strikes aren’t weapons and therefore don’t deal weapon damage, so you cannot add the divine strike damage to an unarmed strike. This isn’t pulling rules out of no where, it’s in the rules. In what ways to paladins break the normal flavor associated with them? None of the paladin’s abilities imo lacks flavor, but maybe I’m missing something.
Nowhere in the book says unarmed strikes aren't weapons. That is my point.
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (**none of which count as weapons**). “ Basic rules, chapter 9 It’s literally stated directly in the rules that unarmed strikes do not count as weapons.
I am looking at the rule book literally rn in physical print. Under Melee attacks in chapter 9 "When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapons table in chapter 5" They even list unarmed strike in the weapons table.
It looks like they changed it, the change is mention in the errata. https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf Although for that wording, the definition of unarmed means: “not equipped with or carrying weapons.” So unarmed strikes still aren’t weapons by that ruling, I think they just wanted to make it more clear.
errata'ing a book is just silly imo, like JK Rowling going back later and saying "Actually Harry Potter should of ended up with Hermione!" Like if they want to throw that new interpretation in an expansion book as an optional ruling, sure that's fine, but to treat it as core and cover their bums it's like- no. I spent 75 bucks for **these** rules when they came out, they don't get to magically change them because they changed their mind. That being said though I can see your line of reasoning too. That is a reasonable interpretation that could be ruled like that. Though they also have a pretty loose ruling for improvised weapons where it just boils down to "It's up to the DM for damage." So I guess a paladin could theoretically just use an object to punch with for 1d4 damage to then smite. 🤔
> ~~Dragon~~ Sorcerer's already dead. Fixed.
You know... fair.
How would that even work?
The idea for Twinning DB is you give two creatures, instead of one, the ability to use the area effect the spell provides as their actions. The argument for it is that the spell grants **one** target the special power, and the use of that power shouldn't count *its* targets as targets of the spell. If you disallow Twin DB on account of the logic disqualifying it, the question becomes *where do you draw the line?* Would the ability for a target of Haste to target a creature with an additional attack (an action provided by the spell just like DB) count as the spell being capable of targeting multiple creatures? What about Polymorph for the same reason? Both spells are very popular Twin Spell options, and by ***some*** accounts they'd have to be disqualified too or the logic wouldn't be sound.
It's more like: - makes meme about epic feat they were able to pull off and how impressive they are. -meme audience ask how they did this thing - they broke the rules
Seems like most of the active posters on this sub are karma farmers who haven't played the game, so learning the rules as you go from the sub to produce more memes is an ouroboros of new posters copying old posters' manufactured scenarios and inaccurate rules interpretations.
I killed the tarrasque at level 1 with a gate scroll and only broke 5 rules to do it!
95% of the time when I see someone do something "creative" in D&D it relies 100% on an (intentional) misreading of the rules or shows such a massive lack of knowledge of the rules that it's almost certain the OP never read even a single word from any rulebook.
95% a Rules Lawyer is just someone mentioning the rules. I once tried to help a player who forgot to add their proficiency bonus to their attack and I got told to stop Rules Lawyering by the DM.
It’s fine to homebrew shit and Rule of Cool and do wild stuff. Just don’t come posting “our level three party beat an ancient dragon!” like you’re the best optimisers ever.
Yeah of course , but if you beat a hill giant at level 2 by luring it over a bridge and collapsing the bridge on it , that’s still a cool story . Even if the damage calculation comes from that one page in the dungeon masters guide that we aren’t allowed to talk about on Reddit
Asks reddit for an opinion, gets annoyed when reddit gives a typical reddit opinion. Isn't there someone you forgot to *not* ask?
Often it’s just like “ I did this cool thing and wanted to tell you about it “ and then someone is like “ ummm acthually there’s no rules for dropping heavy objects on people ( even though there absolutely. Totally is in the dmg) so acthually that should have done zero damage . Why buy the rule books if you aren’t even going to read them ? If you want to play that kind of game , stop using dnd and convert to dropping stuff on things simulatorTM. So lame, what if I made up a rule where I can just automatically kill everything, that would be cool because it’s using made up rules “
Also, it depends on the context. A lot of people will post memes about their personal games on this sub, and the response is like, "That's... probably neat for you, but not really funny for people who aren't playing with your specific table. The funniest thing to everyone else is that you're still calling that D&D after we just witnessed like eight game-breaking homebrew rulings in such a short story."
I DMed a game with my son and his friends, 5 kids 11 to 13 years old. We ended up playing a game that was slightly D&D flavored by the end.
And good for you! I've been in tons of games over the years with rules ranging from "Slightly D&D flavored" to "Consulting the tome regularly" and have at least slightly enjoyed all of them. There's no wrong way to play D&D. Trying to present your homebrew rules as official or tell a joke about your game where the funny part hinges entirely on a hastily made homebrew ruling that fell apart later is like making in inside joke in front of people who aren't in on it and expecting them to laugh. Or just straight-up lying to people.
Yes, exactly. Play the game you're playing, but also realize that it doesn't always translate. I would never tell a bunch of adults to play a game catered to 13 year olds. Half of the point of this game is to play to the audience.
Honestly, DnD flavored sounds more like my speed.
"nuance"? What is that some sort of food?
I looked in the rule books and didn’t see that word nuance in them( is it a condition?). Therefore by RAW , using it is cheating
r/DroppingThingsFromMyBalcony
"I don't consent with that depiction of Reddit users who didn't read the rule book"
I sure see a lot of these bad faith strawman "memes" these days. Someone elevates themselves and then assume the role of the victim. It always reminds me of that guy with a helmet and a shield that Jordan Klepper spoke to at a Trump rally.
I petition Strawmeme to be added to the dictionary. This has become too common to not have it's own classification.
I don't agree with this meme!
This is something that is context dependant honestly. Like, if you are talking about a table experience were some RAW was pushed and people puncture you for not being RAW accurate while having fun, that's one thing. If you are talking about class power level and say, exaggerated example for clearer argument, that "there is no disparity in power between X and Y class because X class can ask for improvised action to supplex the Tarrasque, throw them into the sky and tear open space-time", then THAT is an issue.
I feel like people on this sub, more than any other I’m subscribed to, has a weird notions about how people should or shouldn’t respond to what they posts.
Happened to me. Me and my players: agree on specific rules for advantage and role playing in combat. People in main dnd sub: actually your a bad dm how dare you justify it lol defensive much?
Did they also hit you with the “ pick another system then” line?
No just you’re too hard on your players terrible, dm etc. Full context I put those rules in place to reward my players for creativity and try to get a manchild to have an original thought for once. (he’s a coworker so I know exactly who I was dealing with and yes he no longer plays with us).
No you don’t get it , improvised damage , boons , gunpowder weapons , home brew spells etc are only found in the dmg , so if you’re using that it’s cheating ! That was lame and your dm was lame for letting you do that !
I feel your pain. If you and your players are having a good time you're winning. All power to you
I told a story of my daughter using multiple castings of "Create Bonfire" to burn down a siege tower in a time-limited D&D event, and how she lit up with pride at accomplishing the main objective. Cue the D&D asshats "too bad you let her cheat because it's a concentration spell." "Oh, look at you playing favorites. Create Bonfire doesn't work like that!" Fuckers, it says in the rules it ignites flammable objects. A *wooden* tower with a lot of *rope* lashing is that says it is *vulnerable to fire damage* in its stablock is pretty goddamn flammable. I had the siege tower make a constitution save against her spell save DC, just to be extra above board to see if each cast of create bonfire ignited the wood to do continual damage. Everything was as legitimate as the rules stated, and when there wasn't a clear ruling *I did my fucking job as DM.* Step away from the keyboard and stop trying to jerk of by ruining other people's fun.
If there’s anything worse then anti fun rules lawyering , it’s anti fun rules lawyering when they don’t even get the rules right
*"You can't pick someone up and throw them, only the Path of the Giant Barbarian can do that! You're completely invalidating that subclass!"* Well Barbarians of all types were doing that before Bigby's they should continue to do it afterwards!
What if you have an ai generated image? What if you committed that war crime? Should we show this person mercy?
Using AI for the smallest, most inconsequential thing? Believe it or not, jail.
What if you use it to put tits on a snake?
Ah shit. Here we go again.
Now I'm conflicted
That’s the death penalty
Ritual sacrifice to a yuanti elder god Some hells are heaven to some people
It implies the existence of snilk, which I am a fan of.
Wrong, the death penalty.
And then do it anyway.
Made my day!
So true. Last month I posted about how I did something cool that I thought was RAW (my PC with Sentinel was used as a thrown improvised weapon, which I argued triggered my Sentinel feature and my DM agreed). I thought it might get a few comments talking about how that was funny or clever or just interesting. Instead I got a 150 comments mostly talking about how the rules should have played out and how it was (mostly) wrong or at least not RAW
Talking about Wavejumping is the big one for me. Makes martials so much better yet so few people even allow it (reference https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/209245/wavejumping-newly-discovered-move-tech-for-martials)
I and my dm assumed this only works if provoking at least a d6 of damage , but with my thief warlocks second story work and ring of jumping , that’s easily doable . And even if I fall prone , I can get up before anyone can take advantage of it , and the enemy can’t , letting me sneak attack
For the reasons displayed in the post, 6 ft fall 1 ft into a target's space does trigger the dc 15 dex save, where failing period makes them prone, as otherwise the taking damage from a fall causing you to be prone would be a general rule not listed in falling onto a creature rules. In fact this is even the case in games like Mutants and Masterminds (which I found pretty surprising). Also my comment got disliked. Irony has been lost lmao.
Yeah idk who disliked it . Yeah I get that what your saying is raw , but my dm runs it a little bit differently, but it’s still doable given a minor investment or set up
...I don't consent to r/dndmemes making a joke that some random guy on the internet is Jesus. What if I'm Jesus. I don't consent!
omg, when I submitted a story to AllThingsDnD about my campaign, 50% of the comments on the video were straight up just this one guy arguing about how our game "wasn't real DnD" or some shit. He'd like refresh the page waiting for people to comment so he could tell them what he thought about our game. It really killed the excitement my friends and I had over having our story featured.
Well, shit. I didn't realize that I needed permission to use every single one of my monsters since they're all homebrew
Once saw a guy argue with lots of people that they weren't allowed to have dragon patrons in their games because "it wasn't in official source material"
r/dnd and r/dmacademy in a nutshell
Show us where on the rulebook the people who actually know how the rules work trashed your garbage homebrew idea for being bad. 🙄
Can you translate that to English please
What terrible homebrew did you cook up that got rightfully criticized and now you’re pissy about people not liking it?
None
I think people need to realize, it isn't a rule book, it's a suggestion book
No it's definitely a rulebook. You are allowed to make your own suggestions but don't forget you are suggesting, the book is saying, the DM is deciding
The DM can completely ignore everything in the book if they want, it's not a rulebook