The Gaming Den

Upright eagles with humanoid arms and wings moved to their backs.

These things.

Oh. That's actually a lot better than Raptorians. Bringing in their best MTG artists on these ones, I see. Perfectly fine.

Come to think of it, a D&D publisher could actually do worse than to write a whole Furry Compendium of hand-crafted animal people.

Cat people, dog people, frog people, armadillo people...

It's certainly a fantasy subgenre that exists (and cat people are probably more frequent in fantasy than elves and dwarves if you ignore D&D fiction.)

I wonder how a D&D that relegated nonhuman player races to a splatbook would fare. I can see the appeal of multiple races in a game like 3.x where designing cool builds is a game in itself, but for rules light (or rules-absent) games saving the page count (and baggage) could be nice.

Eikre wrote:Come to think of it, a D&D publisher could actually do worse than to write a whole Furry Compendium of hand-crafted animal people.

Cat people, dog people, frog people, armadillo people...

Only if it's a compilation of already extant D&D furry races with maybe a couple new ones. Telling someone to come up with a big pile of original races will result in blandness across the board, particularly if it's furries. I've seen a number of furry settings and if there were more than maybe 4 races, lack of caring was guaranteed. One caveat is that if you don't pretend the vast majority of variation is anything but purely cosmetic and only a couple races are actually distinct in some fashion, but that's not how D&D races roll.

Eikre wrote:What the fuck is an aarocka?

Aarakocra, originally from 2e Dark Sun. 1e Fiend Folio as pointed out by Frank. Handy link to the Dark Sun version.

Previn wrote:

Eikre wrote:What the fuck is an aarocka?

Aarakocra, originally from 2e Dark Sun. Handy link.

Nope.

-Username17

schpeelah wrote:Only if it's a compilation of already extant D&D furry races with maybe a couple new ones. Telling someone to come up with a big pile of original races will result in blandness across the board, particularly if it's furries. I've seen a number of furry settings and if there were more than maybe 4 races, lack of caring was guaranteed. One caveat is that if you don't pretend the vast majority of variation is anything but purely cosmetic and only a couple races are actually distinct in some fashion, but that's not how D&D races roll.

Okay let's put it this way, you remember how in Savage Species, the "Anthropomorphic Animal" races were derived by formula from the existing entries in the Monster Manual? And it was all horseshit because literally not a single animal entry in the monster manual was written to support that transformation? Okay so now just go write that from scratch and try not to host any +6 WIS bat people. Do not spend even a single moment writing about "Parakeet-People Society" or "Sperm-Whale-People in the World" or even "Giraffe-People as Characters," because the goal really is just to have an appendix that people from Anthrocon can use to import the Original Character Do Not Steal that they initially drafted as a persona for chatroom sex.

If you're feeling really spicy then you can get some Pangolins, Peacocks, Porcupines, and maybe a host of insect things in which didn't really ever occur to anybody to play but have some interesting natural faculties that you can rift a unique racial ability off of. Because when one of the races is inevitably just a little too good and everyone starts using them when they play Clerics or whatever, it's a lot funnier if they're all literal Dumbo Octopus instead of Obscure Proprietary Trash.

Also you can put Dragonborn in there as a backhanded way of telling those guys to go fuck themselves.

Challenge accepted. It'll be for 3.5/PF, because I don't give enough shits to learn 5e unless I'm getting to play it, but it gives me something to do that doesn't require designing a whole new game system.

Edit- Also, on Aarakocras-
MoF 3e Aarakocra:


If they'd had the furry eagle thing as the image for 3e aarakocras, I'd have cared more about them.

So, after a long hiatus, I have the chance for tabletop again - but it's 5e. I've looked into this thread from time to time, but not really intensively, since I didn't intend to actually play this edition.

Now that I will, any tips on character creation? I think I remember that casters are still awesome as ever, so probably a wizard should be fine?

Animate dead is the way to go.

Animate Dead/Animate Objects does things to the combat minigame you only see in hentai, but that takes a fair bit of time to come online. Being a Wizard is perfectly acceptable: level 1 kinda sucks for you but once you get over that hurdle, you're okay. Necromancy is the focus of choice if you want to make the game double peace ahegao, but Conjuration and Enchantment are also reasonable life choices. Really, you're good with any full caster, especially since the army of undead might catch a spot-nerfing. Clerics, Wizards and Bards stand out since they get Animate Dead.

Everything is small potatoes, but a team of casters can wreak merry havoc with the math in certain areas.

If your game is starting at level 1 I would suggest War Cleric. A War Cleric starts the game better than Fighters and towards the mid game can break everything with Animate Dead. A Necromancer Wizard breaks the game retardedly hard towards the mid game but requires 5 levels of buildup before that happens and it's totally possible a real life campaign never sees level 7. As a War Cleric you get to rock early on and break the game just before it would probably break up anyway.

Aharon wrote:Now that I will, any tips on character creation? I think I remember that casters are still awesome as ever, so probably a wizard should be fine?

Paladins are also good cheerleader characters, to help make the Wizard Necromancer and War cleric more awesome as I recall. Anycase, as Dean said, go War Cleric.

I honestly think the tempest cleric is better than the war cleric. Let's assume STR 16, WIS 16, three short rests per day, and a 1d8 longsword.

Level 1 war cleric: You can make one extra attack per long rest per wis mod.
Level 2 war cleric: You can add +10 to one attack per short rest.

Level 1 war cleric: You can deal 2d8 lightning or thunder damage to any attacker within 5ft as a reaction save for half once per long rest per wis mod.
Level 2 war cleric: You can maximize lightning or thunder damage once per short rest.

The war cleric gets to make three extra attacks for 7.5 on a hit and 0 on a miss, and can basically convert two misses into hits. That's %HIT*3*7.5+7.5*3 extra damage.

The tempest cleric gets to hurt people as a reaction three times for 9 on a failed save and 4.5 on a successful save, and can maximize that to 18/9 twice. That's %SAVE*(3*9)+(1-%SAVE)*(3*18).

If %HIT = %SAVE = 50% (not really true, but... close-ish?), tempest cleric comes out ahead 40.5 to 33.75.

Edit: I said three short rests and did the math for two. Math is now for three.

Maximized 2d8 is 16/8 on fail and save.

Still, on examination I agree. If you use your spell slots on Shield of Faith and Spiritual weapon with a Tempest Cleric you're a few spell slots down but you've maximized your action economy. A human Tempest Cleric at 3rd level can have Shield of Faith as his concentration spell likely tipping him off the RNG, a longsword attack or thunderwave attack as his attack action, a Spiritual Weapon attack as his bonus attack, and a 2d8 lightning rebuke as his Reaction. The ability to maximize lightning damage also ages better than a +10 to attack. By 5th level a Tempest cleric can just declare that he deals someone 40 damage with call lightning, save for half, which is pretty boss.

Be a Tempest Cleric, be human, take Heavy Armor Master as your feat, grab Healing Word, Shield of Faith, Spiritual Weapon, and Animate Dead when those abilities come online. That will let you have DR 3 and swift action healing from level 1, an attack in every action from level 3, and the ability to dominate the game forever from level 5 on.

Dean wrote:Maximized 2d8 is 16/8 on fail and save.

Derp. I misremembered it as doubling damage once when 5e first came out and I have been fucking up ever since.

Thanks at all. Looks like I'm going to be a cleric of one of the propose variants

What really annoys me about the 5E D&D cleric is that there's no way for them to get a permanent non-bonus action extra attack unlike a lot of other classes -- including the bard. However, between the War Cleric ability and Spiritual Weapon they'll be a cuisinart for the first five levels of the game. Not that it's a big deal, because they can easily switch to Animate Dead bullshit + full casting, but still, that sucks horse anus.

It almost makes me think that if you're building a cleric for the long haul what you should do is spec for a blaster cleric with a good domain, grab a finesse weapon, and spend the first five levels getting into the thick of it with melee before you switch to full-time casting. I mean, that's if you expect to go from level 1 to 6+. If you're already starting at level 6+ I'd grab a Valor Bard instead.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:If you're already starting at level 6+ I'd grab a Valor Bard instead.

What awesome tricks does a Valor Bard do?

He's pretty fighty, he gets medium armor and shields, plus a bunch of crowd control and enchantment, plus at tenth he gets to poach two spells from anybody. Fun note that Bards are the only caster who get Power Word: Heal, IIRC.

Bards in 5e are comparable to Clerics in martial prowess and can do a reasonable job pretending to be Wizards at mid level.

YOU HAVE COME A LONG WAY, BABY!

So 5e Sage advice column is written by Jeremy Crawford.
I honestly think it would be an improvement if he was on crack.

[url=http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting wrote:Sage Advice: The Rules of Spellcasting[/url]]If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.

If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.



Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

So if a spell does not have a material component you face more restrictions than if it does.

Is he just trying to kill off this edition or something?

For 40 years Clerics have cast spells with both shield and mace in hand, and Wizards have cast spells with staff in hand. No one really gives a shit what the actual casting rules are.

OK, IRL obviously someone cared and the poor sage had to find out what was written about it in the 5e books, which was always going to be poison, but everyone else will ignore the sage advice and just let people cast the spells on their class list when doing what their class does anyway. Like in 3.5 Bards could suddenly cast spells in Chain shirts, because that's what almost everyone had been doing for the previous 25 years anyway, and not being able to do it in 3.0 organised play just pissed everyone off.

Yeah, this is just another chapter in the chronicle of batshit FAQ rulings.