So I'm kinda confused by dual wielding in D&D 5e
[img]http://puu.sh/jnsCY/3a38004140.jpg[/img]
and the fighting style
[img]http://puu.sh/jnszW/51dde84130.jpg[/img]
Neither say anything about adding modifiers to the hit roll, only about the damage roll.
Do I add modifiers to the hit roll when attacking with my second weapon or not?.
anything else I should know about dual weilding on D&D 5e?
[QUOTE=leonthefox;48360954]So I'm kinda confused by dual wielding in D&D 5e
[img]http://puu.sh/jnsCY/3a38004140.jpg[/img]
and the fighting style
[img]http://puu.sh/jnszW/51dde84130.jpg[/img]
Neither say anything about adding modifiers to the hit roll, only about the damage roll.
Do I add modifiers to the hit roll when attacking with my second weapon or not?.
anything else I should know about dual weilding on D&D 5e?[/QUOTE]
You'd still use the to-hit as if it were being used in your main hand. The only loss is the bonus damage from your high stat, unless you have the 2 weapon fighting style which lets you do so.
Ah thanks for clearing that up, also is taking both two weapon fighting style and dual wielding overkill?
[QUOTE=leonthefox;48361027]Ah thanks for clearing that up, also is taking both two weapon fighting style and dual wielding overkill?[/QUOTE]
Not if you want to do something like longswords. You CAN'T do 2 weapon fighting with non-light weapons without the feat. That means, by the way, that BOTH weapons have to be light without the feat. You can't use a longsword and a dagger and 2 weapon fight at all in 5e.
[QUOTE=leonthefox;48361027]Ah thanks for clearing that up, also is taking both two weapon fighting style and dual wielding overkill?[/QUOTE]
Mainly you should go for what you think fits the kind of character you want to play. If you want to play someone who dual wields battle axes or rapiers or something like that, then you need to take dual wielding.
For the actual benefits:
[sp]The damage increase from shortsword/scimitar to rapier/longsword is only 1 on average (0-2 increase). If you just got +2 to your primary stat (str or dex), you'd also get +1 to damage, but you'd also get an increase in either saving throws, ability checks, carrying capacity and athletics for strength, or saving throws, ability checks, initiative, light armour class and like five different skills for dexterity. The other benefits of the dual-wielding feat are that it allows you to dual wield better bludgeoning weapons (the only light bludgeoning weapon is 1d4), draw both of your weapons at once and gain +1 AC. I'd consider it a questionable choice, at least until your main stat is 20 and even then - but if you want your character to dual wield longswords or something like that (lances?), go for it.
The two-weapon fighting style is good however, since it adds 5 damage a round when your stat is 20. But if you take the dual wielding feat, the style actually does less because your stat isn't as high.[/sp]
I think that dual wielding a shortsword and a handaxe is a cool combination for a strength dual wielding character without the feat, just think thats a cool weapon combination. And you can throw the handaxe if you need some range.
So, I'm going to DM(pathfinder) for a small swedish group on late fridays, the idea so far is drows invading a country and the party is adventurers that gets hired as (elite) mercenaries for surgical strike missions and similar.
This is the face of the drow army, their general(a nice drawfriend from /tg/ drew it):
[T]http://i.imgur.com/gQySWJZ.png[/T]
So they are here to take over land, enslave people but it's also a religious invasion. In this case I made these drows to be lawful evil rather then chaotic evil. I decided to ask you all for some tips, or ideas. The two gods they worship are Eiseth and Dhalavei with maybe a hint of Asmodeus (since slavery etc).
What would be good troop ideas, tactics etc? So far I've been thinking of that they send out scout assassins to kill village leaders/elders to create chaos while they march their army and spread it out to cover as much ground as possible. They poison their weapons with their drow poison (low dc, but if you fail you fall unconscious for a random amount of hours).
The poison thing makes sense for elites and special forces, but for random mooks that would entail both a ridiculous supply chain of the stuff, as well as being incredibly obnoxious to fight since one failed save is functionally equivalent to death, which is rarely fun for PC's when it happens repeatedly
But, if they're here to conquer, unless they seriously doubt their ability to hold the land it makes little sense to spread chaos, it would be better in the long run for them to bribe or seduce leaders over to their side instead of killing them, because as soon as it becomes clear that they're behind the murders their opponents get a huge supply of ready volunteers and partisans. And spreading their army, unless they know that there will be no serious standing force to oppose them, just means any serious army could punch through their stretched out lines and either circle about into their rear or just cause untold chaos with their supply train, and unless they have either complete independence from logistical concern (unlikely) or the bulk of the territory is crucial to their opponent's war effort, it would be more sensible to use their manpower advantage to shatter their main bastion of resistance, then spread out to conquer the land.
But ultimately fantasy stuff can affect a lot of that. Stuff like clerics creating food and water, or wizards with mass teleports, can drastically affect the supply situation, or mitigate the risk of spreading their forces. Again, if they have the manpower advantage, sending would give them excellent coordination between seperate armies, and let them outmanuever forces in the field not as magically inclined, too. A lot comes down to the disposition of their force and their opponent
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;48362508]The poison thing makes sense for elites and special forces, but for random mooks that would entail both a ridiculous supply chain of the stuff, as well as being incredibly obnoxious to fight since one failed save is functionally equivalent to death, which is rarely fun for PC's when it happens repeatedly
But, if they're here to conquer, unless they seriously doubt their ability to hold the land it makes little sense to spread chaos, it would be better in the long run for them to bribe or seduce leaders over to their side instead of killing them, because as soon as it becomes clear that they're behind the murders their opponents get a huge supply of ready volunteers and partisans. And spreading their army, unless they know that there will be no serious standing force to oppose them, just means any serious army could punch through their stretched out lines and either circle about into their rear or just cause untold chaos with their supply train, and unless they have either complete independence from logistical concern (unlikely) or the bulk of the territory is crucial to their opponent's war effort, it would be more sensible to use their manpower advantage to shatter their main bastion of resistance, then spread out to conquer the land.
But ultimately fantasy stuff can affect a lot of that. Stuff like clerics creating food and water, or wizards with mass teleports, can drastically affect the supply situation, or mitigate the risk of spreading their forces. Again, if they have the manpower advantage, sending would give them excellent coordination between seperate armies, and let them outmanuever forces in the field not as magically inclined, too. A lot comes down to the disposition of their force and their opponent[/QUOTE]
Right now it's so that the defending nation has a larger army in head count, but they don't have a steady supply of battle wizards, clerics and similar.
But bribing leaders is a good idea, but they will leave tracks in villages that people have gone missing (stolen for slavery).
About the poison I was mostly thinking their actual slave "getting troops" would wield them. The idea is that even if for some reason they get pushed back, they still acquired a fuck ton of slaves.
The biggest difference between the two armies is morale, the soldiers that are defending their nation doesn't have bad morale per say. But most of the soldiers in the drow army are fanatical/extremely driven towards their goal. Sure the drow army has a lot of wizards and clerics but the defending army has tons of clerics, maybe not as much wizards but still enough to support their troops. The wizards also give the advantage of large scale carpet bombing tactics which is one thing that made the defending army lose so many troops in the first two weeks of the war.
The players are supposed to come in at the 4th week of the war. Right now I'm trying to come up with slave troops of different kinds, the first slaves they managed to grab was many of the different tribal humanoids that lived around the mountain range where they started their invasion/attack from.
It's a standstill between the armies but by war of attrition the drow army grows faster and faster stronger then the defending nation's.
Slaves make shite troops. Wouldn't they just surrender as soon as possible?
Defenders tend to know the land better.
Drow are supposed to all be backstabbing bastards, so I imagine them having a weak chain of command.Also, Aren't they physically weak? They're smaller than most humanoids
[QUOTE=The Jack;48363018]Slaves make shite troops. Wouldn't they just surrender as soon as possible?
Defenders tend to know the land better.
Drow are supposed to all be backstabbing bastards, so I imagine them having a weak chain of command.Also, Aren't they physically weak? They're smaller than most humanoids[/QUOTE]
Depends on the slaves, don't you think unholy clerics can make slaves abide by torture? Or that if they won't heed their new masters they will be tortured to death, and later raised as an undead.
Well the drows doesn't come from another country, but yes the defenders knows it better, thats their only advantage at the moment.
Normally yeah, they are neutral evil/chaotic evil like that but in my setting I decided them to be Lawful Evil, in a very typical way. Authority through violence and manipulation.
[QUOTE=The Jack;48363018]Slaves make shite troops. Wouldn't they just surrender as soon as possible?
Defenders tend to know the land better.
Drow are supposed to all be backstabbing bastards, so I imagine them having a weak chain of command.Also, Aren't they physically weak? They're smaller than most humanoids[/QUOTE]
The Drow are big on the concept of 'survival of the fittest.' They may backstab one another as and when it suits them, but you have to remember that they're among the most feared races to walk the Underdark, second only to the likes of Beholders and Mind Flayers. Most average Drow will tend to be at least 2nd or 3rd level. The reasoning here is that if you die, you're weak/deserve death, even if you're a stronger individual who died at the hands of a weaker. By definition, the victor is the strongest, and the defeated one is always reasoned to have deserved their loss. A maxim taken from one of the FR novels goes as follows: 'Another student was found dead in his bunk of natural causes - for a dagger in the heart quite naturally ends one's life.'
They also focus very heavily on slave fodder such as goblins, ogres, and trolls, as well as other monsters/monstrous races. Their reasoning is that it would be better for their fodder to take the brunt of the punishment, rather than they themselves having to do the majority of the work, and it also lowers overall drow casualties. It also follows the same line in their own parts of the engagement; there are always some soldiers who will be thrown in as expendable cannon fodder, particularly to draw attention while better members of House forces/their spellcasters attack with surprise.
And you must also understand that the Drow are fairly harsh in terms of dealing with their dead too. High ranking warriors, nobles, and priestesses/wizards will be cremated, for the most part, but if you happen to be a common soldier who eats it in the line of duty, well tough shit. Your body ends up being preserved to be animated as a zombie when needed. Undead are also useful fodder in many Drow armies. Raiding parties tend to be composed solely of drow alone, however, save perhaps for pack animals, as are patrol groups, all of which will be accompanied by a priestess, wizard, or both.
[QUOTE=Glent;48361641]Mainly you should go for what you think fits the kind of character you want to play. If you want to play someone who dual wields battle axes or rapiers or something like that, then you need to take dual wielding.
For the actual benefits:
[sp]The damage increase from shortsword/scimitar to rapier/longsword is only 1 on average (0-2 increase). If you just got +2 to your primary stat (str or dex), you'd also get +1 to damage, but you'd also get an increase in either saving throws, ability checks, carrying capacity and athletics for strength, or saving throws, ability checks, initiative, light armour class and like five different skills for dexterity. The other benefits of the dual-wielding feat are that it allows you to dual wield better bludgeoning weapons (the only light bludgeoning weapon is 1d4), draw both of your weapons at once and gain +1 AC. I'd consider it a questionable choice, at least until your main stat is 20 and even then - but if you want your character to dual wield longswords or something like that (lances?), go for it.
The two-weapon fighting style is good however, since it adds 5 damage a round when your stat is 20. But if you take the dual wielding feat, the style actually does less because your stat isn't as high.[/sp]
I think that dual wielding a shortsword and a handaxe is a cool combination for a strength dual wielding character without the feat, just think thats a cool weapon combination. And you can throw the handaxe if you need some range.[/QUOTE]
I was actually thinking about using a battle axe and a sword, since it would look cool yeah.
Now I'm checking the other weapons and notice lance has no two handed property, so that means you can dual wield lances with the feat?
[quote]Lance. Vou have disadvantage when you use a lance
to attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance
requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted.[/quote]
rip
I think I've found one of my favorite character generation systems. Monsters and Other Childish things tells you to draw your monster and circle the important bits before assigning your stats to them.
Good thing my drawings are very immersive as they look like the work of a 12 year old.
[QUOTE=leonthefox;48366922]I was actually thinking about using a battle axe and a sword, since it would look cool yeah.
Now I'm checking the other weapons and notice lance has no two handed property, so that means you can dual wield lances with the feat?
rip[/QUOTE]
Well, doesn't that mean you can dual wield them on a horse?
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;48367112]Well, doesn't that mean you can dual wield them on a horse?[/QUOTE]
This or
[quote]Steve: cut the lance in half
Steve: the damage is still the same
Steve: since the pointy part hasnt been cut
Steve: and since it now requires dexterity
Steve: you can make it finesse
Steve: so now you have
Steve: a light lance with d12 damage with the finesse property[/quote]
this fucking guy :excited:
[QUOTE=Chronische;48355993]Rogue modrons are a thing in Planescape. Planescape is the single best setting from TSR, bar none.[/QUOTE]
It'd be fun to run a game where all the player characters are [url=http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Modron_(5e_Race)]Rogue Modrons[/url].
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48363380]A maxim taken from one of the FR novels goes as follows: 'Another student was found dead in his bunk of natural causes - for a dagger in the heart quite naturally ends one's life.'[/QUOTE]
That was one of the best lines in the entire book too, lol.
[QUOTE=leonthefox;48366922]I was actually thinking about using a battle axe and a sword, since it would look cool yeah.
Now I'm checking the other weapons and notice lance has no two handed property, so that means you can dual wield lances with the feat?
rip[/QUOTE]
If you want to do battle axe and longsword, then you need the dual wielder feat. You also can't throw either of those weapons, though you can always substitute in something like a javelin when you need range. Dual wielding two light weapons (like handaxe and shortsword, or a scimitar and sickle) can be done without the feat.
And yes, you can dual wield lances on horseback. Technically, anyway. It's probably the most powerful application of dual wielding since each lance deals 1d12 damage and is a reach weapon. Looks [URL="http://i.imgur.com/K7zGU8o.jpeg"]ridiculous[/URL] though.
[editline]4th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;48368943]It'd be fun to run a game where all the player characters are [URL="http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Modron_(5e_Race)"]Rogue Modrons[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Pfff, modrons don't have "random height and width." Those modrons also don't have the cool predetermined actions and initiative rule.
[QUOTE=Rents;48355055]For mortals, alignment is just an indicator, or at best an oath (paladins and clerics mainly), about how they act; alignments can change and are mostly loosely followed.[/QUOTE]
I'm not convinced alignment isn't just an oath for deities either, if the little incident with Iomedae in Book 4 of Wrath of the Righteous is any indication.
[sp]I'd probably write it off as paizuri being terrible at their jobs, though.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48371778]I'm not convinced alignment isn't just an oath for deities either, if the little incident with Iomedae in Book 4 of Wrath of the Righteous is any indication.
[sp]I'd probably write it off as paizuri being terrible at their jobs, though.[/sp][/QUOTE]
As I recall though, deities are supposed to stick carefully to their portfolios, and not attempt to try and pull any funny business to try and circumvent the 'rules' of their godhood. [sp]Oghma attempted to consider this during the time of troubles, IIRC, and was given a warning in the vision of an endless void.[/sp]
This is a very, very rough preliminary asking, but I've got a thing I'd like to try.
I'm looking to do a Mekton Zeta Battle Royale sort of deal. It'd be a series of individual one-shot games of 1v1 with players, to be played whenever the two players and myself are free. I'm aiming to have 8 players so I can arrange a tournament hierarchy of 8 > 4 > 2 > Victor. I'll give each player a pool of perhaps 300 Construction Points to spend however they like - one really beefy mek, multiple smaller meks, whatever in between - to pit against each other.
Finally, to make it a little more interesting, I think I'll give a little reward to the victor. Maybe a $20 Steam game or something, I haven't really decided yet.
So, anyone interested in joining Super Smash Mekton, send me a PM or add me on Steam. As a side note, players highly familiar with the system, like those in my current game or those who have been in and/or are GMing it now (looking at you, Dwarfy) need not apply. Because that'd be a ridiculously unfair advantage.
There will be a few rules and stipulations which I'll elaborate on when I see more interest.
players accidentally commit a hate crime by wacking a black man so hard (kind of unprovoked) they give him brain damage
feel so bad they bring him to the hospital, pay for a weeks worth of hospital stays, may take years for him to recover
even when he recovers he'll be gary busey/autistic level of functioning
this man: [sp]Chuck Berry[/sp]
[editline]4th August 2015[/editline]
3 WW2 vets walk into a diner with 6 Greasers:
[QUOTE]
Randall Smith: "I' need your clothes, your boots, and your bike"
Greaser laughs at you, bumps his friend on the shoulder and then flicks a bit of whipped cream from his plate at you
Randall Smith: can I dodge it?
George Howard: its cream nigga
Greaser: roll agility at -2
Randall Smith: rolling 1d6-2 = 2
rolling 1d6 = 4
Greaser: that fails
Randall Smith: alright, I put the mask on
"Wrong answer"
George Howard: that fucking mask
Randall Smith: I roll to grapple
rolling 1d8+1d6 = 5
Greasers all stand
Randall Smith: I grab the whipped cream, and apply it to his face
Greaser: roll fighting +2
Randall Smith: rolling 1d8+2 = 8
George Howard: what the fuck am i watching
Aeric Box: idk
George Howard: am i watching the 3 stooges?
Greaser: roll damage
to his ego
Randall Smith: rolling 1d6 = 6 (btw that's a crit)
OOOOOH
Aeric Box: is this real life
George Howard: CUCKED
Greaser: dddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaym
Aeric Box: oooooooohhhhh4
[/QUOTE]
Honestly though I think the best part about that was george telling me to beat the shit out of the waitress and then promptly getting my ass kicked.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48353158]And that one vampiric dragon who cut a deal with a Paladin king in one of the Forgotten Realms' novels, though I dont remember which one it was exactly
That said there's plenty of instances where generally evil beings show lighter sides of themselves, it was also addressed in a Dragon mag article. The article pretty much said that alignment axis wasn't completely black and white, the majority of NPCs would never be run rigidly conforming to their general alignment tendencies. Lawful Stupid and Stupid Evil type characters do exist in the campaign worlds, they're just a minority. Even Chaotic Evil individuals wouldn't occasionally mind helping a little old lady cross the street if they're inclined to do so, for example's sake.[/QUOTE]
Ye I'm actually in the process of making a completely lawful stupid paladin for comedy's sake.
[QUOTE=cdr248;48377679]players accidentally commit a hate crime by wacking a black man so hard (kind of unprovoked) they give him brain damage
feel so bad they bring him to the hospital, pay for a weeks worth of hospital stays, may take years for him to recover
even when he recovers he'll be gary busey/autistic level of functioning
this man: [sp]Chuck Berry[/sp]
[editline]4th August 2015[/editline]
3 WW2 vets walk into a diner with 6 Greasers:[/QUOTE]
you forgot to mention that the mask was a batman-man mask, made out of a severed bat man (not Batman) head
said bat man got blown the fuck away with a barrage of buckshot, bullets, and at least one arrow the session before
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
why do i always miss the best sessions ;_;
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;48376066]This is a very, very rough preliminary asking, but I've got a thing I'd like to try.
I'm looking to do a Mekton Zeta Battle Royale sort of deal. It'd be a series of individual one-shot games of 1v1 with players, to be played whenever the two players and myself are free. I'm aiming to have 8 players so I can arrange a tournament hierarchy of 8 > 4 > 2 > Victor. I'll give each player a pool of perhaps 300 Construction Points to spend however they like - one really beefy mek, multiple smaller meks, whatever in between - to pit against each other.
Finally, to make it a little more interesting, I think I'll give a little reward to the victor. Maybe a $20 Steam game or something, I haven't really decided yet.
So, anyone interested in joining Super Smash Mekton, send me a PM or add me on Steam. As a side note, players highly familiar with the system, like those in my current game or those who have been in and/or are GMing it now (looking at you, Dwarfy) need not apply. Because that'd be a ridiculously unfair advantage.
There will be a few rules and stipulations which I'll elaborate on when I see more interest.[/QUOTE]
I took a look at the rules and thought it was complicated to learn while drunk once, can I apply? Also you should take bets on who will win, split it between the winner and whoever bet on them.
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
Also being able to spectate would be cool.
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;48376066]This is a very, very rough preliminary asking, but I've got a thing I'd like to try.
I'm looking to do a Mekton Zeta Battle Royale sort of deal. It'd be a series of individual one-shot games of 1v1 with players, to be played whenever the two players and myself are free. I'm aiming to have 8 players so I can arrange a tournament hierarchy of 8 > 4 > 2 > Victor. I'll give each player a pool of perhaps 300 Construction Points to spend however they like - one really beefy mek, multiple smaller meks, whatever in between - to pit against each other.
Finally, to make it a little more interesting, I think I'll give a little reward to the victor. Maybe a $20 Steam game or something, I haven't really decided yet.
So, anyone interested in joining Super Smash Mekton, send me a PM or add me on Steam. As a side note, players highly familiar with the system, like those in my current game or those who have been in and/or are GMing it now (looking at you, Dwarfy) need not apply. Because that'd be a ridiculously unfair advantage.
There will be a few rules and stipulations which I'll elaborate on when I see more interest.[/QUOTE]
can i have the nukes?
[QUOTE=Rents;48379689]I took a look at the rules and thought it was complicated to learn while drunk once, can I apply? Also you should take bets on who will win, split it between the winner and whoever bet on them.
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
Also being able to spectate would be cool.[/QUOTE]
I don't expect anyone to actually read the books cover to cover and learn the rules on their own. I'll give everyone a rundown of how shit works and what I'll expect from you. You're welcome to join or spectate, though the times for the battles may be completely random depending on player availability.
Bets might be fun though. We can figure that out after I have a lineup.
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;48380338]can i have the nukes?[/QUOTE]
If you can afford them you can have as many nukes as you want.
Probably. Unless I change my mind.
[QUOTE=elowin;48380338]can i have the nukes?[/QUOTE]
You're asking the right guy now. Giant impractical fuck-off weapons are my specialty.
Yes. Blast 2, damage 1, nuclear, range 0, 1 shot.
Costs 200bp. GL because that's literally either a nuclear bomb or a mine. Word of advice: don't be within 3-4x blast radius if you can avoid it, shit is not going to be pretty if you are. You can be more direct with blast 1 and it'll drop the cost to 150bp. The minimum a nuclear weapon can cost in mekton is 150bp.
I [I]might[/I] have just make a mind change above happen though, since well, anything within blast radius is just literally destroyed. And anything within 1.1-2x blast radius automatically takes 10x full damage to literally every part (10 damage is a lot to just shrug off, your enemy is going to be weak at that point for sure). Anything within 2.1-4x takes normal damage (just 1, but we don't really care about anything in that range anyway.) as area effect weapon. It's not a fun time. PLUS you still have 100-150bp to build an actual mek, which is quite a bit considering iirc we built with 75 in the campaign.
[QUOTE=draugur;48382967]You're asking the right guy now. Giant impractical fuck-off weapons are my specialty.
Yes. Blast 2, damage 1, nuclear, range 0, 1 shot.
Costs 200bp. GL because that's literally either a nuclear bomb or a mine. Word of advice: don't be within 3-4x blast radius if you can avoid it, shit is not going to be pretty if you are. You can be more direct with blast 1 and it'll drop the cost to 150bp. The minimum a nuclear weapon can cost in mekton is 150bp.
I [I]might[/I] have just make a mind change above happen though, since well, anything within blast radius is just literally destroyed. And anything within 1.1-2x blast radius automatically takes 10x full damage to literally every part (10 damage is a lot to just shrug off, your enemy is going to be weak at that point for sure). Anything within 2.1-4x takes normal damage (just 1, but we don't really care about anything in that range anyway.) as area effect weapon. It's not a fun time. PLUS you still have 100-150bp to build an actual mek, which is quite a bit considering iirc we built with 75 in the campaign.[/QUOTE]
drau pls
don't encourage the boy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
