D&D 5e |The Haunting of Genning House

[transcendantviewer]

I believe you'll have a hard time murdering my character, but I welcome the challenge.

 

[Blu3]

Oh you have no idea what you are in for

 

[transcendantviewer]

Wow, you know what I just realized? My character is accidentally immune to the most dangerous parts of a ghost's capabilities. Their Horrifying Visage doesn't work on undead and they can only possess humanoids. Zombies aren't humanoids.

 

[Blu3]

Oh everything is not dead........ There are ghost.... There are Ghouls....... There are spellcasters..... You don't know what is in the house.....

 

[transcendantviewer]

Fair enough.

 

[Valhasagun]

Uh...Hi!Room for one more?

 

[Blu3]

Yeah of course there is room

 

[transcendantviewer]

Try not to die.

 

[transcendantviewer]

Apparently my joke was a bit rough. Sorry everybody. Are we still on for this? I'll try to keep the humor in check.

 

[The Inkeeper]

This okay? Couldn't figure out how to convert my 3.5e character to 5e, unfortunately..

View attachment NeckSnap5e.pdf

 

[transcendantviewer]

Use what's in the book, man. If your character doesn't port, do what you can. I had a character that could lift and throw horses as light weapons. He didn't port so I adjusted.

 

[transcendantviewer]

This new system behaves differently than 3.5. There's a new thing called "Bounded Accuracy" which means you are probably going to have a pretty decent chance of hitting a creature at level 1 even if your character only has a meagre +3 to hit. To-hit chances linger between 50% and 35% based upon the difficulty of the fight. You don't need a huge bonus to hit until late in the game, and even then, the highest mathematically possible bonus to hit is about a +18.

 

[transcendantviewer]

I don't mean to be rude, but just looking at the features your character's got, I can tell that this homebrew class/subclass you've been working needs some serious work before it's ready for play.

 

[The Inkeeper]

Actually, that class/subclass was base fighter, as far as I was aware. The Archetype is the one that is homebrew. Other than that being homebrew, as you haven't bothered to correct the Archetype, the homebrew isn't the problem. As far as I'm concerned either way, I'm only interested in any problems the DM would have with my sheet. You don't have the say to pick what I play or don't play with.

 

[transcendantviewer]

Archetypes are subclasses. That's what stuck out. That's what I was commenting on. Doubling your proficiency bonus for attack rolls is just not done. It upsets the math of the game and it's not done for that very reason. Disarming simply can't happen unless the DM says it does, because it's a variant rule, same with sundering items. I've been homebrewing in this edition since it came out, but alright. We'll let the DM settle this.

 

[The Inkeeper]

If my previous character isn't found satisfactory by the DM, I have supplied my original character in what I believe to be a 5e conversion. I would prefer this be played over Neck Snap the Gentle, but would understand if the feats don't transfer over well.


View attachment Brutus5e.pdf

@Blu3

 

[Umbrie]

5e doesn't have Disarming and Sundering as core combat manuevers. and doubling your proficiency bonus on any combat number tends to upset the math of the game. especially attack rolls. you would be better off with a situational advantage on attack rolls in a specific circumstance. like advantage on attack rolls made against a single target when you are engaging them in single combat with a light finesse weapon in one hand and an empty offhand for example. this would be an example of an extremely niche circumstance that is highly unlikely to happen unless you intentionally forgo the defensive benefit of a shield and only ever use light weapons while only ever fighting lone foes Man to Man in duels.

 

[transcendantviewer]

...Your comment made me think of a feat my friend might come up with:


Just fall down
You have advantage on attack rolls that you make against unnamed characters with only one hit die and a charisma score of 8 or less.


You have advantage on attack rolls that you make against creatures wearing red shirts.


You have disadvantage on attack rolls that you make against named creatures unless it is the first or final time you will ever face them in lethal combat.

 

[Umbrie]

...Your comment made me think of a feat my friend might come up with:


Just fall down
You have advantage on attack rolls that you make against unnamed characters with only one hit die and a charisma score of 8 or less.


You have advantage on attack rolls that you make against creatures wearing red shirts.


You have disadvantage on attack rolls that you make against named creatures unless it is the first or final time you will ever face them in lethal combat.

that sounds like a Hilarious feat.

 

[transcendantviewer]

I know, right? It's perfect for silly games. I immediately thought of Austin Powers villains, and the Red Shirts from Star Trek.

 

[Umbrie]

I know, right? It's perfect for silly games. I immediately thought of Austin Powers villains, and the Red Shirts from Star Trek.

yeppies. sounds more like what Savage Worlds would call a Setting Rule (Called a House Rule in other systems) than a feat.

 

[transcendantviewer]

yeppies. sounds more like what Savage Worlds would call a Setting Rule (Called a House Rule in other systems) than a feat.

Fair enough.

 

[Umbrie]

Fair enough.

the difference between Setting Rules and Feats are that Setting Rules affect everyone automatically to better represent a specific tone and feel within the setting and feats affect merely the characters who take them

 

[transcendantviewer]

I'm aware, but thank you for the clarification.

 

[Umbrie]

I'm aware, but thank you for the clarification.

welkies