Django-the D is silent

[Jlooney]

So the other night I watched Django and wanted to figure out if it's possible to copy him. I started looking at the fighter vs the ranger. That also lead me to the light crossbow ( since my dm doesn't allow firearms). So could in do fighter one and take archery and ranger two for two weapon fighting? The light crossbow seems to fall under twf while not being penalized for dual wielding. Any help toward this build would be most appreciated. My race is undecided but my base stats in no particular order are 10 12 13 14 15 16 and I get one free feat at level one.

There is not a current end in site for this game so a breakdown of a level by level would be extremely appreciated.

Also I am posting from my cell phone so please forgive typos.

[Eslin]

So the other night I watched Django and wanted to figure out if it's possible to copy him. I started looking at the fighter vs the ranger. That also lead me to the light crossbow ( since my dm doesn't allow firearms). So could in do fighter one and take archery and ranger two for two weapon fighting? The light crossbow seems to fall under twf while not being penalized for dual wielding. Any help toward this build would be most appreciated. My race is undecided but my base stats in no particular order are 10 12 13 14 15 16 and I get one free feat at level one.

There is not a current end in site for this game so a breakdown of a level by level would be extremely appreciated.

Also I am posting from my cell phone so please forgive typos.

You don't need two weapon fighting unless you're using the actual two weapon fighting action with two light melee weapons. If you're using two hand crossbows then just take the crossbow expert feat and you're golden - I'd recommend going straight fighter, take battlemaster. You'll be getting two attacks per round from the start, three at level five, and starting at level 3 you'll get access to maneuvers, most of which can be used with ranged attacks. The ability to push, trip, cause fear or taunt at range is very useful and you'll likely have a lot of fun with it. After a while you can take some ranger levels if you want after fighter hits their post five lull, but that's up to you.

[Jlooney]

Ok. Hmm. I guess I was trying to hard. Still used to pathfinder so trying to get out of that mindset.

I did read the maneuvers and they said weapon attack and that would count with a ranged weapon as well?

[Eslin]

Ok. Hmm. I guess I was trying to hard. Still used to pathfinder so trying to get out of that mindset.

I did read the maneuvers and they said weapon attack and that would count with a ranged weapon as well?

Across the game if it says melee weapon attack it requires a melee weapon, if it says ranged weapon attack it requires a ranged weapon and if it says weapon attack any weapon counts, including natural ones. So yeah, though there are a few maneuvers that require a melee weapon, most can be used with any kind.

[Jlooney]

So as far as race and stats multi classing and in depth stuff at say level 5 what do you recommend and what type of damage are we looking at

[Eslin]

So as far as race and stats multi classing and in depth stuff at say level 5 what do you recommend and what type of damage are we looking at

Stat wise, in this build your dexterity is determining several skills, your dex saves, your initiative, your armour class, your attack and damage rolls and the DC of the saving throws against your maneuvers, so you want to hit 20 as soon as humanoidly possible.

Normally I'd suggest human for the bonus feat, crossbow expert being somewhat necessary to your build, but your bonus feat widens your options somewhat. Elf and halfling both have +2 to dexterity, allowing you to start with 18 and hit 20 once you get to level 4, which means a slight improvement to pretty much every aspect of your character, and the rest of their racial traits are quite decent in their own right - if you need a deciding factor the way your group handles combat can do so, if your group plays fast and loose with tactical movement the halfling's 25 foot speed doesn't matter and if they play everything on a grid the wood elf's 35 foot speed is quite an advantage.

If you decide damage is most important, taking human and the sharpshooter feat is your best bet. Your damage will start out at 1d6+3 - with two attacks a round that's the best pretty much anyone is going to get, but it's still only 6.5 average damage per hit at +5 to hit, turning that into 16.5 damage at +0 to hit is a large increase in overall damage.

[Jlooney]

hmmm. Seems like it'll be ok for now but I read that fighter /rouge build and I think that might fit into the build a little bit just for some sneak attack damage seeing as how they went to the old systems minus specialization like 2nd edt ( which I started in ). I heard rumor that it might be in the dmg so I might hold out and wait for that.

[Eslin]

hmmm. Seems like it'll be ok for now but I read that fighter /rouge build and I think that might fit into the build a little bit just for some sneak attack damage seeing as how they went to the old systems minus specialization like 2nd edt ( which I started in ). I heard rumor that it might be in the dmg so I might hold out and wait for that.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about for any of that. The closest I'm coming is something about fighter/rogue, which you should feel free to do - the battlemaster fighter is very strong up until level 5, at which point you start getting far less from your class. You get 4 superiority dice from the first 3 levels and 2 superiority dice from the next 17, you want to bail on the class after 5-8 levels depending on preference. Past that point rogue is a great choice for as many levels as you feel like.

[Jlooney]

In second edition you had weapon proficiency slots. Like a fixed number of weapons you could use. You had a master list but only a few you could use. If you spent an extra one at first level you got an extra attack every other round ( thats 3/2) and also got +1 to hit +2 damage. However as you gained levels you could upgrade to master and the elusive grand master. It was a really kool system. As you gained levels you eventually got 5/2 being 3 then 2 and at like 17th you got 3/1

[Slipperychicken]

I'd take variant human, crossbow master, sharp shooter, and alertness. Having a huge initiative would suit him well.

I don't recall whether he's good at tracking (or anything besides killing people), so fighter and ranger should both work fine.

[Jlooney]

Nah he really didn't track. He just didn't miss and was really fast. Along with an intimate knowledge of the slave trade he was motivated and lucky.

[Eslin]

In second edition you had weapon proficiency slots. Like a fixed number of weapons you could use. You had a master list but only a few you could use. If you spent an extra one at first level you got an extra attack every other round ( thats 3/2) and also got +1 to hit +2 damage. However as you gained levels you could upgrade to master and the elusive grand master. It was a really kool system. As you gained levels you eventually got 5/2 being 3 then 2 and at like 17th you got 3/1

Not sure what kool means, and that seems to boil down to just adding numbers to certain weapons, which goes against the whole bounded design of 5e. I wouldn't expect anything even remotely like that to make an appearance this edition.

[Jlooney]

No I agree with you on it being against the entire point of this edition but I think not having a weapon specialization for fighter is like a wizard with no spells. It's that iconic in my opinion, but I've digressed...

Can you apply sharpshooter to each attack you make in a round or must you or can you mix and match? I'm afb so I can't at the moment

[Eslin]

No I agree with you on it being against the entire point of this edition but I think not having a weapon specialization for fighter is like a wizard with no spells. It's that iconic in my opinion, but I've digressed...

Can you apply sharpshooter to each attack you make in a round or must you or can you mix and match? I'm afb so I can't at the moment

You can mix and match.

And the fighter is supposed to represent a vast range of potential character types, many of which would be versatile in their weapon use. Allowing a fighter to exchange one of their features for some kind of weapon specialisation would be fine, but making all fighters specialise would be against the point.

[Rallicus]

If your DM doesn't allow firearms, convince him to give you "magic wands" that are shaped and look like firearms. You could have a whole quest line devoted to finding said weaponry.

If he denies you, stomp your foot and tell him the story of how Gary Gygax allowed his best friend to make Murlynd. It'll be especially good if he's your friend, because you can guilt him by saying "but Gary Gygax made concessions for his best friend."

[Perseus]

If your DM doesn't allow firearms, convince him to give you "magic wands" that are shaped and look like firearms. You could have a whole quest line devoted to finding said weaponry.

If he denies you, stomp your foot and tell him the story of how Gary Gygax allowed his best friend to make Murlynd. It'll be especially good if he's your friend, because you can guilt him by saying "but Gary Gygax made concessions for his best friend."

As much as I think you are joking I need to point something out.

Gary Gygax was a horrible DM. Just reading up on the stories of his games and stuff made me never want to be a bad DM.

I learned a lot of what not to do....

[Eslin]

Gun wise, Django's out of your era - the typical D&D era technology equates with a point in history that did actually have cannons and hand cannons, maybe matchlocks, they're just never included in D&D core because apparently they're allergic to firearms.

The main problem is the guns from the era you're likely playing in aren't capable of anything like the ones Django uses - the main reason they caught on was they didn't require the strength and massive amount of training a bow required and had greater range and power than a crossbow (which also required more strength and training, though nothing on the level of a longbow). In addition, it is much cheaper to craft a musket ball than it is to craft a bolt. Please note that crossbows were much more accurate - musket and earlier weapons were so inaccurate their only real ranged use was in large groups against large groups, in which you were likely to hit someone.

So why you actually can give your character firearms, you don't really want to - the earliest guns were around as powerful as a crossbow, but much less accurate (just easier to produce and train with), so crossbows fit your concept far better.

[Rallicus]

Gun wise, Django's out of your era - the typical D&D era technology equates with a point in history that did actually have cannons and hand cannons, maybe matchlocks, they're just never included in D&D core because apparently they're allergic to firearms.

It's just a general exclusion of anything gunpowder related. Pretty much thanks to D&D's default setting being so heavily based on LOTR.

How a wizard can literally warp reality but not discover gunpowder is kinda baffling though. Or how Mordekainen and Elminster can visit Earth to have tea with Ed Greenwood and somehow not learn or bring back anything.

Suspension of disbelief, I guess.

I still like the idea of magic wand guns, though. You put sling bullets in there and the magic causes the same sort of reaction exploding gunpowder would. Not too far-fetched. If OP is playing in a generic D&D world, he could always bring up the idea of his character's motivation being "discovering Murlynd's lost relics." Or he could be blessed by Murlynd, given the only magic wand guns known to exist in the modern era (marking him the last of his kind, The Last Gunslinger).

As a DM, I'd be okay with this. But I'm sure most other people wouldn't.


Gary Gygax was a horrible DM. Just reading up on the stories of his games and stuff made me never want to be a bad DM.

Maybe. But have any of his original players gone on record saying how terrible his games were?

I think theoretically you can be a bad DM, but if you create a memorable, fun experience, then nothing else really matters.

[Eslin]

It's just a general exclusion of anything gunpowder related. Pretty much thanks to D&D's default setting being so heavily based on LOTR.

How a wizard can literally warp reality but not discover gunpowder is kinda baffling though. Or how Mordekainen and Elminster can visit Earth to have tea with Ed Greenwood and somehow not learn or bring back anything.

Suspension of disbelief, I guess.

Yeah, that one never really made sense to me. If the tech level is 1400s or higher, my settings only don't have gunpowder if there's a very good reason (soil that makes nitration plants difficult, lack of access to volcanic areas) - for adventurers, it doesn't impact much, since guns were useful because the ease of production and ease of use and only particularly good in mass combat where the inaccuracy doesn't matter much. Adventurers tend to operate in small tactical units and to be highly skilled and well equipped, meaning guns are seldom of any use to them.

[JoeJ]

How a wizard can literally warp reality but not discover gunpowder is kinda baffling though. Or how Mordekainen and Elminster can visit Earth to have tea with Ed Greenwood and somehow not learn or bring back anything.

They can bring back all sorts of things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll work. Maybe the Forgotten Realms is like Amber - ordinary gunpowder doesn't work but a different, much more expensive substance (the "smoke powder" of Spelljammer) does.

[Eslin]

They can bring back all sorts of things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll work. Maybe the Forgotten Realms is like Amber - ordinary gunpowder doesn't work but a different, much more expensive substance (the "smoke powder" of Spelljammer) does.

How the hell would gunpowder not work? It's pretty basic physics, what changed?

I mean we only have one set of physics, so any changes are in the realm of the theoretical, but I can't figure out any aspect of physics you could change to have gunpowder not work that wouldn't also make life as we know it impossible.

[JoeJ]

How the hell would gunpowder not work? It's pretty basic physics, what changed?

Basic physics changed, obviously.


I mean we only have one set of physics, so any changes are in the realm of the theoretical, but I can't figure out any aspect of physics you could change to have gunpowder not work that wouldn't also make life as we know it impossible.

Can you think of a change that lets rocs fly, giant spiders stand up, and spelljamming ships have gravity planes? (And don't you care at all about the cat girls?)

[Perseus]

Ah the age old argument...

Non-casters can't have nice things cause I can't wrap my mind around it within a FANTASY game.

Its been 10 hours, surprised it took that long to come back up.

[Mandrake]

I agree on Variant Human, Croosbow Expert, Sharpshooter, Alertness and consider at least training him in Endurance or getting means for him to express his durability. Also, I would consider going a few classes into Rogue, for extra precision once per turn (Sneak Attack), mega ability to move (extra Dashes) and Assassin archetype... Hell, take that fourth level too. :)

But yeah, Fighter Battlemaster is just the thing for you.

[Jlooney]

Wow. This topic got way off subject. But funny.

I wanted a Django style character without the guns because i want to make a character within the rules but if I can talk him into a flintlock or even a colt 45 then gravy.

I'll definatley be looking into way to make him gritty but useful. The fighter rogue with perhaps some bars ( slave background seems like a bard could do the rich history and culture well). He isn't ment to be a combat machine persay but able to do some neat stuff like the combat maneuvers with the Athletics skill would be a lot of fun.

[Tenmujiin]

2-4 levels of rogue and the rest at least mostly fighter or 6/8/11/12 levels of fighter and the rest rogue would be my build for this (probably rogue 2-4/fighter 8/rogue x) pick up the feat to dual wield crossbows and sharpshooter asap then max dex/con. Take battlemaster and either thief or assassin depending of if you want ooc utility or raw damages. I haven't seen the movie btw, just going off what you and others have said in this thread.

[Eslin]

Wow. This topic got way off subject. But funny.

I wanted a Django style character without the guns because i want to make a character within the rules but if I can talk him into a flintlock or even a colt 45 then gravy.

I'll definatley be looking into way to make him gritty but useful. The fighter rogue with perhaps some bars ( slave background seems like a bard could do the rich history and culture well). He isn't ment to be a combat machine persay but able to do some neat stuff like the combat maneuvers with the Athletics skill would be a lot of fun.

Django was pretty much a combat machine though, most of what we actually saw him doing was shooting people.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm going to go against the grain here and recommend you use Half Orc. Being a member of a marginalized race is a big part of Django's character. The +2 to STR is not ideal, but not totally useless either since it will apply to athletics. The ability to resist death is also good for a never-say-die character like Django.

[Jlooney]

I actually like the flavor of half Orc a lot. They were treated as sub human just like the slaves. And yea he was a killing machine. I'm going look into that

[Eslin]

I actually like the flavor of half Orc a lot. They were treated as sub human just like the slaves. And yea he was a killing machine. I'm going look into that

I've never understood what's with half-orcs (something that it doesn't sound like there would be very many of) being a player race and orcs not being, with the exception of 3.5 where they pretty much were. If you're going to have elves, half elves and half-orcs everywhere why not just include orcs?

[Jlooney]

Because orcs started as giants. they had large weapons and were basically ogres but shorter with no regen. Also they were pure killing machines, a little to hard to play as a PC race in the typical good party.

[Eslin]

Because orcs started as giants. they had large weapons and were basically ogres but shorter with no regen. Also they were pure killing machines, a little to hard to play as a PC race in the typical good party.

I have no idea where that's coming from - they were medium with +2 strength and constitution last edition, medium with +4 strength and -2 to all mental stats the edition before last. And pure killing machines doesn't really make sense for a humanoid race that clearly relies heavily on foraging or agriculture (look at their blunt teeth).

[Rallicus]

I've never understood what's with half-orcs (something that it doesn't sound like there would be very many of) being a player race and orcs not being, with the exception of 3.5 where they pretty much were. If you're going to have elves, half elves and half-orcs everywhere why not just include orcs?

Probably because half-orcs already fit the niche, and it'd be overkill to add something so similar. Also, I don't think that them being naturally chaotic evil helps their case much, as far as being considered for a core race.

In addition, there's also the problem of them being notoriously dim-witted (there's few cases of intelligent orcs; Obould Many-Arrows being the only example I can think of ), and the fact that they hate [i]pretty much every single player race.


And pure killing machines doesn't really make sense for a humanoid race that clearly relies heavily on foraging or agriculture (look at their blunt teeth).

And...the tusks?

Also, orcs relying on agriculture? When you think of an orc, do you think of Krugarth Bloodhammer toiling in his fields while the wife and kids sit inside the farmhouse?

D&D orcs are a much different breed than what WoW's version has become. Just saying.

[Eslin]

Probably because half-orcs already fit the niche, and it'd be overkill to add something so similar. Also, I don't think that them being naturally chaotic evil helps their case much, as far as being considered for a core race.
That'd be why we don't have gnomes and halflings in the same book. Divide this by racial subtypes - there are three types of elves, but not room for two types of orc?


In addition, there's also the problem of them being notoriously dim-witted (there's few cases of intelligent orcs; Obould Many-Arrows being the only example I can think of ), and the fact that they hate [i]pretty much every single player race.
As represented in 3.5 by the penalty to mental stats. And they can't hate pretty much every single player race - unless they have a radically different mindset than humans (which they don't, every single humanoid species can be described as 'like humans, but...'), they aren't uniform in their opinions or desires.


And...the tusks?

Also, orcs relying on agriculture? When you think of an orc, do you think of Krugarth Bloodhammer toiling in his fields while the wife and kids sit inside the farmhouse?

D&D orcs are a much different breed than what WoW's version has become. Just saying.
Yes, the tusks. Please note tusks are a purely herbivorous adaptation - rooting animals like boars have them, no predator does.

And no, they're not like WoW's orcs. I just googled them, and WoW's orcs have human equivalent intelligence and several sharp teeth - given their similarities, their dietary capabilities are probably very similar to that of humans, possibly more meat focused. D&D orcs, by comparison, have a mouth full of completely flat teeth, indicating an entirely herbivorous diet. A medieval human army could raise at an upper limit 7% of the population as a standing army without causing famine, orcs dependence on forage and agriculture means they're probably even more bound to their environment than we are - given their upper body strength, ability to see in the dark and teeth, I'd say they are basically the gorilla equivalent to the humanity's common ancestry with the chimpanzee, orcs are likely native to a jungle environment (warm environment further evidenced by their lack of body hair).

[Rallicus]

That'd be why we don't have gnomes and halflings in the same book. Divide this by racial subtypes - there are three types of elves, but not room for two types of orc?

There should only be two subtypes of Elves in 5e; if Drizz't was never created, I honestly think that'd be the case. Make a book about an orc as "cool" as Drizz't and they'll undoubtedly add it to the core PHB.


they aren't uniform in their opinions or desires.

But they are, for the most part. Their god told them, "Everything belongs to you, everyone has stolen your stuff, take it back."

And so they do. Savagely. They're too dim-witted to do anything else, and the ones that do stand out (and of these there are too few to warrant inclusion into PHB as a core race, or even a subtype).


snip about flat teeth

Well, RAW they're carnivores and always have been. I don't know where you're getting the flat teeth thing from either.

Anyway, this is completely off-topic, I don't really see how it has any relevance to OP's Django character.

[Eslin]

There should only be two subtypes of Elves in 5e; if Drizz't was never created, I honestly think that'd be the case. Make a book about an orc as "cool" as Drizz't and they'll undoubtedly add it to the core PHB.



But they are, for the most part. Their god told them, "Everything belongs to you, everyone has stolen your stuff, take it back."

And so they do. Savagely. They're too dim-witted to do anything else, and the ones that do stand out (and of these there are too few to warrant inclusion into PHB as a core race, or even a subtype).



Well, RAW they're carnivores and always have been. I don't know where you're getting the flat teeth thing from either.

Anyway, this is completely off-topic, I don't really see how it has any relevance to OP's Django character.

Threads always go off topic - the orc thing is a realisation from a few days ago when we were discussing orcs, flat teeth pointed out here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18386982&postcount=19). They're not carnivores, they're not build anything like carnivores. You can tell approximate diet of any creature by what its mouth looks like, and orcs are clearly purely herbivores.

Regarding the Gruumsh thing: I'm sure Gruumsh did command them to act certain ways, but not every orc is going to act like that for the same reason not every human would jump to obey if Pelor commanded them. A lot would, but an entire (chaotic) race all heeding the same being? When humans are split between like 30 gods? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

And Gruumsh only exists in a few settings while orcs exist in pretty much every setting - that a lot of orcs in some settings pay attention to Gruumsh I don't doubt, but he isn't a racial trait.

[Rallicus]

snip

I've seen you do this in your arguments before: try to apply real-world logic to the D&D universe. It just doesn't work that way.

I'll just leave my closing arguments here. We'll be arguing in circles if I don't, and I'll certainly let you have the last word, but don't expect me to respond to it.


You're basing your argument off an artist's rendition of an orc. I'm pretty sure both orc pictures in the MM were done by the same guy, who gave them flat teeth. There's been D&D pictures in the past that gave them sharp teeth, however, and there's nothing in their flavor text that points one way or the other.

Previously, orcs have always been considered carnivores when their diet is mentioned.

Little snip from the MM: "Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them". At the very least they're omnivores.

They're a monstrous humanoid race with a tendency towards evil; much of their core essence can be captured by rolling up a half-orc; they don't really stand out as a player race.

[Jlooney]

Eslin, it seems that you are applying real physics to to a game where "I shoot a fireball from my fingertips" is actually a way to solve a problem. I've been trying to ignore your obvious attempts to troll me and being extremely rude on many things. Just because something is outside your area of know how doesn't mean it isn't true.

I do appreciate your information but you please don't post on any of my topics again.

[Perseus]

Eslin, it seems that you are applying real physics to to a game where "I shoot a fireball from my fingertips" is actually a way to solve a problem. I've been trying to ignore your obvious attempts to troll me and being extremely rude on many things. Just because something is outside your area of know how doesn't mean it isn't true.

I do appreciate your information but you please don't post on any of my topics again.


Well to he fare, anything that isn't magic seems to be forced to play by real world logic and rules. So yeah a race that isn't magical falls under that category.

Also, note, I'm pretty sure telling someone they can't post is a big no no. You might wanna check though.
.

[Eslin]

Well to he fare, anything that isn't magic seems to be forced to play by real world logic and rules. So yeah a race that isn't magical falls under that category.

Also, note, I'm pretty sure telling someone they can't post is a big no no. You might wanna check though.
It's fine, if that's what he wants then that's how it can go.


Eslin, it seems that you are applying real physics to to a game where "I shoot a fireball from my fingertips" is actually a way to solve a problem. I've been trying to ignore your obvious attempts to troll me and being extremely rude on many things. Just because something is outside your area of know how doesn't mean it isn't true.

I do appreciate your information but you please don't post on any of my topics again.
Obvious attempts to troll you and be extremely rude? While the relevant part of your topic was happening I responded quickly and with useful information to every question you asked, and once you had your information and stopped asking discussed orcs instead, stopping at Rallicus' post so things didn't go in circles.

Going one step further, please never respond to anything I post in future.

[PiggDaddy]

I'm going to go against the grain here and recommend you use Half Orc. Being a member of a marginalized race is a big part of Django's character. The +2 to STR is not ideal, but not totally useless either since it will apply to athletics. The ability to resist death is also good for a never-say-die character like Django.

Half-Orc is a very fitting race for a Django build. Also, although dexterity is definitely the most important attribute for this build and for the Django character (king states that he has an extremely high level of natural skill with ranged weapons) strength shouldn't be overlooked. While strength doesn't really help the build that much the character of Django is shown to poses impressive levels of athletics. Remember when he pulled that horse off its feet with relative ease on his way to Candy Land? Also, having high strength is fitting for the character fluff wise.

[Human Paragon 3]

Half-Orc is a very fitting race for a Django build. Also, although dexterity is definitely the most important attribute for this build and for the Django character (king states that he has an extremely high level of natural skill with ranged weapons) strength shouldn't be overlooked. While strength doesn't really help the build that much the character of Django is shown to poses impressive levels of athletics. Remember when he pulled that horse off its feet with relative ease on his way to Candy Land? Also, having high strength is fitting for the character fluff wise.

Totally agree. With so many attribute boosts you can max STR and DEX no prob if that's what you want.

[Jlooney]

Also being a field slave would build good strength and constitution while allowing you to use the scars and deformities and knowledge of torture into a fitting motivation.