Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

The newest supplement for Dungeons and Dragons: Grizzlies and Genocides.

EDIT: Some have claimed that this is actually a repackaged Werewolf: the Apocalypse d20. I disagree. Notice how they crossed out 'wolf' and wrote in 'bear' in all the places.

BEARS ARE ACTUALLY PACK HUNTERS IN D&D DEAL WITH IT.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say that blasting is bereft of tactics. The issue is that it's only one tactic, and baring optimization, it's generally not that great in 3.5. In older editions, apparently, hp was lower, and thus doing damage was much more impressive.

Infinity, a wargame which I love bringing up because it's fucking awesome (seriously), did a bunch of things to remove negative play experiences recently. They reduced the power of Rambo options and removed a lot of indirect fire weapons from the field because they were plenty balanced in normal play-but against a new player, an Avatar or Jotun showing up would probably wreck the shit out of you and you would not have much fun because you wouldn't know how to build and position your army to counter Rambos.
Would you mind talking a bit more about this game/NPE? Obviously not in this thread, but maybe in the "tabletop design is hard"? It sounds really interesting.
 
I *like* D&D as high fantasy magipunk sci-fi (and no i'm not referring to Eberron. Eberron is smalltime. FR has MYTHALS). The problem is, the fanbase largely doesn't. So to remain viable as a gameline, D&D has to submit to the wishes of the fanbase, and be low/mid fantasy.
It seems extremely dubious that "the fanbase" wants a low fantasy game when the #1 RPG on the market that 5e was being released into is D&D 3e with a terrible coat of paint.

4e failed partly because people were offended that the difference between a level 1 monster and a level 20 monster was basically just bigger numbers and a different skin. Why are you so confident that an edition that denies people even that illusion of advancement is going to be more sucessful?
 
It seems extremely dubious that "the fanbase" wants a low fantasy game when the #1 RPG on the market that 5e was being released into is D&D 3e with a terrible coat of paint.

...Wow. You realize D&D and variations of it will literally always be the number 1 RPG because of brand name recognition, right?

4e failed partly because people were offended that the difference between a level 1 monster and a level 20 monster was basically just bigger numbers and a different skin. Why are you so confident that an edition that denies people even that illusion of advancement is going to be more sucessful?

Citation needed. 4E was mostly lampooned for all the classes feeling same-y in play to each other.
 
tzar1990 Homebrew: Bear Race
BEAR TRAITS:
Your Bear character has an inborn assortment of abilities, part and parcel of their bear nature
Ability Score Increase: Your constitution score increases by two
Age: Bears reach maturity at five years, although they are capable of ripping of faces from birth. They live forever, or until they have devoured enough humans to ascend to Bearhalla
Alignment: Most Bears are neutral, being equally willing to rip the faces off all species, nations and creeds. Some bears tend towards Chaos and Evil, for their tendency to actively hunt faces to rip off.
Size: Bears stand between five and seven feet tall, and average about 600 pounds. Your size is medium.
Speed: Your base walking speed is 35 feet. Puny humans cannot outrun you.
Darkvision: Accustomed to ripping faces off at night, you have superior vision in dim and dark conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as though it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You cannot see color in any light condition.
Bear Hands: Instead of hands, you have paws. You can only wield specially made weapons, but your claws count as weapons that deel 1d8 damage and have the Light tag.
Bear Skin: Your thick and tough hide protects you from the puny weapons of the humanoid races. Your unarmored AC is 12 instead of 10.
Bear Necessities: You are proficient with the survival skill. Additionally, you may survive entirely off raw meat, requiring either one large meal or a humanoid face once per day.
Languages: Bears speak Bear. Nothing else. They're fuckin' bears, for gods sake.
Subraces: There are several species of bears, each with their own unique traits. Choose one species
Black Bear:
As a Black Bear, you are smaller, lighter and more nimble, at least for a bear
Ability Score Increase: Your Dexterity score increases by 1
Climb: Accustomed to chasing humanoids up trees for their delicious faces, you have a climb speed equal to your land speed.​

Brown Bear:
As a Brown Bear, you are the most populous species of bear, and a natural leader of Bearkind
Ability Score Increase: Your Charisma score increases by 1
Face-Eater: If you eat the face of a humanoid, you may either learn the location of their delicious family, learn the last thing they though prior to being eaten by a bear, or become proficient in one language they spoke for 24 hours (only while using their skull as a hand puppet).
Grizzly Bear:
As a Grizzly Bear, you are famous for just really maulin' the shit out of some faces.
Ability Score Increase: Your Strength score increases by 1
Ripping Maul: After attacking someone, you may spend your bonus action to rip and tear a limb of your choice, forcing them to make a constitution save (DC8 + Prof. Bonus + Str Mod) to use that limb. This penalty remains until they receive magical healing or succeed on three saves. Once used, you cannot use this ability again until completing a short rest.
Panda Bear:
As a Panda, you are all wise and shit, because tabletop RPGs can still get away with going "wow, oriental stuff, so mystical"
Ability Score Increase: Your Wisdom score increases by 1
Fuckin' Adorable: When attacked in melee, you may spend your reaction to force your enemy to make a Wisdom save (DC8 + Prof. Bonus + Wis Mod). If they fail, their attack misses and they may not attempt to attack you until the end of their next turn. Once used, you may not use this ability again until you have completed a long rest
Polar Bear
As a polar bear, you are a large white face-eater with a terrifying intellect (for a bear)
Ability Score Increase: Your Intelligence score increases by 1
Arctic Adaptaion: You have resistance to cold damage, and advantage of Survival and Stealth checks in cold or icy environments.​
 
I mean, it's cool that people liked 3.5 ed and Exalted and Legend (Where fighters get to fly!)
IIRC, the DC for "Climb the falling snow/ Gain [flying] for 3 [rounds]" is 35. Getting [flying] for one [round] is DC 25.
LIES. Making fun of Pathfailure will Never get old.

Hey we went and nerfed every single ally buff in the game! While also giving casters more incentive to focus on save-or-dies rather that control or support spells! Because Pathfinder HATES FRIENDSHIP.
Half-orc Bardbarian says hello. (At least when he isn't level one. *sounds of fustrated rage*)
DID THEY THINK THAT HUMANS WERE THE ONLY ADVENTURERS AROUND?
I TAKE DRUID AND WILDSHAPE TO HUMAN
OR DO A REVERSE LORD BEARINGTON. SER TINY IS TOTALLY A BEAR, WHY WOULD YOU SAY OTHERWISE?
 
Minor update on my group, we've gotten large enough that we've had to split it. Even though we lost four players, we've gained five more. The Veteran-Newbie split became obvious and hour-long three round combat encounters necessitated some correction. Most of the new players are coworkers of ours, four of them have been on the same team as myself. We didn't stick with 5th Ed, all the veteran players preferred 3rd Ed and are now playing the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path, and it was mutually agreed that 4th Ed was a better intro into tabletop than 3.X. My summation of 5th Ed is that it's an enjoyable compromise between 3rd and 4th Ed, but if you've got enough people to run a group for both then do so.
 
Since bears were being discussed, I remember a comedy game of 3.5 a friend told me about where no one played characters that made much sense. One person was an Awakened Dire Bear Druid. His character had been awakened by a Druid and thus concluded that Druids were awesome.

His character became even more excited when he attained enough druid levels to wild shape! Awesome! Now he could turn into ... A BEAR! YAY!

(Other players: wat.

Bear Player: Hey, I dumped Intelligence.)

Later he got higher level and could turn into... A DIRE BEAR! EVEN MORE AWESOME

(Other players: so what you already are, except strictly worse as you can't cast spells since you didn't take Natural spell?

Bear Player: Dumped. INT.)
 
Last edited:
Since bears were being discussed, I remember a comedy game of 3.5 a friend told me about where no one played characters that made much sense. One person was an Awakened Dire Bear Druid. His character had been awakened by a Druid and thus concluded that Druids were awesome.

His character became even more excited when he attained enough druid levels to wild shape! Awesome! Now he could turn into ... A BEAR! YAY!

(Other players: wat.

Bear Player: Hey, I dumped Intelligence.)

Later he got higher level and could turn into... A DIRE BEAR! EVEN MORE AWESOME

(Other players: so what you already are, except strictly worse as you can't cast spells since you didn't take Natural spell?

Bear Player: Dumped. INT.)
Not all Bears are brilliant. BUT ALL BEARS ARE AWESOME!
 
Quoting my stuff over from another thread, since it's relevant to D&D, and some people here might have more interesting responses:

D&D 3.5 is normal for a D&D fantasy paradigm. It fits TERRIBLY with most fantasy paradigms. D&D 3 is a game where radical terrain alteration is common battlefield tactic basically almost from the starter levels, at least with some casters. This fits almost no non-D&D fantasy combat paradigm I can think of. It's a better match for Worm than Lord of the Rings, and it's not even a good match for Worm.

Most fantasy magic is whimsical, strictly limited in thematic scope, and often of limited reliability. D&D 3E magic is magictech. It's clearly replicable, consistent and mathematically quantifiable. It also respects almost no thematic boundaries thanks to spell/power bloat.

You're letting your preconceptions of the fluff override your understanding of the crunch. D20 background is deliberately highly mutable and relatively divorced from the mechanics. Refluffing is easy, and meant to be easy, because it's designed to accomodate a wide range of settings.

RPGs tend to have inherent themes reflected in their mechanics, true. But D&D 3.5's themes are generalities like "Individual potency, small group tactics, rapid power accumulation, and synergistic multi-sourced abilities." None of which is inherently "Fantasy." if anything, it keys to Military SF better than it does to classic, Tolkienesque, notions of fantasy.



Nope, no need to get rid of magic classes. at all. Magic missile = Micro seeker drone swarm. Grease = oil slick packet. The magic of having an omnitool nanofab right on you - or even integrated as an implant. Mages are now combat engineers with interdimensionally stored heavy equipment, near-instant Sup-Com style fabrication guns, and a personal teleporter/dimensional ripper. Martial adepts are now Cyborgs with implanted combat protocols and kinetic superchargers that need refresh/cooldown times. Psions - can still be psions, or can be people bonded to cross-brane phased supercomputers, allowing them to run direct energy shunts and electron manipulation, Culture style (effectors and grid fire, toned down into mind effecting and energy blast powers).

Remember, I said Transhuman futurist space opera.

With superfuture implant/mods and armor schemes, there's no need to upgun weapons - just assume weapons and defenses scaled up at the same rate and use the same numbers.

Literally nothing needs to be changed except the flavoring. It may not hew to the sci-fi thematics *you* prefer, but it can be done to known, well-used Sci-fi thematics.

There is already an Incarnum to Metroid conversion out there, that simply changes Soulmelds to "Armor Upgrade Modules" and Essentia to "energy allocation cells." It then provides many new soulmelds upgrade modules to play with, but you can reflavor and use the old ones just fine.
 
In general, a fantasy heartbreaker is a game which is created from some guy's D&D houserules because they play a lot of D&D and think they can do better. Common traits of fantasy heartbreakers are:

1. The creators clearly weren't familiar with any systems other than D&D;
2. They often increase the complexity of the rules rather than simplifying (because they originated as kludges and houserules);
3. Often leave core D&D assumptions unchallenged and even unexamined

Isn't this exactly what Pathfinder is?
 
I'd like to get back to this thing that kind of got buried.

If you play a 5e adventure using "typical" characters of the expected level, what are the odds of failure, roughly?

Generally from my experience the guidelines in the DMG for creating appropriate challenges have so far been spot on. If I calculate up the XP challenge of an encounter in the "deadly" column I can expect the party to die, for example.

The standard Phendalver scenario seems pretty balanced on most fronts except for the Dragon and the Banshee, both of which have highly encouraged non combat solutions you can try to do.
 
That... doesn't answer my question.

If you ran "Lost Mine of Phandelver" 100 times, each with a different group of the expected number of players each time, starting at the expected starting level, how many groups would you expect to "fail"?

Assuming each group is reasonably but not overwhelmingly competent.

EDIT: ... and hasn't read the whole module.
 
Generally from my experience the guidelines in the DMG for creating appropriate challenges have so far been spot on. If I calculate up the XP challenge of an encounter in the "deadly" column I can expect the party to die, for example.

The standard Phendalver scenario seems pretty balanced on most fronts except for the Dragon and the Banshee, both of which have highly encouraged non combat solutions you can try to do.
What non-combat solution is encouraged for the dragon?
 
That... doesn't answer my question.

If you ran "Lost Mine of Phandelver" 100 times, each with a different group of the expected number of players each time, starting at the expected starting level, how many groups would you expect to "fail"?

Assuming each group is reasonably but not overwhelmingly competent.

EDIT: ... and hasn't read the whole module.

I've only played about half of the introductory adventure, and everything else I'm about to say is informed by life experience:


About sandwich percent.


You can't really break this thing down into math, which is what it sounds like you're asking for. The adventure--and this is roughly true of most introductory adventures--is designed, by its nature, to be completable; there's no tomb of horrors bullshit going on. It is a story that expects and wants people to finish it. It will have challenges designed to make the party think differently from one challenge to the next, but it doesn't *want* them to fail.

Thus, failure will be dictated by two things:

1) Random Chance

2) Poor Decision making

#1 is unavoidable. It will happen, or it wont. That's the nature of RnG and natural 1's. If you want to assign a number to this, call it 5%.

#2 will happen at random with any particular group because of any particular reason. In most cases, poor decision making leading to failure will either be an obvious teaching moment--thus the odds of that failure-state decision happening again go down, unless someone can't or wont internalize the 'lesson'--or it will obscured by multiple levels of 'guys, what the hell went wrong', and everyone is quietly (or loudly) disappointed for a while.
 
I've only played about half of the introductory adventure, and everything else I'm about to say is informed by life experience:


About sandwich percent.


You can't really break this thing down into math, which is what it sounds like you're asking for. The adventure--and this is roughly true of most introductory adventures--is designed, by its nature, to be completable; there's no tomb of horrors bullshit going on. It is a story that expects and wants people to finish it. It will have challenges designed to make the party think differently from one challenge to the next, but it doesn't *want* them to fail.
The context of this is:
Ultimately what it comes down to is about someone overcoming odds that are ridiculously stacked against them.
I'm dubious of the claim that people actually want to play characters who actually have the "odds [...] ridiculously stacked against them."

I would expect (predict) the failure rate to be under 25% for a D&D module, even with people who aren't particularly skilled, but in order to qualify as "the odds are stacked against you", I would require at least a 51% failure rate.

"The odds are ridiculously stacked against you" is less clear, but I would say the minimum is somewhere in the 90% to 99% range.
 
Yes, well, he's the same guy who's treating 3E as THE DEFINITIVE EDITION of Dungeons and Dragons and is very aggressively against the idea of playing any other RPGs or accepting that not every RPG can be used to tell the exact same stories, so like...whatever?

Honestly why would you even want to pick 3E as THE DEFINITIVE EDITION?

AD&D Planescape forevah, yo.
 
I'm dubious of the claim that people actually want to play characters who actually have the "odds [...] ridiculously stacked against them."

It's irrelevant; people want the illusion to be there in the storytelling of a narrative game, therefore they prefer mechanics that support that sort of storytelling.

The protagonist of an action movie is pretty much 100% scripted to succeed at the end, but we still want them to overcome tremendous odds instead of being a boring invincible hero.
 
I feel like pointing out that "5th Edition is not super-mega-hyper demigod PCs" and "People play low-fantasy characters to face a stacked deck" are two utterly distinct arguments that only exist in this thread ATM because at least one person has a very questionable understanding of 5th Edition's power scale and the intent of players (of 5E / low-fantasy characters).
 
It's irrelevant; people want the illusion to be there in the storytelling of a narrative game, therefore they prefer mechanics that support that sort of storytelling.

The protagonist of an action movie is pretty much 100% scripted to succeed at the end, but we still want them to overcome tremendous odds instead of being a boring invincible hero.
So, because it's easier to believe false claims of "the odds are against you" when a character is less powerful, regardless of how powerful their opposition is in each case?
 
Back
Top