Remove ads

Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Reader mode
Omicron said:
A 5e Lizardfolk dinosaur-rider is easy. The Beastmaster Ranger can have a CR 1/4 creature as a pet. Hadrosauruses are CR 1/4, Dinosaurs, and Large (meaning you can mount them). Bam, done.

If you specifically want to be a Fighter who rides a dinosaur, ask your GM to let you buy one. A Warhorse is CR 1/2 and 400 gp, there's no reason you couldn't buy a less powerful Hadrosaur unless the setting doesn't allow for dinosaur trade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, ranger might work better considering the character is an explorer, which makes things a hundred times easier.

As for the background I established for where he comes from, how would a DM work that into the plot? I'd imagine it would be pretty easy, since looking for powerful McGuffins is basically what most adventurers are doing anyway; this is just justifies it even more.
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
Actually, ranger might work better considering the character is an explorer, which makes things a hundred times easier.

As for the background I established for where he comes from, how would a DM work that into the plot? I'd imagine it would be pretty easy, since looking for powerful McGuffins is basically what most adventurers are doing anyway; this is just justifies it even more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly that's completely up to the given DM and setting. It could work or it could not. It's not really possible to tell before you actually have a game a hash things out with your DM in person.
 
Omicron said:
Honestly that's completely up to the given DM and setting. It could work or it could not. It's not really possible to tell before you actually have a game a hash things out with your DM in person.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, I understand.

Now, can you give me some suggestions on some things that would improve this background? Also, maybe a name for the culture, since I can be pretty bad at fantasy names. I was thinking the Taxotlichans, but that sounds pretty silly to me. What do you think?
 
Sydonai said:
So;

Slayers - Wikipedia
The Slayers d20 - Wikipedia
Advanced d20 Magic - Wikipedia
I've seen these things before, I've read those books in fact, but I have no idea if anyone else in this thread has.
If you have, then what did you think of it?
Did you try it out, and can you think of any way to "update" it?

Can you think of an alternative for a Slayers-esque system/setting?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Magic system not based on d20 Vancian is a start.

IIRC, Wheel of Time d20 and SW d20 both implemented non-vancian magic, while waaaaaaaaay too many d20 adaptations kept it[1]. Dunno what they went with for slayers. if it's a Magic system that actually fist the themes of Slayers, give it a try.


[1] Fuck Paizo so much for this shit in PF. The went and converted psionics to spell slots, which is the dumbest idea ever.
 
Sydonai said:
Skill-based with something like Shadowrun's Drain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sounds kinda like what they did for SAGA.

I dunno, give it a try? if you want to run skill based magic, you could try converting to a Eclipse Phase style percentage, and have a mana points system for moxie (switch the 10's and 1's place on your roll).
 
One idea I had for a magic system is that, rather than having spell slots or spell levels, you instead have DCs you have to pass, determined by how difficult that spell would be to pull off, or else you'll experience the negative effects of uncontrolled magic, determined by either the GM or a chart.

How does that sound like for a system?
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
One idea I had for a magic system is that, rather than having spell slots or spell levels, you instead have DCs you have to pass, determined by how difficult that spell would be to pull off, or else you'll experience the negative effects of uncontrolled magic, determined by either the GM or a chart.
How does that sound like for a system?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's...pretty close to the system I just posted about.
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
One idea I had for a magic system is that, rather than having spell slots or spell levels, you instead have DCs you have to pass, determined by how difficult that spell would be to pull off, or else you'll experience the negative effects of uncontrolled magic, determined by either the GM or a chart.

How does that sound like for a system?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
ANYONE REMEMBER TRUENAMING?

the problem with set DCs is that they tend to be either too high or easily bypassed.

The problem with Dymanic DCs is more or less the same, see above.

Both of these are of course, much less of a problem in a 3rd party setting where people' can't access Divine Insight, Guidance of the Avatar, and other such spell bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan said:
ANYONE REMEMBER TRUENAMING?

the problem with set DCs is that they tend to be either too high or easily bypassed.

The problem with Dymanic DCs is more or less the same, see above.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Point, although I do feel it would be fun to come up with the side-effects of failing magic, which I would put on a sliding scale from "growing a horn or soemthing" to "turning into a crab" to "becoming a sentient rock, unable to move or do anything outside of thinking and observing." It also lets their be a risk-reward element to casting spells.
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
Point, although I do feel it would be fun to come up with the side-effects of failing magic, which I would put on a sliding scale from "growing a horn or soemthing" to "turning into a crab" to "becoming a sentient rock, unable to move or do anything outside of thinking and observing." It also lets their be a risk-reward element to casting spells.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think spells in D20 games have become so overburdened with legacy code as to be toxic.

Call your magic something else and abandon all of the trappings of d20 vancian.

I mean, I could see a DC system working really well if you drop a lot of the old system ideas. Like, enemies have a save-analogous defense number, and you roll against it. A minor failure means they take a penalty to their next defense, and minor success means you do something minor, a major success means you inflict a more serious penalty, and major effects require multiple accumulated successes from multiple castings.
 
Chloe Sullivan said:
I think spells in D20 games have become so overburdened with legacy code as to be toxic.

Call your magic something else and abandon all of the trappings of d20 vancian.

I mean, I could see a DC system working really well if you drop a lot of the old system ideas. Like, enemies have a save-analogous defense number, and you roll against it. A minor failure means they take a penalty to their next defense, and minor success means you do something minor, a major success means you inflict a more serious penalty, and major effects require multiple accumulated successes from multiple castings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, the point of the thing is that the magic itself is dangerous to handle, with more powerful spells requiring more care. Not necessarily that less experienced mages are incapable or using powerful magic, but that they are almost always going to end up with some horrible fate unless they are very lucky.

Also, even if you pull off a spell effectively, it doesn't mean your opponent can't counter it or that it can end up not being as effective as previously thought.

Of course, this probably has a lot of problems still, but even so, it might be fun.
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
Eh, the point of the thing is that the magic itself is dangerous to handle, with more powerful spells requiring more care. Not necessarily that less experienced mages are incapable or using powerful magic, but that they are almost always going to end up with some horrible fate unless they are very lucky.

Also, even if you pull off a spell effectively, it doesn't mean your opponent can't counter it or that it can end up not being as effective as previously thought.

Of course, this probably has a lot of problems still, but even so, it might be fun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, so "skill check to even cast a spell or it blows up in your face?"

Iron heroes d20 did that.

The problem with that is that people are extremely adverse to "blow up in your face"

Like, i had a game where a player was allowed to join a few sessions in... he lasted two sessions before being kicked out because he loved the Rod of Wonder so much.

I was okay with it, pointing out that he was pretty clearly helping the party more than he hurt. The other players were not cool with being zapped pink or accidentally thunderbolted, even though this was balanced out by other stuff and the RoW was a net benefit to them.

I could go on about the psychology of agency and loss avoidance, but like, I think you get the idea.
 
Honestly, just make your combat-spells as unlimited as your combat abilities - if swinging your sword in a fancy way is unlimited, make your combat magic unlimited too. If your sword-swing doesn't require a skill check to be attempted, do the same with your combat magic. Put your magic on the same power level as your other combat options, and you're fine.

At least, if you're not designing an entirely new system but working within the framework of D20. Because all other options have already been tried, and they've been found to be pretty bleh.

Now, for non-combat magics you can very much go with skill-based rituals, or a very limited daily selection, or other such options.
Do note that things such as Fly, which impact combat, have really high strength both in- and out-of-combat - this can be solved by limiting their effect in combat (if Fly takes a Standard action each turn for the target to maintain, it's still really good outside of combat, but very bad in combat, for example, while a "you have to land at the end of each round" flight is good in combat, but much less so out of it).


My current dream for a magic system would be a combination of Path of War for in-combat magics, and Occult Rituals for non-combat magics. The former can have an extra system, such as Animus, to augment it, while the latter can survive with heavy skill-optimization just fine (though really, get rid of Tears to Wine, it's too strong).
 
Chloe Sullivan said:
Oh, so "skill check to even cast a spell or it blows up in your face?"

Iron heroes d20 did that.

The problem with that is that people are extremely adverse to "blow up in your face"

Like, i had a game where a player was allowed to join a few sessions in... he lasted two sessions before being kicked out because he loved the Rod of Wonder so much.

I was okay with it, pointing out that he was pretty clearly helping the party more than he hurt. The other players were not cool with being zapped pink or accidentally thunderbolted, even though this was balanced out by other stuff and the RoW was a net benefit to them.

I could go on about the psychology of agency and loss avoidance, but like, I think you get the idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...you make a good point, although personally the idea was that maybe it would be for psychic powers, which makes sense to some degree. The idea was that it would be less "thunderbolt" and more "nosebleeds" or "headaches" or, if you get super unlucky, "your head asplodes", scanners style. Even so, I can see how that wouldn't be very fun, especially since it's up to random chance.
 
Chloe Sullivan said:
Oh, so "skill check to even cast a spell or it blows up in your face?"
Iron heroes d20 did that.
The problem with that is that people are extremely adverse to "blow up in your face"
Like, i had a game where a player was allowed to join a few sessions in... he lasted two sessions before being kicked out because he loved the Rod of Wonder so much.
I was okay with it, pointing out that he was pretty clearly helping the party more than he hurt. The other players were not cool with being zapped pink or accidentally thunderbolted, even though this was balanced out by other stuff and the RoW was a net benefit to them.
I could go on about the psychology of agency and loss avoidance, but like, I think you get the idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay had it where practically any arcane spell had the potential to cause a TPK, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about that.
...just lots of other things about the system.
Muhkat Lomorki said:
...you make a good point, although personally the idea was that maybe it would be for psychic powers, which makes sense to some degree. The idea was that it would be less "thunderbolt" and more "nosebleeds" or "headaches" or, if you get super unlucky, "your head asplodes", scanners style. Even so, I can see how that wouldn't be very fun, especially since it's up to random chance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Speaking of Warhammer...
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
Are you saying that's a common occurrence and/or possibility?
...That makes sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, the Fantasy version is called "The Curse of Tzeentch"/"Tzeentch's Curse" and the 40K version is called "Perils of the Warp"/"Psychic Phenomena".
It's basically Wild Magic, except most of the possible outcomes are decidedly negative.
IIRC if you get a miscast and manage crit the result three times in a row then a hole opens up in the sky and a giant hand comes out to pull you out of reality, no save.
 
Last edited:
Also, how would you do a race of rat people in 5e? I was thinking a mix between the traits of a Stout Halfling and a Dwarf, with maybe a little additional flavor added to it. As for Ability Scores, +2 Dexterity and +1 Intelligence. Makes a good rogue or wizard.

What do you say?
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
Also, how would you do a race of rat people in 5e?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That depends heavily on what kind of theme you are going for.
Skaven and Burmecians are both rat people, but are radically different.
Muhkat Lomorki said:
I was thinking a mix between the traits of a Stout Halfling and a Dwarf, with maybe a little additional flavor added to it. As for Ability Scores, +2 Dexterity and +1 Intelligence. Makes a good rogue or wizard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So sort of like the Ratfolk from Pathfinder?
 
Last edited:
Sydonai said:
That depends heavily on what kind of theme you are going for.
Skaven and Burmecians are both rat people, but are radically different.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was thinking that they're sewer dwellers with a great respect for craftiness and stealth. Despite their focus on theivery, they also have a very communal lifestyle, sharing things among them in an attempt to survive as a group. That said, not all of them live in the sewer or take up the habit of theivery.
So sort of like the Ratfolk from Pathfinder?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, let's go with that.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top