Remove ads

Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Reader mode
Euryale said:
Is there anything I should know about the system before playing it? It looks really difficult to die compared to Pathfinder (my character has pretty much double the health of my similarly levelled PF character), but I don't know if enemies just do a load more damage here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One big thing is that weapons scale in price at a silly pace. Go for a level 4 or 5 weapon, not a level 8 weapon. The price difference is just too silly for gains in combat effectiveness. So silly that it can literally be more cost-effective to use nothing but consumable grenades for multiple levels. I actually looked up the tables and a level 18 weapon costs around a third of the total WBL of a level 20 character. Utter bullshit.

Armor's no different. Freebooter Armor VI costs about a third as much as the Specialist armor of the Hardlight Series, while having a mere two less EAC, one less KAC and one less augmentation slot. If you care only about armor augmentation slots, then Extec Suit IV gives six of them for slightly under 50k credits, at level 13. Compared to the 552k for D-suit VI, which has a grand total of 6 more of each AC. Eleven times the cost, 30% change in hit chance. Unless you become unhittable with that extra AC, just take the Extec and use the savings to get some decent stuff to use all those slots on. Heavy Armor can get to 7 slots, but has the "minor" problem of only being 6 AC better, at absolute most. With -10 ft. move speed. Actually decent if you're crunching for spare credits to fund your weapons, though.

Yes, enemies deal more damage. They should, at least, given the inflation of HP and damage found on the various things I've seen under PC access. Solarians, in particular, can get something absurd like 16d6 damage per hit, with a lot of budget cut for cost efficiency. In melee only, though, so it's probably a high-risk, high-reward thing.

Another thing to consider is the changed archetype system. It's classless now, so any archetype can be applied to any class. Cyborg is pretty generally useful, given that it grants an extra three augmentation slots and boosts augmentation availability, even letting you get cybernetic augmentations two levels early. With a 10% discount on all cybernetic augmentations. And doubling the bonus of any single augmentation is an option, which can double a lot of kinds of bonus to make them viable for their absurd cost. One probably-absurd use is to apply the doubled bonus at level 12, while stopping by a major settlement to get a +6 personal upgrade just before leveling up. This allows for having +12 to an ability score at level 12, letting you pull very, very heavy powergaming. A sufficiently permissive DM could allow for three different +6 bonus personal upgrades, if they allow the extra augmentation slot features to extend to Personal Upgrades, even though the RAW says it gives an extra body system slot for augmentation, which personal upgrades don't actually use.
 
Last edited:
[5ed]

So, one of our enduring bugbears in @Havocfett's Sheol campaign is the ridiculous fragility of horses (equus ferus caballus), whether they be the 75gp riding horses or the quite expensive 400gp warhorses.

And I mean really fragile. A riding horse has 13 HP (2x1d10 HD and +1 con mod) and Con 12. A WArhorse has 19 HP (3x 1d10 HD and +1 con mod) and similarly 12 con.

Given the expense of horses, and the fact that our foes relentlessly attack them (as is good tactical sense when faced with mounted combatants), the fact that the half-ton wall of muscle and momentum that is a warhorse goes down to somewhere between one and three attacks (depending on what's attacking it) is extraordinarily distressing and not even a Faction-sponsored allowance spent on horse armor (yes, yes, meme time haha.) has managed to mitigate this.

We've struggled to come up with an alternative so far as there's several other exotic mounts available for our purchase, including a Worg, and so most ideas that involved buffing horse HP saw the worg (which is almost twice as expensive as a warhorse at 700gp for us) being threatened in its own niche.

While I personally would rather just buff horses *and* worgs to account for this, I turn to you, good fellows, in search of ideas and advice. What can be done to make horses less of a liability with regards to their HP?
 
Cornuthaum said:
While I personally would rather just buff horses *and* worgs to account for this, I turn to you, good fellows, in search of ideas and advice. What can be done to make horses less of a liability with regards to their HP?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would personally think that the best solution is to make combat mounts of all kinds scale with PC level, lifting a page from ranger animal companions perhaps.

Great warriors in Eurasian cultures are practically centaurs; warhorses even if not capable of speech are often a significant part of their greatest deeds. However, only Paladins have easy access to a horse that isn't casually killed as accidental collateral damage of area effects aimed at the PC. Changing Warhorses and other combat mounts to scale with player level is still balanced against summoned mounts and companions by the fact that they can not be replaced if killed with anywhere the same ease - you have to wait for the next opportunity to buy or steal a new one.
 
Cornuthaum said:
We've struggled to come up with an alternative so far as there's several other exotic mounts available for our purchase, including a Worg, and so most ideas that involved buffing horse HP saw the worg (which is almost twice as expensive as a warhorse at 700gp for us) being threatened in its own niche.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What did the Worg have to say about this?
Since they are sapient, have their own language, and can even speak Common if they are smart enough.
 
Last edited:
Hm. Some immediate solutions that spring to mind @Cornuthaum (in no particular order, nor mutually exclusive):
1) Targeting a horse is not a sure thing. You run the risk of, instead, striking the rider (possibly the reverse being true too). On one hand this could statistically increase its survivability by up to 50% against non-AoE weapons. On the other, it makes riders much more vulnerable and has little effect against things that auto-hit.
2) Add 1-2 Hit Die to each variety of horse. Or some other variable increase. This doesn't make them especially more durable (roughly +7 HP each if one Hit Die, +13 HP if two), but it does add just enough to make Riding Horses capable of tanking at least two generic fodder hits while a War Horse in this case (especially if boosted +13) is tough enough to (barely) survive the average 3rd level AoE, or a pair of sub-Level 3 AoE's.
3) Death Saving Throws. Whether only one, two, or the full three of a PC, this doesn't make them any more survivable against individual attacks, but instead in the long-term.
4) Jack up that Constitution modifier. Horses are pretty 'ard as it is (if fragile in some manners), and there's other creatures in the MM whose mundane equivalents are generally less tough but have more Con.

Overall combining 2, 3, and 4 together could work (especially if three is applied to other categories and neither two nor four go overboard).
 
Personally, my group is "Horses die, boats sink" and animal companions dont do so well either.

I named my current horse "Ablative", showing the depths of compassion I hold for our companions
 
Morphic Tide said:
Fuck yet-another-Vancian-system
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In general. Because Paizo trying to make everything run on an unified system, while not my preference, could have worked okay... if they'd picked something other than the shitty spell system as their base.

Morphic Tide said:
Well, a general suggestion is to shift around racial score penalties, because a lot of Charisma penalties are tossed at monster races because of "they be ugly and rude by our demihuman standards." If they're the ones who define the civilized norm, then the Charisma penalties would presumably be differently placed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Or just ignore them, as they should have been deleted in the transition to 3e in the first place because they're stupid.
 
Arawn_Emrys said:
Essentialy, that's why it's the largest empire in the setting. It conquered huge amounts of territory before countermeasures were created. In the original version, I had the dwarves actually breed gorgons to use their blood in building to keep incorporals out per the old rules, and an alchemical gas had been discovered a few centuries before the time of the campaign that can give spawn a will save to break free, which slowed the expansion and caused the goblins and orcs to have a number of undead among them as well, Dwarves tend to destroy themselves once freed due to becoming "impure". It's now a common issue item in most armies. The elves just use modified Repulsion/Forbiddance spells, so only undead with extremely high will saves can even approach their areas. The Hobs of course just spam consecration effects on their everything. Gnomes, like the elves are more fae than mortal, they mainly live in the plain of shadow themselves. Not easy to invade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cool beans. It's always neat to see custom settings take into account the interesting nuances of the rules.

My one follow-up worry in play is that necromancers are also a really powerful archetype in the 3.X line. Having societal support for going lich at 11, and treating every encounter with a big bruiser monster as an opportunity to pick up a fancy new skeleton or zombie type, is really effective. But again, if you're planning around it, you can make it work.
 
Chloe Sullivan said:
Or just ignore them, as they should have been deleted in the transition to 3e in the first place because they're stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem is that several of the monster races involved are liable to instantly become Water Orc level optimal with the removal of the Charisma penalties. This is because they're made with the assumption that the Charisma penalty will balance out the bonuses they get. Of course, the low number of combat abilities in 3.5 that scale with Charisma, of which precisely none are found on these races, turns it into a WotC-mandated dump stat.
 
Morphic Tide said:
The problem is that several of the monster races involved are liable to instantly become Water Orc level optimal with the removal of the Charisma penalties. This is because they're made with the assumption that the Charisma penalty will balance out the bonuses they get. Of course, the low number of combat abilities in 3.5 that scale with Charisma, of which precisely none are found on these races, turns it into a WotC-mandated dump stat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm guilty of dumping charisma, but only when I try to minmax. :(

My two favorite character's I've built, though, have had good charisma scores for what they are. My gestalt necromancer/alchemist and the wizard from the Skull and Shackles I'm in. With both I tried to find reasons for them to have a positive charisma so the weren't generic minmaxed characters.

Conversely, I dumped the crap out of my charisma in my Arcane Trickster I'm playing in an Iron Gods AP game, because that game is a literal meat grinder.
 
Robert Liguori said:
Cool beans. It's always neat to see custom settings take into account the interesting nuances of the rules.

My one follow-up worry in play is that necromancers are also a really powerful archetype in the 3.X line. Having societal support for going lich at 11, and treating every encounter with a big bruiser monster as an opportunity to pick up a fancy new skeleton or zombie type, is really effective. But again, if you're planning around it, you can make it work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
About all you'd see in terms of animating the enemy is indeed zombies and skeletons. Even discounting the fact that they can be made to turn against you, there's a cultural bias against converting enemies into anything other than basic (for their size) zombies or skeletons. Remember, sapient undeath is a reward and a blessing.
 
I've always kind of wanted to build my own setting, but I have so much trouble figuring out where to start.

I really like Mesoamerican and Norse stuff, so I'd probably make my setting a cyclical one. Beyond that, though, there's so much to plan.
 
The Imperator said:
I've always kind of wanted to build my own setting, but I have so much trouble figuring out where to start.

I really like Mesoamerican and Norse stuff, so I'd probably make my setting a cyclical one. Beyond that, though, there's so much to plan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, d&d put out a Vikings sourcebook back in 2e with suggestions on a Norse campaign setting,
I'd link but I'm unsure of the current copyright status.

Likewise, there was a mesoamerican setting called Maztica, which was part of the Realmspace megasetting.
 
Cornuthaum said:
[5ed]

So, one of our enduring bugbears in @Havocfett's Sheol campaign is the ridiculous fragility of horses (equus ferus caballus), whether they be the 75gp riding horses or the quite expensive 400gp warhorses.

And I mean really fragile. A riding horse has 13 HP (2x1d10 HD and +1 con mod) and Con 12. A WArhorse has 19 HP (3x 1d10 HD and +1 con mod) and similarly 12 con.

Given the expense of horses, and the fact that our foes relentlessly attack them (as is good tactical sense when faced with mounted combatants), the fact that the half-ton wall of muscle and momentum that is a warhorse goes down to somewhere between one and three attacks (depending on what's attacking it) is extraordinarily distressing and not even a Faction-sponsored allowance spent on horse armor (yes, yes, meme time haha.) has managed to mitigate this.

We've struggled to come up with an alternative so far as there's several other exotic mounts available for our purchase, including a Worg, and so most ideas that involved buffing horse HP saw the worg (which is almost twice as expensive as a warhorse at 700gp for us) being threatened in its own niche.

While I personally would rather just buff horses *and* worgs to account for this, I turn to you, good fellows, in search of ideas and advice. What can be done to make horses less of a liability with regards to their HP?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I haven't had a lot of experience dealing with mounts in D&D. In my experience, most players will shy away from having one, even if their class grants one, because it's hard to take a horse or other large animal indoors, and so many campaigns involve dungeon-diving and other indoor activities.

In 3.XE/PF characters could make a Ride skill check to negate a hit on their mount. Is that still a thing in 5E?

Scaling the horses' hit dice with the characters' level is probably the best way to keep them alive.

The GM could also quit attacking the horses. Yes, it's tactically practical, but that's less important than keeping the gameplay fun for the players. You'd probably still have a problem with them getting caught in area-effect spells, but at least you'd be losing less of them.
 
The Narrator said:
I haven't had a lot of experience dealing with mounts in D&D. In my experience, most players will shy away from having one, even if their class grants one, because it's hard to take a horse or other large animal indoors, and so many campaigns involve dungeon-diving and other indoor activities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Isn't that's why made halfing paladins were awesome since they could take a riding dog which IRRC counted as medium size and thus fit indoors.
 
Last edited:
Damn, all this silly min-maxing talk makes me want to do a proper 2e campaign again. Back when things were simple but not "forever level one". Back when characters were shaped more by the events of the campaign, by the items they found, and by the way the players interacted with the world instead of by preplanned mapping for best numbers.
 
Arawn_Emrys said:
Damn, all this silly min-maxing talk makes me want to do a proper 2e campaign again. Back when things were simple but not "forever level one". Back when characters were shaped more by the events of the campaign, by the items they found, and by the way the players interacted with the world instead of by preplanned mapping for best numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But what if in character my character wants to be the Best?:p
 
Arawn_Emrys said:
Then you actually play a character striving to be the best and see how that works out in the story? Why is mechanical superiority so important to people?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At least for some of the people I play with, they enjoy the challenge of building a character like a puzzle, putting together different pieces to build something they find really cool. They like the numbers and the classes and the vast array of feats (3.5/PF is generally what our group plays).

I enjoy the roleplaying a bit more, and as such I tend to almost exclusively play casters, because getting encounters over as quick as possible means more time in a session for roleplaying. *shrugs*

Why would someone want to play DnD, PF, or a d20 variant and not be powerful? This game system is pretty unforgiving to people who are un-optimized for their level.

And in regards to building characters ahead of time and crafting how their future levels would look? Most people I know IRL have an idea of what they want to do in the future, so they're going to work toward that, and so that tends to also be shown in characters they build.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top