Remove ads

Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Reader mode
Chloe Sullivan said:
You clearly don't.

you do not get to claim that know what my words mean better than I do. That is miles more offensive than anything anyone has said in the last 50 pages of this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I made no claim of that sort. I said, "I just find the attitude you started this conversation with ... to be egotistical and narcissistic." That's a claim of my opinion on your attitude, not a claim that I can read your mind. That's what the "I find..." part was there for, to indicate the following statement was my opinion.

Edit: You are the authority on what you're trying to say, but you have no such authority on how your words come across to other people. I'm telling you how your words come across to me, which is the later. Just because you didn't mean for a sentence to be rude doesn't mean it can't be rude to me.

Edit 2: "I understand you just fine" meant "I understand all your words and grammar just fine." It wasn't supposed to mean "I understand your perspective, etc." That's a mix-up in terminology on my part, and I apologize for not being clear.

Chloe Sullivan said:
For the record:

"I don't know what your problem is" is an idiomatic expression, and is no way a statement of "I am in ignorance of something." As you should know as a native English speaker. That you have been pretending otherwise for two pages now makes you very dishonest.

I used that expression to express my annoyance at arawn for his incessant need to negatively compare newer editions to his beloved AD&D.

("I don't know what your problem is" means "stop being annoying," not "I can not comprehend your actions")

My actual argument was that importing "magic elixirs that give you unique powers" from AD&D to 5e doesn't add anything to 5e that can't already be done with native 5e tools, and is more likely to cause problems than enrich the experience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't know your history with that poster, his point seemed reasonable, and I haven't heard that idiom in ages, if I've heard it before. I'm not omniscient and can't possibly know every idiom. The text of that idiom is incredibly rude and you've still shown yourself to be incredibly bad at considering different perspectives, so all my points still stand.
 
Last edited:
Unrelated to everything above, is there any particular reason it'd be broken to let a Druid use the Staff Of Power?
 
PsyFarrow said:
Unrelated to everything above, is there any particular reason it'd be broken to let a Druid use the Staff Of Power?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd reflavour it with druidic spells - in fact you could take the Staff of the Woodlands and upscale it - but otherwise I don't see why not. Nothing prevents you from changing magic items to suit your game or making new ones.
 
Violation of Rule 3 (Be Civil): Telling someone to 'GTFO' is over the line.
PhoenixMercurous said:
I made no claim of that sort. I said, "I just find the attitude you started this conversation with ... to be egotistical and narcissistic." That's a claim of my opinion on your attitude, not a claim that I can read your mind. That's what the "I find..." part was there for, to indicate the following statement was my opinion.

I didn't know your history with that poster, his point seemed reasonable, and I haven't heard that idiom in ages, if I've heard it before. I'm not omniscient and can't possibly know every idiom. The text of that idiom is incredibly rude and you've still shown yourself to be incredibly bad at considering different perspectives, so all my points still stand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

what point?

you've been literalbotting my words. That doesn't constitute a point.

I have tried to explain myself in good faith and all you do is try to nitpick my worlds and pull "I am a context immune robo" bullshit or "lol I take everything you say as an absolute statement even though that's not how any human language works" megabullshit.

My dude, anyone who has been treated like this would get tetchy

Make a damn point or GTFO already.


Morphic Tide said:
Is it really so hard to accept some people preferring to come up with fitting mechanics so that Psions stick to Psionics, Meldshapers are wedded to Incarnum, and you have the widgets or variant rules for whatever concept you're digging for within that space, so that everyone using the same power source is running on the same rules?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

if that's what you want then you should do that. I didn't say not to, and I'm not the boss of you anyway.

This conversations started with arawn trying to force AD&D into 5e, remember. Because "everyone should have unique powers so we should put magic elixirs with permanent effects into 5e"

That was my starting point - addressing the question of "how do you make every character have unique powers (with unique mechanics)?" My position was based on that premise.

If you want to play in a Faerun where spellcasters are mechanically and fluffwise exactly as printed in the splatbooks (minus the adaptation blurbs), you can and I have no objection. (This results in you playing a different faerun than the novels, note. because the novels and short stories and comics and other media/narrative works don't actually map to the mechanics of any editions, and even the various splatbooks don't entirely line up. But that's fine.) However, this means everyone doesn't have unique powers in this game. Fighters all basically are guys with sharp things who stick enemies with the pointy ends if you play this way.

I never said everyone should freestyle different Magic's and invent fluff. I merely presented this as the simple (low DM effort) solution to the question of "how do you make every character have unique powers (with unique mechanics)?"

okay, I said "best" rather than "simple." My bad. But strawmanning from "I think this is the best way to accomplish (specific goal)" to "I think everyone should use this way period no exceptions" is bullshit of the highest order.

like I have actually played games where everyone was SRD classes and then Incarnum was introduced as this new magic no one had ever seen before. I don't know how you're getting the idea that I demand that mechanics and fluff be separate, rather than presenting it as a way to achieve a specific goal.
 
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk said:
Giving a Very Rare magic item (that can cast 5th and 6th level combat spells) to a character that shouldn't have that level of spellcasting yet is... risky for game balance. Level 8 is very early to be handing out this kind of item, IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But, handing stuff out like that is not without precedent, Curse of Strahd has both a helm of brilliance and a staff of power the players can get anywhere from third to tenth level. Provided of course you can survive getting them (the staff especially).

And then there are the quest items which at least one is legendary. Which once again, can be acquired anywhere between third and tenth level.
 
Well other than this being the 8th time Chloe was blatantly inflammatory in that many threads I have seen her post in.

Yea 8th level is very early for that kind of item. Heck even at 13th level I would be hesitant unless they made the item themselves.

That said my only real exposure to 5e was a sort of one off that had my DM retire my d20. Not that I can blame them after the 6th Nat 20 in a row. I miss that Ranger even though my Con was low but understandable in my Backstory.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
Giving a Very Rare magic item (that can cast 5th and 6th level combat spells) to a character that shouldn't have that level of spellcasting yet is... risky for game balance. Level 8 is very early to be handing out this kind of item, IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

DM decided people coming in late like I am get a very rare magic item. Dunno what that means balance wise, but all the people who've been playing say the abundance of magic gear they've got hasn't been a problem. As an example, the Ranger basically has a dragon slayer bow from Dark Souls that deals 2d12+Dex from as far as 1200 ft. He can't move on the turn he fires it, but it's still ridiculous. Somehow all outdoor encounters haven't devolved into him sniping everything into nonexistence.

So either the DM is balancing encounters really well to account for all this stuff or there's an unspoken agreement among the players not to flex their broken arsenal too hard.
 
Malcanthet said:
Well other than this being the 8th time Chloe was blatantly inflammatory in that many threads I have seen her post in.

Yea 8th level is very early for that kind of item. Heck even at 13th level I would be hesitant unless they made the item themselves.

That said my only real exposure to 5e was a sort of one off that had my DM retire my d20. Not that I can blame them after the 6th Nat 20 in a row. I miss that Ranger even though my Con was low but understandable in my Backstory.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Could you please not pointlessly snipe at other users?

Anyways, having looked into things a bit, it looks like the 5e Staff of Power has about the same capabilities as PF1E one, which is a CL15 item. It's got a 6th level spell and multiple 5th level spells, so its abilities are substantially strong than the spells an 8th level Druid could normal cast (4th level max). It's vastly above normal loot and will substantially increase that character's combat capabilities. A DM can give one to an 8th level character, but it's definitely not normal loot. If I were to give one to an 8th level party, I'd make it the reward from a major quest (I use that term loosely) or quest line.
 
Merry Christmas-ish, everyone! As you guys know, I'm an old-school player, and in an OSR discord, we do a secret santa homebrew exchange called Secret Santicorn. This year I got the prompt of fairytale classes, and I'm still waiting on my prompt to be done. But here you go!

paimonssilvercity.blogspot.com

Santicorn 2019: Fairytale Classes

Pseudo Fenton from the Discord (he has no blog, sorry!) requested a smattering of Scandinavian/Nordic fairy tale-themed classes, which I ...
paimonssilvercity.blogspot.com paimonssilvercity.blogspot.com

He requested System Neutral, so hopefully the ideas are inspiring enough that "As [X Class] but differences" is enough to inspire whatever you guys feel like. I bet some of these can be 5e subclasses or whatever.
 
Is Arcane or Divine Magic inherent?

I'm just curious why a Wizard who is religious wouldn't just be a Cleric instead.

But maybe some people just can't use certain kinds of magic or whatever.
 
Chloe Sullivan said:
But strawmanning from "I think this is the best way to accomplish (specific goal)" to "I think everyone should use this way period no exceptions" is bullshit of the highest order.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not exactly strawmanning when you type out this:
Chloe Sullivan said:
and anyone too lazy to even do that much is probably going to prefer a game not based on imagination and story crafting - eg, they probably should play something other than a tRPG.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You explicitly state that anyone "too lazy" to use your method, of overhauling fluff on a regular basis, should be playing something other than a TTRPG. This line is precisely why I mention you thinking of the rules as being there to provide structure to a challenge, rather than being there to describe what occurs in-universe.
 
Nikkolas said:
Is Arcane or Divine Magic inherent?

I'm just curious why a Wizard who is religious wouldn't just be a Cleric instead.

But maybe some people just can't use certain kinds of magic or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

AFAIK divine and arcane magic draw power from different sources. It's possible to be a cleric and a wizard and AFAIK neither class is inherent, at least in PF1E and I think 3.5e. It takes a lot of work to be both (at least according to the fluff for the Mystic Theurge PF1E prestige class), but it's possible.
 
Nikkolas said:
Is Arcane or Divine Magic inherent?

I'm just curious why a Wizard who is religious wouldn't just be a Cleric instead.

But maybe some people just can't use certain kinds of magic or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Neither are inherent, the only inherent magic in 5E is Sorcery. A religious Wizard might be like many other people who separate their work and their faith. Maybe they tried to invoke their god early on when trying to decide on their career, only to discover they simply weren't any good at it.
 
Morphic Tide said:
You explicitly state that anyone "too lazy" to use your method, of overhauling fluff on a regular basis, should be playing something other than a TTRPG. This line is precisely why I mention you thinking of the rules as being there to provide structure to a challenge, rather than being there to describe what occurs in-universe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

that was referring to a player coming up with a justification for whatever magic thing his character does. Which takes like a sentence and is essentially a basic role playing skill you need to... well, play.

"how do you shoot fireballs?"

"I have a plasma cannon, actually."
"I channel the elemental force of fire through my ki"
"I recite the 5th invocation of the angels of the flaming branch"
"I take a big gulp of high proof alcohol and spit through my torch"
"I think really hard about things I am angry about and then stuff around me bursts into flames"
"I unseal a jar full of shavings from a fire-aspected elemental and add a pinch of brimstone."

(This list took only a few minutes to make off the top of my head)

like this is stuff I baseline expect out of players as a DM. If a player refuses to even engage this much then yeah, I don't want them in my game.

It's not much different from expecting a player to have a reason why her character decided to punch the village headman as soon as she sees him, instead of talking to him.

If a player can not justify her actions in character, then there's a problem.
 
Nikkolas said:
That does makes sense. Gray Orcs' Favored Class is Cleric after all.
They've fascinated me since I first read a blurb about them in NWN2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Although that Favored Class thing is probably because of this;
The true power behind a tribe of gray orcs is not the chieftain, but the tribe's high priest, typically an adept or a cleric (often female), who has held the position for many years.
The gray orcs are zealots, and the word of their tribal clerics is law.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Am I weird for feeling like I'm being a bad RP'er to go with a mismatched class and race?

Like I want to play casters but I apparently like races that are bad at the castings I want to do.

My original idea for NWN2 was to play Gray Orc Sorcerer but they get -2 to INT and CHA so the only casters they are "suited for" are Clerics.

I got Pathfinder Kingmaker and I wanna play a Tiefling but most of the Heritages (which is a super cool thing that is totally up my alley) come with -2 INT so when I go and max out INT anyway....I feel like I'm doing it wrong and cheating.

You don't have a Halfling basketball star to give a rough analogy. I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too or something?
 
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan said:
You clearly don't.

you do not get to claim that know what my words mean better than I do. That is miles more offensive than anything anyone has said in the last 50 pages of this thread.


For the record:

"I don't know what your problem is" is an idiomatic expression, and is no way a statement of "I am in ignorance of something." As you should know as a native English speaker. That you have been pretending otherwise for two pages now makes you very dishonest.

I used that expression to express my annoyance at arawn for his incessant need to negatively compare newer editions to his beloved AD&D.

("I don't know what your problem is" means "stop being annoying," not "I can not comprehend your actions")

My actual argument was that importing "magic elixirs that give you unique powers" from AD&D to 5e doesn't add anything to 5e that can't already be done with native 5e tools, and is more likely to cause problems than enrich the experience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that perhaps I should explain things a bit. Generally I feel that pursuing Balance hurts the game more than it helps. The players aren't supposed to feel pressure to compete with each other for numbers. It's not meant to be a WoW guild where people judge you if your DPS/Heals are not at a certain number. Immersion and to be blunt "coolness factor" overwhelm any need for balance to me, and after trying all different editions and discussing the matter, with my players as well.

I argue for AD&D because it feels like that's the point where the devs most agreed with me on that.

They published books that existed just for immersion with nothing new for players to use in "dollcrafting" but it plenty to add for RP, they had the most varied settings before they axed most of them and homogenized the rest to be more standard European Medieval. They put out stuff for historical campaigns with actual real world timelines and cultural information with advice on different levels of realism.

The permanent character changes that I argue for may fuck balance, but they make the character feel more alive, because of the knowledge that your in-character actions and experiences actually resulted in real change.

Further, I feel like the "dollcrafting" advocates here are extremely rude, arrogant and dismissive of conflicting opinions and playstyle to the point of attempting to use the mods to silence me for mentioning thing that older editions did.
 
Last edited:
Nikkolas said:
Am I weird for feeling like I'm being a bad RP'er to go with a mismatched class and race?

Like I want to play casters but I apparently like races that are bad at the castings I want to do.

My original idea for NWN2 was to play Gray Orc Sorcerer but they get -2 to INT and CHA so the only casters they are "suited for" are Clerics.

I got Pathfinder Kingmaker and I wanna play a Tiefling but most of the Heritages (which is a super cool thing that is totally up my alley) come with -2 INT so when I go and max out INT anyway....I feel like I'm doing it wrong and cheating.

You don't have a Halfling basketball star to give a rough analogy. I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Classes are usually broader things than being a basketball star, so not really. Races/cultures with minuses to WIS usually still have clerics, for example, they're just not necessarily quite as wise and powerful as clerics of other races/cultures.
 
LordInsane said:
Classes are usually broader things than being a basketball star, so not really. Races/cultures with minuses to WIS usually still have clerics, for example, they're just not necessarily quite as wise and powerful as clerics of other races/cultures.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And playing against type can be fun. Hell, there was a 3.0 book with suggestions for it. Example: Dwarves have an innate distaste for arcane magic, so maybe the dwarf sorcerer grew up as an object of pity for having it forced onto them. You left the clan stringhold to get away from that. Etc...
 
Arawn_Emrys said:
I think that perhaps I should explain things a bit. Generally I feel that pursuing Balance hurts the game more than it helps. The players aren't supposed to feel pressure to compete with each other for numbers. It's not meant to be a WoW guild where people judge you if your DPS/Heals are not at a certain number. Immersion and to be blunt "coolness factor" overwhelm any need for balance to me, and after trying all different editions and discussing the matter, with my players as well.

I argue for AD&D because it feels like that's the point where the devs most agreed with me on that.

They published books that existed just for immersion with nothing new for players to use in "dollcrafting" but it plenty to add for RP, they had the most varied settings before they axed most of them and homogenized the rest to be more standard European Medieval. They put out stuff for historical campaigns with actual real world timelines and cultural information with advice on different levels of realism.

The permanent character changes that I argue for may fuck balance, but they make the character feel more alive, because of the knowledge that your in-character actions and experiences actually resulted in real change.

Further, I feel like the "dollcrafting" advocates here are extremely rude, arrogant and dismissive of conflicting opinions and playstyle to the point of attempting to use the mods to silence me for mentioning thing that older editions did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem that those permanent changes you mentioned bring up aren't just a matter of mechanical balance; there's also the issue of who gets the spotlight and feeling like your badass adventurer is actually competent. In a similar vein, a while back one of my coworkers was telling a story about how one of the PCs was cursed so they were slowly going blind and how they started taking penalties that increased as they attacked more, with the possibility of it becoming permanent. As a fighter. My coworker clearly enjoyed it, but all I could think was "why the fuck would you ruin the players single thing they can do in combat like that?"
Or an ill-considered bonus could mean that suddenly the gnome rogue is a better athlete than the goliath barbarian and can wrestle bigger creatures despite being less than half the size?
(The best grappler builds in 5e typically include a level of rogue, because Expertise is great.)

Arawn_Emrys said:
I honestly think they need to bring back all the permanent stuff. Permanent aging from Haste and Wish, permanent changes to ability scores from Books and various other sources, magic locations or complex Elixirs like in the old Volo's Guide to All Things Magical that permanently grant both active and passive abilities. Stuff that makes a given character unique compared to other characters of the same class, level, and starting ability scores.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, going in order:
  1. Aging only mattered because there were mechanical effects. This is also something to be careful about because if you follow in the footsteps of 3.5e where aging gives you mental bonuses and physical maluses, haste will slowly cripple physical combatants and anyone who thinks "how can I get the best starting character" can just go "okay, I'll start as a 500 year old elf so I get the best spell casting". Or you can ad hoc the effects but that runs a greater risk of a player unexpectedly running into penalties that limit or remove their enjoyment of the game.
  2. Going outside of the bounded accuracy that 5e uses isn't the worst thing, but I would recommend avoiding pushing to the limits of a game's mechanics; I've done that and my GM was considering literally crippling my character so that things that challenged the rest of the party didn't get steamrolled by my character.
  3. Magic abilities that aren't tied to items are totally fine in 5e; if I had a character who tried to emulate Achilles and took a dip in the River Styx I could say "okay, you're always considered to be wearing adamantine armor now". Like Chloe has been talking about, you can strip away the description of how an effect happens and write your own version where armor becomes a special alchemical treatment of your skin, or you've learned a special technique so anything you fight with is a flaming sword, or any weapon you pick up glows and is especially effective against undead. Hell, drink a potion and sacrifice an attunement slot and you can be as strong as a giant.
TL;DR reflavoring is a great idea and it's important to pay attention to your specific group when deciding how to implement things because there's no universal recipe for fun. Even something as simple as "yeah, you can cast spells with your crossbow acting as a focus" (actual example of something one of my players wanted).
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top