Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

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.)


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).
I would like to specifically respond to point 2 and note that most of the Permanent effects were not passive number boosts, in fact they almost never were. They were more flavorful like an elixir that made one immune to natural fires but not magical ones, or a statue that randomly bestowed one of the benefits of undeath (so, no breath or, no need for food), or gave minor spell abilities a few times per day.
 
I would like to specifically respond to point 2 and note that most of the Permanent effects were not passive number boosts, in fact they almost never were. They were more flavorful like an elixir that made one immune to natural fires but not magical ones, or a statue that randomly bestowed one of the benefits of undeath (so, no breath or, no need for food), or gave minor spell abilities a few times per day.
That's not a permanent change to an ability score, which is specifically what you said and point 2 is responding to. That's addressed by point 3 - i.e. the flavor of how the ability is granted offers more flexibility than you're giving credit for.
 
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.


If you come into a thread where people are asking specific questions about algebra and constantly respond to every question with "hey have you considered using an abacus?" That becomes disruptive - especially when people have already asked you to stop because they need a specific question answered, not information on something loosely related but not actually their question.

that's the problem, not that you like AD&D. no one likes it when you "answer" their questions with digressions, and they'd still dislike it if you switched to boosting 5e or exalted instead of AD&D.


Is Arcane or Divine Magic inherent?

This was brought up in some campaign books, IIRC.

In some settings you have to have innate "magical talent" to do magic.

that may apply to all casters or only to arcane casters, or only to spontaneous casters.

in other settings anyone can learn to do magic by, well, studying.

also Eberron makes a point of stating that divine magic is powered by mortal faith and anyone who has faith can do divine magic via prayer power even if they follow a made up religion created by the evil possession spirits that rule their country to pacify the peasantry.

which has to be specifically called out because other settings have deities be explicit and thus priests have to have their deity's favor to cast divine spells- if your god is mad at you, he can withhold spells.

tl:dr, it varies wiiiiiiidely with setting.
 
Last edited:
For example, in FR 3E/3.5 the baseline was you had to worship a full-on god to gain divine spells (and said god could decide you'd stepped out of bonds and had to repent), though there were feats that allowed gaining spells from entities that are almost, but not quite, gods (such as Demon Princes and Devil Lords, Dragon Ascendant Quasi-Deities - of which the Realms only had the one, Tchazzar - and dead gods. For obvious reasons that last one gave you a bit more leeway).
 
For example, in FR 3E/3.5 the baseline was you had to worship a full-on god to gain divine spells (and said god could decide you'd stepped out of bonds and had to repent), though there were feats that allowed gaining spells from entities that are almost, but not quite, gods (such as Demon Princes and Devil Lords, Dragon Ascendant Quasi-Deities - of which the Realms only had the one, Tchazzar - and dead gods. For obvious reasons that last one gave you a bit more leeway).
Ur Priest OP, nerf plox.

Though given that arcane magic in the realms depends on the weave, which Mystra maintains -and the weave destabilizes if she explodes....

Shouldn't we say that even arcane spells are at the mercy of of callous gods? :p
 
Honestly, I want to show that my drug using necromancer is good at his job.

I was thinking that he could study various undead like vampires and other undead that aren't zombies and skeletons.
 
Hey so: Does anyone have any ideas, resources, lists, etc. of weird fantasy drugs?
THESPICEMUSTFLOW.jpg

I mean, I haven't seen a comprehensive list anywhere but exalted explicitly has ritual use of drugs to "enlighten" yourself so you can interact with spirits and manipulate essence, so you can probably find several lists of magic drugs there.
 
Ur Priest OP, nerf plox.

Though given that arcane magic in the realms depends on the weave, which Mystra maintains -and the weave destabilizes if she explodes....

Shouldn't we say that even arcane spells are at the mercy of of callous gods? :p
Well, it is my understanding Ao makes clear to Mystryl/Mystra that she isn't allowed to play favourites with the Weave, so she has to be uncaring more so than callous when it comes to spellcasters that aren't divine spellcasters worshipping her (it destabilizing if she goes down isn't entirely under her control, after all). Shar's Shadow Weave, on the other hand...
 
Hey so: Does anyone have any ideas, resources, lists, etc. of weird fantasy drugs?
Book of vile darkness (3rd), There's quite a few in Pathfinder as well, check Archives of Nethys under Afflictions (site is officially recognized by Paizo, this is not piracy), there was one that was really prevalent in Al Qadim, you can look for the Cities of Bone module for details. The necromancer king in that one was so hooked on it that his neglected wife sides with the heroes. Obviously you can adjust the mechanics, as I don't even know what edition you're playing.
 
Last edited:
Hey so: Does anyone have any ideas, resources, lists, etc. of weird fantasy drugs?

The main GM for the campaign I'm assistant GMing (PF1E) has a fantasy version of Spice. It comes in 4 tiers, with each tier granting a temporary +2 to int per tier for 6 hours and allowing the user to cast a few random wizard/sorcerer spells during that 6 hour period. Tier 1 gives cantrips, Tier 4 gives 3rd level spells, I think. The withdrawal starts after 12 hours and is really nasty, requiring fort saves every 12 hours or take int drain (damage for tier 1), with the DC and damage increasing with each tier. The effects are based on the highest tier the user took since they were last cured of the withdrawal, though using any tier can stave off withdrawal for 12 hours. The withdrawal can only be cured magically, so it's really nasty stuff.

There are "cut" or "colored" versions of Spice that focus on different types of spells. Right now we're planning to have versions for each school of arcane magic & versions for each element in evocation.

The production method is very spoiler, so if any of the players in the Divine Construct campaign reading this, please don't open the following spoiler box.
Spice is made by draining power from spontaneous arcane casters. Mostly sorcerers, but also arcanists, bloodragers, creatures with spell-like abilities, and potentially bards. Creatures with spell-like abilities usually produce colored/cut Spice, and the tier produced depends on the CL of the being the magic was drained from.

It's incredibly fucked up, but it's being done by the setting's supervillains to fund their other operations.

Speaking of villainy, I've got a question for other GM/DMs. Is it common to be uncomfortable when creating evil plans for major villains? If yes, how do you deal with that?
 
If a player can not justify her actions in character, then there's a problem.
The thing is that this is what descriptive mechanics are for, you dense fuck. For example, first line of Enervation out of the SRD:
You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.
The bolded section is a portion of the "how" for the mechanical effect. Almost nothing in D&D has no flavor text, it's overwhelmingly at least slightly descriptive. The justification for doing the effects of Enervate, in universe, is quite literally "I'm a Wizard casting a spell", which involves incantations and physical motions. The details of how that works are all over the place, because spell slots as they are in-game really don't work in narratives and the underlying metaphysics isn't really in the ballpark of the great majority of writers, but on the level you described, it's sufficient.

The point I'm trying to make is that there exists a how within the described game-setting combinations. What you are suggesting is answered in-game, on a meaningful level, and as such is not necessary to roleplay. Because licensed products exist, because setting-specific source books exist, because game-book fluff as a whole exists. If you want to roleplay in Star Wars, there's multiple licensed TTRPG systems for it that handle the great bulk of how you resolve the challenges, with all the fluff work being "you're playing a game in Star Wars", and as such what you are mentioning is completely beside the point of the damn product. As it is for White Wolf products, which also merge the mechanics and fluff to a considerable degree.

The entire point of TTRPGs, as a full industry, GURPS included, is offloading these sorts of questions onto a pre-defined rulebook to some extent. Inverting the questions, going from "how are you casting Fireball" to "what does casting Fireball do", pulls out the underlying thing you seem unable to understand. That TTRPGs are a labor-saving device for roleplaying, giving rules to structure all sorts of things. Which very much can extend to what you insist is a necessary skill for roleplayers, that of the "how" for mechanical effect. White Wolf products, licensed products of all stripes, D&D to varying degrees based on which mechanics you're using and what edition you're playing, a great deal of the TTRPG market is descriptive to the point where what you're calling a vital skill is entirely beside the point of the product.

The "How" isn't a vital question, because you have a book of rules that is capable of offering the answer right alongside the rules themselves. Being able to come up with the in-universe "how" is not a vital skill, because most systems pre-answer it, for their particular setting assumptions, to a sufficient degree as to be able to focus on what to do with those abilities, which is what is the actual role playing. You, however, have a visceral hatred of a major aspect of the system you're playing with (the default spellcasting), and keep using it for settings it doesn't have mechanics for (science fiction, high-Wuxia, various other such things that D&D doesn't describe at all). So the way you play means you're left with a great many square pegs for round holes, and are left with needing to do a great deal of fluff work because you keep going into things that don't have a presence in the system you're working with.

Even if it's just "martial mastery can be great, too", D&D is not a system built for that, and rather than even do so much as whitelist homebrew Disciplines (you mentioned not taking home brew ToB stuff when you were listing off alternate magic systems), you practically throw out a third of the rule books to have players use any mechanic for any character concept, making for a greater amount of storytelling and DM legwork in the process by making the worldbuilding need to cover the basic mechanics that the product is specifically intended to be about covering.

And some people do not work with needing to come up with the fluff. Roleplay and worldbuilding, which is what writing up fluff for mechanics is, are separate skill sets, and your position is that you're bad at the former if you don't like the latter.
 
So I joined a 5e campaign on Thursday evening (first tabletop RP experience in I don't know how long).

The cantrip rules are neat. I like the balance design around "increasing a spell's damage dice count increases the slot level required".

Chargen feels slightly unwieldy, but not unmanageably so. Design space around backgrounds feels a little weird.

The DM ruled "roll stats in order", so my sorcerer has more Constitution than Charisma.

The warlock thinks he's a collective hallucination. He may be right.

The wizard hasn't written an alignment on her character sheet. I'm not convinced she isn't Chaotic Evil.

The cleric is a vampire (the DM is using an M:tG setting called Ixalan, so this is not actually OP) with no healing spells. (She has spare the dying, at least.)
 
Roll stats in order and then choose your class? Maybe, but preferably not.
Choose class and then roll stats order? Definitely not.

If you got a really shitty roll for your primary stat, under the base 5e rules you probably wouldn't even be able to multiclass to something more effective.
 
Roll stats in order and then choose your class? Maybe, but preferably not.
Choose class and then roll stats order? Definitely not.

If you got a really shitty roll for your primary stat, under the base 5e rules you probably wouldn't even be able to multiclass to something more effective.
Roll in order, then choose class can be good for very specific game styles, usually focusing on more realism and immersion, but it's a terrible idea for your first game.

I've never even heard of anyone doing it the other way around.
 
Roll in order, then choose class can be good for very specific game styles, usually focusing on more realism and immersion, but it's a terrible idea for your first game.

I've never even heard of anyone doing it the other way around.
You might be interested to know that the Unearthed Arcana rulebook for 1st edition AD&D provided a variant chargen system where you chose a class, then rolled variably-sized "top three from N" pools for each stat depending on your chosen class (N ranging between 4 and 9 depending on the stat's importance to your class).

It also, IIRC, contained the first official attempt at making 1st level chargen less of a crapshoot, with a rule "if you roll less than the mean value of your starting hit die, you get the mean value of your starting hit die instead".
 
You might be interested to know that the Unearthed Arcana rulebook for 1st edition AD&D provided a variant chargen system where you chose a class, then rolled variably-sized "top three from N" pools for each stat depending on your chosen class (N ranging between 4 and 9 depending on the stat's importance to your class).

It also, IIRC, contained the first official attempt at making 1st level chargen less of a crapshoot, with a rule "if you roll less than the mean value of your starting hit die, you get the mean value of your starting hit die instead".
That's weighted enough to be viable though. And yes, I have that book sitting on a shelf in this very room. Although I tend to use it more for the magic item listings and the birth rank chart (something my group has found an interesting thing to use when starting up a new campaign, with everyone rolling on it and then building a character based on the results)
 
Roll in order, then choose class can be good for very specific game styles, usually focusing on more realism and immersion, but it's a terrible idea for your first game.

I disagree, for a player's first game it can be helpful to do straight down the line for people just entering the hobby. Those that may get option-paralysis can be aided by straight down the line rolls, and those entering with some notions of wanting to play some sort of pre-existing character (especially ones that don't translate to DnD without some tinkering) can move them towards creating something wholly their own.

Now I'm not going to prescribe all new players should try it this way, but I do believe it can be very helpful for new players, it helps them avoid some pitfalls with learning and it makes a buffer between pigeonholing new players into the "easy" classes. When people are discovering the game discovering your character one roll at a time can be helpful.

Though there probably should be some limits, you don't make the player that rolled all 8s for stats run that character, they just reroll again but those limits are much more personal and specific, do you mandate a sum positive modifier of X? No more than 1 stat under 10? At least 2 stats over Y? But thats just nitty-gritty stuff.

Its all about making sure for a player's first game that people are going to have fun, and sometimes just breaking a few of the barriers to entry by simplifying the process can do wonders. Now instead of having to explain each and every class to the player, you can see their stats and limit the scope of their possibilities, if they got their wisdom the highest you hype up cleric, druid, monk, and ranger to them see what resonates.
 
Last edited:
Played my first 5E game in over a year, just a little fight at the end of session zero.

I had forgotten just how frustrating low-level play in 5E is, because it's not that hard to get AC up to a point where one has a 50% chance or less to hit, and there's only one attack per turn. I spent most of that fight keeping our Druid from dying, because Thorias went down to a crit in one hit, and he kept getting stabbed after I healed him or stabilized him. Our fighter kept wiffing, but that's fine, the goblins kept wiffing because he has an AC of 18.

It was pretty fun using Thunderwave, because Ran Karasdotter is now Collateral Damage Woman. Do not use Thunderwave near breakable objects.
 
Honestly, levels 1-2 are the least interesting and fun in 5e, and it seems pretty deliberate. You have way less options, you're so fragile fights are really swingy, you don't have any strange or interesting items... and I really dislike how some classes get their subclass earlier but most need to wait until level 3.

If you want to make a magic swordsman, tough! You gotta either not be able to cast any magic for your first two levels or start at level 3.
 
Honestly I'm still in favor of how Dungeon Crawl Classics does character creation. Roll 3d6 in order four times. Each player controls four level-0 classless nobodies at once. Whoever survives gains a class level and becomes your character, and you can bank the spares.

Can't say it doesn't immediately get you into the game's desired mindset.
 
Back
Top