Remove ads

Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Reader mode
Chloe Sullivan said:
o_O

Roleplay is worldbuilding. You're building a characterization of your character, and their history in and links to other things in the word, which means by definition you are creating details about the world.

if you are incapable of worldbuilding, you'd incapable of roleplaying anyone but "you, except maybe with better stats."

The vast majority of D&D games use homebrew settings or variations, and the players should shoulder part of the work of worldbuilding if they can.

that's been my entire argument from the beginning. There's already a too-large burden on the DM to start with. Giving the DM more work is asshattery.

players should be stunting. Players should be creatively adding detail to the game. Otherwise you may as well be playing a cRPG.

everything I said in that whole discussion was about reducing load on the DM. Learning alt magic (even multiple systems of alt magic) is MUCH less work that fixing the complete mess that is spellcasting.

DMing is work Players who want the DM to do the player's work as well as the DM's work are bad people, full stop.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...Everything a player knows about their character is something the DM has to know as well.

It's much, much easier to use a rule system as intended than it is to replace a major part of that system with another system. It is not easier for a DM to learn a new magic system than it is to use the one in the core rulebook. If your intent is to lighten the load on a DM, then you are going about it in entirely the wrong way.
 
Valette.Serafina said:
...Everything a player knows about their character is something the DM has to know as well.

It's much, much easier to use a rule system as intended than it is to replace a major part of that system with another system. It is not easier for a DM to learn a new magic system than it is to use the one in the core rulebook. If your intent is to lighten the load on a DM, then you are going about it in entirely the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The DM doesn't need to know everything about the players' characters. They need to generally know the character's personality and history, but the player should be the one saying "hey, is my backstory relevant" as often as the DM is.

Also, if you read Chloe's post with any kind of care you'll see they were comparing learning a new magic system to fixing spellcasting. I.e. using an existing-but-non-standard system is easier than rewriting an existing system.
 
[5e]

What do you think of this spell:

Mercy from the Melee
2nd Level Abjuration
Casting Time: 1 regular action
Range: Touch
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute.
Classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid
For the duration of the spell, the affected creature cannot be laid low by sword and arrow; it cannot be reduced to less than 1 hitpoint from nonmagical slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage. If the creature makes an attack, the spell is ended.
 
Last edited:
Muhkat Lomorki said:
[5e]

What do you think of this spell:

Mercy from the Melee
2nd Level Abjuration
Casting Time: 1 regular action
Range: Touch
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute.
Classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid
For the duration of the spell, the affected creature cannot be laid low by sword and arrow; when it has 1 hitpoint, it is immune to nonmagical slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage. If the creature makes an attack, the spell is ended.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't really see a reason to use this over Sanctuary.
 
Muhkat Lomorki said:
[5e]

What do you think of this spell:

Mercy from the Melee
2nd Level Abjuration
Casting Time: 1 regular action
Range: Touch
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute.
Classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid
For the duration of the spell, the affected creature cannot be laid low by sword and arrow; when it has 1 hitpoint, it is immune to nonmagical slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage. If the creature makes an attack, the spell is ended.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So they're invincible if they get reduced to exactly 1? Because if you take 12 damage when you have 10 hit points you don't hit 1 then 0. You just hit 0.
 
azoicennead said:
The DM doesn't need to know everything about the players' characters. They need to generally know the character's personality and history, but the player should be the one saying "hey, is my backstory relevant" as often as the DM is.

Also, if you read Chloe's post with any kind of care you'll see they were comparing learning a new magic system to fixing spellcasting. I.e. using an existing-but-non-standard system is easier than rewriting an existing system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The DM is the entire world. They manage every non-player character, every environment, all of history, and even the very weather. Of course they need to know everything about a player's character, or it won't come up. They need to know the mechanics, so that they can predict player abilities. Personality, in fact, is the only thing about a player character that a DM doesn't need to know.

As for fixing spellcasting, that's the easiest thing in the world. Just watch.

Bam. I fixed it. Took me all of 0 seconds.
 
Valette.Serafina said:
The DM is the entire world. They manage every non-player character, every environment, all of history, and even the very weather. Of course they need to know everything about a player's character, or it won't come up. They need to know the mechanics, so that they can predict player abilities. Personality, in fact, is the only thing about a player character that a DM doesn't need to know.

As for fixing spellcasting, that's the easiest thing in the world. Just watch.

Bam. I fixed it. Took me all of 0 seconds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"DM's need to be able to predict how characters will act, but don't need to know how characters act" is an intriguing perspective that I'd love to hear the reasoning behind.

And clearly you and Chloe have very different views on whether or not spellcasting needs to be fixed, but that really doesn't justify dismissing the idea outright. The only system version of D&D I didn't think had a magic system that can be fixed is 4e, and that was only because they removed the distinction between casters and non-casters.
I include Pathfinder 1e in that but have ignored Pathfinder 2e so can't speak with any confidence about it (but I haven't heard anything about meaningful casting changes so I expect it's not significantly different).
 
azoicennead said:
I include Pathfinder 1e in that but have ignored Pathfinder 2e so can't speak with any confidence about it (but I haven't heard anything about meaningful casting changes so I expect it's not significantly different).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are changes that are helpful in relieving some of the problems, but I'd say it falls well short of "fixing it." It's still got all the legacy problems of the D&D sacred cows.
 
Valette.Serafina said:
The DM is the entire world. They manage every non-player character, every environment, all of history, and even the very weather. Of course they need to know everything about a player's character, or it won't come up. They need to know the mechanics, so that they can predict player abilities. Personality, in fact, is the only thing about a player character that a DM doesn't need to know.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I assume you game with a hyper advanced seed AI that time travels back from the future then?



because, no, no human DM actually does this.

No DM makes the whole world - they have a general sketch of it, and they fill in details when needed, and usually do let players add in details - because they're playing D&D, not directing a movie, and because they're a storyteller, not a creator-god.

A lot of DMs don't even have an entirely solid grasp of the mechanics of the monster they put in the encounter, let alone the player's specific combo of mechanics. And that's fine, because as long as the monster is not over or underwhelming in threat, the DM has done okay, regardless of whether the monster actually matches it's book stat line.

DMs have to extend at least some trust to players to Not try to blow up the game with supercombos, because Jesus Christ come again couldn't sort all the minutiae that has accumulated around 3e and it's mechanics to ensure perfect balance.


This is basic "how to human", let alone "how to dm." You need social trust, you need heuristics and generalizations, you need to allow details to be fudged now and then. You can't function otherwise- not with a human brain rather than a planet-mass quantum supercomputer.
 
This isn't just a 3.5/PF thing, or even a D&D thing. There's a reason a lot of more modern RPGs ask the players to get more involved with the world, and include lots of tools for communication between players and GM.

That can be Stunt mechanics where you can creatively describe the environment to make use of it. "I hide beneath the table/behind the curtain" can just be more fun than asking "is there anything I can hide behind", and a lot more immersive than saying "I roll stealth" and then the GM having to come up with somewhere for you to hide on the spot, possibly failing, and having to tell you (or just going "you succeed", if they failed to think of something).

It can be mechanics like the Destiny Points from the FFG Star Wars games, which outright allow you to influence the narrative or change their past actions, at the cost of then giving the GM dice advantages and not being available as a resource anymore. You can use them to say "oh no we had rebreathers with us all along", which is good because it keeps the narrative going. The other day, someone asked for proof that we had actually helped some reclusive aliens on another planet - and I just went "oh, can I say that my character interviewed a bunch of them for anthropological reasons and made recordings? I spend a destiny point". I hadn't thought of that at all last season, but it was in-character, really helped the narrative, and there was no need to argue because destiny points were right there as a tool.

It can be mechanics where the players are able to fill in larger parts of the world too.
Some games have mechanics that allow your well-travelled character who has been all over the place to actually know people in every village. But instead of asking the GM to come up with them, which would lead to you, the player, being unfamiliar with them, you the player get to make them up. You're the one who is going to introduce them, say how you interact with them, and they're going to be friendly with you after all, and they're not going to be story-vital, so why burden the GM with this?
Or why couldn't a player introduce a locale they're familiar with? Or some piece of information their character is really familiar with?

All these tools can get players more involved and engaged with the game.
Yes they need social trust so that they don't get abused, but that should be a given.
 
azoicennead said:
"DM's need to be able to predict how characters will act, but don't need to know how characters act" is an intriguing perspective that I'd love to hear the reasoning behind.

And clearly you and Chloe have very different views on whether or not spellcasting needs to be fixed, but that really doesn't justify dismissing the idea outright. The only system version of D&D I didn't think had a magic system that can be fixed is 4e, and that was only because they removed the distinction between casters and non-casters.
I include Pathfinder 1e in that but have ignored Pathfinder 2e so can't speak with any confidence about it (but I haven't heard anything about meaningful casting changes so I expect it's not significantly different).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What characters can do and what characters will do are different things, obviously.

Spellcasting functions without any changes, in a manner that works quite well. Switching the system out for another isn't necessary. The game works without doing so.
Chloe Sullivan said:
I assume you game with a hyper advanced seed AI that time travels back from the future then?



because, no, no human DM actually does this.

No DM makes the whole world - they have a general sketch of it, and they fill in details when needed, and usually do let players add in details - because they're playing D&D, not directing a movie, and because they're a storyteller, not a creator-god.

A lot of DMs don't even have an entirely solid grasp of the mechanics of the monster they put in the encounter, let alone the player's specific combo of mechanics. And that's fine, because as long as the monster is not over or underwhelming in threat, the DM has done okay, regardless of whether the monster actually matches it's book stat line.

DMs have to extend at least some trust to players to Not try to blow up the game with supercombos, because Jesus Christ come again couldn't sort all the minutiae that has accumulated around 3e and it's mechanics to ensure perfect balance.


This is basic "how to human", let alone "how to dm." You need social trust, you need heuristics and generalizations, you need to allow details to be fudged now and then. You can't function otherwise- not with a human brain rather than a planet-mass quantum supercomputer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, firstly, not very convinced by: "The DM doesn't make the entire world, the DM makes the entire world."

Setting aside the difference between Is and Makes, there's no significant difference between making something in advance or making it at the table. Players may have input, but the DM always has veto authority: That's part of being a DM. Whether phrased as such or not, all such player ideas are a question, and it's part of the DM's duties to consider whether or not they fit.

You confuse responsibility for the game with mechanically slavish devotion to statblocks: They are not the same. Improvisation and evocative description both require creativity, and are both vital tools for running an RPG.

'Supercombos' are not relevant to my argument. A DM needs to know basic capacities, like whether or not a specific character has Darkvision, or whether players have the ability to fly. A DM needs to know where these abilities come from, and how they work. Without knowing such things, a DM cannot properly model the world around the players.

The only things the DM does not need to model, predict, or describe are Player Characters, because that's what the Players do.
 
Valette.Serafina said:
Supercombos' are not relevant to my argument. A DM needs to know basic capacities, like whether or not a specific character has Darkvision, or whether players have the ability to fly. A DM needs to know where these abilities come from, and how they work. Without knowing such things, a DM cannot properly model the world around the players.

The only things the DM does not need to model, predict, or describe are Player Characters, because that's what the Players do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not very convinced by "the dm needs to model the characters, the Dm does not need to model the characters."

:rolleyes:
 
Do you have any idea what kind of absolute bullshit plot-bending nonsense spellcasting is when it's not being held back by a gentleman's agreement or flat out nerfs in 3E/PF? There are plenty of valid reasons for replacing spellcasting with an easier to manage AMS and one of them is that expecting a DM to have the entire spell list memorized is absurd.
 
Not only is D&D spellcasting capable of plot-bending nonsense that leaves all the non-spellcasters twiddling their thumbs, but the fact that its main limitation is "usage-per-day" means that the entire pace of the game bends around it.

The game is in desperate need of a new magic system.
 
The Narrator said:
Not only is D&D spellcasting capable of plot-bending nonsense that leaves all the non-spellcasters twiddling their thumbs, but the fact that its main limitation is "usage-per-day" means that the entire pace of the game bends around it.

The game is in desperate need of a new magic system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Action/condition based refresh has been around ever since the original Psionics Handbook (psionic focus, FTW!). But official D&D is all about nostalgia these days so cutting out legacy code is hard.
 
Having a variety of resource mechanics, as a whole, only works when you have a daily expectation. This is why 5e is balanced in scale, because WotC sat down and declared "Four Encounters Per Day". After that, you need to allow them all similar achievement in all regards on the higher-order resource levels. Which is why there's people saying 5e didn't solve caster supremacy, because it still didn't give martials any of the plot-powers to balance them by kind at bloody all.
 
Morphic Tide said:
Having a variety of resource mechanics, as a whole, only works when you have a daily expectation. This is why 5e is balanced in scale, because WotC sat down and declared "Four Encounters Per Day". After that, you need to allow them all similar achievement in all regards on the higher-order resource levels. Which is why there's people saying 5e didn't solve caster supremacy, because it still didn't give martials any of the plot-powers to balance them by kind at bloody all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

i have literally not ever had more than 1 fight per day in the last 3 games I played. (Well not counting moonscar PBP where no one brought a character that had per day powers in the first place)

I mean, maybe 5e is different, But I recall reading a review of the very first adventure path for it - having like 8+ encounters with no chance for a long rest.

generally, time based recharge only works if there is actually time pressure on the player(s). If you can go for a rest and come back later with no significant consequences, the time requirement becomes a joke. this is probably why aurora engine games (3e based BioWare stuff) just had you slowly regen HP - tactical narcolepsy is dumb.
 
That's why everyone should have access to either all those plot-affecting spells (so that everyone is on equal footing), or a limited selection of them (so that things are more managed, and you actually have to pick a niche).
I'm more in favor of the latter, it's just more interesting.

But it's also why I'm advocating for letting everyone choose why they can do those things. There's dozens of flavor-options available, that can mix and match with all the classes we have:
- maybe you're just really good at manipulating magical items
- maybe you're doing ritual magic
- maybe you're getting assistance from nature spirits
- maybe it's asistance from a higher patron or deity
- maybe your body is capable of channeling elemental energy really well (or some other flavor) that'd rip other people apart
- maybe it's magical music/dancing/painting/glassmaking/some other art
- maybe it's alchemy or herbalism
and you can probably come up with more.
All those fit really well with Backgrounds - because if you make them something not attached to a class, everyone can have one, and each of those does describe a characters attitude to things in a way similar to how a Background would. (Though you can certainly make them separate from Backgrounds, too).

Attach a limited amount of Plot-Spells as it just so elegantly got called to them, with appropriate use-restrictions, and you do a lot for solving class disparities.
And it doesn't really feel that weird if a Thief can Speak with Dead by pulling out a magic item and fiddling with it, or if a high-level Fighter can Planeshift by channeling elemental energies through their bodies really hard, or if nature spirits give a Barbarian the benefit of a Divination spell.
 
Chloe Sullivan said:
Action/condition based refresh has been around ever since the original Psionics Handbook (psionic focus, FTW!). But official D&D is all about nostalgia these days so cutting out legacy code is hard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Per-encounter powers worked really well in Saga Edition, and action-based refresh works pretty well in Path of War. It's nice to not have to stop the action because the wizard needs a nap.

Outside of the limited world of D20 games, Shadowrun has its Drain system where spellcasting too much carries risks of damaging yourself.


Chloe Sullivan said:
i have literally not ever had more than 1 fight per day in the last 3 games I played. (Well not counting moonscar PBP where no one brought a character that had per day powers in the first place)

I mean, maybe 5e is different, But I recall reading a review of the very first adventure path for it - having like 8+ encounters with no chance for a long rest.

generally, time based recharge only works if there is actually time pressure on the player(s). If you can go for a rest and come back later with no significant consequences, the time requirement becomes a joke. this is probably why aurora engine games (3e based BioWare stuff) just had you slowly regen HP - tactical narcolepsy is dumb.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I seem to recall the "four encounters per day" assumption being mentioned in the 3E DMG as well, but whether its a vague assumption or a hard rule, the problem remains the same: it's incredibly limiting in terms of what stories you can tell.

If you have time pressure, then players will run dry well before the climax and face the toughest encounters without any cards left to play... and they'll resent you for it, because it will be dull and frustrating. If you don't have time pressure, then players will just use all their strongest abilities and then go sleep to regain them.

For the OSR grognards who just want to turn back the clock to the way the game was when they were kids and run nothing but dungeon-dives where players just clear room after room while the monsters politely wait, that it might not be an issue. But for those who want to tell a dynamic, cinematic adventure story, having to plan around stopping the action for naps is a colossal nuisance.
 
So my DM in my IRL game allows homebrew, and since my Aasimar Paladin is getting close to his level 19, I wanted to design a feat to reflect his increased closeness with Threshold (homebrew setting Underworld where all the Angels are), so I made this. I already got the once over and approval from the GM, but I want to just get some other people to take a look at it before it sees gameplay.

Feat for 5th Edition DnD

Feat: Mantle of Divinity
Prerequisite: Aasimar
When you use the Radiant Soul, Radiant Consumption, or Necrotic Shroud features, you must choose one of the following options, which last as long as that feature lasts:
  • Awe: A halo of luminous glory appears over your head, unleashing a harsh bright light in 10 ft of you and a dim light within 10 ft past that. Whenever a creature within this bright light targets you with a harmful spell or attack, they must roll a Wisdom Saving Throw. On a failure, they must choose new targets for the attack or spell. On a success, they are immune to this feature for the duration.
  • Mercy: A halo of soft radiance appears over your head, casting out a dim light within 10 ft of you. All friendly creatures who start their turn within this dim light regain hitpoints equal to your proficiency bonus.
  • Justice: A halo of fire appears above your head, unleashing a scorching heat all around you. Whenever a hostile creature within 10 ft of you takes damage, they take additional radiant damage equal to your proficiency bonus. If you use Necrotic Shroud, this deals necrotic damage instead.
In addition, you gain an additional use of your Healing Hands feature, and recover all uses of Healing Hands on a long rest.
 
Last edited:
5e.

I'm thinking about making a variant of human called savant human that gets expertise in a single skill or tool.

I don't know how to balance this however. I'm sure that you'll give me ideas or tell me to scrap it.
 
The fun part of recent discussion is that I swing wildly from either end of the spectrum on "What is the GM's responsibility in this nonsense legacy code horseshit Java game that is DnD/d20":

1) Most of the time I don't even know what fucking class my players are. This is DnD, there's as much odds of them being a vanilla fighter as they are a spell-sensing wilderness rogue/elven substitution (ii) ranger/aerial avenger. I don't have the time or patience and my god is it ever unimportant. For my games I want to know who their most hated enemy was in their youth so I can inflict trauma (Or just drama) onto them before letting them overcome impossible odds and achieve catharsis. I'll trust them to tell me how they work when it's important.

2) I ran a gimmicky one-shot pathfinder game for a birthday where I told players to just show up with dice and pencils. I made "The Wheel" and at the table asked each player "Which of these represent how you impact the world?" and let people have multiple spokes if they needed. Based on that feedback I basically just generated their entire character in my head off the cuff. The other half of the gimmick was that they all suddenly came into awareness, sitting around the longtable in a hunting lodge and suffering from a hard case of amnesia before Suddenly, Orcs. Whenever they did something or tried something weird I gave them one or two details to write on their character sheet. There were a couple of bumps and hiccups because nobody's perfect but the game was a massive success and it was only possible because I have wasted ENTIRELY too many neurons on storing useless minutia about mechanics and details from this garbage legacy system that I've been playing for 20 years.

I don't think #2 is a thing anyone should expect anyone to be able to do just for showing up to the job. I decided to hurt myself doing that. #1 is a better goal to visualize, I think.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top