Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

There are already a bunch of Ghibli-aesthetic rpg products out there. I kickstarted Monster Care Squad.
 
So, I'm trying to decide on which system to use for a Quest focused around starting out as a vampire spawn in a quite sandboxy setting.

DnD 5E has the virtues for this of being more widely known, more streamlined, a more constrained powerscale (mooks don't stop being relevant), and (arguably a virtue) having much less 'swing' between average play and min-maxing. On the other hand I'll need to homebrew rather more for vampire specific play and filling out the vampire powerscale between spawn and 'full' vampire status.

Pathfinder 1E (haven't bothered to learn 2E, and I have a splat basically made for this) offers more granularity, way less need for homebrewing, and a greater power differential between levels. On the downside I'm sorta rusty with it and it is more powergaming minmaxing open.

I would appreciate if anyone had any thoughts on this either way.
 
So, I'm trying to decide on which system to use for a Quest focused around starting out as a vampire spawn in a quite sandboxy setting.

DnD 5E has the virtues for this of being more widely known, more streamlined, a more constrained powerscale (mooks don't stop being relevant), and (arguably a virtue) having much less 'swing' between average play and min-maxing. On the other hand I'll need to homebrew rather more for vampire specific play and filling out the vampire powerscale between spawn and 'full' vampire status.

Pathfinder 1E (haven't bothered to learn 2E, and I have a splat basically made for this) offers more granularity, way less need for homebrewing, and a greater power differential between levels. On the downside I'm sorta rusty with it and it is more powergaming minmaxing open.

I would appreciate if anyone had any thoughts on this either way.

Are you going to use the mechanics of the actual game system or just use them as inspiration?

If you want to use actual game mechanics, I say pick the system you personally enjoy most. The thing that kills quests most is GM losing interest.
 
Are you going to use the mechanics of the actual game system or just use them as inspiration?

If you want to use actual game mechanics, I say pick the system you personally enjoy most. The thing that kills quests most is GM losing interest.
Mechanics (with some grafting, hacking and homebrewing applied).

As for which system to pick, the issue for me is that I enjoy both. And I struggle to pick which I enjoy the most. Except if I'm DMing and need to wing it in which case 5E is just so much simpler to work with.

I suspect I'll end up using a Frankenstein style mash-up. At which point for sake of not spending months working on a system that ends up not used because working on it sapped the interest to run the quest it'll probably be using a skeleton of 5E. I want at least some of the granularity Pathfinder offers, but I probably enjoy the streamlined nature of 5E combat over that of Pathfinder. Having a playgroup that occasionally might see only one game a month if that really teaches you as a DM to appreciate a simple system with few things for players to lose track of them being able to do.

I suppose just articulating my thought process is helping here. It's been a running circular argument train in my head since I got the itch to try this. Whenever I get close to settling on using one of the systems I end up reminding myself of what I'd lose from not using the other one.
 
I'm currently trying to come up with a 5e one shot in Strixhaven. It's going to be for between 3-6 players and either level 5 or 10.

The basic concept is a puzzle house/corridor of rooms. Each room is based on one of the four colleges and will have three ways out; one combat and two 'skill/social' checks. Which test you pass in the room determines which next room/college you visit. To escape you need to encounter 4 rooms( level 5) or 8(level 10) in the proper order to be let out and graded on your end of year/final exam.

I'm thinking depending on the strength of the combat challenges having every 4th room allow for a long rest with the exception of changing spells around to allow the players to be a little more free with their resources and those rooms letting you pick which college room you enter to help them set up for a four room run.

Am I on track for something interesting or is this a DOA idea?
 
Playing BG3 and it's great inspiration for the tabletop, encounter building and map making im particular are absolute highlights.

That said, what really interests me is how much more *mobile* they made combat, and I can't put my finger on why. Having to get to high ground for ranged attacks is an obvious one, but it feels like there's more than that.

Off the top of my head:

1. Most fights have secondary objectives
2. Most enemies have some ability to force party movement, such as creating clones of themselves with one HP all over the map.
3. Shove is a bonus action (combines with 4 below)
4. Lots of verticality
5. Maps tend to have structures which block LoS
6. Weapon ranges are shorter
 
Probably the biggest change for mobility is jump being a bonus action, and doing away with the stupid "movement done through jumping counts towards your speed limit" from the tabletop. Instead, it costs a flat 10' to jump and you cover ground based on your strength. There are several other changes almost certainly done as a consequence of this, like Misty Step and its analogues getting buffed to 60' since a strength character's jump will get past the tabletop's 30' eventually (and if you're really invested in it, you actually get further than the new Misty Step). Also important is all the other good bonus actions that every character can access, to make the tradeoff for jumping not just a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Playing BG3 and it's great inspiration for the tabletop, encounter building and map making im particular are absolute highlights.

That said, what really interests me is how much more *mobile* they made combat, and I can't put my finger on why. Having to get to high ground for ranged attacks is an obvious one, but it feels like there's more than that.

Off the top of my head:

1. Most fights have secondary objectives
2. Most enemies have some ability to force party movement, such as creating clones of themselves with one HP all over the map.
3. Shove is a bonus action (combines with 4 below)
4. Lots of verticality
5. Maps tend to have structures which block LoS
6. Weapon ranges are shorter
BG3 is jsut amazing at combat compared to say Wrath of the Righteous.

It feels less of a fantasy story, and more like a DM made A series of combat (and sidequest) scenarios, spent a ton of time to glue them into a map, and made it more complex so people don't get bored with back to back combat with a lot of love for the material.

Off the top of my head a big reason is that combat is great because it adds many simple things for a lot of complexity

  1. Enemy composition is fantastic. It starts simple but the game slowly turns on the heat with both functionally different types of enemies AND special hero units to supplement the enemy core composition. Swarms , tanks, assasin, mine/bomb users, etc
  2. Movement + Verticality + Range adaptation dramatically increase how positioning impacts the game. A lot of the adaptation from tabletop to movement/verticality/range superiority was to make them overlap a lot more so nothing is too disproportionately weak or strong which makes the combat space more important.
  3. Shove , forced movement , and interactable makes hte game more dynamic.
  4. Removal of restrictions on Action and bonus actions also makes the game fantastically dynamic. This makes a lot of classes and dips really powerful and dynamic. For example Misty Step+Fireball is a thing now. Or barbarian + Rogue for that extra bonus action.
    1. Side note this also feels better due to phrasing a lot of abilities as stuff to do with bonus actions, as opposed to bonus actions for specific thing ala Rogue's cunning action
  5. Game changing itemization via amazing passives/additional skills. So a lot of items in this game, beyond the stat sticks, are just great for making more things to do in combat itself. Some items are so good they effectively are a class feat in themselves.
 
Hey, has anyone here played Dragon Heist, the 5E adventure? How is it?

A friend of mine that I ran some L5R for is thinking about trying his hand at running something, and wants to do D&D since it's the system he's most comfortable in, and he's been looking for adventures that aren't one shots but also aren't like giant 1-12 treks. And he ran into Dragon Heist, which he says sounds neat, and so I told him I'd ask around to see if anyone has played it and can share opinions on whether it's worth the money.
 
Hey, has anyone here played Dragon Heist, the 5E adventure? How is it?

A friend of mine that I ran some L5R for is thinking about trying his hand at running something, and wants to do D&D since it's the system he's most comfortable in, and he's been looking for adventures that aren't one shots but also aren't like giant 1-12 treks. And he ran into Dragon Heist, which he says sounds neat, and so I told him I'd ask around to see if anyone has played it and can share opinions on whether it's worth the money.
Lots of spoilers ahead, for those who intend to play the module without foreknowledge.

I ran it for a team of 6, 4 of which were brand new players. It's an excellent adventure for players of all skill levels, and the book does a good job of populating the city with interesting NPC's and factions for them to engage with. The ability to choose the season and the accompanying villain is really interesting, though I ended up using all four in some capacity over the course of the game, with Jarlaxle being the primary antagonist. The party enjoyed him a lot: having to play around a villain that they obviously can't beat in a fight added a good dimension of intrigue to the game, and with one of the players creating a Half-Drow Warlock it was easy to lead in and build intrigue towards the Bregan D'aerth.

If I had to give advice to my past self or another DM planning to run it, I'd note that a lot of the game's encounters can be resolved socially, but the initial adventure hook is clearly built with the expectation of being dealt with through violence, and includes an Intellect Devourer that can easily ruin a low level party's day. However, the opening investigation and search for Floon is relatively well written and has a clean mystery chain of going to a couple different locations, finding clues, and following those clues to the next location, which signposts the rest of the game really well. With that in mind, I wouldn't recommend throwing it out, but I would tweak it so that the Xanathar's Guild and Nihilor can be negotiated with more easily, perhaps even serving as the first source for the main quest and the search for the Stone of Golorr (though obviously many parties/players would chafe at taking orders from or even helping an organization like the Guild). The book also doesn't really have a contingency for the party grabbing the Stone before Act 4, but that shouldn't happen unless you're stupid like me and dangle it in front of their faces, assuming that two level 3 characters won't be able to beat a CR5 monster carrying it (never underestimate players ingenuity, ack).

The only secondary resource I'd recommend for running it if you're looking to get a super deep dive into Waterdeep as a city and its history is the 3.5 City of Splendors sourcebook, which has an obviously outdated historical dive into Waterdeep a century and some before the events of Dragon Heist. Wouldn't call it close to necessary unless you have the unique circumstances I had of 1. A 200 year old player character who was a native of the city and delighted in asking me questions about long winded anecdotes they could tell the party and 2. Planning to continue the game into Dungeon of the Mad Mage, which features many historical mainstays of Waterdeep. Definitely neat though.
So yeah, in sum, I recommend it, it's fun.
 
Hey, has anyone here played Dragon Heist, the 5E adventure? How is it?

A friend of mine that I ran some L5R for is thinking about trying his hand at running something, and wants to do D&D since it's the system he's most comfortable in, and he's been looking for adventures that aren't one shots but also aren't like giant 1-12 treks. And he ran into Dragon Heist, which he says sounds neat, and so I told him I'd ask around to see if anyone has played it and can share opinions on whether it's worth the money.
The adventure as written is a messy railroad that doesn't fulfill any of its promises. There isn't even a heist in a book called Dragon Heist! If he really wants to run it, tell him to check out the remix written by Justin Alexander. It takes a crappy adventure and turns it into the best thing I've ever run, a truly heist-based adventure guided entirely by the players.
 
if you're a Paladin in 5e and you Dip Barbarian, do you still get the benefits from your Channel Divinity while Raging.

Asking because I'm Dipping for Tiger Totem Barb as a Level 8 Glory Paladin with Mobile and I wanna know if you can get a 40 foot long jump out of it.
 
Article:
If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

That's the only limitation that rage seems to have. It doesn't even say that you can't use skills that require delicacy like some previous editions, so if you want to sneak, pick locks and do diplomacy while raging, I guess you can.

So if it's not a spell and doesn't require concentration, then you can do it by raging AFAIK.
 
Going back through old AD&D 2E material, I am vaguely curious as to the sort of alternate timeline where Saurials picked up as they were clearly expected to in the early 90's and became a major PHB / Demihuman option to go alongside the likes of Elves and Dwarves.
 
Going back through old AD&D 2E material, I am vaguely curious as to the sort of alternate timeline where Saurials picked up as they were clearly expected to in the early 90's and became a major PHB / Demihuman option to go alongside the likes of Elves and Dwarves.
Cooler and more diverse than dragonborn. Definitely a cooler backstory for how they got to the FR setting.
 
Cooler and more diverse than dragonborn. Definitely a cooler backstory for how they got to the FR setting.
I mean, I don't disagree with "It'd be more interesting if instead of repurposing 3.5's version of Dragonborn into taking the Saurial's place, they instead keep them as that and instead there's just 4+ different species of anthropomorphic Dinosaurs running around". But their competition in 2E and early 3E would probably be better imagined as Half-Orcs.

I do have to wonder if them not going anywhere post-2E was a copyright / ownership issue as D&D moved to WotC, a result of them not doing as well as initially expected, future content moving off in a direction where they just didn't feel them as thematically relevant, "Yes", or so-on.
 
Back
Top