Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Yeah, very much agreeing on 5e being able to get very lethal very quickly.

When my gaming group tried out Storm King's Thunder, we had our first TPK maybe ten minutes in - we saw a pair of wargs in the abandoned town square, we tried to sneak past them, we failed, and then the entire party was ripped apart into gory chunks within a couple of rounds. Even the DM was flabbergasted at why the module would do this.

Thinking back, a solid majority of the encounters in Storm King's Thunder were borderline Kobayashi-Maru nightmares. We were regularly forced to resort to convoluted schemes because the threats we were set up against would have slaughtered us all without issue in a fair fight. Like, we only survived a relatively small group of Zhentarim by tricking them into sharing a meal, serving them poison prestidigitated to smell & taste like wine, and then barricading ourselves into the keep's high tower overnight and hiding out until the poison finished off the last of them.


I admit the assumption that he'd definitely have globe of invulnerability up and ready and have an elaborate strategy for being disrupted doesn't... necessarily sound much better?

Like, the goblin example honestly seems better, tbh.
If you're running the Red Wizards as a hivemind they might be able to react with that much coordination, but a cursory check shows they're split up into five groups across a huge space (150+ feet between each pair of them)
... Okay, in that case? No, each of those five groups would have brought along their own security detail, because these are fucking wizard aristocrats from a decently competitive culture participating in a ritual which is of inestimable strategic importance to the nation as a whole and is likely to provide immense personal gain for those who performed it - and they're having to perform it in a location spacious enough for literal military formations to parade about in, rather than somewhere enclosed enough that they could feel confident in their ability to quickly rush down an attacker by overlapping the radius for their various offensive spells, and where they wouldn't have to worry about getting swarmed under through sheer numbers pouring into the room.

Not only that, they're actively trying to break the current state of quasi-detante between the various gods. There is no possible universe where they wouldn't have SOMETHING try to gatecrash the ritual in stop them, because numerous gods would be pulling to try and stop this using whatever Prime Material assets they were able to scramble.

At that point, I would deliberately rig things so that if your typical five-man band of appropriately leveled PCs decide to try and solo this, then they're almost certainly going to die screaming. This is a situation where not only do you have a shitload of high-level casters, but also the collective wealth and political power of said wizards being brought to bear. You're essentially fighting Thay itself, in terms of how much metaphorical firepower they'd be investing here. The players should absolutely have to put together resources of their own to back them up and make the fight winnable.
 
Should also point out that despite their backstabbing ways, Red Wizards in combat are so well coordinated that in prior editions there was literally special mechanics just for them on how they combined their magic.
 
Honestly, going off on a complete tangent, D&D doesn't really seem to understand just how harmful a complete lack of social trust actually is to a society.

...admittedly neither does a lot of fantasy.

"Yes, your Drow all hate each other and nobody trusts anyone else and they backstab each other five times a minute, but then how exactly are they a functioning society again?"
 
Honestly, going off on a complete tangent, D&D doesn't really seem to understand just how harmful a complete lack of social trust actually is to a society.

...admittedly neither does a lot of fantasy.

"Yes, your Drow all hate each other and nobody trusts anyone else and they backstab each other five times a minute, but then how exactly are they a functioning society again?"
Well, with the drow at least it's pretty much just the nobility that's like that. And the actual ruling house for the main drow city we see was so far above them as to be above it anyway, and much more cohesive than the lower houses. So you had the commoners who weren't like that, and the leaders who weren't like that, and then the warrior elite in between playing all the betrayal and social climbing games to try and reach the number 2 spot when there wasn't any external conflict to distract them.
 
Actually on the drow, since deities like eliastree and selune exist who try to steer drow towards good, would it be a stretch to say draegloths can be steered towards good? Would be fun to play a dreagloth who got adopted by a community of eliastree aligned drow is genuinely a good person dealing with their fiendish heritage.
 
Also, with the drow, they uh, kinda can't survive as a society. It's just that Lolth is contsantly intervening to make sure they don't fall apart in an orgy of backstabbing (usually by cursing anyone who gets too backstabby). Hell, back in 3e Forgotten Realms, Lolth went silent for a little bit (to build power for making a proper divine realm instead of a glorified Abyssal layer) and drow society near instantly collapsed into general civil war, and would have imploded entirely if Lolth stayed silent for a bit longer, or if any of the various of enemies of the drow were in a position to exploit this. (I think the Spellplague was going on at the same time?) As it is, a good chunk of drow cities ended up as ruins of drow cities.
 
Actually on the drow, since deities like eliastree and selune exist who try to steer drow towards good, would it be a stretch to say draegloths can be steered towards good? Would be fun to play a dreagloth who got adopted by a community of eliastree aligned drow is genuinely a good person dealing with their fiendish heritage.
My rule of thumb is anything and anyone is potentially redeemable (and Eilistraee is far more based than Lolth anyway), so if your dm is cool with it I don't see why not.
 
My rule of thumb is anything and anyone is potentially redeemable (and Eilistraee is far more based than Lolth anyway), so if your dm is cool with it I don't see why not.
And as a dm myself I'm if the same reasoning, heck fiends can even ascend into celestials in the most extreme circumstances, I think people are too wrapped up in old alignment to be a bit more naunaced on this, even something like a tanarukk can be a upstanding member of society.

Besides, the role-playing opportunities it presents are really fun, playing a drow with fiendish heritage like a dreagloth who is a devote follower of eliastree and is a the epitome of kindness is very funny and kinda wholesome.
 
And as a dm myself I'm if the same reasoning, heck fiends can even ascend into celestials in the most extreme circumstances, I think people are too wrapped up in old alignment to be a bit more naunaced on this, even something like a tanarukk can be a upstanding member of society.

Besides, the role-playing opportunities it presents are really fun, playing a drow with fiendish heritage like a dreagloth who is a devote follower of eliastree and is a the epitome of kindness is very funny and kinda wholesome.
Old Alignment? 2e Planescape made it clear that fiends turning good was not only possible, but happened often enough that there were agents of the upper planes stationed in the gate-towns linking the Outlands/Sigil to the lower planes just to help them get out.
 
At that point, I would deliberately rig things so that if your typical five-man band of appropriately leveled PCs decide to try and solo this, then they're almost certainly going to die screaming. This is a situation where not only do you have a shitload of high-level casters, but also the collective wealth and political power of said wizards being brought to bear. You're essentially fighting Thay itself, in terms of how much metaphorical firepower they'd be investing here. The players should absolutely have to put together resources of their own to back them up and make the fight winnable.
This is part of the module, I just didn't bother going over it cause it wasn't relevant to the presented Red Wizard Hivemind scenario. The party is expected to gather a half dozen and some factions to assist in their assault on the temple, including metallic dragons, the Emerald Enclave, the Harpers, the Lord's Alliance, the Arcane Brotherhood, the Zhentarim, basically everyone who wants to continue living in a world not ruled by evil dragons. But I mean, that's expected, by the time you're level 15 any adventure you're involved in can be supposed to involve world-shaping resources and factions vying for control with you as the fulcrum.
 
Unfortunately, all these problems are basically fundamental to post-4th-edition DnD, and "fixing" them would require rebuilding the game almost from the ground up.
They're endemic to every fucking single edition of D&D barring 4E, you mean.
Honestly every single thing in your post is something that has already been written in the 20+ years when D&D and the Internet have coexisted. To be clear I don't mean this as an insult, it's just that it's a recurring issue and broadly recognized by players.

That would also increase the spellcasting powers of the enemy mage--who always gets to start the fight with full resources because it's the only fight that he's having that day--by an even greater amount, thereby making the problem worse. The absolute last thing that this game needs is to make the unbalanced, overpowered spellcasting classes even more powerful. Spellcasters are, if anything, stronger in 5E than they were in 3E, with prepared casters getting to behave like spontaneous casters, spells that are cast as a bonus action or reaction letting them cast two or even three spells in a round, and spells granting bonuses that are massive compared to what PCs can usually achieve. Meanwhile, martials have been pretty solidly nerfed in 5E, with slow progression due to bounded accuracy, half or less as many skills, far less feats (that you have to sacrifice your ability score increases to get), and hard limits on how many magic items they can have via limited attunement slots.
It's weird, spellcaster as classes are generally stronger in 5E than in 3E (actually having class features for one), but I'd argue that spells themselves are the opposite. I mean, just compare things like 3.5 alter self with the 5E counterpart, or the various conjure x spells in 5e with summon monster n in 3.5. Or even just teleport, it went from 5th to 7th level for a reason.
OTOH almost every class got weaker/less versatile, so in practice casters stand out more from the rest.
 
It's weird, spellcaster as classes are generally stronger in 5E than in 3E (actually having class features for one), but I'd argue that spells themselves are the opposite. I mean, just compare things like 3.5 alter self with the 5E counterpart, or the various conjure x spells in 5e with summon monster n in 3.5. Or even just teleport, it went from 5th to 7th level for a reason.
OTOH almost every class got weaker/less versatile, so in practice casters stand out more from the rest.
Some of the spells have gotten nerfed, but some of them have been made vastly more powerful. For example, pass without trace, a low level druid/ranger spell that in 3E just kept you from leaving footprints, now grants a +10 Stealth bonus. That's basically enough to almost outclass a max level character on its own. Tenser's transformation now adds 2d12 force damage to your attacks, changing it from "the wizard can act like a fighter for a bit" to "the wizard becomes the most powerful melee combatant in the game for a bit." Bless has increased the bonus that it grants despite any bonus being far more potent in 5E due to the slow progression. So has shield, although other aspects of the spell have changed, so it's hard to say if it's stronger than in 3E (but the 3E version was pretty damn strong for a first level spell to begin with).

Then there are also some new spells that do some really potent things, often at low levels (silvery barbs, for example).
 
Some of the spells have gotten nerfed, but some of them have been made vastly more powerful. For example, pass without trace, a low level druid/ranger spell that in 3E just kept you from leaving footprints, now grants a +10 Stealth bonus. That's basically enough to almost outclass a max level character on its own. Tenser's transformation now adds 2d12 force damage to your attacks, changing it from "the wizard can act like a fighter for a bit" to "the wizard becomes the most powerful melee combatant in the game for a bit." Bless has increased the bonus that it grants despite any bonus being far more potent in 5E due to the slow progression. So has shield, although other aspects of the spell have changed, so it's hard to say if it's stronger than in 3E (but the 3E version was pretty damn strong for a first level spell to begin with).

Then there are also some new spells that do some really potent things, often at low levels (silvery barbs, for example).
Yeah, some spells got better. Though flexible spells were made less flexible (see again alter self, polymorph, various summon X and the like), probably in exchange to casting itself being more flexible. And some went from "why bother?" to amazing (spirit weapon was shit in 3.5, actually useful in 5E)

What about druidcraft? I've heard that it's kinda weak but I don't play druid so I wouldn't know how it does on normal play.
Druid in 3.5 out of the box were one of the strongest classes, them being nerfed isn't that weird. Glad that shapshifting and casting are now actually mutually exclusive and that the animal companion is ranger-only, makes you think a bit instead of being a bear that summons bears while riding a bear.
 
Druid in 3.5 out of the box were one of the strongest classes, them being nerfed isn't that weird. Glad that shapshifting and casting are now actually mutually exclusive and that the animal companion is ranger-only, makes you think a bit instead of being a bear that summons bears while riding a bear.
Interesting, being tempted to try druid now but if I want a wilderness like class I'm just playing the tamer, I really like working out what creatures I can hunt down with my dm and add to my mark, helps that I can have only one out and there are clear limits on what I can tame.

Still, very funny that I can at level 20 get a cr 8 anything that is dumber then a human.
 
I have a idea for a pc that I think is really cool but I want to hear some feedback on it, I'm thinking of running a yugoloth with my dm'd approval and I'm thinking of a ultroloth that fucked up so horribly and massively that the general of gehenna himself kicked him out and if any other yugoloth sees him or he goes back to gehenna he will be immediately torn apart and his essence totally destroyed.

Naturally I think he's gonna be a fighter and his character development would be learning to use his mercenary nature for good and maybe even ascending into a celestial if he rejects his selfish nature entirely.

So, how does that sound?
 
I have a idea for a pc that I think is really cool but I want to hear some feedback on it, I'm thinking of running a yugoloth with my dm'd approval and I'm thinking of a ultroloth that fucked up so horribly and massively that the general of gehenna himself kicked him out and if any other yugoloth sees him or he goes back to gehenna he will be immediately torn apart and his essence totally destroyed.

Naturally I think he's gonna be a fighter and his character development would be learning to use his mercenary nature for good and maybe even ascending into a celestial if he rejects his selfish nature entirely.

So, how does that sound?
If your DM is running a campaign high enough to handle an ultraloth, it sounds fun. Since they are effectively a civilization of mercenaries, a renegade one could at least comprehend the Adventurer lifestyle and see it as a place to fit in.
 
If your DM is running a campaign high enough to handle an ultraloth, it sounds fun. Since they are effectively a civilization of mercenaries, a renegade one could at least comprehend the Adventurer lifestyle and see it as a place to fit in.
Currently we are doing a faux Japanese campaign and I'm running a mantis tamer who I'm really liking so far. But I'm hoping that at some point we might do a second version of our first campaign which was a exandria/tal'dorei campaign.

I'd love to play a ultroloth that just a absolute fish out of water and is trying to fit in the material plane as best he can, while also taking out his frustrations on any hags or fiends he sees.
 
Last edited:
Currently we are doing a faux Japanese campaign and I'm running a mantis tamer who I'm really liking so far. But I'm hoping that at some point we might do a second version of our first campaign which was a exandria/tal'dorei campaign.

I'dive to play a ultroloth that just a absolute fish out of water and is trying to fit in the material plane as best he can, while also taking out his frustrations on any hags or fiends he sees.
Huh, with an Ultraloth I'd assumed a Planescape campaign. Dunno much about Exandria, since I never got into Critical Roll.
 
Huh, with an Ultraloth I'd assumed a Planescape campaign. Dunno much about Exandria, since I never got into Critical Roll.
Never played planescape or got into it sadly, but i got introduced via critical role and their campaign setting, and personally, I live playing monstrous or unusual races since I love roleplaying them and experiencing the world through them.

For me balance is less important then character, I get that some people might disagree but you can get pretty swole even without homebrew in 5e. My philosophy is that as long as everyone gets to have fun, it's all good. Challenging encounters don't just have to be combat oriented. Like, imaging a ultroloth or a rakshasa walking around town and trying to peacefully if poorly interact with the residents there, that's a lot of roleplay potential there.
 
Never played planescape or got into it sadly, but i got introduced via critical role and their campaign setting, and personally, I live playing monstrous or unusual races since I love roleplaying them and experiencing the world through them.

For me balance is less important then character, I get that some people might disagree but you can get pretty swole even without homebrew in 5e. My philosophy is that as long as everyone gets to have fun, it's all good. Challenging encounters don't just have to be combat oriented. Like, imaging a ultroloth or a rakshasa walking around town and trying to peacefully if poorly interact with the residents there, that's a lot of roleplay potential there.
I would agree, but then you know I'm a fan of older editions. Planescape was my assumption because it not only focuses on the outer planes, it's also the setting that made it explicit that fiends can choose not to be evil and that a surprising number do. (one of my favorite bits was where they said that some Tanar'ri get interested in Good aligned philosophies and just try them out to see if it feels good, and that others turn good out of sheer Chaotic rebellion against the culture around them.)
 
I would agree, but then you know I'm a fan of older editions. Planescape was my assumption because it not only focuses on the outer planes, it's also the setting that made it explicit that fiends can choose not to be evil and that a surprising number do. (one of my favorite bits was where they said that some Tanar'ri get interested in Good aligned philosophies and just try them out to see if it feels good, and that others turn good out of sheer Chaotic rebellion against the culture around them.)
Which is something that I actually kinda really like, sure it's rare but I do like the idea that some fiends are so chaotic that they turn good out of their inherent anarchy and just do their own thing then, same with devils and yugoloth, hell those two are less evil then demons and probably do turn more then demons, and even rakshasa do occasionally shift alignment.

The only ones I'm iffy on are demodands and daemons, demodands because I know relatively little on them and daemons because are literally embodiments of destructive and literally hate everyone and everything and want to destroy the entire multiverse.
 
Which is something that I actually kinda really like, sure it's rare but I do like the idea that some fiends are so chaotic that they turn good out of their inherent anarchy and just do their own thing then, same with devils and yugoloth, hell those two are less evil then demons and probably do turn more then demons, and even rakshasa do occasionally shift alignment.

The only ones I'm iffy on are demodands and daemons, demodands because I know relatively little on them and daemons because are literally embodiments of destructive and literally hate everyone and everything and want to destroy the entire multiverse.
Sort of. Rakshasa are odd because their characterization has changed significantly over the editions. Early on, they were noted as being noble despite their man-eating nature, waving war on humanity because war was how they gained honor in their society so as to reincarnate into a better caste, being "brave and forthright in battle". They were noted as going through periods of strict fasting and sacrifice when times where bad in the local regions, despite their love of decadence and Hedonism in times of prosperity.

Then 3e rolls around and the are suddenly made of literal pure evil and utter selfishness with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

5th outright says that they are cowards hiding behind walls of bodyguards. Bit of a switch from 2e's "declared war on humanity to gain martial honor", isn't it?
 
Sort of. Rakshasa are odd because their characterization has changed significantly over the editions. Early on, they were noted as being noble despite their man-eating nature, waving war on humanity because war was how they gained honor in their society so as to reincarnate into a better caste, being "brave and forthright in battle". They were noted as going through periods of strict fasting and sacrifice when times where bad in the local regions, despite their love of decadence and Hedonism in times of prosperity.

Then 3e rolls around and the are suddenly made of literal pure evil and utter selfishness with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

5th outright says that they are cowards hiding behind walls of bodyguards. Bit of a switch from 2e's "declared war on humanity to gain martial honor", isn't it?
Yeah the rakshasa probably have the most fluid characterisation out of all the fiends, from honorabish warriors, selfish egoists and then actual cowards who hid behind minions, probably the weirdest shift

Although it's funny that they went from fiends all about martial honor to actual cowards.
 
Back
Top