One of the mystic disciplines (weather mastery) has you spend 7 ki, i mean, psi, to get a 20ft radius sphere that does aoe 8d8 thunder + aoe stun until your next turn. Con save for half damage, but they eat the stun regardless.
Another (psychic assault) has you spend 7 psi for a 20ft cube of 8d8 psychic damage and stun until your next turn. Int save for half damage, but they eat the stun regardless.
First time you are allowed to spend 7 points is at lvl 9, and you then have a pool of 57 points. At lvls 18 - 20 you have a pool of 71 points.
There are other disciplines that restore your points through various combat actions, otherwise they refill only on a long rest (iirc, monks get ki back on short rests too).
I'm playing around making Bill Belichick as an Avatar. Medium armor means breastplate (no sleeves), Mantle of Command as I call the teams plays (Overwhelming Attack is a full on blitz). Make him variant human and take Inspiring Leader to pump everybody up before the game. Psychic Phantoms as he plays mind games with his opponents, never knowing where or when a real strike is happening. And of course Mastery of Light and Darkness to show his duality as a lightbringer to NE football and how he sold his soul to be the master of the game.
I'm playing around making Bill Belichick as an Avatar. Medium armor means breastplate (no sleeves), Mantle of Command as I call the teams plays (Overwhelming Attack is a full on blitz). Make him variant human and take Inspiring Leader to pump everybody up before the game. Psychic Phantoms as he plays mind games with his opponents, never knowing where or when a real strike is happening. And of course Mastery of Light and Darkness to show his duality as a lightbringer to NE football and how he sold his soul to be the master of the game.
Back in the tavern ...
"Hey, man - remember that fight against the goblins in that tower? Awesome, right?"
"We're focused on the zombies now."
I only got to take a quick look at the psychic class, but...holy shit. It seems like it can fill basically any role you want, and because you can spend max HP to fuel its awesome shit, it's barely even resource limited. It's 28 pages long because it's got everything and the kitchen sink thrown in, and it didn't even look MAD at first glance.
I need to go back and actually dig into it eventually.
I'm glancing over mystic and while I can certainly appreciate the idea of what they're going for, it looks like the kind of thing that should have been a little more streamlined and a little more directed with what they wanted it to be as opposed to MIND POWAH MANZ!!1
I'm glancing over mystic and while I can certainly appreciate the idea of what they're going for, it looks like the kind of thing that should have been a little more streamlined and a little more directed with what they wanted it to be as opposed to MIND POWAH MANZ!!1
It does feel like this is the culmination of feedback from several previous UA articles.
Like, every time somebody looked at one and said "Yeah, but I want to do it with mind powers instead of training/research/dark pacts with elder gods...".
The dice roll behind the GM screen, and the designer looks up and says "Yeah, OK, you got it.". But there's that evil grin though, so you're not quite sure if that dice came up a 1 or a 20.
I kind of like that the class "Mystic" can fill any role in the party pretty well. Gives a lot of flexibility when creating characters.
Might be
kind of tough for the GM if they're trying to balance combat around "Sneaky mystic" and get "Mind sword mystic" instead though.
I was talking to some friends of mine and they see the Mystic class being something straight from 3.5. I can see why in some areas, but I think one of the things that we need to realize is that this is still beta material and is likely to change with updates of UA and even towards the release. I think some parts are overpowered, but then again, all classes when optimized can be completely broken in their own right.
All we need to do is be patient until we see the final product. Heck, they might not even put it in UA at all due to it having some imbalances on the action economy. We don't know.
So I've been playing D&D for a long, long time, from 3e to 5e now. And some Pathfinder. I've basically always had the same DM, and basically always been a player (except for one minor excursion which went poorly).
But my DM is feeling a little burn out, and I had some ideas I think might translate into a fun campaign! So I'm trying to look into DMing for the first (real) time. Luckily I have a considerable amount of time to prepare, and I'm going to use that to my advantage.
I have some loose ideas that are solidifying, but one of the things that I am concerned about is having notes available. I'd really like to get into the habit of a note writing format that is useful and easy to read. Does anyone have any good DM note making tips for running a custom campaign?
Also, except the Soul Knife (who looks weak as hell but cool as hell), the mystic looks OP as far as versatility.
Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become. Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
Am I missing something... or is the Order of the Avatar's 6th level ability only triggered by Psionic Restoration. That seems... like kind of a lame 6th level ability. If there were some other Psychic healing disciplines it would probably be aces, but with only Psionic Restoration...meh.
So I've been playing D&D for a long, long time, from 3e to 5e now. And some Pathfinder. I've basically always had the same DM, and basically always been a player (except for one minor excursion which went poorly).
But my DM is feeling a little burn out, and I had some ideas I think might translate into a fun campaign! So I'm trying to look into DMing for the first (real) time. Luckily I have a considerable amount of time to prepare, and I'm going to use that to my advantage.
I have some loose ideas that are solidifying, but one of the things that I am concerned about is having notes available. I'd really like to get into the habit of a note writing format that is useful and easy to read. Does anyone have any good DM note making tips for running a custom campaign?
Also, except the Soul Knife (who looks weak as hell but cool as hell), the mystic looks OP as far as versatility.
My suggestion is to start with "where do I want to set my campaign"; Developing your own setting can be really rewarding but at the same time will require that you build everything from landscapes to cultures to pantheons because let me tell you: the players will ask questions about that shit, whereas using an existing will save you some time on that front but require that you work within someone else's framework.
I use OneNote for my GM note stuff, and I just use my surface pro at the table to take more notes/refer to stuff. I also run a pretty low prep style though, so it's not like I'm using a notebook full of stuff like some GMs do.
All I know is have a notepad ready for notes for when you need to take some form of notes and for when your PCs go off the path you wanted to lead them down and fudge some dice if you are rolling either really badly or really well against the party.
I also know that I am so nervous to be running the campaign that I will be running after @Gaddez finishes his current campaign. I just told the PCs at our table "get ready for planar travel".
So I've been playing D&D for a long, long time, from 3e to 5e now. And some Pathfinder. I've basically always had the same DM, and basically always been a player (except for one minor excursion which went poorly).
But my DM is feeling a little burn out, and I had some ideas I think might translate into a fun campaign! So I'm trying to look into DMing for the first (real) time. Luckily I have a considerable amount of time to prepare, and I'm going to use that to my advantage.
I have some loose ideas that are solidifying, but one of the things that I am concerned about is having notes available. I'd really like to get into the habit of a note writing format that is useful and easy to read. Does anyone have any good DM note making tips for running a custom campaign?
Also, except the Soul Knife (who looks weak as hell but cool as hell), the mystic looks OP as far as versatility.
My suggestion is to start with "where do I want to set my campaign"; Developing your own setting can be really rewarding but at the same time will require that you build everything from landscapes to cultures to pantheons because let me tell you: the players will ask questions about that shit, whereas using an existing will save you some time on that front but require that you work within someone else's framework.
Well I mean, I know the setting/general story arc (Eberron 5ever). I meant more organizationally, are there any tips anyone has seen or heard of? I know that once upon a time I read some weird college-note-taking-tip where you section the paper into parts and do some magic and tada you're more organized and it's easy to read, but I was wondering if there was anything more D&D-specific tips for writing down your swirling campaign thoughts.
Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become. Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
Hard disagree about fudging dice. IMO you don't fudge dice unless you're okay with players fudging their dice rolls too and just telling you results they didn't actually roll.
IMO if you are fudging dice you don't need to be playing a game. If you're not going to accept the outcomes of the dice for good or bad, then just stop rolling them and go around the table describing what each character does.
It's why I don't use things like GM screens, I roll my dice in my tower where my players can see them if they want.
I use OneNote for my GM note stuff, and I just use my surface pro at the table to take more notes/refer to stuff. I also run a pretty low prep style though, so it's not like I'm using a notebook full of stuff like some GMs do.
A small part of me wants a laptop but I can't justify it just for D&D.
Or can I...
Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become. Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
I am probably the worst person to give advise for notes at a table since I run games 100% on the fly.
However generally it would make sense to run a two tier system. Take general, organized notes about every aspect of your campaign you actively use. Monsters, NPCs, Organizations, goals, etc. Then, for each session, print out a small page that references the aspects most likely to be in play.
NPCs should be important ones. Have a list of random names for unimportant NPCs.
Hard disagree about fudging dice. IMO you don't fudge dice unless you're okay with players fudging their dice rolls too and just telling you results they didn't actually roll.
IMO if you are fudging dice you don't need to be playing a game. If you're not going to accept the outcomes of the dice for good or bad, then just stop rolling them and go around the table describing what each character does.
It's why I don't use things like GM screens, I roll my dice in my tower where my players can see them if they want.
So if I roll a ton of natural 20's and pretty much murder the party, is that really going to be fun for the PCs? I can see why some people don't prefer to have a DM screen, but IMO, it can really help with building a bit of tension between you and your players. They don't know why you rolled dice in the middle of nowhere, but you can make them mervous of those sort of things.
I write a page or two of notes for each session, which I plan out between sessions, that describes the adventure in general terms including some background on the situation and location (which is important so I can answer inevitable questions and situations that come up outside the intended adventure path), some interesting stuff that happens, and how it relates to the overarching themes of the campaign.
I put em all up on google drive so if I need them in the future (which I commonly do), I can just look them up by getting the session they were in. I copy information about NPCs and locations into each doc I use them in so that all I have to do is remember the last session in which they were really relevant and I've got it.
I take pretty much no notes at all during the session, aside from things like hit points and initiative and administrative stuff like that. The important on the fly details tend to be the ones everyone remembers anyway, so they come into play next session in the pre-session notes. Most details, once players forget them, aren't worth bringing back up since they weren't interesting enough to make a mark anyway, at least that's my two cents.
Hard disagree about fudging dice. IMO you don't fudge dice unless you're okay with players fudging their dice rolls too and just telling you results they didn't actually roll.
IMO if you are fudging dice you don't need to be playing a game. If you're not going to accept the outcomes of the dice for good or bad, then just stop rolling them and go around the table describing what each character does.
It's why I don't use things like GM screens, I roll my dice in my tower where my players can see them if they want.
So if I roll a ton of natural 20's and pretty much murder the party, is that really going to be fun for the PCs? I can see why some people don't prefer to have a DM screen, but IMO, it can really help with building a bit of tension between you and your players. They don't know why you rolles dice in the middle of nowhere, but you can make them mervous of those sort of things.
Well ideally the system is robust enough that you "can't" murder the party by rolling d20s unless you want to.
Granted low level 5e isn't this system but as you go up? Monsters don't do enough damage per attack in order to kill parties with d20s. They attack often and not big.
Hard disagree about fudging dice. IMO you don't fudge dice unless you're okay with players fudging their dice rolls too and just telling you results they didn't actually roll.
IMO if you are fudging dice you don't need to be playing a game. If you're not going to accept the outcomes of the dice for good or bad, then just stop rolling them and go around the table describing what each character does.
It's why I don't use things like GM screens, I roll my dice in my tower where my players can see them if they want.
So if I roll a ton of natural 20's and pretty much murder the party, is that really going to be fun for the PCs? I can see why some people don't prefer to have a DM screen, but IMO, it can really help with building a bit of tension between you and your players. They don't know why you rolled dice in the middle of nowhere, but you can make them mervous of those sort of things.
If I'm unwilling to accept all outcomes of a die roll (or series of rolls) then I shouldn't be using the dice to determine that stuff.
In the extremely unlikely case of swingy math I will accept an overpressure valve of sorts but I see no reason to be duplicitous about it. 13th Age has a solid rule where the party can decide at any point in combat to retreat and they do, even the folks who are down. The DM then gets to make bad, horrible, no good things happen in the story of the campaign. This doesn't just say "no, I'm not listening to the dice" but rather gives an upper bound to how much they can screw the party in a single fight by drawing a line. Well at least if the PCs are willing to ever admit defeat.
The thing is though, when do you as a DM say, 'I don't want this outcome because things don't seem to be going well'? Could it be on a DC or an attack roll? That's something that you can fudge to make things a bit less pressured.
But hey, Im still trying to figure out how to make sense of all the little bits of info I have for my first campaign as DM.
The only time I've fudged rolls were at level 1 or 2 for a party full of brand new D&D players who all spent a lot of time creating elaborate back stories and prepped a lot. I didn't want to reward that with "Oh, that little goblin that ambushed you rolled a 20, so, you are dead, no death saves, gg". Instead, I knocked that player to 0 HP. Now that the characters are level 4, I haven't fudged anything, including a dragon who was retreating, and out of spite, used his last recharged breath to knock out the paladin, rogue, and the warlock.
When I run more experienced players, I either straight up skip level 1 (I like to have players come up with an adventure that their characters did together, which helps us fill in their Bond sections on their personalities, as well as some potential flaws), or I tell them flat out: These characters may die in the very first session we have. Be aware.
I do like to hide some rolls (in particular: I hide insight checks where I don't think the character in question has a good grasp of who they're attempting to figure out, and I hide stealth checks that are made when the character is just like "I WANT TO HIDE IN THE BRUSH" and have no idea who they're actively hiding against (people who are proficient in stealth always roll their own check, since they'll have a better idea of how stealthy they are actually able to be in that moment)). But for the most part, my DM screen is used to hide notes / maps / minis, and I roll the dice onto the table in front of people.
Diagnosed with AML on 6/1/12. Read about it: www.effleukemia.com
Hard disagree about fudging dice. IMO you don't fudge dice unless you're okay with players fudging their dice rolls too and just telling you results they didn't actually roll.
IMO if you are fudging dice you don't need to be playing a game. If you're not going to accept the outcomes of the dice for good or bad, then just stop rolling them and go around the table describing what each character does.
It's why I don't use things like GM screens, I roll my dice in my tower where my players can see them if they want.
So if I roll a ton of natural 20's and pretty much murder the party, is that really going to be fun for the PCs? I can see why some people don't prefer to have a DM screen, but IMO, it can really help with building a bit of tension between you and your players. They don't know why you rolled dice in the middle of nowhere, but you can make them mervous of those sort of things.
First of all, you're not going to roll 10 nat 20s in one combat, because probabilities exist and are what the system is based on. Second, if that's what happens, then that's what happens. After the first 5 nat 20s the party should be fleeing that fight. There's no tension or stakes if the party knows you'll just fudge things rather than let bad outcomes happen. Also, that "roll dice randomly to build tension" thing is in my experience not a thing that really exists. I run a very transparent GMing style though, because we treat the game as we are the audience, the characters are on screen and we're telling their story. If my PCs are supposed to feel scared about the environment they're in, the players will play that way. I'm not trying to make the players themselves feel scared. They're already scared that my Bulette can kill them in one hit if it crits, and play accordingly. =P
The thing is though, when do you as a DM say, 'I don't want this outcome because things don't seem to be going well'? Could it be on a DC or an attack roll? That's something that you can fudge to make things a bit less pressured.
But hey, Im still trying to figure out how to make sense of all the little bits of info I have for my first campaign as DM.
If you ever say "I don't want to accept the outcome of this dice roll if it's not what I want," then you simply should not be rolling dice. Just let the players succeed at the thing they're trying. I think it was Dogs in the Vineyard that introduced "Say yes or roll the dice" as a principle of the game, and it's a crucial one. If you want to say yes, say yes. If you want the bad thing to potentially happen, then roll the dice. This applies in every facet of your game.
If your combat is going sideways, you would be much better off having the enemies decide to retreat or giving the players a chance to escape or whatever than playing out the rest of the fight cheating to make them succeed. There's no satisfaction in a victory that you thought was because the dice said so but it turns out the GM just made the enemies die with 50 HP left or pretended that enemy just missed you when he really rolled a crit.
Good games offer flexible optional rules to use if your table isn't the type that likes deadly games too. The aforementioned flee rule in 13th Age where as soon as a couple people are unconscious you can just run at the cost of a campaign setback is a good one.
13th Age also has another optional rule where PCs can't die permanently unless it's to a "named enemy." I don't use this, but for people who only want their characters to potentially die in heated battles with their nemeses, it's a good option.
Both of those things empower you to not cheat at dice rolls while still preserving a fairly low chance of PC death if that's what you're in to.
The thing is though, when do you as a DM say, 'I don't want this outcome because things don't seem to be going well'? Could it be on a DC or an attack roll? That's something that you can fudge to make things a bit less pressured.
But hey, Im still trying to figure out how to make sense of all the little bits of info I have for my first campaign as DM.
I don't give a crap what the dice say.
I usually use the number that comes up, because it's not usually super important what the result of an individual roll is, but when I run a table I always roll behind screen and if an enemy is about to make a roll that would be WAY more dramatically appropriate one particular way, I will disregard what I roll and use the awesome result.
Most of the time this is causing monsters to hit instead of miss, or deal a bit more damage on what would have been a low damage roll, in order to keep pressure on and tension up, though it's important not to do this so often that your players' defensive abilities do not seem useful. If you consistently hit your plate armored paladin every time you attack them, they might as well have no armor at all. But it's just as bad if a combat goes by without you ever hitting anyone.
I tend to lean in my own favor when it comes to dishing out the hurt to the players since in my game currently monsters have trouble keeping the party on their toes. I tend to lean in the players' favor when it comes to their effects successfully happening. For instance if a caster uses their highest level spell slot on a cool save-ends effect, I'll often ensure the monster does NOT save on the first turn so they feel their spell at least had marginal effect. I'll also make sure they save soon enough that combat isn't trivialized.
It probably sounds from how I've just described it as if I only roll the dice to fool my players into thinking it matters, but again most of the time I abide by what they say. However, fighting happens rarely enough at my current table that I want my players to be able to exercise full use of their abilities and really flex themselves whenever it does happen. It would be bad TV for the bard's high level crowd control spell they were super excited about to simply be resisted by three enemies in a row, since it's more likely than not that that's at least 2 sessions worth of combat.
I've always felt that every person at the table has an obligation to make the game fun. That's the point, is to get together with friends and have fun. For the DM, sometimes this means fudging a kill roll into a knock out roll or fudging your fifth consecutive miss into a hit. For a player, this usually means not dominating the game and being an overwhelming personality without letting other people get in there.
Dice are largely a means to an end - an adequately fair random number generator. If we accept that DM has final say in the game (because he, ultimately, designs it) including the choice to make a creature more or less powerful, it only stands to reason that he can adjust a number in the middle of the game. An enemy that had 30 hp could suddenly have 40. An enemy with +4 to attack could suddenly have +5.
But I suspect this is one of those areas where personal preference and style is king.
Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become. Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
That being said, I think losing a fight can be just as interesting as winning, but it's hard not to fall into the old cliche of "OH NO! YOU'VE BEEN CAPTURED!!!1!".
Maybe I'll spend some time coming up with possible scenarios for what happens to the PCs should they all fall unconscious in a fight. That could be fun.
Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become. Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
You don't have to fudge a die roll to change the expected outcome. A bad fight where the PCs get wiped out? You don't have to kill them. They can be captured and imprisoned, or have been displaced to a different plane, depending on what caused the wipe. They now have to escape the dungeon / dimensional plane, maybe even picking up some vital information that can help them beat the bad guy(s) next time around.
Heroes losing to a villain only to come back stronger than ever is a pretty standard storytelling device.
+4
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I would hate dice fudging, but I don't think it matters much who is Right and Wrong. Just don't ever fudge dice without making sure at some point in the campaign that each of your players is okay with it.
You don't have to fudge a die roll to change the expected outcome. A bad fight where the PCs get wiped out? You don't have to kill them. They can be captured and imprisoned, or have been displaced to a different plane, depending on what caused the wipe. They now have to escape the dungeon / dimensional plane, maybe even picking up some vital information that can help them beat the bad guy(s) next time around.
Heroes losing to a villain only to come back stronger than ever is a pretty standard storytelling device.
I also feel it's a bit more open to use what is supposed to be clearly under DM control than to fudge the "fairness" system. Party eats a bunch of crits from an Owlbear and they're gonna get wiped? A Unicorn shows up and stabs the shit out of it. It is still clearly outside intervention and if they're even a little aware are going to understand why you're doing it but that doesn't really undermine the trust in the resolution mechanic.
There's not one right opinion. Gygax himself once said the GM only rolls dice to hear the sound they make. And I hate that sentiment. But plenty of GMs like to fudge. My opinion is that you shouldn't fudge unless you're okay with players lying to you and telling you they rolled a nat 20 when they rolled a 2 because they think it makes the story more interesting. I don't see the GM as a special player who should make unilateral decisions about the fun of the story this way, I see them as another player who is part of the audience, just one who has different responsibilities.
Like I read @Rend's post about fudging the dice because he doesn't want his bard to feel bad about his spell getting saved against, and for me, I see him robbing the player of the importance of investing in his charisma and the luck factor that plays into rolling the dice. I don't want my spell to work because the GM thinks I need it to feel good about myself. I want it to work because the outcome of the dice said so and I earned my victory.
Of course, I also think if you're running a game like D&D or 13th Age where 90% of the character sheet is about combat then you need to run enough combat that you don't run into issues where the PCs only get to do one combat every 2 sessions or whatever. I would be playing another system if the game I was running was low-combat like that.
In my 13th Age game, if my wife unloads one of her daily spells and misses all the enemies, that sucks. But if she hits all of them and obliterates them, it feels great. And if she wants to maximize her damage and is afraid of missing, she can choose spells that do half damage on miss to lower the sting of the miss. Maybe I'm spoiled because I have players who are like me and enjoy roleplaying failures as much as successes, and don't feel like the game isn't fun because they missed some attacks or got smashed by an enemy.
It's worth noting that maybe my favorite part about dungeon world and blades in the dark is that the game master does not ever actually roll any dice.
Speaking as someone with experience in the matter, all that means is that you have to deal with your players rolling nat 20s to hit themselves, and they have no screen.
Granted, both those systems give you some tools to deal with that constructively, but there's still the occasional momentary yet burning desire to dunk your players' dice in holy water.
It's worth noting that maybe my favorite part about dungeon world and blades in the dark is that the game master does not ever actually roll any dice.
Speaking as someone with experience in the matter, all that means is that you have to deal with your players rolling nat 20s to hit themselves, and they have no screen.
Granted, both those systems give you some tools to deal with that constructively, but there's still the occasional momentary yet burning desire to dunk your players' dice in holy water.
In the two systems I mentioned, players don't roll to hit themselves. They roll for actions they take, and failures or partial successes (near failures, basically) result in enemy actions.
[EDIT] It occurs to me you probably meant that metaphorically. But, either way I'm okay with that because even if the players consistently fail their rolls I still have the knobs I can turn to keep things going in a way that's dramatically interesting.
Another example. Last session, my party fought a Bulette along with a couple other enemies. The Bulette had just gotten done landing both its claw attacks on the party's Bard for 36 damage(Bard has 45 max HP). And because of a good INT check and the transparent way I run my game I let the player know that getting hit by both of the claws had set them up to be hit by a nasty bite attack that would hurt BAD. That attack would do 45 damage, which would kill the Bard outright.
So he did everything he could to get away from the thing so he didn't get hit with that bite. And the party's tank charged in and did everything he could to focus the Bulette's attacks on him, and in fact he got hit with two of those 45 damage bites. But he had uses of his heavy warrior talent to take half damage from each bite so stayed on his feet.
The Bard very nearly died, but it was dangerous and exciting, and if he had thought that I'd fudge the bite attack to miss him instead of hitting, there would've been no interesting tension to the fight.
**I use a token economy system, and other PCs could've spent a 5 token to save the Bard if he died, if he was willing to accept a hard bargain from me to come back(think rolling a 7-9 on a last breath in Dungeon World).
The great thing about PbtA systems too is that while the GM has a list of moves they must obey, they can make moves as soft or hard as they want. You can make a whole bunch of super narratively interesting moves against players when they fail rolls in say Dungeon World that don't have to be about dealing damage to the PC and KOing them, if dealing damage isn't the move you want to make in that instance.
Posts
Another (psychic assault) has you spend 7 psi for a 20ft cube of 8d8 psychic damage and stun until your next turn. Int save for half damage, but they eat the stun regardless.
First time you are allowed to spend 7 points is at lvl 9, and you then have a pool of 57 points. At lvls 18 - 20 you have a pool of 71 points.
There are other disciplines that restore your points through various combat actions, otherwise they refill only on a long rest (iirc, monks get ki back on short rests too).
Back in the tavern ...
"Hey, man - remember that fight against the goblins in that tower? Awesome, right?"
"We're focused on the zombies now."
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I need to go back and actually dig into it eventually.
It does feel like this is the culmination of feedback from several previous UA articles.
Like, every time somebody looked at one and said "Yeah, but I want to do it with mind powers instead of training/research/dark pacts with elder gods...".
The dice roll behind the GM screen, and the designer looks up and says "Yeah, OK, you got it.". But there's that evil grin though, so you're not quite sure if that dice came up a 1 or a 20.
I kind of like that the class "Mystic" can fill any role in the party pretty well. Gives a lot of flexibility when creating characters.
Might be
kind of tough for the GM if they're trying to balance combat around "Sneaky mystic" and get "Mind sword mystic" instead though.
All we need to do is be patient until we see the final product. Heck, they might not even put it in UA at all due to it having some imbalances on the action economy. We don't know.
But my DM is feeling a little burn out, and I had some ideas I think might translate into a fun campaign! So I'm trying to look into DMing for the first (real) time. Luckily I have a considerable amount of time to prepare, and I'm going to use that to my advantage.
I have some loose ideas that are solidifying, but one of the things that I am concerned about is having notes available. I'd really like to get into the habit of a note writing format that is useful and easy to read. Does anyone have any good DM note making tips for running a custom campaign?
Also, except the Soul Knife (who looks weak as hell but cool as hell), the mystic looks OP as far as versatility.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
My suggestion is to start with "where do I want to set my campaign"; Developing your own setting can be really rewarding but at the same time will require that you build everything from landscapes to cultures to pantheons because let me tell you: the players will ask questions about that shit, whereas using an existing will save you some time on that front but require that you work within someone else's framework.
I also know that I am so nervous to be running the campaign that I will be running after @Gaddez finishes his current campaign. I just told the PCs at our table "get ready for planar travel".
Well I mean, I know the setting/general story arc (Eberron 5ever). I meant more organizationally, are there any tips anyone has seen or heard of? I know that once upon a time I read some weird college-note-taking-tip where you section the paper into parts and do some magic and tada you're more organized and it's easy to read, but I was wondering if there was anything more D&D-specific tips for writing down your swirling campaign thoughts.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
IMO if you are fudging dice you don't need to be playing a game. If you're not going to accept the outcomes of the dice for good or bad, then just stop rolling them and go around the table describing what each character does.
It's why I don't use things like GM screens, I roll my dice in my tower where my players can see them if they want.
A small part of me wants a laptop but I can't justify it just for D&D.
Or can I...
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
However generally it would make sense to run a two tier system. Take general, organized notes about every aspect of your campaign you actively use. Monsters, NPCs, Organizations, goals, etc. Then, for each session, print out a small page that references the aspects most likely to be in play.
NPCs should be important ones. Have a list of random names for unimportant NPCs.
So if I roll a ton of natural 20's and pretty much murder the party, is that really going to be fun for the PCs? I can see why some people don't prefer to have a DM screen, but IMO, it can really help with building a bit of tension between you and your players. They don't know why you rolled dice in the middle of nowhere, but you can make them mervous of those sort of things.
I put em all up on google drive so if I need them in the future (which I commonly do), I can just look them up by getting the session they were in. I copy information about NPCs and locations into each doc I use them in so that all I have to do is remember the last session in which they were really relevant and I've got it.
I take pretty much no notes at all during the session, aside from things like hit points and initiative and administrative stuff like that. The important on the fly details tend to be the ones everyone remembers anyway, so they come into play next session in the pre-session notes. Most details, once players forget them, aren't worth bringing back up since they weren't interesting enough to make a mark anyway, at least that's my two cents.
Well ideally the system is robust enough that you "can't" murder the party by rolling d20s unless you want to.
Granted low level 5e isn't this system but as you go up? Monsters don't do enough damage per attack in order to kill parties with d20s. They attack often and not big.
If I'm unwilling to accept all outcomes of a die roll (or series of rolls) then I shouldn't be using the dice to determine that stuff.
In the extremely unlikely case of swingy math I will accept an overpressure valve of sorts but I see no reason to be duplicitous about it. 13th Age has a solid rule where the party can decide at any point in combat to retreat and they do, even the folks who are down. The DM then gets to make bad, horrible, no good things happen in the story of the campaign. This doesn't just say "no, I'm not listening to the dice" but rather gives an upper bound to how much they can screw the party in a single fight by drawing a line. Well at least if the PCs are willing to ever admit defeat.
The problem is nobody would ever think it applies to combat when that is at the core of our example.
But hey, Im still trying to figure out how to make sense of all the little bits of info I have for my first campaign as DM.
When I run more experienced players, I either straight up skip level 1 (I like to have players come up with an adventure that their characters did together, which helps us fill in their Bond sections on their personalities, as well as some potential flaws), or I tell them flat out: These characters may die in the very first session we have. Be aware.
I do like to hide some rolls (in particular: I hide insight checks where I don't think the character in question has a good grasp of who they're attempting to figure out, and I hide stealth checks that are made when the character is just like "I WANT TO HIDE IN THE BRUSH" and have no idea who they're actively hiding against (people who are proficient in stealth always roll their own check, since they'll have a better idea of how stealthy they are actually able to be in that moment)). But for the most part, my DM screen is used to hide notes / maps / minis, and I roll the dice onto the table in front of people.
First of all, you're not going to roll 10 nat 20s in one combat, because probabilities exist and are what the system is based on. Second, if that's what happens, then that's what happens. After the first 5 nat 20s the party should be fleeing that fight. There's no tension or stakes if the party knows you'll just fudge things rather than let bad outcomes happen. Also, that "roll dice randomly to build tension" thing is in my experience not a thing that really exists. I run a very transparent GMing style though, because we treat the game as we are the audience, the characters are on screen and we're telling their story. If my PCs are supposed to feel scared about the environment they're in, the players will play that way. I'm not trying to make the players themselves feel scared. They're already scared that my Bulette can kill them in one hit if it crits, and play accordingly. =P
If you ever say "I don't want to accept the outcome of this dice roll if it's not what I want," then you simply should not be rolling dice. Just let the players succeed at the thing they're trying. I think it was Dogs in the Vineyard that introduced "Say yes or roll the dice" as a principle of the game, and it's a crucial one. If you want to say yes, say yes. If you want the bad thing to potentially happen, then roll the dice. This applies in every facet of your game.
If your combat is going sideways, you would be much better off having the enemies decide to retreat or giving the players a chance to escape or whatever than playing out the rest of the fight cheating to make them succeed. There's no satisfaction in a victory that you thought was because the dice said so but it turns out the GM just made the enemies die with 50 HP left or pretended that enemy just missed you when he really rolled a crit.
13th Age also has another optional rule where PCs can't die permanently unless it's to a "named enemy." I don't use this, but for people who only want their characters to potentially die in heated battles with their nemeses, it's a good option.
Both of those things empower you to not cheat at dice rolls while still preserving a fairly low chance of PC death if that's what you're in to.
Thanks for all the advice and pointers!
I don't give a crap what the dice say.
I usually use the number that comes up, because it's not usually super important what the result of an individual roll is, but when I run a table I always roll behind screen and if an enemy is about to make a roll that would be WAY more dramatically appropriate one particular way, I will disregard what I roll and use the awesome result.
Most of the time this is causing monsters to hit instead of miss, or deal a bit more damage on what would have been a low damage roll, in order to keep pressure on and tension up, though it's important not to do this so often that your players' defensive abilities do not seem useful. If you consistently hit your plate armored paladin every time you attack them, they might as well have no armor at all. But it's just as bad if a combat goes by without you ever hitting anyone.
I tend to lean in my own favor when it comes to dishing out the hurt to the players since in my game currently monsters have trouble keeping the party on their toes. I tend to lean in the players' favor when it comes to their effects successfully happening. For instance if a caster uses their highest level spell slot on a cool save-ends effect, I'll often ensure the monster does NOT save on the first turn so they feel their spell at least had marginal effect. I'll also make sure they save soon enough that combat isn't trivialized.
It probably sounds from how I've just described it as if I only roll the dice to fool my players into thinking it matters, but again most of the time I abide by what they say. However, fighting happens rarely enough at my current table that I want my players to be able to exercise full use of their abilities and really flex themselves whenever it does happen. It would be bad TV for the bard's high level crowd control spell they were super excited about to simply be resisted by three enemies in a row, since it's more likely than not that that's at least 2 sessions worth of combat.
Dice are largely a means to an end - an adequately fair random number generator. If we accept that DM has final say in the game (because he, ultimately, designs it) including the choice to make a creature more or less powerful, it only stands to reason that he can adjust a number in the middle of the game. An enemy that had 30 hp could suddenly have 40. An enemy with +4 to attack could suddenly have +5.
But I suspect this is one of those areas where personal preference and style is king.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
Maybe I'll spend some time coming up with possible scenarios for what happens to the PCs should they all fall unconscious in a fight. That could be fun.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
Heroes losing to a villain only to come back stronger than ever is a pretty standard storytelling device.
I also feel it's a bit more open to use what is supposed to be clearly under DM control than to fudge the "fairness" system. Party eats a bunch of crits from an Owlbear and they're gonna get wiped? A Unicorn shows up and stabs the shit out of it. It is still clearly outside intervention and if they're even a little aware are going to understand why you're doing it but that doesn't really undermine the trust in the resolution mechanic.
Like I read @Rend's post about fudging the dice because he doesn't want his bard to feel bad about his spell getting saved against, and for me, I see him robbing the player of the importance of investing in his charisma and the luck factor that plays into rolling the dice. I don't want my spell to work because the GM thinks I need it to feel good about myself. I want it to work because the outcome of the dice said so and I earned my victory.
Of course, I also think if you're running a game like D&D or 13th Age where 90% of the character sheet is about combat then you need to run enough combat that you don't run into issues where the PCs only get to do one combat every 2 sessions or whatever. I would be playing another system if the game I was running was low-combat like that.
In my 13th Age game, if my wife unloads one of her daily spells and misses all the enemies, that sucks. But if she hits all of them and obliterates them, it feels great. And if she wants to maximize her damage and is afraid of missing, she can choose spells that do half damage on miss to lower the sting of the miss. Maybe I'm spoiled because I have players who are like me and enjoy roleplaying failures as much as successes, and don't feel like the game isn't fun because they missed some attacks or got smashed by an enemy.
Speaking as someone with experience in the matter, all that means is that you have to deal with your players rolling nat 20s to hit themselves, and they have no screen.
Granted, both those systems give you some tools to deal with that constructively, but there's still the occasional momentary yet burning desire to dunk your players' dice in holy water.
In the two systems I mentioned, players don't roll to hit themselves. They roll for actions they take, and failures or partial successes (near failures, basically) result in enemy actions.
[EDIT] It occurs to me you probably meant that metaphorically. But, either way I'm okay with that because even if the players consistently fail their rolls I still have the knobs I can turn to keep things going in a way that's dramatically interesting.
So he did everything he could to get away from the thing so he didn't get hit with that bite. And the party's tank charged in and did everything he could to focus the Bulette's attacks on him, and in fact he got hit with two of those 45 damage bites. But he had uses of his heavy warrior talent to take half damage from each bite so stayed on his feet.
The Bard very nearly died, but it was dangerous and exciting, and if he had thought that I'd fudge the bite attack to miss him instead of hitting, there would've been no interesting tension to the fight.
**I use a token economy system, and other PCs could've spent a 5 token to save the Bard if he died, if he was willing to accept a hard bargain from me to come back(think rolling a 7-9 on a last breath in Dungeon World).