I think it's fine to make a character that's "bad" as long as you don't complain when everyone else's characters are good
I don't think it's fine. What's the in-character reason this PC got hired? Why is the rest of the party keeping them around? What value do they contribute?
I dunno. A group of chubby, stoned, potato farmers who never held a sword before and don't even wear shoes ended up saving the world. Why do your PC's gotta be so intolerant, man?
They only made it that far because of the level 20 wizard DMPC, which is also considered poor gameplay, even before you consider that the DM had to redo him with some OP homebrew to make everything turn out okay
That entire campaign was a mess
+7
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I think it's fine to make a character that's "bad" as long as you don't complain when everyone else's characters are good
I don't think it's fine. What's the in-character reason this PC got hired? Why is the rest of the party keeping them around? What value do they contribute?
I dunno. A group of chubby, stoned, potato farmers who never held a sword before and don't even wear shoes ended up saving the world. Why do your PC's gotta be so intolerant, man?
It could be argued that all the Hobbits had great dex, frodo had at least good stats in everything but strength, with a high con. Sam had great con as well and good wis and strength. Merry and Pippin dumped int but had great Charisma.
Also watching a movie is different than potentially playing a campaign for a year or two. I don't care if someone wants to play rp wise a fuck up in some way, but when shits on the line and the world is at stake? You better be able to deliver. Those Hobbits delivered. Thats for sure.
Also to be clear, if thats the game people want to run and the expectations are clear? thats great. If the expectation is heroic fantasy in D&D and someone rolls up a character thats shit at their class and expects everyone else to pick up the slack? No thanks.
As I said before it depends on buy in, because as a DM I can tell you that a player who is playing with a trollface on as her small barbarian who never rages swings with disadvantage with a greataxe every round and then gets salty when her character gets downed repeatedly wears thin reaallll fast
just don't expect the DM to put safety bumpers on the campaign for you, unless the entire party is playing similar characters
As I said before it depends on buy in, because as a DM I can tell you that a player who is playing with a trollface on as her small barbarian who never rages swings with disadvantage with a greataxe every round and then gets salty when her character gets downed repeatedly wears thin reaallll fast
just don't expect the DM to put safety bumpers on the campaign for you, unless the entire party is playing similar characters
You could just as easily create combat encounters that are suited for a x-1 sized group.
I mean the other side of this is that she might be a bad player, but that has very little to do with creating a non-minmaxed/bad character.
As I said before it depends on buy in, because as a DM I can tell you that a player who is playing with a trollface on as her small barbarian who never rages swings with disadvantage with a greataxe every round and then gets salty when her character gets downed repeatedly wears thin reaallll fast
just don't expect the DM to put safety bumpers on the campaign for you, unless the entire party is playing similar characters
You could just as easily create combat encounters that are suited for a x-1 sized group.
I mean the other side of this is that she might be a bad player, but that has very little to do with creating a non-minmaxed/bad character.
She knew what she was doing, everyone agreed that they hated it, and now she's playing a different character
I feel like you've taken some kind of offense at something I've said or that I'm criticizing you in some way. Since some people seem to have not actually read what others were saying last page: there's no problem with playing characters that are "Bad" at what they do, as long as everyone else at the table is onboard with it
If they aren't, like in my above example, then doing so is just making the game less enjoyable for the DM and the other players
Edit: I mean I feel like there's an assumption I'm advocating for min-maxing, which I'm not. The character I'm currently playing is a 13th level sorceress with TWO offensive spells, because my character hates the idea of using magic as a bludgeon - I also frequently shoot things with a bow because my character likes using a bow. I am not some kind of grognard demanding everyone play perfectly, it's a difference between good and bad faith
I think it's fine to make a character that's "bad" as long as you don't complain when everyone else's characters are good
I don't think it's fine. What's the in-character reason this PC got hired? Why is the rest of the party keeping them around? What value do they contribute?
I dunno. A group of chubby, stoned, potato farmers who never held a sword before and don't even wear shoes ended up saving the world. Why do your PC's gotta be so intolerant, man?
It could be argued that all the Hobbits had great dex, frodo had at least good stats in everything but strength, with a high con. Sam had great con as well and good wis and strength. Merry and Pippin dumped int but had great Charisma.
Also watching a movie is different than potentially playing a campaign for a year or two. I don't care if someone wants to play rp wise a fuck up in some way, but when shits on the line and the world is at stake? You better be able to deliver. Those Hobbits delivered. Thats for sure.
Also to be clear, if thats the game people want to run and the expectations are clear? thats great. If the expectation is heroic fantasy in D&D and someone rolls up a character thats shit at their class and expects everyone else to pick up the slack? No thanks.
Above average stats for dex as a racial thing, but Sam, Merry and Pippin are just random guys who know Frodo. They're not some self selected band of athletes, elite warriors or heroes.
They've got some bonuses, some penalties and a DM who has a plan for them.
Who actually has a party hold try outs to get a optimal build...other than totally me next campaign. But if you do - surely it has to be rolled randomly with a few real DM spikes snuck in their as well to make sure the Party Leader has set their tests well.
I'd let the Party point buy the party lead collectively and decide their class/race. Then again as a collective set some tests to have a few characters of randomly generated stats attempt (maybe the guy with 17 Dex critically failed, whilst the guy with 13 got a 20 in his skill check! Up to two tests per skill are allowed, assuming they test a different quality (slight of hand vs acrobatics) and this will then suggest skill proficiencies - but for each duplicate test each character just rolls naturally for one stat rather than 4D6 drop the lowest as the cream of the crop decide your not worth it. Twice as many applicants as PCs, and half of them are 16-18 in one skill (but perhaps pure 3D6 in a random other one). Difficulty of the test is set based on the Party Leader's skills - depending on the situation. Not a straight 1:1, but if you're not smart or charming - you better bet you've set your own IQ test and are 100% sure it's DC20.
They then pick PC number +1 with someone taking the leader. If no one wants it, the wannabe hero is moved to a NPC nemesis and the new party starts off in a nearby Tavern with the conversation prompt: "What the hell was that guy's problem?!"
I think it's fine to make a character that's "bad" as long as you don't complain when everyone else's characters are good
I don't think it's fine. What's the in-character reason this PC got hired? Why is the rest of the party keeping them around? What value do they contribute?
This is funny because your player elitism is bleeding into your character's elitism and, apparently, killing your ability to role-play.
Why did the fellowship of the ring take along 3 extra hobbits?
Why does the away team bring along a red shirt?
Why did the squad in saving private ryan take along a typist?
Why do the avengers bring hawkeye and black-widow?
How did Jacob make the mass effect 2 squad?
I think it's fine to make a character that's "bad" as long as you don't complain when everyone else's characters are good
I don't think it's fine. What's the in-character reason this PC got hired? Why is the rest of the party keeping them around? What value do they contribute?
This is funny because your player elitism is bleeding into your character's elitism and, apparently, killing your ability to role-play.
Why did the fellowship of the ring take along 3 extra hobbits?
Why does the away team bring along a red shirt?
Why did the squad in saving private ryan take along a typist?
Why do the avengers bring hawkeye and black-widow?
How did Jacob make the mass effect 2 squad?
See, what's funny to me is how you define bad as "good, actually, in a way that is secretly useful" (hobbits, avengers)
I think it's fine to make a character that's "bad" as long as you don't complain when everyone else's characters are good
I don't think it's fine. What's the in-character reason this PC got hired? Why is the rest of the party keeping them around? What value do they contribute?
This is funny because your player elitism is bleeding into your character's elitism and, apparently, killing your ability to role-play.
Why did the fellowship of the ring take along 3 extra hobbits?
Why does the away team bring along a red shirt?
Why did the squad in saving private ryan take along a typist?
Why do the avengers bring hawkeye and black-widow?
How did Jacob make the mass effect 2 squad?
As I said before it depends on buy in, because as a DM I can tell you that a player who is playing with a trollface on as her small barbarian who never rages swings with disadvantage with a greataxe every round and then gets salty when her character gets downed repeatedly wears thin reaallll fast
just don't expect the DM to put safety bumpers on the campaign for you, unless the entire party is playing similar characters
You could just as easily create combat encounters that are suited for a x-1 sized group.
I mean the other side of this is that she might be a bad player, but that has very little to do with creating a non-minmaxed/bad character.
and if you follow the text, everyone is now earning less XP because someone decided it'd be fun to play something designed to be less good at the thing everyone is doing.
Like
I can take my laptop to a crowded bar on a Saturday night to do my taxes. That's a thing I could do. And who knows! I might meet someone interesting, and have some great conversations.
But that's still a bizarre way to approach the execution of either of those two things. And you definitely wouldn't meet up with your friends to go to the club, with your laptop and briefcase of documents in tow unless everyone was aware of just what the actual hell you thought you were doing.
I can take my laptop to a crowded bar on a Saturday night to do my taxes. That's a thing I could do. And who knows! I might meet someone interesting, and have some great conversations.
As I said before it depends on buy in, because as a DM I can tell you that a player who is playing with a trollface on as her small barbarian who never rages swings with disadvantage with a greataxe every round and then gets salty when her character gets downed repeatedly wears thin reaallll fast
just don't expect the DM to put safety bumpers on the campaign for you, unless the entire party is playing similar characters
You could just as easily create combat encounters that are suited for a x-1 sized group.
I mean the other side of this is that she might be a bad player, but that has very little to do with creating a non-minmaxed/bad character.
and if you follow the text, everyone is now earning less XP because someone decided it'd be fun to play something designed to be less good at the thing everyone is doing.
Like
I can take my laptop to a crowded bar on a Saturday night to do my taxes. That's a thing I could do. And who knows! I might meet someone interesting, and have some great conversations.
But that's still a bizarre way to approach the execution of either of those two things. And you definitely wouldn't meet up with your friends to go to the club, with your laptop and briefcase of documents in tow unless everyone was aware of just what the actual hell you thought you were doing.
Less good at combat.
There are other avenues of expertise a player can pursue.
The fact that you're spitefully counting XP points and consider Sam, Merry & Pippin non player characters have killed any further interest I have regarding this avenue of discourse. As such, I'm out.
Eh, I never really got that. The only difference I see between roleplay space in 4th and 5th is that, in the latter, spellcasters get tools that they can use socially. If you're a non-magical class then roleplay between both is pretty much the same, your tools are your character's skills and your personal ingenuity.
Frankly, while they're fun, I've also experienced players using them as a total crutch, grinding to a screeching halt when they couldn't solve a social problem with a spell.
98.675% of the main rulebook giving you strict options only for use in combat leads one to believe there is not much room for anything but combat in a game.
I liked 4e, but I will very readily admit that compared to other versions of D&D or even other RPG's I start singing "One of these things is not like the other..." from Sesame Street.
You mean the DMG? There's almost nothing non-crunchy in the 5th Ed PHB, like 3 pages on what to do between adventures and 8 pages about the world and its gods.
Now don't you all go and get me wound up about that "4e DoEsn'T Do rP" business.
All editions of D&D from the first to the current have been primarily about combat. The only reason 5E seems like it's less combat focused is because it has less rules about everything.
The big thing in pretty much all of D&D, especially as it's gotten on in age and edition, is that it is heavily archetype and trope driven. The reason there's not a lot of support for a barbarian that sucks at taking hits, but is great at careful negotiations is because that's not the barbarian archetype or trope. The game itself has the built in assumption that if you're playing the barbarian you're expecting to take hits, deliver hits, and be an intimidating liability in negotiations for the most part. That isn't to even say you couldn't build a barbarian that's less good at combat and is good at negotiations but it's likely to involve either a racial component, as a prerequisite for a feat, or just multiclassing to rogue to get expertise in the related skills. Basically if you're going to absolutely totally ignore all of your class features and try to fill the role of another class... you should just play that class because that's what the game is built around as a central concept. Like when I get new players I don't even ask them what classes they want to play, I ask them what kind of character they wanna play and to give me some tv or movie examples they wanna build off of, and then I walk them through the options that would give them that character.
The big thing in pretty much all of D&D, especially as it's gotten on in age and edition, is that it is heavily archetype and trope driven. The reason there's not a lot of support for a barbarian that sucks at taking hits, but is great at careful negotiations is because that's not the barbarian archetype or trope. The game itself has the built in assumption that if you're playing the barbarian you're expecting to take hits, deliver hits, and be an intimidating liability in negotiations for the most part. That isn't to even say you couldn't build a barbarian that's less good at combat and is good at negotiations but it's likely to involve either a racial component, as a prerequisite for a feat, or just multiclassing to rogue to get expertise in the related skills. Basically if you're going to absolutely totally ignore all of your class features and try to fill the role of another class... you should just play that class because that's what the game is built around as a central concept. Like when I get new players I don't even ask them what classes they want to play, I ask them what kind of character they wanna play and to give me some tv or movie examples they wanna build off of, and then I walk them through the options that would give them that character.
Yeah, one of the most infuriating things about 4E discussion (that I've run into into basically every D&D version, but seemed to affect 4E more than most) was running into people that wanted to be a badass archer. So they'd get told, "Oh, cool - in that case, take the Ranger class, pick options X, Y, and Z, and then ..."
And they'd be pissed off, because their character "isn't a Ranger; he's a Fighter."
So they'd try to use the Fighter class, would be angry because it had all these melee abilities and heavy armor and, and, and that they didn't want, and say bad things about the system.
It's, like, Fighter and Ranger and everything else are just game constructs. The only reason you think your character is a Fighter is because 2E called someone with no magical ability who used a weapon well a Fighter. In 4E, that's what they call people in heavy armor who use shields to protect their friends* - which is one of the things a 2E Fighter did, too. If you want the badass archer with no particular magical skill part, pick Ranger (and then don't pick any magicky abilities).
You can play someone from the hill people without using the Barbarian class. You can play a member of a cloister without using a Monk class. You can play a swashbuckler without a specifically-named Swashbuckler class. Why do you segfault when it comes to Ranger vs. Fighter?
* And a couple other things, of course, but "badass archer" ain't one of them.
Please lets not start a whole thing about this, because its been done. But I said what I said and I meant it. I don't care how many pages are devoted to what (despite my bullshit joke percentage claim) in the PHB/DMG/Whatever. 4e feels different than other editions, and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise. Not better, not worse. Just different.
Change of topic:
At certain points on my ToA game, I feel like I've very much let the players slide on resting, and doing a disservice to the module. I mean, the first night they long rested I molested their dreams with the Sewn Sisters, but stopped short of not letting them get the benefits of the rest. Then the ill-fated Bard player picked up Leomund's Tiny Hut and they found the secret resting room, so with those two in effect they've been safe. Now though, they barricaded themselves in a the Mastodon room on the 5th level, with no protection from the Hut....and so I molested them again. But again stopped short of denying them the benefits of a Long Rest. Because I'm pretty confident that without it, they're gonna die before they even get to the Soulmonger!
Please lets not start a whole thing about this, because its been done. But I said what I said and I meant it. I don't care how many pages are devoted to what (despite my bullshit joke percentage claim) in the PHB/DMG/Whatever. 4e feels different than other editions, and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise. Not better, not worse. Just different.
Change of topic:
At certain points on my ToA game, I feel like I've very much let the players slide on resting, and doing a disservice to the module. I mean, the first night they long rested I molested their dreams with the Sewn Sisters, but stopped short of not letting them get the benefits of the rest. Then the ill-fated Bard player picked up Leomund's Tiny Hut and they found the secret resting room, so with those two in effect they've been safe. Now though, they barricaded themselves in a the Mastodon room on the 5th level, with no protection from the Hut....and so I molested them again. But again stopped short of denying them the benefits of a Long Rest. Because I'm pretty confident that without it, they're gonna die before they even get to the Soulmonger!
This is where setting an early prescedent would have gone a long way.
One thing you could do is let them wipe anyway, then do time travel fuckery for another shot. In the Tiamat campaign when we wiped at the final fight our bodies were exfiltraded from the lair by the church if Lathlander (long story as to why), ressed, and we went into a (5e adapted) Tomb of Horrors to find a McGuffin that would let us travel back in time for a second chance, one level higher and with metaknowledge of the fight. We ended up closing the summon before Tiamat could come though. Became big known heroes of the world, only ones knowing we had initially failed.
Then in a later campaign (Waterdeep) the new DM for that campaign made it so those characters were established prominent people if the relm in various capacities (church leaders, open Lords of Waterdeep, etc...). Our level 3s in the new campaign went to see an opera put on by the bard from the old one (who is now very successful and famous). The Opera was about how they defeated Tiamat and almost all the previous characters made it (everyone played both their new and old characters). Except, surprise! She wrote it exactly how it happened, including the wipe too. Caused a huge scandal in Waterdeep.
You could let them take a long rest, but dock a couple of their healing surges for failing to get a good night's sleep.
Totally kidding with you.
Resting is one of the things that just ... doesn't work in D&D. I've just never been able to get it to make sense in my head, from a story perspective, whether it's a tabletop game or a D&D computer game. The fact that some classes don't care much about resting (except for HP) and others care a whole lot (anyone with spells) and you need to tune encounters so that they're a challenge that aren't trivial if the party is rested or deadly if they aren't, and you have limited control over that ...
Please lets not start a whole thing about this, because its been done. But I said what I said and I meant it. I don't care how many pages are devoted to what (despite my bullshit joke percentage claim) in the PHB/DMG/Whatever. 4e feels different than other editions, and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise. Not better, not worse. Just different.
Change of topic:
At certain points on my ToA game, I feel like I've very much let the players slide on resting, and doing a disservice to the module. I mean, the first night they long rested I molested their dreams with the Sewn Sisters, but stopped short of not letting them get the benefits of the rest. Then the ill-fated Bard player picked up Leomund's Tiny Hut and they found the secret resting room, so with those two in effect they've been safe. Now though, they barricaded themselves in a the Mastodon room on the 5th level, with no protection from the Hut....and so I molested them again. But again stopped short of denying them the benefits of a Long Rest. Because I'm pretty confident that without it, they're gonna die before they even get to the Soulmonger!
This is where setting an early prescedent would have gone a long way.
Agreed. And I thought I did the job the first time with the horrible night hag molestation's. And it worked! They never rested again without the Hut or without retreating back to the secret room. What was not forseen was a breakdown IRL of the group and the loss of the Bard's player and that cathartic cleansing of his character, and the resulting loss of his utility spells.
Now, I'm down to only 3 players, and they've all been saddled with jagering an NPC of their own. One of which is a Drow Mage they found in the Mirror of Life Trapping. And, since I flat out told them, you need to run these NPC's because "I ain't pulling any punches at the climax of the adventure. And we simply need to put more (wo)men on the job!" who conceivably could have taken spells like "Detect Magic" or "Tiny Hut"... but didn't because they kitted the Drow out as an expendable artillery piece and not a well rounded adventurer.
You could let them take a long rest, but dock a couple of their healing surges for failing to get a good night's sleep.
Totally kidding with you.
Resting is one of the things that just ... doesn't work in D&D. I've just never been able to get it to make sense in my head, from a story perspective, whether it's a tabletop game or a D&D computer game. The fact that some classes don't care much about resting (except for HP) and others care a whole lot (anyone with spells) and you need to tune encounters so that they're a challenge that aren't trivial if the party is rested or deadly if they aren't, and you have limited control over that ...
It's just a mess.
I did for sure knock off the 5 HP from their maximums!
And yes, but not letting them rest I would absolutely be killing the fun.
mmh, were they casting LTH in a "safe" area or was LTH the safe area?
Because dungeon denizens can definitely surround the hut with traps!
Both were used separately, but usually in tandem. There was a designated safe area that the caretaker et al where unaware of. I described it as a secret bolt hole the enslaved Chultans built off-book and used as a refuge where Acererak commanded them to build the dungeon. So the denizens of the Tomb has no idea it was there. And the magic of the Hut kept the Night Hags from penetrating it and doing what they do.
The one time the party did use the Hut before they found the safe room, I absolutely had a horde of Tomb Guardians surround it. But because they had made a deal with Withers to act as lab rats and give first hand feedback on the efficacy of his traps, the Guardians simply held up a sign that said, "Sleep is Boring! Keep Moving,"
So my weekly game has about a month left in it. The characters were based in Faerun, the first session sent them to Ravenloft, and after that they have bounced around to a few different planes. The group is very fond of the Shield Guardian my Bard picked up. I named him Heater and he wears a surcoat and cloak around so he looks a little more like an armored giant and not a giant robot. I tried to teach him drums too but that's been a struggle.
Anyway, I know we're going to play another system for probably 6 months and then swing back around to D&D. I got the most perfect thought last night. In the next campaign I need to play as a liberated Heater. Obviously as a Warforged. I'll say what ever changes in the fey wild gave him his freedom changed his size so I'm no longer a large creature. Now to figure out the best class for the big beat stick.
I've DM'ed a lot of players who played in games where their previous DMs basically took every rest as an opportunity for a sneak attack, which I never understood. It gave them "resting PTSD" where they had to work out this bureaucratic shift scheduling on who was sleeping when, where, overlapping their shifts for maximum coverage, etc. It was very disruptive to the game, especially since random rest encounters really don't add a lot of content or story.
I had to let them know that a random pack of demon wolves and spiders wasn't going to assault them 50ft outside of town every time they pulled out a bedroll. Normal wild animals aren't just roaming around looking to attack adventurers. Unless the party is in a dangerous area known for roaming monsters and bad actors or they are actively being pursued and have made no attempts to hide their activities, the likelihood of being attacked while resting is pretty low. Even then I've found most players at higher levels do take a good amount of precaution when resting, such as sleeping in extradimensional space, etc.
I like to use this time to handle bookkeeping tasks, like identifying items, casting rituals, scribing spells, as well as a good time for roleplaying. When your players are in a constant state of paranoia it definitely throws off the flow of the game.
For me, the party being ambushed at night is an exciting plot device, not to be overused. Otherwise you really spoil the intensity and novelty of it.
+5
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
To use an old standby, I don’t think all the heroes in The Lord of the Rings were the same stat-spread or even the same level, but Sam’s good heart and common sense along with Frodo’s mental endurance to get the job done (both traits brought in by their player, so to speak) saved the day.
—
This’ll be my last post for awhile, but here’s another race for New Zellatia, a little pet world I’m making for fun.
Used as foot soldiers by the Vilelord for over a century, they’re only now settling along the coast of New Zellatia as a free people, each of whom dream of one day returning to their ancestral homes beneath the waves in their fabled Sapphire City.
Aura Sense
Through an innate sense unlike any amongst the known peoples you can perceive the presence of living creatures without the aid of sight nor sound.
As an action, you tune in to the pulses of life around you out to a 30 foot radius. Any living creature within the radius are known to you, though you gain little detail save size and rate of movement. Your senses can pierce walls up to 10 feet thick.
Due to your aura sense you are not at a disadvantage to fight blind, or against invisible creatures.
When you use this trait you must complete a long or short rest before you can use it again.
Bioluminescent
As a bonus action, you can send luminous patterns across your skin, shedding bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. The light can be colored as you like.
For every hour your light remains active the radius is reduced by 5 feet. Once extinguished in this way, you must take a long rest before you can use it again; otherwise it can be used as you wish in short bursts.
Amphibious
You can breathe air and water.
Mysteries of the Deep
Starting at 4th level, you gain access to these traits. Choose one:
Study of Sharks
You have a swimming speed of 30 feet. Additionally, you ignore the effects of deep and turbulent water while swimming.
Lionfish’s Lesson
You exude a natural poison from your cheek frills. You can use the poison coat one slashing or piercing weapon, up to three pieces of ammunition, or your body if you are trained in unarmed strikes. Applying the poison takes an action. A creature hit by the poisoned weapon or ammunition must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or take 1d4 + your Proficiency Bonus in poison damage. Once applied, the poison retains potency for 1 minute before drying.
Siren’s Teachings
You can mimic sounds you have heard, including voices. A creature that hears the sounds can tell they are imitations with a successful Wisdom (Insight) check opposed by your Charisma (Deception) check.
Old Habits
Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
Blood Rage
Whenever you see a creature die in combat you gain a +1 bonus to hit, to a maximum of +5, which is reset when you successfully hit a creature with an attack.
At 7th level, choose another trait from the options above.
They’re basically any kind of fish-guy, but I’m mostly thinking stingrays, lionfish and sharks merged with orcs turned good.
Where do you keep getting the beautiful art you use?
I may make a version of this for my GURPS world.
I've DM'ed a lot of players who played in games where their previous DMs basically took every rest as an opportunity for a sneak attack, which I never understood. It gave them "resting PTSD" where they had to work out this bureaucratic shift scheduling on who was sleeping when, where, overlapping their shifts for maximum coverage, etc. It was very disruptive to the game, especially since random rest encounters really don't add a lot of content or story.
I had to let them know that a random pack of demon wolves and spiders wasn't going to assault them 50ft outside of town every time they pulled out a bedroll. Normal wild animals aren't just roaming around looking to attack adventurers. Unless the party is in a dangerous area known for roaming monsters and bad actors or they are actively being pursued and have made no attempts to hide their activities, the likelihood of being attacked while resting is pretty low. Even then I've found most players at higher levels do take a good amount of precaution when resting, such as sleeping in extradimensional space, etc.
I like to use this time to handle bookkeeping tasks, like identifying items, casting rituals, scribing spells, as well as a good time for roleplaying. When your players are in a constant state of paranoia it definitely throws off the flow of the game.
For me, the party being ambushed at night is an exciting plot device, not to be overused. Otherwise you really spoil the intensity and novelty of it.
Agreed. But in this particular case, it's not the Tomb of Cuddly Bunnies. It's the gawddamn Tomb of Annihilation and the party is in the depths of it.
I'm preparing for how to TPK my SKT party next session, they took an idiotic approach to this dungeon and nearly all died before entering deadstone cleft. Now they're long resting inside of it 5 minutes after a large noisy battle. They put up a tiny hut in a room with stone giants hiding in it.
I mean the tiny hut is going to be covered in stone at the start of the next session, unless they want to leave it to fight the stone giants, they're just going to collapse the cavern on them. They wanted a difficult game, they all reiterated that last session, so I'm not going to do the thing where I nerf the dungeon to make it easier for them to win - which means they're going to lose. Next up: failing forward, or a bunch of petrified party members are found by researchers a few years in the future
I think I started the argument, and I apologize if anyone thought I was talking about them or implying that the player I had a problem with was an analogue for their preferenece
I'm preparing for how to TPK my SKT party next session, they took an idiotic approach to this dungeon and nearly all died before entering deadstone cleft. Now they're long resting inside of it 5 minutes after a large noisy battle. They put up a tiny hut in a room with stone giants hiding in it.
I mean the tiny hut is going to be covered in stone at the start of the next session, unless they want to leave it to fight the stone giants, they're just going to collapse the cavern on them. They wanted a difficult game, they all reiterated that last session, so I'm not going to do the thing where I nerf the dungeon to make it easier for them to win - which means they're going to lose. Next up: failing forward, or a bunch of petrified party members are found by researchers a few years in the future
I greatly wish I had the DM balls to do that more often. The only time I've done that was in an old 3.5 Undermountain campaign where, after a tough fight and a PC death and before the players new PC got introduced in the next, scene I asked them three times if they wanted to backtrack a bit and rest up. The party wizard, who was scant on spells, says "Nah, we're good."
So off they go to the next encounter. Meet the new PC fighting for his life against salamanders...and TPK.
It fucking served them right, but you know who suffered? Me. I love Undermountain but that TPK effectively ended the campaign and we moved onto something else. Sigh.
I send my players a form at the start of each campaign establishing everything from what kind of triggers they want me to avoid (this party wants nothing avoided in this one from a content side) and what kind of gameplay limits they want (they want no permanent character deletion before the final chapter - so heroically being atomized on the last boss is okay, before that? no)
That doesn't mean they can't die or fail, but it always fails forward. If they TPK, important NPCs that the party has made a relationship with will organize a response, they'll get to play as those NPCs for this. The players will lose a lot of powerful magical items they've come to love as Sansuri buys them off the stone giants. They might lose NPCs they care about!
They know what's going to happen because around level 5 they wanted to attack a hobgoblin legion. Yes, a legion. Not a warband, a legion.
So after getting defeated, captured, and having their equipment taken, and humiliated, they ended up being ransomed to Lady Velrosa Nandar (they dragged her dead body to town and got her raised back in nightstone) and owed her a substantial amount of money, which they had to pay back. Since then they've had a heist to reclaim important items they cared about from the Hobbo Gobbos
My goal with this group at least is to let what happens, happen, but always have a "and then" afterwards
I send my players a form at the start of each campaign establishing everything from what kind of triggers they want me to avoid (this party wants nothing avoided in this one from a content side) and what kind of gameplay limits they want (they want no permanent character deletion before the final chapter - so heroically being atomized on the last boss is okay, before that? no)
That doesn't mean they can't die or fail, but it always fails forward. If they TPK, important NPCs that the party has made a relationship with will organize a response, they'll get to play as those NPCs for this. The players will lose a lot of powerful magical items they've come to love as Sansuri buys them off the stone giants. They might lose NPCs they care about!
They know what's going to happen because around level 5 they wanted to attack a hobgoblin legion. Yes, a legion. Not a warband, a legion.
So after getting defeated, captured, and having their equipment taken, and humiliated, they ended up being ransomed to Lady Velrosa Nandar (they dragged her dead body to town and got her raised back in nightstone) and owed her a substantial amount of money, which they had to pay back. Since then they've had a heist to reclaim important items they cared about from the Hobbo Gobbos
My goal with this group at least is to let what happens, happen, but always have a "and then" afterwards
I'm cool with this in principle, but in practice it would annoy the shit out of me moreso than downplaying the bad guys to give my PC's a better chance of survival. A large part of me feels like something like this would break the believability of my game world. I mean, why would a rich and powerful NPC go though the effort to recover and resurrect this stupid ass bunch of adventurers who decided to attack a legion of Hobgoblins? That doesn't make sense. Those adventurers were idiots and deserved to die. It would have been a much better use of the NPC's resources to go out and find an fresh, new band of adventurers to use. Hopefully these ones would be smart enough not to take on a whole legion of Hobgoblins and actually get what the NPC wants done, done. That, IMO, makes for better verisimilitude in the game world that I've painstakingly created and these fuck-off players keep trying to ruin.
I send my players a form at the start of each campaign establishing everything from what kind of triggers they want me to avoid (this party wants nothing avoided in this one from a content side) and what kind of gameplay limits they want (they want no permanent character deletion before the final chapter - so heroically being atomized on the last boss is okay, before that? no)
That doesn't mean they can't die or fail, but it always fails forward. If they TPK, important NPCs that the party has made a relationship with will organize a response, they'll get to play as those NPCs for this. The players will lose a lot of powerful magical items they've come to love as Sansuri buys them off the stone giants. They might lose NPCs they care about!
They know what's going to happen because around level 5 they wanted to attack a hobgoblin legion. Yes, a legion. Not a warband, a legion.
So after getting defeated, captured, and having their equipment taken, and humiliated, they ended up being ransomed to Lady Velrosa Nandar (they dragged her dead body to town and got her raised back in nightstone) and owed her a substantial amount of money, which they had to pay back. Since then they've had a heist to reclaim important items they cared about from the Hobbo Gobbos
My goal with this group at least is to let what happens, happen, but always have a "and then" afterwards
I'm cool with this in principle, but in practice it would annoy the shit out of me moreso than downplaying the bad guys to give my PC's a better chance of survival. A large part of me feels like something like this would break the believability of my game world. I mean, why would a rich and powerful NPC go though the effort to recover and resurrect this stupid ass bunch of adventurers who decided to attack a legion of Hobgoblins? That doesn't make sense. Those adventurers were idiots and deserved to die. It would have been a much better use of the NPC's resources to go out and find an fresh, new band of adventurers to use. Hopefully these ones would be smart enough not to take on a whole legion of Hobgoblins and actually get what the NPC wants done, done. That, IMO, makes for better verisimilitude in the game world that I've painstakingly created and these fuck-off players keep trying to ruin.
Depends. A level 5 party sure, get the replacements. Level 15s? Get the "replacement" squad to res the legendary level 15 heroes!
I send my players a form at the start of each campaign establishing everything from what kind of triggers they want me to avoid (this party wants nothing avoided in this one from a content side) and what kind of gameplay limits they want (they want no permanent character deletion before the final chapter - so heroically being atomized on the last boss is okay, before that? no)
That doesn't mean they can't die or fail, but it always fails forward. If they TPK, important NPCs that the party has made a relationship with will organize a response, they'll get to play as those NPCs for this. The players will lose a lot of powerful magical items they've come to love as Sansuri buys them off the stone giants. They might lose NPCs they care about!
They know what's going to happen because around level 5 they wanted to attack a hobgoblin legion. Yes, a legion. Not a warband, a legion.
So after getting defeated, captured, and having their equipment taken, and humiliated, they ended up being ransomed to Lady Velrosa Nandar (they dragged her dead body to town and got her raised back in nightstone) and owed her a substantial amount of money, which they had to pay back. Since then they've had a heist to reclaim important items they cared about from the Hobbo Gobbos
My goal with this group at least is to let what happens, happen, but always have a "and then" afterwards
I'm cool with this in principle, but in practice it would annoy the shit out of me moreso than downplaying the bad guys to give my PC's a better chance of survival. A large part of me feels like something like this would break the believability of my game world. I mean, why would a rich and powerful NPC go though the effort to recover and resurrect this stupid ass bunch of adventurers who decided to attack a legion of Hobgoblins? That doesn't make sense. Those adventurers were idiots and deserved to die. It would have been a much better use of the NPC's resources to go out and find an fresh, new band of adventurers to use. Hopefully these ones would be smart enough not to take on a whole legion of Hobgoblins and actually get what the NPC wants done, done. That, IMO, makes for better verisimilitude in the game world that I've painstakingly created and these fuck-off players keep trying to ruin.
Depends. A level 5 party sure, get the replacements. Level 15s? Get the "replacement" squad to res the legendary level 15 heroes!
Sure But on the other hand, a level 15 party should be more powerful than whatever NPC Queen who is allied with them. They should be able to handle themselves wrt resurrections and restorations and the like.
Posts
They only made it that far because of the level 20 wizard DMPC, which is also considered poor gameplay, even before you consider that the DM had to redo him with some OP homebrew to make everything turn out okay
That entire campaign was a mess
It could be argued that all the Hobbits had great dex, frodo had at least good stats in everything but strength, with a high con. Sam had great con as well and good wis and strength. Merry and Pippin dumped int but had great Charisma.
Also watching a movie is different than potentially playing a campaign for a year or two. I don't care if someone wants to play rp wise a fuck up in some way, but when shits on the line and the world is at stake? You better be able to deliver. Those Hobbits delivered. Thats for sure.
Also to be clear, if thats the game people want to run and the expectations are clear? thats great. If the expectation is heroic fantasy in D&D and someone rolls up a character thats shit at their class and expects everyone else to pick up the slack? No thanks.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
just don't expect the DM to put safety bumpers on the campaign for you, unless the entire party is playing similar characters
You could just as easily create combat encounters that are suited for a x-1 sized group.
I mean the other side of this is that she might be a bad player, but that has very little to do with creating a non-minmaxed/bad character.
She knew what she was doing, everyone agreed that they hated it, and now she's playing a different character
I feel like you've taken some kind of offense at something I've said or that I'm criticizing you in some way. Since some people seem to have not actually read what others were saying last page: there's no problem with playing characters that are "Bad" at what they do, as long as everyone else at the table is onboard with it
If they aren't, like in my above example, then doing so is just making the game less enjoyable for the DM and the other players
Edit: I mean I feel like there's an assumption I'm advocating for min-maxing, which I'm not. The character I'm currently playing is a 13th level sorceress with TWO offensive spells, because my character hates the idea of using magic as a bludgeon - I also frequently shoot things with a bow because my character likes using a bow. I am not some kind of grognard demanding everyone play perfectly, it's a difference between good and bad faith
Above average stats for dex as a racial thing, but Sam, Merry and Pippin are just random guys who know Frodo. They're not some self selected band of athletes, elite warriors or heroes.
They've got some bonuses, some penalties and a DM who has a plan for them.
Who actually has a party hold try outs to get a optimal build...other than totally me next campaign. But if you do - surely it has to be rolled randomly with a few real DM spikes snuck in their as well to make sure the Party Leader has set their tests well.
I'd let the Party point buy the party lead collectively and decide their class/race. Then again as a collective set some tests to have a few characters of randomly generated stats attempt (maybe the guy with 17 Dex critically failed, whilst the guy with 13 got a 20 in his skill check! Up to two tests per skill are allowed, assuming they test a different quality (slight of hand vs acrobatics) and this will then suggest skill proficiencies - but for each duplicate test each character just rolls naturally for one stat rather than 4D6 drop the lowest as the cream of the crop decide your not worth it. Twice as many applicants as PCs, and half of them are 16-18 in one skill (but perhaps pure 3D6 in a random other one). Difficulty of the test is set based on the Party Leader's skills - depending on the situation. Not a straight 1:1, but if you're not smart or charming - you better bet you've set your own IQ test and are 100% sure it's DC20.
They then pick PC number +1 with someone taking the leader. If no one wants it, the wannabe hero is moved to a NPC nemesis and the new party starts off in a nearby Tavern with the conversation prompt: "What the hell was that guy's problem?!"
Because none of them were player characters.
See, what's funny to me is how you define bad as "good, actually, in a way that is secretly useful" (hobbits, avengers)
Also this.
and if you follow the text, everyone is now earning less XP because someone decided it'd be fun to play something designed to be less good at the thing everyone is doing.
Like
I can take my laptop to a crowded bar on a Saturday night to do my taxes. That's a thing I could do. And who knows! I might meet someone interesting, and have some great conversations.
But that's still a bizarre way to approach the execution of either of those two things. And you definitely wouldn't meet up with your friends to go to the club, with your laptop and briefcase of documents in tow unless everyone was aware of just what the actual hell you thought you were doing.
that’s not a good example of social distancing ;P
'sup :winky:
Less good at combat.
There are other avenues of expertise a player can pursue.
The fact that you're spitefully counting XP points and consider Sam, Merry & Pippin non player characters have killed any further interest I have regarding this avenue of discourse. As such, I'm out.
Frankly, while they're fun, I've also experienced players using them as a total crutch, grinding to a screeching halt when they couldn't solve a social problem with a spell.
I liked 4e, but I will very readily admit that compared to other versions of D&D or even other RPG's I start singing "One of these things is not like the other..." from Sesame Street.
All editions of D&D from the first to the current have been primarily about combat. The only reason 5E seems like it's less combat focused is because it has less rules about everything.
Yeah, one of the most infuriating things about 4E discussion (that I've run into into basically every D&D version, but seemed to affect 4E more than most) was running into people that wanted to be a badass archer. So they'd get told, "Oh, cool - in that case, take the Ranger class, pick options X, Y, and Z, and then ..."
And they'd be pissed off, because their character "isn't a Ranger; he's a Fighter."
So they'd try to use the Fighter class, would be angry because it had all these melee abilities and heavy armor and, and, and that they didn't want, and say bad things about the system.
It's, like, Fighter and Ranger and everything else are just game constructs. The only reason you think your character is a Fighter is because 2E called someone with no magical ability who used a weapon well a Fighter. In 4E, that's what they call people in heavy armor who use shields to protect their friends* - which is one of the things a 2E Fighter did, too. If you want the badass archer with no particular magical skill part, pick Ranger (and then don't pick any magicky abilities).
You can play someone from the hill people without using the Barbarian class. You can play a member of a cloister without using a Monk class. You can play a swashbuckler without a specifically-named Swashbuckler class. Why do you segfault when it comes to Ranger vs. Fighter?
* And a couple other things, of course, but "badass archer" ain't one of them.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Change of topic:
At certain points on my ToA game, I feel like I've very much let the players slide on resting, and doing a disservice to the module. I mean, the first night they long rested I molested their dreams with the Sewn Sisters, but stopped short of not letting them get the benefits of the rest. Then the ill-fated Bard player picked up Leomund's Tiny Hut and they found the secret resting room, so with those two in effect they've been safe. Now though, they barricaded themselves in a the Mastodon room on the 5th level, with no protection from the Hut....and so I molested them again. But again stopped short of denying them the benefits of a Long Rest. Because I'm pretty confident that without it, they're gonna die before they even get to the Soulmonger!
This is where setting an early prescedent would have gone a long way.
One thing you could do is let them wipe anyway, then do time travel fuckery for another shot. In the Tiamat campaign when we wiped at the final fight our bodies were exfiltraded from the lair by the church if Lathlander (long story as to why), ressed, and we went into a (5e adapted) Tomb of Horrors to find a McGuffin that would let us travel back in time for a second chance, one level higher and with metaknowledge of the fight. We ended up closing the summon before Tiamat could come though. Became big known heroes of the world, only ones knowing we had initially failed.
Then in a later campaign (Waterdeep) the new DM for that campaign made it so those characters were established prominent people if the relm in various capacities (church leaders, open Lords of Waterdeep, etc...). Our level 3s in the new campaign went to see an opera put on by the bard from the old one (who is now very successful and famous). The Opera was about how they defeated Tiamat and almost all the previous characters made it (everyone played both their new and old characters). Except, surprise! She wrote it exactly how it happened, including the wipe too. Caused a huge scandal in Waterdeep.
Resting is one of the things that just ... doesn't work in D&D. I've just never been able to get it to make sense in my head, from a story perspective, whether it's a tabletop game or a D&D computer game. The fact that some classes don't care much about resting (except for HP) and others care a whole lot (anyone with spells) and you need to tune encounters so that they're a challenge that aren't trivial if the party is rested or deadly if they aren't, and you have limited control over that ...
It's just a mess.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Agreed. And I thought I did the job the first time with the horrible night hag molestation's. And it worked! They never rested again without the Hut or without retreating back to the secret room. What was not forseen was a breakdown IRL of the group and the loss of the Bard's player and that cathartic cleansing of his character, and the resulting loss of his utility spells.
Now, I'm down to only 3 players, and they've all been saddled with jagering an NPC of their own. One of which is a Drow Mage they found in the Mirror of Life Trapping. And, since I flat out told them, you need to run these NPC's because "I ain't pulling any punches at the climax of the adventure. And we simply need to put more (wo)men on the job!" who conceivably could have taken spells like "Detect Magic" or "Tiny Hut"... but didn't because they kitted the Drow out as an expendable artillery piece and not a well rounded adventurer.
I did for sure knock off the 5 HP from their maximums!
And yes, but not letting them rest I would absolutely be killing the fun.
Because dungeon denizens can definitely surround the hut with traps!
Both were used separately, but usually in tandem. There was a designated safe area that the caretaker et al where unaware of. I described it as a secret bolt hole the enslaved Chultans built off-book and used as a refuge where Acererak commanded them to build the dungeon. So the denizens of the Tomb has no idea it was there. And the magic of the Hut kept the Night Hags from penetrating it and doing what they do.
The one time the party did use the Hut before they found the safe room, I absolutely had a horde of Tomb Guardians surround it. But because they had made a deal with Withers to act as lab rats and give first hand feedback on the efficacy of his traps, the Guardians simply held up a sign that said, "Sleep is Boring! Keep Moving,"
Anyway, I know we're going to play another system for probably 6 months and then swing back around to D&D. I got the most perfect thought last night. In the next campaign I need to play as a liberated Heater. Obviously as a Warforged. I'll say what ever changes in the fey wild gave him his freedom changed his size so I'm no longer a large creature. Now to figure out the best class for the big beat stick.
Comics, Games, Booze
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I had to let them know that a random pack of demon wolves and spiders wasn't going to assault them 50ft outside of town every time they pulled out a bedroll. Normal wild animals aren't just roaming around looking to attack adventurers. Unless the party is in a dangerous area known for roaming monsters and bad actors or they are actively being pursued and have made no attempts to hide their activities, the likelihood of being attacked while resting is pretty low. Even then I've found most players at higher levels do take a good amount of precaution when resting, such as sleeping in extradimensional space, etc.
I like to use this time to handle bookkeeping tasks, like identifying items, casting rituals, scribing spells, as well as a good time for roleplaying. When your players are in a constant state of paranoia it definitely throws off the flow of the game.
For me, the party being ambushed at night is an exciting plot device, not to be overused. Otherwise you really spoil the intensity and novelty of it.
Where do you keep getting the beautiful art you use?
I may make a version of this for my GURPS world.
Agreed. But in this particular case, it's not the Tomb of Cuddly Bunnies. It's the gawddamn Tomb of Annihilation and the party is in the depths of it.
I mean the tiny hut is going to be covered in stone at the start of the next session, unless they want to leave it to fight the stone giants, they're just going to collapse the cavern on them. They wanted a difficult game, they all reiterated that last session, so I'm not going to do the thing where I nerf the dungeon to make it easier for them to win - which means they're going to lose. Next up: failing forward, or a bunch of petrified party members are found by researchers a few years in the future
I greatly wish I had the DM balls to do that more often. The only time I've done that was in an old 3.5 Undermountain campaign where, after a tough fight and a PC death and before the players new PC got introduced in the next, scene I asked them three times if they wanted to backtrack a bit and rest up. The party wizard, who was scant on spells, says "Nah, we're good."
So off they go to the next encounter. Meet the new PC fighting for his life against salamanders...and TPK.
It fucking served them right, but you know who suffered? Me. I love Undermountain but that TPK effectively ended the campaign and we moved onto something else. Sigh.
That doesn't mean they can't die or fail, but it always fails forward. If they TPK, important NPCs that the party has made a relationship with will organize a response, they'll get to play as those NPCs for this. The players will lose a lot of powerful magical items they've come to love as Sansuri buys them off the stone giants. They might lose NPCs they care about!
They know what's going to happen because around level 5 they wanted to attack a hobgoblin legion. Yes, a legion. Not a warband, a legion.
So after getting defeated, captured, and having their equipment taken, and humiliated, they ended up being ransomed to Lady Velrosa Nandar (they dragged her dead body to town and got her raised back in nightstone) and owed her a substantial amount of money, which they had to pay back. Since then they've had a heist to reclaim important items they cared about from the Hobbo Gobbos
My goal with this group at least is to let what happens, happen, but always have a "and then" afterwards
I'm cool with this in principle, but in practice it would annoy the shit out of me moreso than downplaying the bad guys to give my PC's a better chance of survival. A large part of me feels like something like this would break the believability of my game world. I mean, why would a rich and powerful NPC go though the effort to recover and resurrect this stupid ass bunch of adventurers who decided to attack a legion of Hobgoblins? That doesn't make sense. Those adventurers were idiots and deserved to die. It would have been a much better use of the NPC's resources to go out and find an fresh, new band of adventurers to use. Hopefully these ones would be smart enough not to take on a whole legion of Hobgoblins and actually get what the NPC wants done, done. That, IMO, makes for better verisimilitude in the game world that I've painstakingly created and these fuck-off players keep trying to ruin.
Depends. A level 5 party sure, get the replacements. Level 15s? Get the "replacement" squad to res the legendary level 15 heroes!
Sure But on the other hand, a level 15 party should be more powerful than whatever NPC Queen who is allied with them. They should be able to handle themselves wrt resurrections and restorations and the like.