Jump to content

Kendal

Best Version of DnD?

Recommended Posts

Well like I said, flavor.

Monks deriving their power as much from their wisdom as their dex, and all that, obviously indicates a oneness of mind and body beyond booze and knowing how to punch.

 

Also the flying barbarians are one of the magic barbarians I spoke out about earlier. :poke:

 

 

The Tavern Brawler feat is about as good as you'll get for an actual bar brawler, sadly. Which doesn't really make for a powerful build.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Unruly said:

 

Not really. Especially not the Open Hand Monk. Just about everything it has can be summed up as "I know where to hit, I know how to take a fall, and I'm as pickled as Keith Richards." Only once you hit level 15 or so do you start to get to the truly fantastical parts, where you don't need to eat and can turn yourself invisible and stuff.

That's entirely justifiable, though. your character is just so drunk it passes into local folklore. a fairly standard fantasy dwarf would absolutely, inevitably know a lot of passed-down stories of inexplicable behaviour carried out by various ancient druncles and attributed in spirit to some mythical beer trickster who was so good he could trick himself into beliving that everything he drank was brandy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Unruly said:

 

I had a friend tell me he doesn't allow Monks in any of his campaigns because they're Asian, and he runs European fantasy. His response to my wanting to play a dwarven monk as the stereotypical drunken bar brawler was "Just play a fighter that doesn't use weapons. It's the same thing." Because apparently he thought that playing a class in a way that invalidates half of it's abilities is the same as playing a class that's meant to punch, kick, and headbutt the enemy.

A lot of the classes do have some setting flavor assumed in them, but IMO, most of them can be twisted to fit just about any setting.  There are three I have concerns over, though, and it's because of a fundamental basis to the class clashing with my settings.

 

First two are Wizard and Sorcerer.  In one of my settings, I disallow Wizards because an assumption of the setting is that magic comes from within, and is spontaneous.  The Wizard class is built on the assumption of study and memorization.  The few times I tried to use Wizards anyway, they became too powerful because of their expanded spell lists, which the rules assume will be offset by preparing spells.  The part about preparing spells clashes with the setting assumption, and I have objections to requiring a mechanical feature of the class that clashes so much.  I could rework the spell lists, but since the sorcerer class exists and primarily does the same thing, i find it easier to just disallow wizards, and go with sorcerers instead.  It's a lot easier to give a sorcerer a couple extra wizard only spells on a case by case basis than rework the Wizard class. 

The third is Warlocks.  The underlying premise of the powers being granted by a patron conflicts with both my settings.   In both my settings, all of the extra-dimensional beings who could/would grant such powers are evil, and characters with such patrons conflict with the premise of my campaigns in that setting. If a PC Warlock were to work towards the goals that the parties usually work towards, their patron would abandon them or kill them - and honestly, it's not fair to allow a player to play such a class knowing that they're either going to have to be allowed to be disruptive to the campaign, or that I'll be stripping them of their powers when their patron gives up on them.  It is possible, though, that a trusted player well versed in my setting could come to me with a warlock idea, and I'd give it a shot. 

I see that many DMs get caught up ont he Barbarian and Monk classes, but I think both of those can come down to mental attitude.  I don't recall exactly when the Barbarian was added as a class to D&D, but I do remember when it was that I wished it had been around when I played one of my first characters, Terone  Wooddeck, the Beast Butcher.   In the original D&D rules, Terone was just a fighter, but for RP purposes he had a mighty temper and would fly off into a rage.  When the barbarian class emerged, I remember having a discussion with another DM who was lamenting that he just didn't have any space in his world for barbarian tribes and thus couldn't allow the class, and I told him all about Terone - the younger brother of a well respected (and civilized) noble who was considered too angry to hang out with civilized folk, and how the barbarian class would be a perfect fit for him.  I don't know if that other DM ever allowed barbarians or not, but I at least had him thinking about it. 

 

Likewise with monk - you don't need to have an Asian themed monastery to justify a small group of people who study martial arts style unarmed combat. 

As for some of the more fantastical abilities at higher level of all the classes, my solution is to just end the campaign before the PC get to that level - I generally end them somewhere between 12th - 15th level. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kristof65 said:

A lot of the classes do have some setting flavor assumed in them, but IMO, most of them can be twisted to fit just about any setting.  There are three I have concerns over, though, and it's because of a fundamental basis to the class clashing with my settings.

 

First two are Wizard and Sorcerer.  In one of my settings, I disallow Wizards because an assumption of the setting is that magic comes from within, and is spontaneous.  The Wizard class is built on the assumption of study and memorization.  The few times I tried to use Wizards anyway, they became too powerful because of their expanded spell lists, which the rules assume will be offset by preparing spells.  The part about preparing spells clashes with the setting assumption, and I have objections to requiring a mechanical feature of the class that clashes so much.  I could rework the spell lists, but since the sorcerer class exists and primarily does the same thing, i find it easier to just disallow wizards, and go with sorcerers instead.  It's a lot easier to give a sorcerer a couple extra wizard only spells on a case by case basis than rework the Wizard class. 

 

See, that's totally justifiable in my mind. You're limiting the class because the mechanics themselves don't fit with how magic works in your campaign. And you're turning around and opening up the Sorcerer a little more by giving them some extra spell access to bridge the gap. It's not a "I don't like the name Wizard so they aren't allowed" thing. There's some logic and reasoning to it.

 

Quote


The third is Warlocks.  The underlying premise of the powers being granted by a patron conflicts with both my settings.   In both my settings, all of the extra-dimensional beings who could/would grant such powers are evil, and characters with such patrons conflict with the premise of my campaigns in that setting. If a PC Warlock were to work towards the goals that the parties usually work towards, their patron would abandon them or kill them - and honestly, it's not fair to allow a player to play such a class knowing that they're either going to have to be allowed to be disruptive to the campaign, or that I'll be stripping them of their powers when their patron gives up on them.  It is possible, though, that a trusted player well versed in my setting could come to me with a warlock idea, and I'd give it a shot. 

 

But here, I'm going to try to poke a little hole.

 

Do you have clerics and paladins? Because, essentially, they get their power the same way as a warlock. They talk to an extraplanar being who says "Hey, you're not half bad. Have a small portion of my power to help you spread my words." The only real difference is that warlocks tend to talk with that weird kid with no friends that always stares into the corner and mumbles to himself about his "plans," while clerics and paladins tend to stick near the popular kids that do all the sports and hang out at the mall. But because warlocks don't usually deal with full gods they don't always have some universe altering plan.

 

Maybe the fiend they have a pact with only wants to become the new ruler of some part of the Abyss, so they grant power to a warlock with the terms being that they have to further that goal. It could mean giving the demon more power and it could mean killing rival demons. Maybe it's an Arcanaloth, and the task is to try and figure out some other fiend's true name so that they can use it as a bargaining chip in a future contract. Stuff like that works well for warlock pacts, because it's both a hard endeavor and something that's not an outright irredeemable evil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Unruly said:

But here, I'm going to try to poke a little hole.

 

Do you have clerics and paladins?

I have considered your point extensively.  Which is why I said that I would likely give a trusted player familiar with my settings to give it a shot. 

The issues stem from how I've structured my pantheons in both my settings (spoilered for those who aren't interested):

In my Yrazul setting,

Spoiler

there are no other planes.  Yrazul is the last pocket of light and life in a universe that was destroyed by a war between the gods and their errant creation, the Great Serpent, and is solid ice.  There is one goddess left, known only as The Lady, and the broken pieces of the last world literally revolve around her in a bubble in the ice.  She is the light that provides life to the last mortals left.  There is no pantheon of gods - mortals either worship her, no one, or the Great Serpent.   However, the worship of the lady is not unified, her church has fractured into three primary factions.   There are saints, mortals whom she has elevated to demi-god status in charge of various domains and clerics of The Lady pull their power from their chosen saint.  Evil clerics pull their power from the Great Serpent, who is trying to break out of the ice, and into the warmth The Lady still provides her people, thus finally destroying the universe.   Any patrons are going to either be a saint of The Lady or a servant of the Great Serpent.  In my read through of the Warlock, most of the archetypes are going to wind up being a conduit for the Great Serpent, which means ultimately working for the destruction of the universe. 



In my Iskitaan setting,

Spoiler

the universe was created by two brother gods who eventually came to blow over how to proceed with their creation - one wanted to fix the flaws and move on, the other wanted to destroy it and start over.  In their fight, they effectively destroyed each other instead.  The remnants of each of their power (one good/one evil) drift throughout the universe in eternal struggle with one another, and with enough faith and belief from mortals some of these remnants can coalesce into a god like entity. (this is how former PCs in past campaigns end up as gods in later ones).  There are other planes, but other than the underworld where the souls of dead reside, there isn't much travelling between them, plus many of them aren't really distinct places.  There is a celestial plane where the gods exist, but it really isn't a place one can go.  There is also the chaos plane, which is the source of magic, but that's more a reservoir to be tapped than a place to exist. Any powerful entities that could act as patrons are generally already gods, or part of the evil trying to destroy creation.*


*Yeah, I like that whole good vs evil dynamic in the pantheons of my settings.  In the mortal realm, things are much more ambiguous. 


The archfey and the celestial patrons could work in both settings, and possibly the hexblade with some background tweaking and explanations, but I'm not going to work it out - I'd rather let an industrious player figure it out for us both.  Far easier to say "You'll have to do the work, this is what I need to see" and then see how serious they are about convincing me.

And to be honest, I actually have a bunch of the various class archetypes flagged as well - I'm not automatically disallowing them, but I'm putting the burden on the player to do a setting appropriate conversion for me, such as the Barbarian Totem Warrior and the Monk Way of the Four Elements from the PHB or the Ranger Horizon Walker and the Fighter Samurai from Xanathar's

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 7:21 PM, TheAuldGrump said:

 

Special snowflakes can be a special problem.

 

One of the worst Vampire Storytellers that I have ever played with allowed the girl he was interested in use Dance for both unarmed and melee attacks and for her Dodge - at a reduced DC. But, hey! It worked - they have now been married for over ten years.... <_<

 

Megan has never tried any such shenanigans. :wub: I can't really say that any of her characters has been remotely that bad.

 

She is a pleasure to have in my games. ::):

 

The Auld Grump

No, instead I sat naked in your lap when you were trying to help me level my character.

 

Now THAT'S what I call SHENANIGANS! :lol: AND a pleasure!

 

All the players in all the games that I have run have been well behaved, even the old grumpy one. ::P: Though I would kind of like to see Jon make a special snowflake, instead of Barbarian #67. <_< Jon knows what he likes to play, and he plays it ALL THE TIME!

16 hours ago, BlazingTornado said:

Well like I said, flavor.

Monks deriving their power as much from their wisdom as their dex, and all that, obviously indicates a oneness of mind and body beyond booze and knowing how to punch.

 

Also the flying barbarians are one of the magic barbarians I spoke out about earlier. :poke:

 

 

The Tavern Brawler feat is about as good as you'll get for an actual bar brawler, sadly. Which doesn't really make for a powerful build.

 

The last campaign we finished was the first time Jon ever had a flying barbarian.

 

I think it changed his world. <_<

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you weren't disruptive in game. During the games you did a great job of being in character, and helping the party solve the problems. (Sometimes with a fireball, but sometimes a fireball is the right tool to solve a problem.)

 

The shenanigans were between games.

 

Between games is open season. ::):

 

And those shenanigans are a treasured memory.

 

The Auld Grump

 

*EDIT* Oh, Lords and Ladies, a beautiful woman sits in my lap, and I make it sound like I was thinking 'At least she isn't disrupting the game'.... Please, insert face palm. I deserve it.

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

*EDIT* Oh, Lords and Ladies, a beautiful woman sits in my lap, and I make it sound like I was thinking 'At least she isn't disrupting the game'.... Please, insert face palm. I deserve it.

 

No no, it just shows you have your priorities in the proper order.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

 

*EDIT* Oh, Lords and Ladies, a beautiful woman sits in my lap, and I make it sound like I was thinking 'At least she isn't disrupting the game'.... Please, insert face palm. I deserve it.

 

You left out the ultra-special part where she was nude while she was doing this and it still didn't change your reaction. Because you're a giant nerdgentleman...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 10:24 AM, TheAuldGrump said:

But you weren't disruptive in game. During the games you did a great job of being in character, and helping the party solve the problems. (Sometimes with a fireball, but sometimes a fireball is the right tool to solve a problem.)

 

The shenanigans were between games.

 

Between games is open season. ::):

 

And those shenanigans are a treasured memory.

 

The Auld Grump

 

*EDIT* Oh, Lords and Ladies, a beautiful woman sits in my lap, and I make it sound like I was thinking 'At least she isn't disrupting the game'.... Please, insert face palm. I deserve it.

What you were REALLY thinking:

330px-Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg

 

I would go on with stiff upper lip jokes, but this is a family forum! :lol:

 

What was weird is in spite of that he was completely COMFORTABLE with me on his lap. Ho hum, naked woman on my lap. Must be Saturday. <_<

 

AND he has a comfortable lap. ::):

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlazingTornado said:

Hah. Now that, I gotta see.

 

We've all played with them before - the people who want to donothing but kill things and take their stuff, and then blow it all on hookers and booze. They're the worst, right?



Well, now there's a class for them.

The Murder-Hobo is a rough-and-tumble homebrew player class for D&D 5e. It's a class that specializes in being a jerk, basically, one that bullies people smaller than it, searches every possible body for loot, and is constantly in trouble with the law.

In addition to the main Murder-Hobo class features, there are also five sub-classes to choose from, each with their own aggravating flavor and playstyle:
  • The Dipsomaniac - the drunk, one that only gets tougher as they drink more.
  • The Kleptomaniac - the sticky-fingered thief, always out for gold.
  • The Nymphomaniac - the paramour, ever charming and alluring.
  • The Pyschomaniac - the unrepentant murderer, never satisfied.
  • The Pyromaniac - the arsonist, who just wants to set the world ablaze.

This class is, frankly, a joke that got taken a little bit too far, but it's pretty darn enjoyable to play as, assuming the rest of the party is on board with it. Good luck, have fun, and be nice to whichever poor soul has to DM for you.

 

 

The Auld Grump

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that. Or at least I saw it mentioned elsewhere with a summary of it. Without actually reading it, it seemed like it was kind of OP. Not quite Old Spice Gentleman OP, but still a bit much.

 

I could be wrong, though. Maybe it's a decent class. But it still won't see use in any of my games unless we decide to just run a joke session or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm still trying to understand initiative in Basic/Rules Cyclopedia.

It says it's group initiative and then things go down in "phases", so group 1 (heroes or monsters) does all those things in order, then group 2 does the same...

 

But then we have the individual initiative variant (which my players would prefer) which calculates everyone's initiative individually but then says otherwise it follows the same procedure...

 

So do I have to go down the line but prioritize any hero or creature that does a ranged attack or a spell attack before the melee stuff goes down?

 

It's kinda confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×