Although without a doubt many people have tried playing Dungeons and Dragons in a MLP setting, afaik there is no complete rulebook or conversion set that allows for an immersive experience (this doesn't count: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Little_Pony_(5e_Race))
. We've had some longstanding campaigns on /vx/ so why don't we build a reference as a community project? It doesn't necessarily have to be set in stone but it would better establish campaigns in rules of logic. It's impossible to have OOC discussion at length in a campaign so let's do it here.
Complete 3.5 rulebook: http://choisey.free.fr/3.5/Core/Indexed%20Player%20Handbook%20v3.5.pdf
Handy 3.5 reference site: http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm
A more comprehensive reference site: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/
Homebrew content: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page
"Monstrous Races" – useful if you have animals and monsters as sapient creatures like in MLP; unfortunately I don't have the book: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/230312/Monstrous-Races
What needs improving? Pretty much everything, but highest priority would be playable races and monsters, as canonically MLP is completely different from DnD in terms of sapient creatures and very different when it comes to other creatures. Amazingly entire campaigns have been played without precise knowledge of creatures' strengths and weaknesses, but setting the definitions straight will help nuance and variety.
Campaigns set outside the typical high fantasy realm of DnD, like our very own Occupied Equestria
, present further uncertainty. Most guns (submachine guns were settled fairly recently, though I have no idea about LMGs/MMGs/HMGs) have already been worked out but, given it's a WW2 setting, how will vehicles function in combat? Can bits be expected to buy the same things as the recommended valuation of GP? These and any other gameplay questions can be discussed and answered here.
I'll start. A big problem for MLP in DnD is that there are a lot more potential playable races than in DnD making balance a very complex affair. The list below doesn't even include "playable monsters," but only canonical sapient species minus some minor ones from the movie. Fortunately there are lots of ways to balance races. Bonuses or penalties to abilities are the most direct and simplest means, but there's only so much you can do. Races can have different base attributes such as size, natural weapons, natural armor, base speed, and being able to fly. Quadrupeds have the benefit of being able to carry more weight per point of strength. Races can also have an innate feat that gives them a unique DnD ability while permitting selection of other feats as normal. Some can have a magical ability without the necessary prerequisite or cost normally associated with having it: all unicorns can cast mage hand (basically telekinesis) and all pegasi can walk on clouds, unless otherwise specified. For more fine-tuning it's possible to have innate skill ranks which improve saving rolls for specific actions or circumstances. It's even possible to have a "preferred class" for different races though I haven't looked into that. As for flavor-text, I've included which races are likely to eat plants and which are likely to eat animals (which affects role-play).
Obviously what I've come up with is very incomplete but it shows what's possible. One problem I ran into is that earth ponies, pegasi, and unicorns look a little mundane or even underpowered compared to other races: I'm not sure what other bonuses and drawbacks they would have but I had to be creative to give niches to the other creatures. I'm sure most anons could do better.
Earth ponies: +2 strength, +2 constitution, extra feat, run
Natural weapon: hooves
Pegasi: +2 dex, -2 con, flying, cloud walker, run
Natural weapon: hooves
Unicorns: +2 int, +2 wis, mage hand cantrip, run, spell knowledge
Natural weapon: hooves
Bat ponies: +2 dex, -2 con, flying, stealthy, dark vision,
Natural weapon: hooves
Crystal ponies: earth mastery, sonic vulnerability, toughness
Natural weapon: hooves
Natural armor: crystal (+3 AC)
Kirins: +2 wis, can cast spell: produce flame when using racial feat: rage,
Natural weapon: hooves
Natural armor: armored scales (+1 AC)
Horses: +2 con, base land speed faster than ponies, run, toughness
Natural weapon: hooves
Breezies: +3 wis, +2 dex, -4 strength, flying, +2 on all saving throws, +2 move silently, can cast detect magic
Natural weapon: hooves
Griffons: -2 charisma, base land speed is slower than ponies, flying, +3 spot, +2 appraise, pounce, rake, up the walls, weapon focus: bite
Natural weapon: claws
Changelings: flying, inquisitor, psionic, aura of despair, mage hand, disguise self
Natural weapons: bite, love parasitism
Feed off love
Dragons: endure heat, can breathe fire, toughness
Natural weapon: claws, bite
Natural armor: armored scales (+2 AC)
Omnivorous; prefer gems
Zebras: +2 con, -2 int, use magic device +3, endure heat, run
Natural weapon: hooves
Mules: -2 int, +2 climb, can cast spell: resistance
Natural weapon: hooves
Buffalo: +4 con, -2 cha, feat: trample, run
Natural weapon: gore
Deer: -2 con, +2 dex, immunity to magic sleep effects, low light vision, +2 listen, search, and spot, run
Minotaurs: -2 cha, +2 dex, +2 str, stonecunning, +2 craft, dark vision, great fortitude, power attack, base land speed slow
Natural weapon: gore
Yaks: +3 con, -2 int, -2 diplomacy, endure cold, endurance
Natural weapon: gore
Abyssinians: +3 cha, -2 str, low-light vision, balance +2
Natural weapon: claws, bite
Parrot: +1 concentration, +2 perform
Diamond dogs: +3 strength, -2 int, weapon focus: bite
Natural weapon: bite
Natural weapon: bite
Natural weapon: bite
While the rulebook(s) provide a basic level of economic structure, the value of money (whether bits, steel, gold, or w/e) is at the GM's discretion. 1 bit can = 1gp, or it can vary wildly, at their preference.
As far as game mechanics go, 5e might be a more suitable platform for pony-related gaming. The advantage of 3.5e is that every rule has been exhaustively expounded on with supplements and additional rules game-breakingly so, to the unwary
while 5e is more streamlined and open-ended to suit GM homebrew without having everything pre-established. As a side note, the fact that ponies have hooves and not hands and can't therefore 'grasp/wield' things has always been a major irritation/oversight in any attempt to translate DnD for ponies.
Considering the sophistication potential of weapons (assuming unicorn craftsponies) could make reasonably effective firearms, but envisioning ponies using their mouth and neck to wield melee weapons makes my brain hurt.
Golly, I wish we had more people on during dead hours, this makes me want to post on /mlp/ but I can't because 4Chan hates VPNs. I'm hungry to know more about such mechanics but I prefer wikiwalks, not dryly going through entire manuals. Hardcore experience through campaigns really is the best way to know how the game works but that takes time (the big disadvantage of big parties with semi-active players).
What's exactly the difference between 3.5e and 5e? I do know that 3.5 is probably the most popular edition just as it is the worst MLP generation
so I'm guessing it marks the point where DnD really hit its stride before any changes could be only subjectively better.
As for grasping things, I've considered non-unicorn ponies having three appendages that can grasp: their highly dexterous mouth and two hooves with limited but "good enough" dexterity. Using hooves to hold onto things obviously limits speed, with one used hoof limiting speed to a trot and two limited speed to a walk. Translating this to DnD would be quite difficult, though. Horses have really strong mouths and teeth so holding onto weapons that way isn't implausible. Rifles look to be impractical though as they are hardly designed for hooves; in the EaW campaign it's explained away as the trigger guard being removed, though this reduces accuracy.
Quadrupeds using firearms - particularly rifles - is actually less problematic than it seems. When we envision a human being using a rifle, we tend to base this upon a “firing range” scenario where a person stands upright and still, and fires the weapon. This is not how you would want to fire a rifle in mass combat in the age of automatic weapons and shrapnel based artillery. Rather, you would want to go the prone position, or at least hide behind cover as you fire your gun. Earth ponies in the prone position could of course use both forelegs to hold and pull the trigger on the weapon, while standing behind cover would allow for the cover itself to be used to stabilize the weapon. Humans are advised to do one of these two things anyways when handling light machine guns and sniper ruffles, and so it is not much of a loss if Earth ponies are restoring red to firing in this way. Pegasi, Griffins, Changelings and Hippogriffs can all fly, and so can use the two forelimbs while flying. I image those that can fly would want to hide behind cover or go to the prone position as soon as the enemy starts shooting, however, where they could and would use their weapons the same as earth ponies. Perhaps you’re thinking that in an assault, it would be a benefit to fire while walking or standing. However, because an assault is usually opposed, even a human would rather fire from cover or a prone position, and run between cover to limit exposure.
Yes, there are instances where you absolutely have to be standing or walking, like when clearing a house, clearing an enemy trench, or covering a retreat. In those cases, a specially designed sling could be made such that the gun is kind of tight when placed against the shoulder. A single hoof is brought up to partly hold the gun, and probably pull the trigger. Most likely the hoof twists while doing this, so that a top portion of the hoof remains in place to hold the gun, while the bottom portion twists back towards the pony to pull the trigger back. Another option is using the mouth for some sort of trigger pull of stabilization of the gun. No, none of this will make firing while standing as stable, accurate, or as comfortable for a quadruped as it would be for a two handed biped, but at least it allows some use for a gun best used in the prone position. There is of course Napoleonic style warfare where musketmen stand in lines to shoot muskets, and that presents some difficulties, but at least it isn’t what we have to consider here.
As for melee, the very first thing I want to pin to out is that every single member of the royal guard of Equestria, at least until season 9 and maybe even in season 9, is a unicorn it Pegasus. As such, they can either use magic to wield their weapons, or hold them with both forehooves. The Lunar guard and changelings likewise can fly, and flying would likely be a significant advantage in pre-modern battle, where there are no automatic ranged weapons, flak or canister rounds. Outside of mass conscription, there is no need for Equestria, relying on a knightly warrior class or a professional army, to need to allow Earth ponies to serve in combat, and mass conscription doesn’t really make sense outside of modern notions of Nationalism, or at least smaller republics that are able to recreate nation-state-like conditions in the populous. Having said all of that, probably the most obvious weapon that would work for a quadruped is the lance. Simply attack a sphere to the side of the back, and you have a weapon you can attack with using forward momentum. Modify the arrangement a little, and you can have a spear the position of which may be modified with a hoof, that is attached to the back, and lets an earth pony - and especially a Pegasus - attack with their foreword momentum, or in jabs after coming up close. You can also attach a weapon, like a knife, to the foreleg. This is even easier when the creature is flying, as it allows for the weapon to face down from the hoof rather than just forward. And finally, yes, a pony can use their mouth to hold a sword. I am sure they’d want some kind of mouth guard to prevent breaking teeth, but at least equine necks are longer, stronger, and more flexible than human necks, and their can also move their fore-body as a part of the swing to give it more power. Most quadrupeds use their mouths as their main weapons, so why wouldn’t ponies?
And on top of all of this, remember that equines can as a matter of fact stand upright on their hind legs. This will be much easier for a little pony, rather than a half-ton horse, as there will be less weight to support. No, it isn’t comfortable, but warfare is not considerate of the comfort of its participants. Quadrupeds have a huge advantage over bipeds in that they have a much lower profile when facing the enemy, meaning they have a much lower surface to be stabbed, sliced, shot, or hit with shrapnel. So it isn’t all bad to be a quadruped.
That is very true though I nonetheless think difference among species would lead to very different capability in combat. Herbivorous species like ponies are unlikely to be as aggressive in waging war as a carnivorous species like griffons or diamond dogs, and this is indeed implied in both the show and in the mod. Also, it's pretty heavily emphasized that ponies enjoyed the fruits of harmony while griffons had to carve out an existence through blood and iron. Thus griffons would be well used to feudal squabbles, personal duels, and imperial wars even more than the River-Ponies who likely resemble pre-harmony Equestrians. Thus I'd say griffons have a stronger martial tradition. The preferred style of warfare would be different too: since griffons are combinations of eagles and big cats (both lithe predator species) they would probably prefer quick decisive maneuvers and personal duels when they can get them. Ponies would rarely wage an offensive war but would prefer more drawn-out fights: this is due to physiology and less required logistics as feeding an army with plants is cheaper than feeding one with meat. However, since drawn-out wars are painful an option of deterrence may be used to have a small, capable force as protection (this is the logic of the Royal Guard, the Wonderbolts, and the Elements of Harmony).
Pics are an artist’s conception of army compositions in the late pre-harmony/early harmony era. Although I agree that pegasi and unicorns are better soldiers on a one-to-one basis, earth ponies would still be used because their strength makes them better for logistics/menial tasks, they can better withstand the brunt of an enemy’s attack, and their ingenuity makes them great engineers. I do agree though that because of this lower status and cruder means of fighting (probably punching, bucking and biting) they would be looked down upon by more “elite” units. Again in this way Nimbusia may be a look back in time to a harsher Equestria.
I don't know if you've ever read the fanfic Mente Materia
, the sequel to Stardust
, but as an XCOM crossover it shows how ponies may adapt to modern combat and the challenges therein. It's high quality science fiction overall, and I particularly like the historical and cultural depth given to griffons and minotaurs. Griffon knights have a corollary in myrmidons, elite armored soldiers who are epic in their prowess and armament. Minotaurs are technologically advanced and prefer a highly defensive strategy through use of hoplites, traps, underground cities and heavy artillery. Seriously check it out.
I wonder if the evolution of warfare changes the balance of power among species. In a way that's already represented; the show's "military," besides the royal guard with traditional weapons, consists of elite pegasi and unicorns using their natural talents. The whole premise of EaW is that planes can outperform pegasi and skilled combat-unicorns, although powerful, are not numerous enough to fill a front line. Thus although ponies used to be able to secure a large empire they are woefully outperformed by trained changelings, who can fly (not as well as pegasi, but enough to get the hang of piloting planes) and use magic (again, not as well as unicorns, but certainly well enough to hold a gun) to maximize the utility of modern technology. A combination of specialized volunteers can be overwhelmed with a mass army of “good enough” generalists. Still, I think that some things would remain similar with griffons making the most of light, high speed attacks and using bipedalism to greater effect in close quarters.
I have to ask, what level adjustment do you measure all these listed races? Level adjustment is a difficult concept to work with, but they exist for a reason.>Earth ponies get an extra feat.
I think it would be more appropriate to give all ponies the flexible bonus feat. It would work with their cutie mark magic (since all ponies are born with one innate talent), and would accentuate them as the universe's equivalent to humans. That's how they do it in ponyfinder, although ponyfinder isn't exactly a balanced or well-written setting... (And I say that as a guy who's trying to write a pony-PF game).
Also, are those hoof attacks primary natural weapons or secondary attacks?
Giving griffons a pounce and rake attack is a pretty big deal. Be aware that a creature that a flying creature attacks with it's claws while diving deals double damage (this is actually why they give 3.5e pegasi "claws"). When you consider the effects of rapidstrike, leap attack, shocktrooper, and battle jump, a griffon Fighter or warblade could one-shot just about anything with a dive attack at levels far below what other ubercharger builds could attain. A griffin already gets the benefit of having fingers, afterall.
The breezie is also pushing it. Tiny size is an enormous asset for a Wizard or a rogue. I can imagine a breezie swordsage dematerializing all of its enemies with one touch, whilst being near untouchable due to it's AC.
In any case, all of these races warrant a level adjustment of some kind, some cases could even warrant racial hit dice due to the magnitude of their abilities. Anything that flies at-will at level 1 has to have a level adjustment in 3.5e, because it makes that PC untouchable by most forms of at low levels. Others on the other hand seem mediocre compared to the others: the zebra for example seems to not have anything special going for it, aside from a couple mediocre feats that aren't valuable for anything except qualifying for better stuff. Some of these the races have boons that seem downright OP at level 1, but irrevant at later levels: a kirn player would spam that Produce Flame attack every turn for levels 1-4, but at level 7 the damage becomes so small that it it becomes a waste of actions.
These are all interesting ideas, but you should probably take a long look at them and reconsider how gimping them up with monster-like powers will effect your game. Pathfinder handles monster-like-races a bit better, but if you're running 3.5e you should aim for 0-LA races.
There's actually quite a bit of [published material on this subject. Savage Species is your go-to source for incorporating non-humanoid races in your game.
Money balance is an important aspect of 3.5e d&d. All encounters, adventures, traps and challenges are written with the assumption that the player characters have an appropriate amount of equipment for their character levels, and that they had the chance to buy/sell equipment at reasonable stopping points. Over-gearing or under-gearing players can drastically impact the balance of a game.
It's not necessary to follow WBL to the last gp, but it's something that all DMs should at least be aware of. The marriage of character level and equipment value is a concept that's grandfathered in from 1st edition, and 3.5e can really fall apart if you under-gear PCs, or worse, let them get away with breaking the item economy.
I like the Item Level table in the Magic Item Compendium. It's a good guide to figure out not only what an encounter should yield but also to determine the maximum value of individual items that PCs should possess.
As for the weapons, the supposed inability for ponies to use two-handed weapons is something that I've really struggled with in my Pathfinder setting, because two-handed builds really are the king of melee.
As for guns... I think how ponies use guns takes a back seat to how you handle the existence of gunpowder in your 3.5e game. The only thing scarier than an optimized wizard is an optimized wizard with access to modern weaponry and high-power nonmagical explosives. Mid level you'll have casters shadow-conjuring 50-by-50 foot cubes of gunpowder on the enemies heads while you scramble to figure out how much damage they did with their army of undead gunslingers. Meanwhile, ranged characters who actually want to use the guns for what they're for will still find that the doubling or tripling of their damage dice still takes a back seat to the barbarian dealing 700 damage while ubercharging with his falchion or scythe.
3.5e doesn't really accommodate firearms well, but the DMG says to refer to d20 modern for any rules regarding them.
Dropping prone isn't exactly a a viable combat option when you're in a dungeon... Standing up from prone provokes attacks of opportunity, and you can only crawl at a fraction of your normal land speed.
If ponies can't fire guns (or use two-handed weaponry) without penalty on two legs, they're effectively going to be pigeonholed into spell-casting classes or other classes that don't require weaponry. It's not just that players would all necessarily take the more optimized choice, but that after several sessions they'll slowly gravitate to the combat option that feels more gratifying to them as other options lead to them missing all of the time and getting wounded before they can shoot.
However, if they could
use two-handed weapons and tools with their forelegs without penalty, one would question why they ever go about walking on all fours in the first place. The end result would be ponies standing around on two legs all of the time in dungeons because they want to be battle-ready when the encounter inevitably starts, even if they're flat-footed; and that just looks weird.
I think the real solution is to have guns that are custom custom made for armless, fingerless creatures. Integrating balanced gunpowder rules into 3.5e is already hard enough; may as well go the extra mile and figure out what guns for ponies would look like.
>>127611>Most guns (submachine guns were settled fairly recently, though I have no idea about LMGs/MMGs/HMGs) have already been worked out but, given it's a WW2 setting, how will vehicles function in combat? Can bits be expected to buy the same things as the recommended valuation of GP? These and any other gameplay questions can be discussed and answered here.
Adding non-magical modern weaponry to a magic-intensive fantasy setting is a bad idea, imo, but for brave DMs who want to go there, the DMG says to refer to D20 Modern for those rules; they say so in the "Building a New World" section, iirc.http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/
There's information for guns, vehicles, modern weapons based on tech level, etc, all compatible with the mechanics of 3.5e (but not taking into account what happenjs when you give ambitious Wizards access to world-changing technology).
I had no idea there was actually a Ponyfinder rulebook. There is certainly a lot of effort that went into these but the authors still make serious bank with hundreds of dollars worth of books on sale (just for pdfs!) I don't know if any anon here is rich enough or enough of a pirate to own these. How good is Ponyfinder? After unicorns I don't see any batponies or crystal ponies but something called "ghost ponies" which I hadn't taken into account.>flexible bonus feat for all ponies
I agree and it would help with balance for non-pony races. The problem is that earth ponies would need an extra buff to compete with flying pegasi and magic-using unicorns.>primary natural weapons or secondary attacks
I'd say primary though I'm not very familiar with the combat system. Irl when a horse is fighting it uses its hooves but will also bite if an enemy comes too close.>pounce and rake
I considered it because I saw 3.5e griffons (the monster) having these attacks. I knew immediately that griffons would be overpowered because of their natural weapons, ability to fly, and strong perception. Canonically it makes sense because an aquiline/feline body is designed to take down prey quickly, but it wouldn't make for very good campaigns. Maybe another stat debuff to Con? Griffons might end up the race that has a lot of advantages but also a lot of drawbacks.>breezie
Yeah, it shows that I have 0 experience with the mechanics. I was trying to hard to compensate for the thought (breezies are so tiny that they're worthless in combat, maybe they need other advantages)
Again, it was just a brainstorming session, not really a serious proposal. I'm the least qualified but I wanted to get anons talking about it.>Savage Species
Nice, I found it for free at https://www.scribd.com/document/342896598/3-5-Savage-Species>>127887>d20 modern
Thanks Anon! I agree that balancing guns is really tough, with characters either shrugging off hails of bullets (which destroys immersion) or dying very easily to any grunt with a gun. I think the campaign I'm joining (not sure if it's running on d20 modern) handles it pretty well but I don't know all the particulars. Adding modern weaponry to a magical setting is of course difficult but because it's the whole premise of EaW it is indispensable for that particular campaign.
>>127888>The problem is that earth ponies would need an extra buff to compete with flying pegasi and magic-using unicorns.
The problem is that earth ponies would need an extra buff to compete with flying pegasi and magic-using unicorns.
Well, the issue there is that you're trying to present creatures that can fly at lvl 1 as a 0 LA race. 3.5e simply doesn't accommodate that.
A flexible bonus feat (or "unique destiny") isn't exactly a consequence of an Earth pony's physical form, magical ability, or cultural background. 3.5e d&d (and 5e) presents it as a uniquely human trait, apparent only in a handful of humanoids with the [human] subtype; the only exception being strongheart halflings.
I had the idea to allow earth ponies to treat their mouths as two hands when wielding two-handed weapons, effectively giving them the monopoly on high-damage melee combat.
That was for a homebrew Pathfinder setting loosely based on Ponyfinder though (Ponyfinder is absolute garbage though; I'm basically rewriting the setting from scratch).>Yeah, it shows that I have 0 experience with the mechanics.
Well, it might be better to play a few games before you start trying to DM, and maybe run a couple modules or use existing material before you start trying your own homebrew from scratch.
Still, I wish you good luck. I'm trying to write a pony setting too, although mine is more of a monster-pony setting so racial details of normal ponies aren't as important to me.>(((scribd)))>"Oy vey. Give us money goy!"
Everything you need can be found on TheTrove.https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/
>>127890>Well, the issue there is that you're trying to present creatures that can fly at lvl 1 as a 0 LA race. 3.5e simply doesn't accommodate that.
True. What if flying creatures have to upgrade their speed by leveling up, and at level 0 flying at max speed is barely better than running? I don't know how it would work balance-wise but it makes sense since pegasi have to actively train to become proficient flyers.>I had the idea to allow earth ponies to treat their mouths as two hands when wielding two-handed weapons, effectively giving them the monopoly on high-damage melee combat.Sad Silver noises
Now that's a good idea>it might be better to play a few games before you start trying to DM
It's not my campaign and indeed I'm just joining it now. I have however been following it for a couple of years and mechanics have not yet been fleshed out, with a couple of discussions about how things work in the campaign thread itself. I just want to help out by fleshing out the setting, because fixed rules allows for more emphasis to be placed on worldbuilding and adventure. I agree though, I want to eventually DM a pony-based campaign but that's way in the long-term.>I'm trying to write a pony setting too
Best of luck Anon! Great to have you around and thanks for the books.
>>127891>What if flying creatures have to upgrade their speed by leveling up, and at level 0 flying at max speed is barely better than running?
It's not so much as speed as it is height. A creature capable of remaining 30 feet in the air is beyond the reach of a vast variety of monster.
There are 0-LA creatures with scaling flight in 3.5e though. Raptorans are a good one.
Ponyfinder gives Pegasi a 30 foot flight speed with clumsy maneuverability, which they can elect to improve with feats. Ponyfinder is a poorly-written setting though, and races in Pathfinder are somewhat stronger than 3.5e races...
>>127892>A creature capable of remaining 30 feet in the air is beyond the reach of a vast variety of monster.
Sounds like less of a problem with guns, then. But that just means there must be some incentive for melee builds because that's a further weakness.
>>127891>I just want to help out by fleshing out the setting, because fixed rules allows for more emphasis to be placed on worldbuilding and adventure.
Tbh, it's more of the DM's job to worldbuild. You're better off just rolling with whatever the DM took the time to prepare than to try to be a back seat DM. Just ask him to write down the necessary statistics important to your character so that you have what it is you need to know.>I agree though, I want to eventually DM a pony-based campaign
Ngl, it'd be better to start with a standard one.
DMing can be hard, but it's not difficult to start. All you really need is the DMG, the PHB, the MM, and some friends willing to play it. You can start any time. Heck, you could start tomorrow if you could organize it.
For your first game, I'd recommend using a module. The Sunless Citadel is a favorite of mine.>>127893>guns
Most monsters don't use guns, and simply increasing the damage scale for humanoid NPCs does not fix the issue of the lack of level adjustment tied to a character capable of at-will flight.
And anyway, if the humanoid NPCs are equipped with advanced weapontry, they should have a higher CR, or just yield 150%-200% more XP, because of the lethality increase.
You're also assuming that the players will be staying in semi-urban areas and murdering humanoid NPCs, instead of going out into dungeons and exploring the rugged wilderness, fighting monsters who do not typically use weapons.
>>127884>Dropping prone isn't exactly a a viable combat option when you're in a dungeon... Standing up from prone provokes attacks of opportunity, and you can only crawl at a fraction of your normal land speed.
You see pics related? These are true
dungeon crawlers right here. A Vietcong soldier and a US "tunnel rat" serviceman, crawling the "dungeons" or tunnels of Vietnam. One has his Kalashnikov rifle in hand, the other a flashlight in one hand a 1911 in the other, and you can see they are both crouching or crawling. You can bet that when tunnel rats do their dungeon crawling, they literally crawl down the hall an inch a time looking for traps, because otherwise they'd onto sharpened bamboo spikes covered in feces
. If you think that dropping prone isn't a viable option while dungeon crawling, you clearly weren't in Vietnam.
My entirely facetious answer aside, I still don't understand this criticism of my explanation as to how earth ponies can use semi-modern firearms
Why is anyone, hands or hooves regardless, using a rifle with a range of a thousand yards as their primary weapon in a dungeon where nothing is ever more than 10 yards away?
Why are rifleman within melee attack range of an enemy such that the attack of opportunity thing is relevant?
Why are ponies with perfectly good, damage inflicting rifles that still function, all of a sudden standing during the middle of a battle while they are withing melee range of an enemy?
Why are ponies remaining in the prone position constantly rather than walking like normal and only going to the prone position when enemies are nearby?
And the most important question I can possibly ask, is why would a DM use traditional cramped underground fantasy dungeons but take the effort to try to figure out how to import semi-modern firearms?
This whole line of thinking relies on two assumptions that I absolutely cannot abide. First, that a dungeon master who introduces semi-modern firearms into the campaign is not going to change anything else about the setting or campaign, and is going to force the players into cramped dungeons where knives are as useful as rifles. The second is that I do not see why any valid answer to the question "how do I hold a gun with hooves?" has to make large firearms like rifles just as viable for use by an earth pony as melee weapons, under extremely close quarters combat where in real life knife is as good as a rifle.
There are so many great locations for combat and even extended quests in industrial age settings, that I really don't understand why any DM would want to use an old fashioned dungeon desired for medieval fantasy, without at least heavily modifying it. You can have combat take place in a large factory with multiple levels, in a train yard, on top of a moving train, at a hydro-electric dam, in a cathedral, in a seaport, on a large ship, in a forest, in no-man's land attacking trenches, on a fortified beach, in an open pit mine.
Sure, many of these settings aren't great for dropping prone, but they provide many opportunities for an earthpony to rest the barrel of a rifle on an item of cover, so that they can operate the gun with one hoof. There's enemies at the end of train car? Use the seat in front of you to rest a gun and shoot at them, maybe while a sword weilder moves in. Enemies shooting from down on the factory floor? Use the railing from your position on the second floor walkway to stabilize the gun. Enemies above you in the church? Use a pew. You need to shoot at a machine gun nest in the enemy trench from your position in no man's land? Use the corpse of your comrade. Need to shoot the Manticore while hunting on Safari? Use your zebra servant's back to prop up the weapon. And if that doesn't work, just say the rifle comes with a foldable tripod that stabilizes the front as you stand and operate it with one hoof. Dropping prone to fight a monster in the forest (at least if you have melee fighters to keep it at a distance) is easy enough. People hunt deer that way with guns.
If you are going to have semi-modern weaponry in a dungeons and dragon's campaign, you need to change more than just the weapons. Nerfing or removing some of the higher level magic spells is a must, and changing combat locations to something more suited to ranged weaponry is also advisable.
Finally, I really do not see why the inclusion of firearms requires said firearms always being the optimal weapon for an earth pony under all circumstances. Even in real life firearms aren't necessarily better than melee at super close range, and bows are considerably better than firearms at stealth. So you say an earth pony may find a sword more useful than a rifle in a traditional dungeon. I say good. Make it so that the optimal weapon changes according to the peculiarities of the situation, and make it so that more than one way of fighting is valid. I don't see the issue.
>>127895>Why is anyone, hands or hooves regardless, using a rifle with a range of a thousand yards as their primary weapon in a dungeon where nothing is ever more than 10 yards away?>Why are rifleman within melee attack range of an enemy such that the attack of opportunity thing is relevant?
Because monsters have capabilities to close distances like that in one round, and a game where you just keep shooting and being shot at from far beyond melee range doesn't seem very fulfilling, imo.
It's the same reason why low-level spellcasters need martial characters to protect them. They don't always get to choose the range at which they fight.>And the most important question I can possibly ask, is why would a DM use traditional cramped underground fantasy dungeons but take the effort to try to figure out how to import semi-modern firearms?
Well, when I heard D&D, I usually expect dungeons and dragons. Most adventures have one or more dungeons in them. Dungeons are where the best treasure is; they're where PCs can accumulate the most XP. It's where it makes the most sense to lay traps,roll encounter tables, and place puzzles. Games without dungeons are missing out, imo.>If you are going to have semi-modern weaponry in a dungeons and dragon's campaign, you need to change more than just the weapons. Nerfing or removing some of the higher level magic spells is a must, and changing combat locations to something more suited to ranged weaponry is also advisable.
I dislike how people seem to think think how the only solution to making martial characters better is just nerfing spellcasters...
Either way, it is true that modern weaponry changes the game altogether, to the point where you'd hardly be playing dungeons and dragons, but more of a d20 modern type adventure, in which case a dungeon master should write the module completely differently, and inform the players of the logistics of the changes.
>>127894>start with a module
If you're gonna try and GM right out of the gate, I second this.>>127895>>127896>guns
It really depends on the scenario. OE operates from a quasi-mishmash of Equestria and WW2-ish, where guns are a central theme. The main point of guns is to be able to train an average dog-faced
pony soldier to be as effective as possible in the largest spectrum of scenarios possible, and in as little time as possible and both in game and IRL guns are the most effective way of doing so.
Having said, guns are more of a thing in more modern and/or future scenarios and often don't apply at all in most DnD settings and if they do they tend to be exceedingly rare bordering on unique.
This is part of why I dislike introducing modern weaponry into d&d, tbh. The system of d&d is meant for medieval/classical fantasy, not modern warfare.
Guns can either be equivalent to high-powered magical crossbows, or so powerful that they change game balance altogether. In either case, they make the item economy even harder to balance than it already is.
>>127897>The main point of guns is to be able to train an average dog-faced pony soldier to be as effective as possible in the largest spectrum of scenarios possible, and in as little time as possible and both in game and IRL guns are the most effective way of doing so.
This is actually why guns were adopted irl, despite a trained archer being more accurate and rapid-firing than a musketman. You have to train your whole life to be effective with a bow and arrow whereas a gun takes relatively basic training.>>127898
I'd see that as a challenge and DnD is all about challenges.
More like a massive headache for the dungeon master and a minefield of unexpected roadblocks that slow down the game and frustrates players, leading to 15 minute adventuring days where the party rests after one major battle, or worse, doesn't do anything at all in a session..
It's just important to plan ahead with hybrid systems. 3.5e is already a shaky system. Giving wizards access to gunpowder just makes it even harder to manage on the DM's part. It's not impossible, but it's challenging.
It's not that I dislike modern settings though. In fact, I love them. However, they're not exactly easy to incorporate into 3.5e d&d, where the system itself assumes a medieval/classical setting with an ample magic item economy.
For example, once you look at d20 modern/arcana, the first thing you might notice is that that system has very few magical weapons, and replaces gp with "purchase DCs". In a modern setting, as the makers of d20 intended, modern equipment replaces magic items altogether. That wouldn't mesh well with classes that are reliant on magic items though.
I find that pathfinder handles guns rather well, although incorporating a gunslinger into my PF setting which was supposed to be a primordial/medieval fantasy was still a headache for me. In the end I just decided to fluff her ammunition as a set of magically-infused alchemical reactants, similar to an alchemists bombs.>>127897>The main point of guns is to be able to train an average dog-faced pony soldier to be as effective as possible in the largest spectrum of scenarios possible
True. Guns are basically high-powered crossbows in that regard. Anyone can use them and they deal a lot of damage.
However, being useful for armies does not
contribute to fulfilling gameplay. The 3.5e system assumes parties of four functioning as fantasy SWAT teams, not armies and strongholds. Low-level creatures tagging along only serve to get AoE'd, or even become a liability since they can be dominated/charmed/reanimated.
Heroes Of Battle is absolutely necessary for making armies work in 3.5e, imo, but in the end it moreso hinges on how high you can gimp up your commander level to buff your low-level mobs so that they'll be slightly higher level than the enemy's low-level mobs, and pray to Pelor that a dragon doesn't fly overhead and airstrike the lot of you.
I'll add the point that guns do make the idea of playing a dread necromancer, with an a near unlimited ever-growing army of wights armed to the teeth with magically-fabricated machine guns and grenades, sound like a lot more fun. Would go well with the Artificer's robots and the Thrallherd's believers.
Sounds like a nightmare from a DM perspective though..
Checked. I agree with you in theory in that DnD really does not lend itself well to guns, and maybe looking at the sourcebooks of other tabletops may be necessary in coming up with a homebrew. The other players and DM could better testify to this than I can, but on a practical level OE has been a success in synthesis. I think this can come down to good DMing, a focus on flexible role-play rather than strict mechanics, and the setting (quests have been against common criminals, the undead, and small squads, so guns are seldom used and if they are it's at close range and on a small scale). Because of this I have confidence in the campaign if not a complete homebrew worldbuild. You're welcome to look through the threads where there's combat because I believe there's a good combination between action and balance (it does take a lot of time so be warned).
You're absolutely right in that armies and strongholds don't work as of yet which is why they exist only in lore. afaik through the whole campaign there's been only a couple times where submachine guns are used (and they're god-tier weapons which are kept deliberately rare), no heavier machine guns, no armored vehicles and one artillery shell dud that was exploded remotely. When individual enemies halfway competent with guns show up a lone party member is likely to almost die as happened with Dark Star in cornering a changeling and Iron in fighting a crazed professor. Were more advanced military weapons to show up it would be a bloodbath; artillery is
the wizard+gunpowder exploit because one shell within 50 feet could be a TPK. I doubt the party could even handle a few baddies with rifles at a couple hundred feet. I have no idea if DM wants us to encounter enemies besides natural monsters, undead, thugs and clubs, cultists with revolvers, or deserters but I'd like to untie his hands and give him a basis to work off if at all possible. I'm an optimistic sort.
>>127896>Because monsters have capabilities to close distances like that in one round>It's the same reason why low-level spellcasters need martial characters
Either A: your gun toting characters are being treated as spell casting characters, and they are protected my martial melee characters, or B: your riflemen are the martial characters, and can take a hit. So what if a monster gets up close? You can still shoot it, and you don't have to incur the attack of opportunity by standing up. I don't see the issue either way. It's exactly like having a ranger in combat.>Dungeons are where the best treasure is; they're where PCs can accumulate the most XP. It's where it makes the most sense to lay traps,roll encounter tables, and place puzzles
You are missing the point. You can have treasure, traps, encounters, and puzzles, without it being cramped and underground with no cover. There are infinitely many possible locations for encounters, treasure, and puzzles. You can call the places where these happen "dungeons" if you really want to, but you don't have to design them in such a way than an earthpony ranger can't use a bolt action rifle.
As has been said elsewhere, it's just lie having a crossbow with higher damage die. I would add "a crossbow five round internal magazine and a bayonet mount," but that's pretty much exactly what it is, or what it can be.
>>127904>So what if a monster gets up close? You can still shoot it
And take an AoO because you're using a ranged weapon in melee range.
It's not that it's impossible. I just wouldn't want to be prone while doing it.>you don't have to incur the attack of opportunity by standing up
That kind of defeats the purpose of trippers then though. I'd feel sorry for Fighters and Monks.
There are feats that characters can take to allow themselves to stand more easily.
And, yeah, like I said earlier, it's basically a repeating crossbow with much bigger damage dice. Arguably overpowered at low levels just because of the damage potential, equivalent to a +2-3 (repeating, non-energy damage increase, range increase, etc) magic weapon, imo; but at later levels it would be a lot less relevant as two-handed power attacks becomes king.>>127903> I doubt the party could even handle a few baddies with rifles at a couple hundred feet. I have no idea if DM wants us to encounter enemies besides natural monsters, undead, thugs and clubs, cultists with revolvers, or deserters but I'd like to untie his hands and give him a basis to work off if at all possible.
You see now how modern weaponry becomes difficult to manage. Not only is damage increased across the board, the range at which you can get clapped while flat-footed is also increased. It makes it all that harder to get through four encounters in a session.
Modern settings would be a playground for Wizards, Factotums, War Clerics and Artificers though. Mass-producing heavy artillery with Fabricate and Polymorph Any Object, and Major-Creating bombs and ammunition for the army of magically animated walking-talking machine guns.
I never liked EaW for it's characters, lore or geography, but Rosa is just top waifu.
>>127905>And take an AoO because you're using a ranged weapon in melee range
This is not a problem you wouldn't also have with an elven ranger using a bow, or a human wizard using a crossbow. If you can figure out how to make those work, you can figure out how to make an earthpony riflemare work. As I have said a thousand times before this doesn't have to be done prone. You can use an object in the environment to prop up the weapon, like a tree stump, rock, piece of rubble, or an NPC squire. Be creative, I don't care. You can even attach a little foldable tripod to the gun so that the earthpony stands and fires the weapon with one hoof.
Actually, why would there be an attack of opportunity against someone with a rifle? Just add a bayonet, and POOF! Your rifle is now functionally a spear and a melee weapon, and thus anyone who even tried to take an attack of opportunity on you would impale themselves or be stabbed. There would be no attack of opportunity, problem solved.>the range at which you can get clapped while flat-footed is also increased
This comment basically amounts to "the party could be sniped or shot at by a marksman." That actually sounds like an interesting new danger, and one more reason to make frequent perception checks when you run through the jungle, and look for cover or try to use stealth. I genuinely don't see the problem.>Four encounters a session
Why is that necessary? A session can have as many or as few sessions as the players or DM likes. If the game mechanics are changed in such a way that four encounters is too hard on health, then yeah, you should really reduce the number of encounters in a day. I am pretty sure most games do not run exactly four encounters in every session anyways.
If you are going to change the setting from I Can't Believe it's Not Tolkien to something a bit more technological and possibly civilized, you are probably making more changes to the mechanics than just simply adding strong repeating crossbows. I do not understand why anyone would find this surprising. You're probably making changes to the mechanics in your game anyways, just because there are so many supplements and homebrew options, because different people find different things to be fun, and because the underlying mechanics were not entirely balanced to begin with. So if changing the setting to something semi-modern or modern means you have to tweak some spells, the number of encounters a day, or how attacks of opportunity work, then no big deal and no surprise. You were going to tweak the mechanics anyways.
>>127907>I genuinely don't see the problem.
It's not a problem. It's just something to take into consideration when plotting out encounters.
>>127907>Why is that necessary?
Four encounters is just an average, you can do more.
A good adventure should have the party go through at least four party-level encounters per day, and about one adventuring day per session. A session can easily have more (not including boss encounters, or low-CR'd mob encounters), but I find them somewhat boring if they have less. While combat and treasure hunting isn't everything that makes a d&d session.
Note that traps and puzzles also count as encounters of their level. Pretty much anything that yields XP is an encounter.>If the game mechanics are changed in such a way that four encounters is too hard on health, then yeah, you should really reduce the number of encounters in a day.
Ehhh... Then you have the issue of 15 minute adventuring days again, where the party rests after one or two major fights and doesn't do anything to progress the story. It's also somewhat unfair to martial characters who don't have any skills outside the realm of of combat and just wanted to kill goblins all day.
I think the more appropriate solution would be to up the CR of creatures with such weaponry, or increase the XP yield by an appropriate percentile. Simply reward the PCs for taking on greater risks that come with greater modernized weaponry.
A lvl 1 Kobold Warrior has a CR of 1/4; a kobold with a gun should be worth much more than that, even if PCs have gins themselves (The NPCs/Monsters only have to be lucky once; PCs have to be lucky every time).
>>127909>A good adventure should
That's ultimately subjective. If the players and DM are happy with how things are progressing and the speed is sustainable then it's an effective system. Obviously people have different preferences in terms of speed.>about one adventuring day per session
Oh, that would never work in OE unless if we just had our 2 or 3 most active players. The same guidelines one uses for irl tabletop don't apply in an online game where some players want to play a bit every day and others are inactive for weeks on end; it's very difficult to manage and undoubtedly slows down the game.>where the party rests after one or two major fights and doesn't do anything to progress the story. It's also somewhat unfair to martial characters who don't have any skills outside the realm of of combat and just wanted to kill goblins all day.
Fortunately even the more martial characters have plenty of opportunities to advance the story through roleplay. The story in OE resembles that of a novel far more than that of an action movie. The vast majority of "sessions" don't have any fighting at all (not that it would be really practical on a party level due to aforementioned activity issues) but it makes the combat that does happen be more thrilling and intense. In fact, I've recommended that there be more
in-game time between combat encounters because it doesn't make sense for characters grievously wounded yesterday to be fighting again today (aside from a survival or desperate war setting, and we're not there yet). I do want time in general to pass by quicker but it's a problem of having a large online party with questionable schedules, not a fault of the DM.
Also we had that problem of a dungeon that had to be attacked in piecemeal, not because of guns but because of undead that were perhaps overleveled for the players. It took a long time to finally clear it out and part of the party had already lost interest.>XP
That's a whole new can of worms. I agree though that better armed monsters should be more valuable.
You're thinking in more of a traditional DnD mindset with a focus on dungeoneering and mechanics. Although there's plenty of that in OE it's clear that the focus is on roleplay and character interaction with flexibility being used to prevent unwinnable situations. There can be deficiencies in combat but good story-telling can gloss those over and keep the players invested through immersion. Sure, we have different preferences in what we want from our campaigns but that's why DnD is a RPG and not a MMORPG.
Imo, when you put it that way, what you describe sounds more like a long-running CYOA than a D&D session.>Less than one day per session
That's agonizingly slow, imo. Just the thought of rationing a handful of spells and/or X/day class features over several weeks irl is frustrating.
Scheduling is the most difficult part of DMing, but also the most important part. It doesn't really help than chansites aren't exactly the best medium for running d&d sessions though...
>>127917>That's agonizingly slow, imo. Just the thought of rationing a handful of spells and/or X/day class features over several weeks irl is frustrating.
There are a hundred billion ways to construct an RP session, and several thousand that involve guns, ponies, and only minor tweaks to existing D&D rules in either 3.5 or 5e.
You want four sessions per game day but higher average enemy damage die? Then increase the availability of health potions. Use modern medical care like blood transfusions and drugs. Have fewer kobolds than guns in an encounter than you would otherwise have kobolds with swords. Accept harder encounters.
Not everyone likes the same things, not every session or encounter or adventuring day is the same, just as not every GM is the same. Adapt and improvise. And if a GM can't do that, I doubt they are a very good GM.>>127917
Jesus, then ration the spells or class features by the encounter, hour, session, or some other metric than the day
>>127930>then ration the spells or class features by the encounter, hour, session, or some other metric than the day
That's an interesting idea. How would you go about balancing that?
I guess the Spell Point/Slot Recharge system of unearthed arcana is a start, although that one is still derivative of the vancian casting system.https://molivero.com/dndtools/USRD/srd/variant/unearthedRecharge.html
I guess how you implement it depends on how many adventuring days (or lack thereof) you intend the party to get through in a session
Eberron and D20 Modern both use action points. What they have in common is the date at which they were published (late in 3.5e) and the fact that they're both tech-heavy settings with a relative saturation of humanoid enemies. Unearthed Arcana has an action point system too, but it's also much more powerful, for crunch games where PCs need a bit of extra luck to establish them as the heroes of the story.
Question for DMs: do you use Campfire Pro or a similar program? Looks like it would be quite useful in compiling an ever-growing list of character information, maps, and homebrew rules.https://www.campfiretechnology.com/pro/game-masters/
As for balancing magic with technology in a modern setting, it's not impossible to do (though staying within the bounds of 3.5e is another matter). Usually technological and magical components are incompatible with each other and interfere, like in Arcanum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXAPdwOza9U)
where magic makes technology go haywire (which is an interesting twist on the usual trope of metal dampening magic). Space Station 13 is a goofy sci-fi setting and it has DnD-style wizards. SS13 wizards are glass cannons who can blast fireballs, walk through walls or kill with a touch, but are very mortal and can be shot, stunned, or suffocated like anyone else; they also have to wear obvious robes to use magic (some limitations can be overcome, like by having a gem-encrusted hardsuit for spacewalks or being able to cast magic regardless of clothing, but either option costs spell slots). The anachronism of fantasy and technology can be very fun if done right, but it has to be done right.
>>127612>Unicorns: +2 int, +2 wis, mage hand cantrip, run, spell knowledge>Natural weapon: hooves>quadruped>Mostly herbivorous
I meant to mention this earlier, but what's with the mage hand "cantrip". This is for 3.5e, right? Cantrips aren't at-will in third edition (sadly); you might be mixing it up with 5e or Pathfinder.
Mage Hand is also a somewhat mediocre ability, or at least compared to At-Will Flight. Mage Hand cannot manipulate creatures or magical objects, nor can it be used to attack. It also requires concentration, which would render a unicorn unable to attack, use skills, or cast spells while doing so.
Greater mage Hand would be more appropriate for what you're looking at, although you should probably limit the range and consider it a supernatural ability.https://dndtools.net/spells/spell-compendium--86/mage-hand-greater--4462/
Spell like abilities require concentration, and provoke attacks of opportunity when used. I think a unicorn's horn is more of a minor supernatural ability (Su), since unicorns in the show have been depicted activating their horns while concentrating on unrelated tasks.
Ponyfinder gives Unicorns Unseen Servant two times a day (or maybe 3, I don't recall), which accounts for their capabilities to use their horns to perform mundane tasks and maniplulate objects across the room; at lvl 6 (the best starting level for Ponyfinder, since the ponykind races are arguably advanced races), a unicorn would be able to maintain that power for a total of 12 hours (2 consecutive castings).
I notice you're also giving all of these races natural weapons. I'm not really sure that's appropriate if you want to keep them close to 0 LA. It's not an unbalancing measure unless it's optimized (it is
two extra attacks per round), but the question arises if pony hooves are really suitable as weapons (especially if we're giving them soft, squishy frogs, pliable enough to hold delicate objects and operate firearms). If ponies wanted to attack with their hooves, they could just as easily take feats for it, or wear gauntlets.
In my monster-pony game I gave each of the players a customized racial template using the PF race-building mechanics.
Pathfinder handles races differently since it doesn't include level adjustment at all, but uses Race Points to define the power level of a character. High RP races count as one or two levels higher than 'normal' characters in terms of how a DM should challenge them (they earn XP the same way though), but that difference is written-off once the party reaches a certain level and racial abilities become irrelevant. You could say it's an auto-integrated measure of the LA buy-off system for reducing level adjustments from Unearthed Arcana, only it's simply concerned with starting level and challenges, rather than the advancement of individual characters.
Since you didn't mention level adjustment in any of the races you posted, it might be worth looking at. It'd be best to try to keep them at 10-20 RP though, assuming you start at a low-mid level.https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races/
All of the ponykind races in Everglow are about ~10-16 RP; either standard or advanced depending on how you interpret their abilities. As much as I've come to hate Ponyfinder, they at least tried somewhat
hard with the races.
It might be worth glancing at, although the books personally make me want to barf. I'll link them to you if you want.https://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/silver-games/ponykind/
I forgot to mention that Ravenloft is a D&D setting that uses renaissance level firearms.
It's a fun setting, although the nature of the demiplane of dread limits what can and can't be used in the setting. Ravenloft devices are infamously abusable if applied to games outside of ravenloft, although I guess what happens n ravenloft stays in ravenloft.
As for balancing guns in d&d, the issue isn't so much that guns will make PCs overpowered (PCs are the heroes of the story anyway. They're supposed to win), but that mixing magical items with mundane tech makes the item economy harder to balance. Ranged Combat is still pretty basic in 3.5e, since there's no equivalent to power attack; so it's not really a question of how deadly a ranger will be as it is considering what kind of tricks a barrelmancer Wizard, Cleric or Artificer could pull off.
I like the PF firearms system though. Gunslingers are awesome, even if they're tier 5.
As for semiautomatic weapons, D20 Modern/Future specifies that although certain weapons give you chances to shoot more often without reloading, they do not necessarily give you extra attacks per round (because that'd be irreparably broken), without taking long chains of combat feats; and even then it's just one or two extra shots.
>>127888>There is certainly a lot of effort that went into these
lol, no. Ponyfinder is rather lazily written, imo, but my standards are also high.>How good is Ponyfinder?
Personally, I think the setting is kind of trashy, but I guess there's only so much that you can expect from a fan-written homebrew setting, based on fingerless creatures from a
It does have a handful good ideas though, so it might be worth peeking at.https://thetrove.net/Books/Ponyfinder%20Collection/>I don't see any batponies
They call those leatherwings. They're a physical tribe.>something called "ghost ponies"
Just a rip-off of third edition ghost elves. Ponies that lived on the ethereal plane for generations.
As for the pounce attack, that is definitely something to reconsider. Pounce is the most powerful extraordinary ability a martial character can hope for, and the reason why barbarian dips are so valued among non-lawful martials.
>>127614>What's exactly the difference between 3.5e and 5e?
I think the main difference between 3.5e and 5e is the complexity of the systems. In 3.5e there's no shortage of existing rules to work with, and thousands of ways to build a character or an adventure. I prefer 3.5e for the freedom and options it provides, whether it be wrestling gods or changing the world with spectacular feats of arcane might. In terms of race, build, or character concept; there's no shortage of content in third edition to work with, imo. It rewards both players an DMs for having encyclopedic knowledge of mechanics across the system.
5e is a much more simplistic system, but also has a lot less options and content. Compared to 3.5e, there's only a handful of character build. A lot of rules are seemingly open ended too due to lack of content, whereas 3.5e has entire books dedicated to sections of the rules.
5e did try to balance the system a bit more, that that really amounted to just nerfing everyone. At the same time, the lack of options makes it harder for an inexperienced player to fuck up, making it a very high-floor-low-ceiling edition. That, in part, factored into it's vast popularity.
>>127935>D20 Modern/Future specifies that although certain weapons give you chances to shoot more often without reloading, they do not necessarily give you extra attacks per round (because that'd be irreparably broken)
tbh such balance-breaking rapid-fire weapons could have existed in a medieval/fantasy setting had someone thought of it. Apparently it's possible to make a rapid-fire war bow that is relatively easy to use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmR0EGUQbQ>>127933>unicorn magic
Hmm, interesting>natural weapons
I pretty much thought about giving every creature natural weapons because it's "balanced." Griffons due to their physiology are going to be one of the most fearsome races when unarmed and I'm not sure what to do about it. I do now know not
to give them pounce, though keeping it available as a fighter-specific feat may be appropriate.>soft squishy frogs
Yeah, but the outside of pony hooves are still hard and that's what they walk on; I wouldn't want to get punched regardless>>127934
I can see why Ponykind is terrible now. 1d4chan gives a good overview too: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Ponyfinder>This mark is emblazoned on a pony before birth entirely on its own>before birth>ghost ponies
Ponifying an already existent race (considering that ponies coexist with humanoids in the setting) is both lazy and pointless; there's no shortage of interesting creatures and magic from MLP that could take the place of such a knockoff.>zebra have +2 intelligence
We wuz scientists>Antean ponies
Again, there is nothing in the show related to them; I couldn't even find any art of Anteans on DB. It's lazy considering that canon Saddle Arabians are implied to be horse-sized anyway, and the DM for OE made Karkadannistani horses with a far more interesting background than Anteans>Spiritual paths
Are these supposed to be prestige classes except without any required effort? "Chaos hunter" seems tailored for Mary Sues>Gem ponies get AC against ray attacks and better saving throws against fear/despair
Extremely useful abilities that I'm sure won't be forgotten by even the player /s>Clockwork/warforged
Truly the laziest>Satyrs
There's a reason why fics featuring courtship between humans and ponies rarely show offspring or anything clearly crossbred; it's because these are really creepy>humanoid pandas literally called "Big Mao"
Now let's look at the racial pages themselves:>earth pony
At least they had the similar idea of giving trample at level 1. >non-dexterous tho. Players want to give their ponies a greatsword, and a -2 penalty is no bueno>pegasi
Becoming more proficient fliers through leveling up is good, though I think a better solution is making flying its own skill that only flying creatures can take. Also, why did the authors go through all the trouble of avoiding copyright infringement through names and use cartoon vectors of the Mane 6?>unicorns
Why do they have gore? I'm a fan of natural weapons and even I think it's ludicrous to give MLP unicorns the ability to gore
That can't actually be in the actual book. Please tell me it isn't. I can't live on the same planet as this.
Thanks for giving the sourcebooks, I didn't want to give a penny to these jokers. I hate how tolerant fandoms are, just because one group was the first to "adapt" My Little Pony
to DnD this is supposed to be the definitive adaptation? With these prices and all the books they must have earned thousands for such lazy worldbuilding. Even the pictures they use look retarded: https://www.5esrd.com/races/3rd-party-publisher-races/silver-games-llc-races/pony/spiritual-tribes/>>127941
In short: they dumbed it down. Thank you.
>>127612>Horses: +2 con, base land speed faster than ponies, run, >Hedgehogs:>Abyssinians>Parrot>Jackals
Do you really want to stat all of these creatures as 0 LA (as in, playable) races? When you run a pony game, you can expect that most of the players will want to play ponies, so statting obscure races might not be worth your time.
If you want monster stats, 3.5e has published races of humanoids and monstrous humanoids similar to more than half of the races you posted.
>>127942>zebra have +2 intelligence>We wuz scientists
That's probably because they wanted to give zebras an advantage in being Alchemists, which is a decent class in pathfinder.
Besides, there's no real reason as to why zebras in a fantasy setting should be as dumb as niggers irl just because they happen to live on the same continent. It's not like we hold elephants to that standard.>Spiritual paths
Those are alternate racial features that ponykind could trade their flexible bonus feat for.
Pathfinder allows characters to pick between multiple racial traits and subraces.
A "pony" is the base race: a four-legged fey creature with low-light vision.
A physical tribe would be Unicorn, Leatherwing, Earthbound, Pegasus, Seapony, or Ghost Pony.
The spiritual tribes are effectively zero LA templates that you can take in place of the bonus feat.>I think a better solution is making flying its own skill that only flying creatures can take.
Flying is already a skill (for flying creatures) in Pathfinder.
Pathfinder characters also get more feats, so pegasi could afford Improved flight or whatnot.>I can't live on the same planet as this
lol, that's what I thought.
Like I said, it's kind of low effort, but I practically had to read it for my own pathfinder game.
It's part of why I have a natural aversion to homebrew. It's hardly ever professional quality.
It's also not actually based on the show, but a homebrew original setting that looks like
But I do agree it's bad. For my game, I didn't keep very much of if besides the Fingerless rules, and a few of the racial traits for my NPCs.> https://www.5esrd.com/races/3rd-party-publisher-races/silver-games-llc-races/pony/spiritual-tribes/
You're looking at a 5e page.
Check the books. Even the SRD page I linked seems inacurrate (because apparently nobody cares enough to edit it).
>>127942>I do now know not to give them pounce, though keeping it available as a fighter-specific feat may be appropriate.
It's actually a Barbarian alternate class feature. Lion totem barbarians can trade their improved speed for pounce.
Pounce is a an awesome ability, and potential to gain it is arguably what makes Barbarians tier 4 (while fighters are tier 5).
I played an unbercharging centaur with pounce and rake as a racial abilities (Blood Horse). A flying monster with natural weapons, pounce and rake is a recipe for thermonuclear damage, but it become absurd if you take away the LA and RHD you would normally need to get there.
>>127942>With these prices and all the books they must have earned thousands for such lazy worldbuilding.
I've never spent a cent on d&d, and I refuse to spend anything on this crappy setting.
I have the core books on TheTrove, but I don't really read them.
I have a general aversion to homebrew. The reason why I decided to read ponyfinder was so that I could read about other people's games, since it had been tested before.
What are the pros and cons of using 5e over 3.5e?
Also a Pony race needs a Cutie Mark mechanic that allows a significant boost to a chosen skill and minor boost to a chosen stat. Plus 3 to Fluttershy's Charisma or Wisdom and plus 6 to the Animal Handling skill.
Trying to make ponies balanced makes them inferior to OP racial choices.
>>128025>Also a Pony race needs a Cutie Mark mechanic that allows a significant boost to a chosen skill and minor boost to a chosen stat.
I think a flexible bonus feat would be in order. Shows that every pony is born with a unique talent.
Skill bonuses would work, but they're also pretty mech as far as mechanics go.
A flexible bonus feat is also kind of high power though... There's a reason why humans are the strongest race in third edition.
>>128034Except for dragonwrought kobolds, of course.
One way to balance it is through level adjustment for player monsters. You look at strength, size, natural armor natural attacks, etc. and provide a sort of level handicap. This system is quite flexible and is subject to the "acid test" where if either the monster or an equivalently leveled standard character is obviously preferable then further adjustment is needed. For example, maybe baby dragons have a +3 and so in a level 5 campaign, your dragon character can have only two class levels vs. five for a pony. It's also possible to "regress" monsters or OP races down to 1st level and allow natural abilities to come back through leveling up. Obviously, the relative adjustment in the book is based on the standard humanoid races and it would have to be reworked for ponies, but I think it's a really good system (thank you >>127934
>>128038>For example, maybe baby dragons have a +3 and so in a level 5 campaign, your dragon character can have only two class levels vs. five for a pony.
There's no shortage of existing playable dragon in d&d already. It might not be necessary to design a whole new race.
Dragonkin, Dragonborn, Draconians, Half-dragons, draconic creatures, dragonspawn, Savage Progression True Dragons, kobolds, Viletooth lizardfolk... etc
>>128038>Obviously, the relative adjustment in the book is based on the standard humanoid races and it would have to be reworked for ponies
I'd warn you now that the third edition level adjustment system isn't exactly balanced. Sometimes LA assignments feel arbitrary.
Regardless, it still exists for a reason. If you intend for creatures to have racial abilities that would make them significantly more powerful than than typical lvl 1 characters, there should be a level adjustment.
I took another look at that recharge magic variant system.https://molivero.com/dndtools/USRD/srd/variant/unearthedRecharge.html
It's a pretty high-powered magic system variant, initially meant for characters that would have very long adventuring days before they get to rest. Applying it to a game where time stands still could arguably make casters more playable; although I think I'd rather devote that effort as a GM to keeping the game moving instead.
I considered it for my PF game, since it's kind of crunch and I'm trying to write a beat-em-up style adventure where the PCs have to cleave through armies of mobs.
In the end I decided against it since none of my players are actually full casters. If they have trouble, I'll just introduce action points.
Recharge magic would certainly make casters more enjoyable, but the question arises what to do with characters with per-encounter abilities (Swordsages and other Martial Adepts) or at-will abilities (Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts and other Invokers), who might see their niches eclipsed by the variant casters. My game is going to have a Kinecist, which is part of the reason why I dropped it.
>>128025>What are the pros and cons of using 5e over 3.5e?
I think the one pro to using 5e is that its simplicity makes it easier for noobs. It's more popular with a broader and younger audience because of that; thus it's easier to find and join 5e games online than it is for 3.5e games, although not by much if you know where to look.
Still, I prefer 3.5e because of the freedom it provides, since I have a fancy for obscure and unique builds. Pathfinder also has most of what I like about 5e anyway, so PF is my second choice (could be my first, if only it were more compatible with my beloved third edition splats).
I came across the old "Ask Merriweather" blog and it seems pretty spot on in regards to how changelings are perceived in EaW. Might be useful for worldbuilding.
>>128548>incapable of feeling love
They'd be a lot like Mindflayers, in that regard.
>>128548>Might be useful for worldbuilding.
It depends how you want to use them. They're definitely a level adjusted race, considering that they fly *and* have innate supernatural abilities. Their level adjustments would ultimately make them more of an NPC race as far as characters are concerned, which is also alright considering that they're not very suitable as PCs fluffwise.
As for the "soulless" and "culturally dead" aspect, that could be expressed as a charisma penalty; the penalty could be offset with a racial bonus to bluff checks.
I'd also give them a small bonus to resist mind-effecting attacks, to represent their callousness and lack of emotion.
Tbh, they could also have a Wisdom or even Constitution penalty, just based on their appearance and/or mannerisms.
I'd make their favored class Beguiler, but no changeling besides Chrysalis has been described as a spellcaster in the show, so it better be Rogue or Lurk instead.
Their love-feeding mechanic would be similar to an Elan's Sustenance, except that it wouldn't consume power points, and it would require the changeling to be in the presence of an unwittingly friendly humanoid.
Like the Eberron changelings, their transformation outta be equivalent to Disguise Self usable at-will, except that it would be a transmutation effect instead of an illusion. That in and of itself would give them a +10 Circumstance bonus to disguise checks.
Eberron changelings are already pushing it as a +0 LA race though, pushing the boundary towards +1. Adding at-will flight to it would make them a highly-adjusted race, but I guess that's also kind of the point.
First off, why? If a setting is in WW2 and features combat, sooner or later there will be combat featuring a tank or armored car. If the party is involved in any way a set of rules relevant to armored combat is needed for balance and fun without simply being DM railroading. Such rules could ideally be modified to fit a different time or fictional setting (for example, Godzilla where a colossal creature attacks such vehicles), or even a silly game along the lines of the fanfic “Fluttershy finds a M4 Sherman.” Fortunately, military designers have recognized the need for simplicity and uniformity and so calibre is measured in millimeters, barrel length is measured in calibers and armor penetration is measured in millimeters of rolled homogeneous armor equivalent. Games like World of Tanks[i] and [i]War Thunder simplify the complexities of armored combat so that even a layman can understand it. Thus a conversion into dice rolls may be possible, if difficult.
The first major problem for armored vehicles comes from deciding what size they are. By 3.5 rules most could be considered either “large” or “huge,” as a M3 Stuart just fits within “large” while the M4 Sherman is “huge.” In a happy stroke of luck, super-heavy tanks like the Tog II, Char 2C, and the Maus can be considered “gargantuan.”
Most home-brew solutions I’ve seen come from making an armored vehicle its own “creature.” Although this is simple and works for JRPGs I don’t think it’s satisfactory for an immersive DnD experience, because 1) the AC is not uniform, 2) tanks are not “whale on it until it runs out of HP” creatures, they have parts and crew, and 3) it’s hard to balance something when only a few variables govern its effectiveness. The complexity of rule expansions for all sorts of different things implies that making [i]War Thunder[i] in DnD may actually be possible, so I propose this simulated system adapted for round-based combat. For example, if a grid is used then the armored vehicle occupies a rectangular set of squares, with crew and components occupying locations within this rectangle.
In a way a tank in combat acts like a creature, but in others it acts like multiple entities. Crew (characters) are needed to operate the vehicle and they do with components. These are protected by the armored shell and to force a “win” in combat it’s necessary to “mission kill” the tank, either through disabling components or knocking the crew out. This is usually very difficult because of the weaponry wielded, as even machine guns can quickly kill PCs, so depending on the campaign these will be rare encounters, special fights, or support on the side of the heroes. If it’s a war setting where the PCs are tank aces, or if it’s a one-off/characters die off easily, then they might be more common.
As normal when attacking a tank a 20d is rolled to determine hit or miss (I guess they never miss, huh?) This takes into account the size modifier of the opposing vehicle, cover, whether an anti-tank weapon is already facing that direction, distance, and character skill (more on this later). There are 10 external armor zones for a typical tank: front turret, side turret, rear turret, top turret, front hull, side hull, tracks, rear hull, top hull, and bottom hull. An attacking character calls out what part he’s attacking which has to be facing him. A roll low enough to be a “miss” but not enough to miss the entire tank may hit another zone instead; on the other hand, a critical may hit a vulnerable part like the cupola which is targetable from every side yet counts as “top armor.” Whether a round penetrates depends on the vehicle’s armor stats for that zone and the relative angle to get effective armor, which is then compared to the attacking gun+round penetration statistic.
Hit mechanics differ between small arms and heavy weapons. Small arms normally are not able to penetrate an armored vehicle, but with a confirmed critical they are still able to deal damage to weak points like optics or night vision, reducing the gunner’s ability to spot and accuracy. A penetrating hit from a heavy weapon can have different results. A shot that remains intact will pass through crew and components in its way; if it reaches the other armored side then it may bounce and cause more damage, but if the penetration value exceeds the relative armor of both sides and the effective armor of crew and components, it will overpenetrate and pass clean through. The heavier the armor, the more likely a shot is to fragment through a dice roll, and this will result in damage in a cone pattern within the tank. If somehow a HE shell manages to penetrate the armor, then its explosion inflicts maximum damage to whatever is adjacent inside the tank and less damage to crew/components further away. Depending on encounter it’s more likely that HE explodes on the outside of the vehicle. This causes (reduced) sonic damage to crew within the tank and a die is rolled to determine whether spalling occurs (the larger the explosive, the more likely, and riveted armor is more likely to spall), which causes damage in a cone pattern but to a lesser extent than with an AP fragmentation. Explosions which don’t penetrate armor can still damage components like tracks.
Components that may be damaged include but are not limited to: engine, transmission, tracks, ammunition, main gun barrel, main gun breech, machine guns, turret ring, and fuel tanks. Damage to any of these reduces capabilities of the tank which should be obvious: in addition, critical damage to ammunition can cause an explosion which is the equivalent of a TPK, critical damage to engine or fuel can cause a fire (reduced chance if the vehicle runs on diesel), and a significantly damaged gun breech requires a roll to ensure it won’t explode upon firing. Although fire can be suppressed remotely (presumably) and characters with appropriate skills/feats may repair components inside the tank, to repair something outside like the tracks requires getting out of the vehicle.
A vehicle may have anywhere from three to five crew members: the most critical members are the driver, the gunner, and the commander, but a machine gunner and a loader are also likely to be present. Operation has its own skills, such as driving or gunnery, and even its own feats (like attacking with machine guns and main cannon at the same time); this makes fighting an experienced crew tougher. Some things may also require ability rolls such as strength for loading the gun and hand-turning the turret. The commander suffers a spot penalty while “buttoned-up,” but if he’s standing through his hatch enemies still have a hit penalty while targeting from front, sides, or rear (but not the top). A character on top of the tank may make a strength check to forcibly open a tank’s hatch while it’s occupied.
To keep the spirit of DnD it may be preferable to dismiss fixed values and instead use dice modifiers for armor class, gun penetration, and more. It’s a trade-off: the more dice are rolled per turn of battle the more variability exists but each round takes longer. The way I think it could work is this: an attacker rolls to hit a tank with an AP round and let’s assume a non-critical hit here. Penetration gets rolled with the modifier being the gun’s AP ability. The tank makes an opposed armor check with modifier depending on armor thickness and slope. If penetration wins out then damage is rolled. This makes a total of four rolls in every standard attack on a tank.
Because I felt like it I compiled a list of vehicle-mounted machine guns and cannons used by Britain, America, Germany and the USSR in WW2. It is by no means definitive or fully accurate but it gives a good overview of how weapons relate to each other in regards to calibre, barrel length, and penetration. Rather than including every single kind in a DnD home-brew it may be better and more flexible to come up with a formula that translates calibre and barrel length (measured in calibers) into penetration and damage modifiers in dice rolls. A wider/heavier shell and longer (proportional) barrel mean more force and therefore better penetration. A wider/heavier shell and shorter barrel (to be fair, from my table it looks like only the largest calibers benefit from a shorter barrel) allows for more explosive mass in HE shells, as shorter barrels exert less stress and allow for thinner-walled shells. Machine guns in DnD would operate differently and barrel length can be assumed to be irrelevant; RPM determines number of hit dice per round.
Forming categories of tank weapons by calibre may be helpful in simplifying this, though these are just suggestions. Smaller cannons suffer an accuracy penalty when hitting anything smaller than “large” while larger bores have a penalty hitting anything smaller than “huge”:
Heavy armored vehicles are very cumbersome
and cannot fit through gaps narrower than they are. Though capable of cross-country movement and crushing
objects smaller than themselves, they suffer a movement penalty
on rough terrain or upward-sloping hills. Although they can move at a decent pace in a straight line, turning 90º requires its own standard action
(same with the turret, and either needs a full turn
to rotate 180º, but although normally there is an accuracy penalty
to firing while turning, a feat
Any thoughts regarding this? I’m not letting up on the idea because it has so much potential, yet I cannot find any home-brews that do this already. If we do come up with detailed armored combat we could test it with short one-offs.Sources
Primary source, particularly for barrel length/muzzle velocity, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tank_main_guns
The War Thunder wiki is good for other details. If there’s a lack of information then World of Tanks at least provides a penetration estimate.
Although more useful for a modern setting this is helpful as a reference for the penetration value of ammunition: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data
For other instances then it is possible to calculate the penetration value here: https://www.tankarchives.ca/p/demarre-calculator.html?m=1
(using the equation B = (V • √P)/(K • √D))
Information regarding machine guns was obtained here: https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/ww2-machine-guns.asp
You can calculate effective armor using this handy calculator: https://panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator
Here is the table
The d20 d&d system already has mechanics for most of this. Why go through all of the trouble writing original mechanics?
You could find the mechanics for most of this between Stronghold Builder's Guide, Heroes Of Battle, and d20 modern.
Eberron actually has it's own equivalent to tanks. Using Bind Elemental, you can create vehicles of all kind (and they don't even need fuel!). The only drawback is how expensive they are.
It's even better if you use Permanent Animate Objects or minor servitor to bring them to life.
The rel question is how do you put an appropriate gp price on modern weapons in a game that was made for medieval level technology.
As far as combat is concerned... 3.5e still probably isn't the best engine to run a tank-based game on, just because stats will be a nightmare and PCs probably won't be able to use most of their class features in tank battles, unless they're Wizards or Artificers.
Gosh, Eberron is such a fun setting. I love how it's a high-magicktech setting, but the world is also so balanced and has room for everything.
These are pretty neat ideas. I could say more later, but the first few things I would say is, don't forget about armored cars and half tracks. Those are more likely to come up in many instances anyways. Another is that it's worth thinking about what a tank can do when it's a part of the environment, but does not have a functioning set of tracks. The machine guns alone would be amazingly useful in many situations... or immensely threatening. I like the comments on movement, but I am less sure about the damage mechanics. Letting a 20 for small arms successfully hit a portal or some other spot almost seems too easy when what you are shooting at is a tank.>>128806https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St8iEpkcDJc
There are tank rules in d20 modern, which is effectively the same engine as 3.5e d&d, except made for modern settings.
Also rules for mass-scale artillery fire and assisted warzone encounters in heroes of battle.
Arms and Equipment has rules for steering vehicles, and Magic Of Eberron has rules for piloting elemental vessels.
Huh, I'll have to do more research. Know a place where I can find the pdfs for these? Where I am I doubt I could buy them anyway.
Also, the best way to learn is from doing. Anyone willing to DM a quick "test" campaign?
It's all available online.
Which books do you want?>Anyone willing to DM a quick "test" campaign?
or an adventure?
A campaign takes months.
I get all of my books from TheTrove:https://thetrove.net/Books/
It really is a "trove" of information, though finding the specific rulebooks takes a bit of digging. I couldn't find "Arms & Equipment" but I did find "Arms & Armor," is that what you meant? Eberron has twenty books, does "The Forge of War" have what I'm looking for? It's the same for d20 Modern except I don't know where to start. Where's Stronghold Builder's Guide?>>128861
I meant adventure, sorry
Arms and Equipment and Stronghold Builder's Guide:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.0e%20Core/Arms%20&%20Equipment%20Guide.pdfhttps://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.0e%20Core/Stronghold%20Builder%27s%20Guidebook.pdf
Mind that these are 3.0 books.
The Forge of War is indeed a good book; I like it particularly because it went into detail about the manufacturing costs and efficiency of the warforged.
Eberron is a magicktech setting that takes place shortly after an intercontinental war. I consider it's lore to be pretty good for war-based d&d (excluding epic level nonsense).
I think the elemental vessels are in Magic Of Eberron though.https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/Eberron/Magic%20of%20Eberron.pdf
Pretty sure the economics surrounding them was detailed in the Eberron Campaign setting, but idk since my artificer never got near the level where I would have been interested in using them.
War-based mechanics for all of d&d are detailed in Heroes Of Battle:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Heroes%20of%20Battle.pdf
It's got stuff about how to set-up large scale battles, commader auras, ways to gain strategic advantages, teamwork benefits, decorations, affiliations, artillery meta and more. It goes well with the PHBII, and with The Complete Champion.
I consider it to be a pretty good book. The strategic elements proved useful for my last Cleric.
I think you're really looking for d20 modern.https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/
Everything about 3.5e d&d assumes medieval/classical warfare. Adding modern tech makes equipment-levels hard to deal with... The DMG says to refer to d20 Modern for all rules surrounding firearms and modern technology, but also wants to use modern technology sparingly if at all in a d&d game.
A lot of what you might be interested in is in the SRDs though.http://www.d20resources.com/
I think the biggest priority in all hybrid settings is to establish gold piece pricing for modern weapons.
d20 Modern has it's own wealth system, employing the use of starting occupations and purchase DCs; however, the gold standard is a pivotal aspect of 3.5e d&d, as the power of a character is strongly tied to its WBL, and that overgeared/undergeared PCs can be overpowered/easily-TPK'd. All encounters and modules in third edition assume that PCs have their properly allocated WBL and reasonably-ample access to chances to buy/sell their equipment.
In addition, a game with modern weapons will have players that want to use/craft/enchant said weapons. Those weapons also need to have a gp cost to facilitate balance.
There's also the question of item level in addition to WBL, since a PC who picks up an overpowered weapon can plausibly ruin encounters that were meant to be hard. Item level is a concept detailed in the MIC.https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Magic%20Item%20Compendium.pdf
The MIC is a good book, imo. It has a lot of useful and reasonably priced items, as well as details for how to incorporate items into games.
>>128864>but also wants to use modern technology sparingly if at all in a d&d game
to use modern tech sparingly. Says to treat them like artifacts.
What kind of test are you aiming at? Like, a one-shot?
Yes, with throwaway characters, just to get a feel how combat with any armored vehicle might play out.
Well, if it's a one-shot I could give a crack at it. I'm always game to test new mechanics.
I'm not the best at writing stories on the fly, but I can run encounters. You're going to have to make it clear what it is you're trying to do though. If I have even a skeleton of a module I could flesh it out and test a few encounters for 3-4 players.
What medium are you interested in playing with? I could set up a discord server or a Roll20 game.
Any medium is fine with me, even a thread here on /vx/. Perhaps it's a WW2 setting and the band is either infantry trying to take out a T-34, or they're a tank crew operating a Sherman or Panzer IV fighting that T-34. Hopefully we can get some Anons on board
Ngl, after some past experience I've come to think that chansites might not be as good of a medium for RPGs as I once thought. That's just my personal preference though, since it doesn't matter as much for a single one-shot.
Would you be interesting in a discord chat? If so, I could work this over with you in DMs. Since it's your idea i would appreciate a co, just so I can figure out what to prep.
Chans may not be the best but because they're public and not a muh sekrit club a test run on /vx/ offers a good reference and allows others to observe.
So what kind of situation exactly?
Something like an RPG version of Fury, where a group is in a tank going through a multitude of obstacles?
Okay. I'd still like top DM about planning the content, if at all possible. If you've got a discord, roll20 or mythweavers we could chat about it.
I'll flip through the d20 modern tank meta and see what I can cook up in some weeks.
I was thinking of something like a mass-scale army styled encounter, with a couple hundred enemies advancing on a stronghold. I'm quite interested in the idea of undead armies, so it could be a fun encounter to write.
Basically the PCs and the enemies keep shooting at eachother until the BBEG descends and the party has to take them on.>>128898
That could work too, although in that case I'd prefer the players to use d20 modern classes, since most d&d class features aren't exactly usable inside a tank.
Either would be neat, or we could have a classic DnD (with a more WW1-style tank) and a d20 modern (with a WW2 tank) back-to-back. I'm not picky, I just think that a scenario which tests out every aspect that would be commonly encountered is probably best.
Because this is a test adventure and nothing serious don't be afraid to share ideas or tips here.
I have to go to bed and be ready for exams. I'll talk more about this tomorrow.
You could also just dip in the official /mlpol/ server and post a shout-out so I could PM you later about it, if you've got an account:https://discord.gg/rDNnqr7
I'm trying to write my own campaign with a lot of warzone encounters, so this could let me experiment with some of my ideas. It's probably only going to last for one day though.
But for the next two weeks I might have my hands tied with exams.
Understandable, best of luck on the exams. I prefer steering away from Discord whenever possible.
Just posting this dragon magazine file here so i can find it later. Has a few firearm stats, and listings of which magazines they're from.
Also posting this here, because I was interested in War Magic Study, and other spells with the [War] descriptor.
WoTC is like: "Monks are overpowered; Wizards need moar toys Xp"
D20 Modern Weapons Locker:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Weapons%20Locker.pdf
D20 Modern Core Rulebook:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Modern%20Core%20Rulebook.pdf
D20 Modern Past (for hybrid milieu):https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Past.pdf
Menace Manual (Modern Monster Manual):https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Menace%20Manual.pdf
GM screen, with all of the most important weapon stats on it:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Modern%20GM%20Screen.pdf
D20 Arcana (For Hybrid milieu):https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Urban%20Arcana.pdf
And the collection (just putting it here to sift through when I'm a bit less busy):https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/
And two SRD links for vehicles:http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/equipment/military.vehicles.phphttp://dmreference.com/MRD/Equipment/Vehicles.htm
The SRDs have external links detailing how to drive tanks using the Drive or Pilot skills. As well as description for AoE automatic weapons function.
One more link:http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/equipment/equipment.vehicles.php
Still not sure how wealth checks purchase DCs should convert to gp prices though... Mundane items as powerful as magical weapons ideally should have high prices in a D&D setting, but they can only be so expensive before it gets absurd because guns shouldn't be worth ten times their weight in gold.
If you applied Tippyverse macroeconomics, you might consider the existence of self-resetting traps of Wall Of "Iron + Fabricate" or professional wizards and magewrights mass-producing magecraft items, thus reducing the costs of said items. Let us not go to the Tippyverse though; 'tis a silly place.
Still, applying Eberron ideals in a hybrid magicktech milieu, even a lvl 1 Blacksmith would learn the spell Magecraft, allowing them to produce mundane goods of masterwork quality, The subject of how magic and technology could work together in manufacturing processes is a fascinating one.
Dragon #309: All about War:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/Magazines/Dragon/301-350/Dragon%20Magazine%20-%20309.pdf
Features the War Magic Study feat, and 21 [War] scale spells.
... Also a nice little side bar about creating Martial Arts styles. I'm surprised I never saw that one. Nice page on hobgoblins too.
Dragon #348 had Marshal/Commander Auras that Complement the Marshal (Minis Handbook) or ant creature using the Commander Auras Variant mechanic in Heroes Of Battle:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/Magazines/Dragon/301-350/Dragon%20Magazine%20-%20348.pdf
Looks like Dragon #325 was the only third edition Dragon article on firearms. The DMG has a sidebar that says to refer to D20 Modern for rules regarding that.
Looks like Dragon did have articles for tanks, but they weren't for third edition. D20 Modern has tank rules though.
Nice perspective on Modern Magic and technological devices in Dragon #327:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/Magazines/Dragon/301-350/Dragon%20Magazine%20-%20327.pdf
Thank Pelor for Dragondex.>tfw no Dungeondex
Posting the old D20 Modern WoTC SRD, just for reference. I'll check to see if there's anything left of the Web Articles to fuel the wayback machine before Hasbro tries to memory hole it. They deleted a lot of the third edition web pages a couple months ago.http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd
Pinnacle Entertainment came out with a D20-system conversion for their Weird Wars II game while the D20 bubble was still hot. I heard Savage Word is decent, but I don't yet have an opinion about PEGs D20 stuff.
Still, more potential modern tech gear for the D20 system.https://thetrove.net/Books/Savage%20Worlds/Weird%20Wars/Weird%20War%20II/
The D20 stuff is at the bottom of the collection.
I dislike its revisionist "ack-chually it are otherworldly horrors who have led to the rise of the nazis and inspired them to their atrocities" approach to the history of WW2 (although that's the whole point of the game), but that is probably of no concern to anyone here if you just want to steal the ready-made gear.
Flipping through Blood On The Rhine, a lot of this looks decently usable.
Weird Wars, as the name implies, is a war-based game. The books i read last night had a lot of mechanics for mass-scale combat, artillery, and heavy machines that seem to have a competent conversion into the d20 system. It's got skill systems meant for planes and artillery that look like they'd mesh well with the D20 Modern Games.
I also noticed that they Artillery a skill, instead of just making it based on attack rolls. It's comparable to how siege engines in D&D operate off of profession checks.
It looks like a decent supplement for a war-themed D20 game, considering that third edition D&D and D20 Modern are not war games, but instead games about heroes, where things like armies and strongholds are intentionally made irrelevant in place of class level, individual power, and access to magic/items. A mid-level, well-equipped barbarian can make mincemeat out of hundreds of grunts, armed to the teeth or not, and a competent mid-level Wizard can lay waste to entire countries as a standard action (if he's ruthless enough). D&D assumes medieval/classical era technology; magical items are common, but incredibly expensive, and not exactly easy to mass produce (without bullshit).
D20 Modern/Future has a different approach it's class and skill system is different. The Strong, Fast, Dedicated, Tough, Charismatic, and Smart Hero classes are all rather versatile with plenty of alternate class features. Equipment is a solid foundation of power, but not to the extent that it is in d&d. instead of a gold piece system and WBL, it has a system of wealth checks and purchase DCs. It also takes Death By Massive Damage a bit more seriously, as PCs start with lower massive damage thresholds (that can be increased with feats/items): unlike in mid-level d&d, taking a grenade to the face might actually kill you.
D20 Modern also saturates PCs in bonus feats, allowing them to use a wide array of equipment and learn useful (albeit mundane) abilities.
Their skill system is also different. It includes the Drive and Pilot skills (both dex-based), as well as separating Craft into a multitude of separate general skill categories. These skills allow the heroes to make use of modern technology and equipment in the world.
D20 Arcana has both magic and psionics, but they are only accessible through feats and prestige classes. World-changing, full-casting classes are nonexistent.
Considering the emphasis on strategy and teamwork over brute force and superhuman power, I would say D20 Modern is a more suitable engine for war themed games that involve modern tech. That being said, it still favors specialized SWAT teams over armies and strongholds, since it's still a D20 game in the end.>128864
Heroes Of Battle does a good job of establishing guidelines for war-based games, artillery fire, teamwork benefits, military ranks and decorations, and how to calculate XP for assisted encounters.
As it's name implies, it's still a supplement for a game that is meant to focus on a party of 3-6 heroes, who in this instance happen to lead armies. The chance of success by low-level followers can be make greater by being buffed by the Commander Auras that higher level characters who've met certain prerequisites can emanate. Tactical victories an be made by PCs gaining Strategic Advantages by rolling Knowledge (Warcraft) checks, in addition to the Local, History, or Engineering checks that PCs would normally make. Teamwork benefits are derivative of what prerequisites that team leaders make. A game that heavily features Heroes Of Battle content s not so much about armies as it is the leadership and military genius of the heroes who lead said armies.
I'll finish reading these books after my exams.
I'm liking all the depth that's presented here. I'll see what I can pick up but there's such a bulk of material that I'll always be behind. The fact that relevant material is so scattered may make it ideal to compile the best mechanics into its own rulebook (though this may be an instance of "there are a dozen different systems so let's make a standardized system," only to wind up with a bakers dozen of different systems instead).
D20 Modern is by itself a decent rulebook, having pretty much everything you need for a modern day adventure. The reason why you'd want supplements is because your goal (as I inferred) was to incorporate modern technology into 3.5e d&d system (something I wouldn't recommend, but it's certainly doable).
The real reason to use 3.5e (as opposed to 5e or PF), imo, is because of the abundance of splatbooks that support pretty much every concept imaginable in a fantasy setting. There's hardly ever a need to homebrew third edition material, because chances are what you're looking for already exists somewhere in third edition, and if not it might in one of the other compatible D20 books.
As for using third edition D&D as an engine for modern games, priorities need to be set:
How do you balance the equipment economy with the item economy? What prices do you set for high-tech mundane items that are explicitly mass-produced but powerful as magic weapons, without making them too easily accessible or absurdly overpriced (worth more than their weight in gold, or dozens of cattle)?
How do expand the base classes to make them adept to a modern world? Would you give classes with very few skill points more points just so they could use skills like drive, pilot, artillery, or the craft skills? Would you also give Rogues and Factotums more skillpoints to compensate?
How do you make classes meant for medieval settings relevant in in the modern world? How do you make sure that Barbarians, Paladins, Monks and Druids get to make use of their class features on a modern battlefield? Do you consider that characters without prerequisite knowledge skills might feel left out of in-game dialogue that the Int-based classes participate in? Do you modify classes to make them more relevant in modern settings, or do you just warn your PCs not to play those classes?
How do you handle weapon proficiencies? Do you give martial classes access to firearms because they're "weapons of war"? Do you make firearms simple weapons because they're not that much more complicated to use than heavy crossbows? Would you give PCs bonus feats or skills based on starting occupation?
What are the full consequences of both magic and technology existing in your milieu? Is magic treated as a form of technology, or even a commodity? How to magically-enhanced technological devices impact the meaning of war? Does Bind Elemental eliminate the need for fuel, or do you have fossil-fuel burning engines for other reasons? Do better-than-thermonuclear-weapons spell combos (See: "Locate City Bomb") impact politics in your milieu as they would from a tippyverse perspective, or do you tack magic onto your setting after making a technologically based one? Can self-resetting magical traps be used to mass-produce mundane equipment, or do you ignore that and assume weapons are still produced at the same rate as conventional industry without the interference of magic? How common is magic in your setting? Is it considered to be a high-skilled job that is desired, due to the implications of wielding magic in conjunction with mundane machines? Would that lead to situations like Faerunian Mageocracies due to technocracy, or do you consider the existence of magicktech to be a socially empowering resource, like in Eberron?
How do you make modern warfare not completely outclassed by magic to the point of seeming, without being unfair users (see: arbitrary nerfs) or raising the lethality too high (see: having to battle enemies with freaking machine guns when your class only lets you use your powers for melee)?
How do you make a modern d&d setting look like d&d as expected? Do you still have high-risk dungeon crawls and eldritch monsters who actually pose a threat to your modern world? Are you playing d&d, or are you playing a very high-magic version of D20 Modern/Arcana? Does your dungeons and dragons adventure feature dungeons and dragons, or is it something else?
How do you present the milieu of your adventure to your players as they're rolling their first characters? Do you establish guidelines for what character options are available, and how they can fit into the setting?
All questions/options that one might consider when considering a hybrid milieu that deviates so much from more traditional third edition settings.
.... Okay, I'll admit i got carried away there.... Some of those questions are pretty low priority, but they're questions I asked myself for my PF game.
Off to exams now.
>>128929>The real reason to use 3.5e (as opposed to 5e or PF), imo, is because of the abundance of splatbooks
I forgot the pic for this.
Anyway, I'm done with my exams, and I'll have some free time now. I'm going to focus on another game though.>>128917
Forgot D20 Apocalypse. It goes with Urban Arcana.https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Apocalypse.pdf
>>128802>although normally there is an accuracy penalty to firing while turning, a feat mitigates this
Now, is this feat you're talking about meant to be in the context of D&D?
D20 modern actually has several feats that do this, but characters in that game generally have more feats than D&D characters.
Consider that making some tech too skill/feat dependent might make it even harder for certain classes to appreciate it. Most third edition D&D characters are feat-starved as is (which is why i like how PF gave them moar), and a lot of classes have practically-mandatory feats necessary to get the full benefits of their class features (Power Attack and Divine Might for Paladins; Natural Spell for Druids; Adaptive Style for Swordsages; Font Of Inspiration for Factotums; Extra Granted Maneuver for Crusaders; Daring Outlaw for Swashbucklers, Versatile Spellcaster and Metamagic feats for sorcerers...etc). Considering that players can't be sure if they'll ever get to use tanks in a game, let alone consistently, they're probably going to build in ways that let them use their class features. If you want PCs to use these tanks at all, especially after going through the trouble of writing/researching the rules for them, you need to make sure they're accessible to the characters; because if they're all locked behind feat trees, PCs might just never use them because they can't be sure they'll even get to that level (expensive, low-return feat-taxes are the original sin of third edition splat content, imo).
D20 Modern makes some equipment more feat dependent because that tech is more likely to come up in the game and Modern PCs have more feats, since all the base classes grant bonus feats, in addition to feats based on level and starting occupation.
D&D, however, assumes the use of magical items, which do not often require feats to operate. Certain extreme items, like the Elemental-Vessel Vehicles of Eberron require feats or even class features to operate, but the investment is well worth it (Windright Captains with Item Familiar are amazing).
And that poses a question for the milieu: do you envision tanks and modern weapons in a magick-teck fantasy setting to incorporate magic? Would magic make them easier or harder to use? How do magick-tech armies combine their powers, if at all?
It's a bit tricky, because feat requirements can be justified if they're necessary to distinguish between who is trained in complex machinery and who is not, but that can be tough if the PCs themselves don't have enough feats to let them do cool d&d stuff in addition to appreciating the tank rules you took so long to plan.
One solution might be to just give PCs more feats. It would increase their mechanical power, but not too significantly if they come from preselect lists.
D20 Modern grants bonus feats on all of its classes, and also has Starting Occupations:http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/starting.occupation/
To define skills and knowledge that PCs would have gained from their (modern) educations and backgrounds.
Unearthed Arcana proposes a similar idea, among its many variant rules:https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterBackground.htm
Although its a bit tied up with the Reputation, Honor, and Contact systems, which are only variant rules in d&d, but official rules in D20 modern. They're easily ignored though.
There's also the option of UA flaws if you just want to give PCs the chance to have more; or UA Test-based Prerequisites, if you want to just wing it and grant class features based on roleplay. Quite a few variant mechanics in UA worth looking at.
I can tell you're really intrigued by this concept. Hope the exams went well. You're practically posting more resources than I have time to download and I'm still midway through Savage Species
.>What prices do you set for high-tech mundane items that are explicitly mass-produced but powerful as magic weapons
Unless if the setting is Ancapistan a good explanation would be legal restriction. You can't just go and buy a live grenade launcher, after all.>How do you make classes meant for medieval settings relevant in in the modern world? How do you make sure that Barbarians, Paladins, Monks and Druids get to make use of their class features on a modern battlefield?
An interesting way to modify barbarians would be to make them the equivalent of either boxers/athletes or military special forces, as both modern professions can realistically incorporate CQC. Modifying the other classes might take more creativity.>Locate City Bomb
"Dungeons and Dragons Is A Perfectly Balanced Game With No Exploits"
Other questions are very reasonable though and have to be considered depending on how metagamey the players are.>If you want PCs to use these tanks at all, especially after going through the trouble of writing/researching the rules for them, you need to make sure they're accessible to the characters; because if they're all locked behind feat trees, PCs might just never use them because they can't be sure they'll even get to that level (expensive, low-return feat-taxes are the original sin of third edition splat content, imo).
Although a more casual campaign may allow any random Joe or grunt to jump in a tank and operate it, a more "realistic" war setting would probably encourage a dedicated tank crew or just the campaign be infantry-focused with tanks as an occasional opponent. No one expects infantry to be able to fly a plane without specialized training except in a video game. Also, in a 5-man WW2 tank at least two positions (the loader and the bow machinegunner) don't need special skills as the loader just needs to have strength and the bow gunner the ability to shoot a machine gun.>expensive, low-return feat-taxes are the original sin of third edition splat content
I can agree in regards to that. Does anyone ever pick the unglamorous feats that just give a bonus to DC?>occupations and backgrounds
Really helpful to know. Thank you for helping with the brainstorming.
>>129022>I'm still midway through Savage Species.
I wouldn't recommend reading all
of these books in their entirety... nobody has that kind of time. You're better off just skimming through them and checking the tables of contents for what it is you're looking for.
Not that reading the books isn't a fruitful endeavor (I read most of the 3.5/3.0 core), but you'll want to be efficient if you have a specific content in mind.>>129022>legal restriction
This is actually how they do it in D20 modern. All weapons and equipment have restriction levels. This is how D20 modern balances military grade weapons without just making them stupidly overpriced.
However, note that traditional D&D characters aren't usually subject to too many modern-era laws, and forcing too many laws on them (most of which they cannot feasibly have the knowledge ranks to know of in-character) could great
Then there's the question if PCs can craft or magically fabricate these weapons. Using magic, even the most sophisticated machinery could be crafted, since there's no shortage of spells that allow casters to more easily craft non-magical items.>how metagamey the players are
Locate City Bomb was a joke, lol. It's at it's minumum level more destructive than a hydrogen bomb. Still, it's an example of how magic could change the meaning of modern warfare.
If you are playing in a WWII equivalent, scientists would be getting close to the development of nuclear weapons, so what about arcanists?
I recall another campaign setting based on the Tippyverse that used "Before Teleportation" and "After Teleportation" as the marker for how time was measured, because the development off the teleportation circle changed the world so radically. Large citystates could trade and communicate directly nd instantaneously, bringing much economic prosperity to those cities while simultaneously destroying many smaller cities and towns that depending upon trade routes that were no longer in use. It got even more gruesome when other countries managed to reverse-engineer the teleportation circle, using them to teleport legions of magically-fabricated sandsteel golems to wreak havoc on the prosperous ones.
When you put magic and technology in the same milieu, consider whether or not magic should be treated as technology, and how they mix. In a war-themed milieu, you could expect all competing factions to use every method at their disposal to defeat the enemy. What would an arcane arms race look like?>more "realistic" war setting
It stopped being realistic when you brought magic into the equation, but i get your point.
In that case, you're better off just informing your players ahead of time that it will indeed be a tank-central game and reassure them that they'll be rewarded for the build investment. It's pre-game territory.>Does anyone ever pick the unglamorous feats that just give a bonus to DC?
You mean Spell Focus? Yes, but that's only because it's sometimes a prerequisite to better feats and prestige classes.>Thank you for helping with the brainstorming.
Glad to help. I could go on about this stuff all day.
>>129022>"Dungeons and Dragons Is A Perfectly Balanced Game With No Exploits"
I don't think anyone has ever said that unironically...
It's a reference to Spiffing Brit who became the largest Paradox gaming channel by making videos about exploits in non-Paradox games.
Also, have you tried Conquest of Elysium 4? It's a strategy game with a setting and mechanics similar to DnD. Just tried it out and it's surprisingly addicting. In my second game I as a warlock didn't expand enough while other AIs fell and the last one became the Roman Empire. I held out for twenty in-game years and annihilated over a dozen legions, but because he had an income over four times what I had he eventually just blitzkrieg'd me with a massive number of late-game units and powerful sorcerers. Good times.
Tbh, I don't play that many video games in general.
I've become rather passionate about tabletop games though.>strategy
Strategy games are pretty different from d&d, ngl. A DM should reward players for thinking strategically, and make it so difficult dungeons demand that they do, but once you get to mid level "strategy" is likely to turn into "Scry, Buff-Up, Teleport, Win". That can be prepared for though; all mid-high level adventures account for PCs using spells to circumvent challenges, and typically write them less linear so that the DM shouldn't expect PCs to follow any single adventuring path.
>>129039>I've become rather passionate about tabletop games though.
Which is why I suggested this game in particular. The developer, Illwinter, actually came up with a floorplan generator for encounters: http://illwinter.com/floorplan/index.html
Hmmm, maybe I'll give it a try some day.
A note of how D20 Modern treats firearms:
>The most basic form of attack with a firearm is a single shot. One attack is one pull of the trigger and fires one bullet at one target.
>The Personal Firearms Proficiency feat allows a character to make this sort of attack without penalty. If a character isn't proficient in personal firearms, he or she takes a -4 penalty on attacks with that type of weapon.
>A number of other feats allow a character to deal extra damage when he or she fires more than one bullet as part of a single attack at a single target. (If a character doesn't have those feats, he or she can still fire more than one bullet, but the extra bullets don't have any effect, and are just wasted ammunition.)
>As with all forms of ranged weapons, attacking with a firearm while within a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity.
>Because of the weapon's unwieldy shape and size, an attacker using a longarm takes a -4 penalty on attacks against adjacent opponents.
These would be the "high-damage discount-magic repeating crossbows". Most classes in D20 Modern get Personal Firearms proficiency as a bonus feat, while others also get long arms or even advanced firearms. I think the question of balance comes from range as well as stacking the already-high-damage weapons with magical enhancements.
Now for how they treat Automatic weapons:
>If a ranged weapon has an automatic rate of fire, a character may set it on autofire. Autofire affects an area and everyone in it, not a specific creature. The character targets a 10-foot-by-10-foot area and makes an attack roll; the targeted area has an effective Defense of 10. (If the character does not have the Advanced Firearms Proficiency feat, he or she takes a -4 penalty on the attack roll.) If the attack succeeds, every creature within the affected area must make a Reflex save (DC 15) or take the weapon's damage. Autofire shoots 10 bullets, and can only be used if the weapon has 10 bullets in it.
>Autofire is not the same thing as burst fire, which involves firing a short burst at a specific target. Firing a burst requires the Burst Fire feat. If a character fires a blast of automatic fire at a specific target without the Burst Fire feat, it's treated as a standard attack. The attack, if successful, only deals normal damage, all the extra ammunition the character fired is wasted.
>Some firearms, particularly machine guns, only have autofire settings and can't normally fire single shots.
Note that Autofire weapons don't work with attack rolls against individual AC, they work with reflex saves (albeit really low fixed DCs) for characters in the area defined by the attack roll.
One might think that this makes high BAB overrated, but high BAB will still ensure that you are able to hit 10x10 areas at a long range and ensure that every one of your attacks lands there, in addition to the extra attacks it allows you to make.
At low levels, it would be an absolute game-changer as it targets a save instead of AC. At mid levels it's probably pretty meh because of the fixed DC (meaning that all monsters will pass 95% of the time), unless you have Burst Fire, in which case you're going to consistently deal more damage so long as you reload and have ammo (feats and items would fix that).
Would be pretty awesome on a War Cleric or Psychic Warrior with Zen Archery though, once their saves get high enough.
Although, Clerics are king at archery with compound bows because Zen Archery lets them prioritize Wis and Strength while dumping Dex.. I guess that wouldn't holdover well for guns in which case str is irrelevant.
Oh yeah, muh spells tho.
Thanks anon but this scaling is cancer. Apparently there's nothing bigger than a yacht functionally speaking so you can forget naval battles.
What kind of vehicle bigger than a yacht can be steered by just one person?
Colossal is a size category for creatures just as it is for vehicles. The Colossal category technically has no upper limit, but the Epic Level Handbook introduced the "Colossal+" size, for Jörmungandr-tier monsters.
Also, modern-tech naval battles are practically an entirely different game, and for adventures like that I would advise to simply play
a different game (no shortage of navy-themed tabletop games). Although you can do it, it should be a one-off part of the game, not the game itself, since it's unlikely that PCs will get to use their D&D class features.
For fantasy naval campaigns, refer to Stormwrack for all 3.5e rules:https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Stormwrack.pdf
This is a very good book, btw.
I think Spelljammer has some useful stuff for naval games too.
On that note, it could only take one clever lvl 6 Wizard to sink an aircraft carrier.
I'll also note that that section refers to consider vehicles as a matter of personal/party finance. If you want to use 3.5e D&D rules, you should consider the gold piece cost of whatever ship they're using and take that into account in their WBL.
I should compress my posts, but it's too late for that now.
3.5e is a very, very combat-oriented system. It's not meant to be a war game; it's meant to be a game about 3-6 heroes on an adventure relying mainly on their personal powers. It's meant for party-level encounters, and although there are ways to simulate war-themed adventures in splats, it was never meant to be more than a party-centric adventure game.
If you want a navy game that's all about navigation and shooting things at extreme ranges, there are plenty of other games for that.
It really depends on what you're looking for though.
What kind of adventure are you
interested in? There's a lot of rules out there, but you should focus on what's appropriate for what you're running.
(I'm interested in theoretical possibilities for now)
lol, this looks like an Eberron adventure where one of the party members is a half-elf Windwright Captain Artificer/Wizard/Sorcerer with the Mark Of Passage, piloting an elemental airship.
Another PC could be a dread pirate, lol.
Thing about Eberron is that it's a setting designed primarily for the most playable levels, unlike Forgotten Realms where everything is ruled by epic level mary sue wizards. once PCs get to lvl 20 they become among some of the strongest humanoid beings in the game and then fly/sail around the world going dragon-hunting or rousing ancient eldritch horrors.
Some say that's a flaw in the setting, but I would say that inserting epic level content into a normal setting is an exercise in futility.
Windwright captain is an great class, btw. I saw a guy with it in a ridiculously high-level Spelljammer game. He had Item Familiar to make his spaceship double-sentient.
I've been feeling bored enough lately to revist this. I'm strongly considering converting my PF game to 3.5e (I never wanted to do PF anyway), so i figured I'd brainstorm about pony races for 3.5e.
Anyway, I figured that since that anything that flies at lvl 1 is undoubtedly level adjusted in 3.5e, I figured the pony races may as well be statted as level adjusted creatures. A good yard stick could be the "Winged Creature" template, from Savage Species (page 137). A winged creature gains a +2 bonus to dex, and gains a fly speed, at the cost of +2 LA. Since I haven't seen any other race that has a fly speed with any less than +2 LA, it can be assumed that WoTC would measure the pegasus's flight at a minimum cost of +2 LA.
Now, if we consider all ponies to somehow be of equal power racially, we might consider unicorns and earth pony traits to be +2 LA as well. In this sense, we should consider "unicorn traits", "pegasus traits" and "earth pony traits" to be templates that add +2 LA to a base "pony" race.
The question arises, what exactly should a "pony" creature looks like? A few things stand out that should be expressed mechanically:>Quadripedal:
The ponies in the show are walk on all fours. If we ignored the mechanical implications of this, we wouldn't be using ponies but instead semi-anthro creatures similar to ponies.>Fingerless
Ponies lack thubs, and hands for that matter. You can stretch the concept of "squishy frogs" so far, so it should be assumed that earth ponies and pegasi get along with only their mouths for the most part. The mechanical impact of this shouldn't be too heavy, but it should be notable.>Medium
You could argue that ponies could be considered to be small, but in a world where they're the dominant race, they should be considered to be the yardstick for all other races.
These two traits could be expressed as followed:
Fingerless Rules:>Hand and ring covering magic items automatically adjust to fit, becoming anklets that otherwise function normally.>Any worn magical foot items (boots, shoes, etc.) adapt to cover all four extremities.>Those with hooves may use horseshoe items, but doing so occupies the hooves, preventing boots, shoes, and other such things.>Creatures with fingerless may wield/use items with their mouth as if their primary hand.>Abilities requiring touch can be made with paws, talons, hooves or horn. There is no mechanical benefit to this and it resolves exactly the same as a humanoid touch with a finger.>Unarmed attacks can come in the form of teeth, slams, or hooves. They do normal damage for an unarmed adventurer of medium size and are resolved entirely as unarmed attacks.>Somatic components are handled with hoof, talon, paw, and/or horn.>One-handed weapons with the ammunition property may be loaded despite lacking a free hand.
The last note stands out for any modern setting. I know it's bullshit, but it is based on a cartoon, right?
Quadripedal:>Land speed of 40 when on all fours; 20 when bipedal>Increase carrying capacity by 50% of those for medium creatures>+4 to resist being tripped>Ponies qualify for ride-by-attack and spirited charge as if they were centaurs. Ponies are considered to have Mounted Combat for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of other feats.
These may look like they're power-increasing traits, but they only barely make up for the inevitable complications that would arise from lack of fingers. Increasing carrying capacity is reasonable since pony characters are unlikely to have horses or other mounts to carry their equipment; encumbrance is only important for flying builds or hulking hurler builds. The speed increase also accounts for lack of mounts, as well as for the awkwardness that would come from using two-handed reach weapons. Most quadripedal creatures have speeds of at least 40, so this seems reasonable. These traits could be applied to any pony-like races in the game as well.
The note about ride-by-attack stands out, but I think it's fine. Lack of arms makes a big difference in melee, so giving chargers a little bit of an extra edge shouldn't hurt. Pegasi qualify for fly-by-attack, which is much better.
Now for the good part:>Cutie Mark: All ponies recieve Least Dragonmark as a bonus feat. The pony may select marks based on their tribe, or any aberrant mark.
Cutie marks are magical in nature and represent a pony's destiny in the world. I feel like they're almost identical to Eberron's dragonmarks, except that all ponies manifest them, and not just the dragonmarked houses. A pony with a cutie mark would gain a bonus to a particular skill, and would be able to use a certain spell-like ability a limited number of times per day. For example, a warrior pony with an equivalent to the Mark Of Sentinel may have a shield as a CM, allowing said pony to use Shield Other a limited number of times per day, as an expression of the talent to protect others.
Dragonmarks are a fun mechanic in Eberron, and I think they'd be a perfect stand-in for cutie marks in a pony game, especially since they would give DMs the option to use all sorts of lore and content from the Eberron setting. Mechanically, they're significant enough to be interesting, but not powerful enough to make a huge difference.
I'll lay out how I envision each race manifesting dragonmarks in my next post, when I finish typing up the pony tribes as +2 LA races. I might just go to bed if nobody is interested though. I already did most of my game as PF, so converting it to 3.5e is gonna be a chore if I follow through with it..
Magic is the lifeblood of Equestria, encircling it across the skies and seeping up through the earth from the depths of Tartarus. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of this pervasive magic is the appearance of Cutie Marks among three of Equestria’s most common races: The pony tribes of Earth Ponies, Pegasi, and Unicorns.
Now, like I said before, I'm ripping this in-part out of Eberron, but there are some key differences. The Dragonmarked Houses of Eberron typically are typically limited to noble houses of particular races; However, Cutie Marks do not carry all of the same socioeconomic implications that dragonmarks do (although plenty of the cultural ones), so it would be better to do away with the dragonmarked houses and Favored In House feats. Ponies that want to enter a dragonmarked prestige class could do so without the racial requirements or the racial requirements (i.e. a unicorn could become a Cannith Wand Adept without being human; or a pegasus could be a Windwright Captain without being half elf). I guess you could argue that only certain races should possess particular house marks (unicorns with the mark of scribing, pegasi with the mark of storm/passage, or Earth ponies with the mark of hospitality, etc), but it doesn't seem that necessary fluffwise since the goal of using cutie marks is NOT to import a bunch of house/race politics.
Giving Ponies Least Cutie Mark or Aberrant Cutie Mark as a bonus feat at level one wouldn't empower them too much; most Least Dragonmark Abilities are more flavor than power. It would, however, give them the opportunity and encourage them to increase the powers of their marks through feats and prestige classes. For example, a pony who possesses a Least Cutie Mark racially could gain a Lesser Cutie Mark by taking the feat with the same name; a pony with Aberrant Cutie Mark could increase the power of her mark through with the Lesser Aberrant Cutie Mark feat. Taking Lesser Cutie Mark (or Aberrant) requires that a pony possesses 9 ranks in any two skills as its prerequisite (also meaning it's only available at lvl 6), so the upgrade to a lesser cutie mark can be expressed as a manifestation of a pony's hard work in addition to innate talents.
In game, I would describe Cutie Marks as follows:>All members the three tribes of Equestria (Earth Ponies, Pegasi, and Unicorns) possess cutie marks. A young pony manifests her mark around the time that she attains Simple age. Cutie Marks represent a pony's unique talents and destiny in the world, and the manifestation of a mark typically coincides with a particular rite of passage or memorable experience that impacted the bearer's youth.>A Cutie Mark is a magical symbol that manifests on a pony's flank, but its color immediately differentiates it from any mundane tattoo. A Cutie Mark is etched in shades of any color, often so vivid that it appears to glow, though the mark provides no real illumination.>A Cutie Mark is associated with one or more innate magical abilities or unique talents, and a all ponies who reach maturity can excercise these powers. When a bearer invokes the power of a Cutie Mark, its colors shimmer and flow, and the mark grows warm to the touch. The mark grows warmer each time its power is used over the course of a day; by the time the bearer has expended her full allotment of spell-like abilities, the mark is fever-hot and cannot be used again until it cools. Shapechanging ability and illusions can mimic a Cutie Mark’s appearance, but usually cannot make it warm to the touch.>In keeping with their magical nature, Cutie Marks are not simply skin deep. If a mark is cut or scarred, it reappears as the skin that bears it magically heals. Creatures under the effect of polymorph, wild shape, and other shapechanging effects retain their Cutie Marks unless they specifically will them to be hidden. A pony that has been reincarnated as another race keeps her Cutie Mark, but children born to such transformed creatures never possess Cutie Marks as ponies (unless your DM wants to incorporate hybrid autism. I'm not going to go there).
You would usually take a -4 penalty to disguise yourself as anyone who posesses a dragonmark. Idk if this would translate to ponies, since they all possess marks and that might just punish rogues. Then again, a Hat of Disguise isn't that expensive.>Cutie Marks grow brighter and more vibrant as their bearer increases her powers, but the mark itself does not typically change in any permanent degree. A pony with levels in the Heir Of Harmony class, or any other Cutie Mark related class may under changes in her appearance, usually complimented by highlights in the pony's mane or tail, or the cutie mark itself spreading across her flank when its power is manifested.
In Eberron, one would roll Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) to identify a dragonmark, but for cutie marks the skill should be Knowledge (Local), since cutie marks are more common than dragonmarks and the Local lore skill is used to identify the abilities of humanoids. Spellcraft would be used to identify spell-like abilities in use as normally.
This is how I've been thinking of doing it in my setting. My party members are all monstrocities who lack marks because of story reasons, so this meta is only concerned with NPCs. I figured I'd share it just because I already went through the autism of researching/developing it.
Is this interesting at all? I thought it could make it easier for my low-level NPCs to provide commodity services to the party without giving them too many class levels. I'll go into full autistic detail about all of the plausible marks and how ponies of each race and profession would use them if anyone thinks it's worth using in a 3.5e/PF game.
I'mma steal dis.
To be real though, this is an interesting concept for cutie marks. A lot more interesting than my personal idea of stealing the human skill points race thingy.>Disguise checks
I say nix the penalty, cause I mean, ponies are already usually wildly different colors than each other, so what's the extra work in painting your butt a different color?
It is a very interesting way to weave cutie marks into a DND setting though, I like it.It also offers potential for quests like the beginning of season 5, where a villian may steal cutie marks to either remove the target of their special talents, or for the villian to use themselves. It also makes cutie pox one HELL of an idea
>>130164>It also offers potential for quests like the beginning of season 5, where a villian may steal cutie marks to either remove the target of their special talents
I know of spells that suppress mark or damage their bearer, but few that give them to the caster permanently.
Ability Rip (Serpent Kingdoms, could be used to temporarily rob a bearer of her mark and grant that mark to another creature for several hours.
A spellthief with Steal Spell-Like Ability or Hamper the Supernatural could similarly steal/suppress cutie mark powers with a successful sneak attack. A multiclass Spellthief with the Master Spellthief feat could do so more efficiently.
For races, it'd be best to start with Pegasi, since Flight is the greatest source of imbalance when it comes to equine characters. You could arguably use Scaling Flight, like with Raptorans, but the show would dictate that pegasi learn to fly at very young ages and in all professions regardless of "level".
Lets start by considering races that they might be similar to.>Air Goblinshttps://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Air_Goblins>Raptoranshttps://molivero.com/dndtools/USRD/srd/races/racesRotw.html#raptorans>Avarielshttps://1d4chan.org/wiki/Avariel>Aarakocrashttps://molivero.com/dndtools/USRD/srd/races/racesDramag.html#athasian-aarakocras
All of the above races (save for Raptorans) have Dex bonuses , as well as the Winged Creature template. The only two races that fly at-will from level one (Aarakocras and Avariels) have a +4 dex bonus. Since this is 3.5e, everything has got to have a stat penalty... Ponyfinder gives them -2 Str, which would be similar to the -2 Str that Aarakocras have (I guess humanoid kondors don't lift much). That might not coincide with the show very much though. The next logical stat would be constitution, as a manifestation of the "hollow bones" idea.
At the very least, they should have +2 dex. I'm going to give them -2 con for the sake of discussion.>+2 dex, -2 Con
Tbh, Im not sure about stats, particulary where the -2 should be. Their dex could easily go up to +4. I left it at +2 because i was considering giving dex penalties to the other two races.>+4 racial bonus to jump checks
Wings. Avariels have +4 to jump, and Raptorans have +10. I considered +10, but the implications for Pegasus Swordsages/warblades with Tiger Claw strikes makes the prospect of gimping a jump check a little too useful for my taste. They're already the fastest fliers, afterall.>Flight (Ex): Pegasi have a flight speed equal to their land speed +20. Their maneuverability is based on their dex modifier (7-10 is clumsy; 11-14 is poor; 15-16 is average; 17 is good; 18+ is perfect). A pegasus cannot fly if carrying more than a Medium load, wearing Heavy armor, fatigued or exhausted. A pegasus can "run" whilst flying, so long as they move in a straight line.
This is a combo of Avariel flight and Winged Creature Flight. I actually slid the Winged creature to the left by 3 points so that only pegasi with 18 dex could have Perfect Flight; you could possibly slide it further if you >Dive Attack: When flying, a Pegasus armed with a piercing weapon can make a special charge attack that requires descending a minimum of 30 feet; on a hit, the attack inflicts double damage.
This is an ability that Raptorans and Avariel enjoy. Not sure about this trait, tbh. Idk if it should work for pegasi, given their lack of arms. I would probably only give them this if it came with the -2 Str.>Pact With The Wind Lords: Pegasi cast [Air] spells at +1 caster level.
This is a Raptoran trait that to reward pegasus players for playing Clerics or Druids, and to exemplify their connection to the element of Air.>Cloudwalking: Pegasi can tread on clouds or fog as though on solid ground. The ability functions continuously but can be negated or resumed at will.
This opens up "Cloud City" biomes for pegasus characters, particularly NPCs who may spend their whole lives there.>Weapon Familiarity: Pegasi treat the double-ended shortsword as a martial weapon, not an exotic weapon. A pegasi who would be profficient in shortswords is also profficient in two-ended swortswords. Pegasi may weild these weapons in their mays as if they were using two hands.
Tbh, the prospect of "familiarity" is kind of bullshit, since that weapon has never been seen in the show. I'm moreso just brainstorming ideas for how ponies might not be screwed out of two-weapon fighting. I was going to give earth ponies their own weapon familiarities, and I just put this here so I'd remember to bring it up again later.>Weather Control
This part is tricky. I wouldn't really handle weather control as a racial ability so much as a cultural one. A good way could be to it as an intricate ritual that requires dozens of pegasi to complete, not unlike a UA incantation:https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm
If your DM wants you to use it, he could stat out the incantation and decide what it takes to make it happen. It's more of an NPC thing though.
Whatever it is, it should be really complicated and take a long time, long enough so that the PCs wouldn't want to use it everyday.
These are my initial thoughts for pegasi as a +2 LA race. Not sure about it though. Idk if they need less or more stuff to be properly seated as +2 LA. They feel kind of worse than Aarrakocras as they are. Maybe increase the jump bonus to +10 and make their dex bonus +4, idk.
I'll do the next two races as +2 LA when i find the energy, maybe tonight.
Interesting way of breaking it down for Pegasus. I do agree with the con penalty, just cause >hollow bones
and the fact that pegasi aren't known for exactly being weak.
I'd keep it at +2 and -2 though, but maybe that's just me.
I used to play DnD and post on Giant In The Playground Forums when I was a lot younger.
They had these "Iron Chef" contests where people had to create the best character to fit a theme while also using a secret ingredient.https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?249542-Iron-Chef-Optimization-Challenge-in-the-Playground-XXXV
The Iron Chef challenges were really nice. They're the reason why handbooks for so many mediocre/bad classes exist, which actually helps with the other classes in a way.
For example, anyone interested in playing a paladin, barbarian, monk or other martial class might wanna take a look at the Sohei Handbook:http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=18142.0
That's MMX, but it follows the same philosophy of trying to make the best out of a bad class, or finding a way to optimize a certain aspect of the game. I know the guy who wrote it on discord.
I don't post to gitp, but I was actually thinking of making an account earlier this week (I've been rather lonely and bored lately). I do read a lot of archived threads on it though. It's got a lot of clever minds and interesting opinions.
Earth ponies are important to buff thoughtfully, since we really wouldn't want them to be considered inferior to unicorns or pegasi. At the same time, their implied bonuses point towards martial classes, which need all they can get mid-game as they may be outclassed by casters at high level, and definitely outclassed by fliers of any kind at low level. Since this would be a pony setting, PCs won't be able to play templated abominations or obscure races for martial bonuses, nor would they have to option of playing more traditional races like goliaths and warforged. Because of this, the main race presented to them has to be satisfactory; not just a +2 LA race, but a good
+2 LA race, on par with a half-minotaur goliath, a mineral-warrior warforged, or a half-ogre Mul.
A major point in this matter should be that FiM is not D&D. The examples of pony warriors are actually few and far between. If the characters we saw in the show were translated into d&d, most of them would be low level and/or NPC classes.
Despite all that, we do see several examples of "Earth Pony Strength" in the show. Earth ponies have periodically been portrayed lifting/dragging heavy loads many times their size; some have been portrayed smashing boulders with their bare hooves or digging trenches in mere minutes. Although those notable examples can be described as exceptional individuals, I wouldn't consider many of them to be high-level d&d characters. Furthermore, a player who chooses to play an earth pony is likely to desire to be capable of such feats mid-level, without having to resort to magic or items. Earth ponies are described as being strong, capable, resilient, versatile, and hard working, possessing the hardcore grit and tenacity to assemble a barn despite their lack of opposable digits: their statistics should reflect such traits.
Let's think of a few races that might be similar to them:>Dwarves, Earth Dwarves, and Athasian Dwarves>Halflings>gnomes>Goliaths>Muls>humans, illumians and athasian humans>Centaurs and Wendle Centaurs>Stonechildren
Half-Orcs and Warforged recieve honorable mentions, due to st
All races here, to avoid spamming linkshttps://molivero.com/dndtools/USRD/srd/races/races.html
Level-adjusting templates might include:>stoneboned>mineral warrior>tauric creature>half-ogre
I'll link these if anybody asks to see them.
Borrowing traits from these races, some level adjusted, some not, we could get an idea of what a +2 LA race without racial hit dice might be. I'd like to stat Earth ponies as strong, but not too
strong, since their appearance and mannerisms in the show don't necessarily reflect that. At the same time, a +2 LA creature could go up to +10 Str and +8 Con with the right base/template matchup, and we're trying to fluff Earth ponies as creatures physically capable of fighting on the same level as a race that can fly at lvl 1. At the same time though, many of the above races have Int or charisma penalties, and Earth ponies are neither less intelligent nor less charismatic than humans or other ponies.
I've picked out a few stats as follows.>Size: medium
All ponies should be medium, even if a +1 LA creature could easily be large.>+4 Str, +4 Con, -2 Dex
This is the trickiest step, imo. WoTC imfamously overvalues boosts to physical ability stats over mental ones for some reason. A +2 LA races could easily have much higher physical stats, but I think this is enough. I basically gave them a gestalt of Goliath and Mul bonuses, which is actually the same physical adjustment as the stoneboned template. A Wisdom bonus could be in order, although I've been intentionally avoiding boosts or penalties to mental stats. I gave them -2 dex because they have hooves, and if they had to lose something i'd cut that. I'm being conservative, but my intial idea was gonna be +6 Str, -2 Dex, +4 Con, +2 Wis. I might change this depending on how it's recieved. Reminder that a mineral warrior goliath has +10 ractial bonus to strength with the same LA.>Larger Than Life: Earth ponies are deceivingly powerful, as strong as draft horses in compact, huggable form. An earth pony's inner strength allows her to in many ways as if she were one size category larger, whenever favorable. Whenever a pony is subject to a size modifier or a special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the Earth Pony is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to her. An Earth Pony is also onsidered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature's special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect her. An Earth Pony can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty, and her unarmed strikes and natural weapons are considered to be one size category larger than a creature of her size. An Earth Pony counts as large when qualifying for feats (such as Rock Throwing) or Prestige classes (such as Hulking Hurler). An Earth Pony is also considered one size category larger for the purpose of carrying capacity, in addition to the bonus she recieves for being quadripedal. However, her space and reach remain those of a creature of her actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the pony's size category.
Powerful Build (with a name ripped off from the Halfling Barbarian Racial Substitution Level). It's among the most sought-after racial traits, second only to actual size modifiers (that grant reach). A +1 LA creature could easily be large size, and a +2 LA creature could be Huge Size, so I figured giving Earth Ponies Goliath traits was innocent with the level adjustment. Although most earth ponies do not necessarily appear to be that large, and might even be small by human standards, this trait only claims that they can be treated as larger than other ponies whenever size modifiers come into play (which is unarmed combat).>Iron Jaw: Earth ponies have powerful head and neck muscles, although this does not translate to a bite attack (which may be expressed as an unarmed strike; see Fingerless), an Earth pony is still capable of holding, lifting, and dragging heavy objects with her jaws alone. An earth pony's maw is treated as if it were two "hands" for the purpose of weilding two-handed melee weapons or double weapons. An Earth Pony weilding a greatsword in her maw may add 1-1/2 times her strength score to damage rolls, just as if she were weilding it in two hands; if she uses the Power Attack feat, she gains +2 extra damage for each -1 penalty to attack rolls she takes, as normal. In addition, an earth pony weilding a quarterstaff may make attacks with either end, just as if she were weilding it in two hands; neither side of her maw is considered to be the "off" hand in this case, but unarmed strikes made with natural weapons are considered to be off hands as usual.
This, in essence, gives Earth ponies a practical monopoly on the use of two-handed weapons, which would make them the kings of melee in a world where nopony has arms. I find this trait to be absolutely essential in defining earth ponies as the "strong" race. Depriving them of two-handed weapons would make most martial classes borderline unplayable.
>>130175>Hardy: Earth Ponies need only half as much rest to eliminate the effects of fatigue and exhaustion.>Tireless: Earth Ponies have +4 racial bonus to checks for performing physical activity over an extended period of time and +4 saving throws against spells that cause any form of weakness (fatigue, exhaustion, enfeeblement, etc.)>Extended Activity: Earth Ponies can work relentlessly for up to twelve hours without rest.>Resilient: Earth ponies effectively have Damage Reduction 1/- for any source of nonlethal damage. Whenever an earth pony would be subject to nonlethal damage, she takes one less point of damage.
Mul traits. My original idea was to gestalt Goliaths with Muls to make a better "worker" race. Perhaps this would be more fitting for a "mule" race, but making races that nopony will want to play is a lost cause. The next trait is also borrowed from Mul's in Dragon #319:>Faster Natural Healing. Earth Ponies heal damage at twice the normal rate, recovering 2 hit points per level per day. At 10th level they gain fast healing 1, and at 15th level they gain fast healing 3.
This trait isn't expressed in the show at all (it's G-rated, afterall), but it would get them closer to +2 LA. I like the idea of Earth ponies being not just strong but extraordinarily resilient, like Muls, but it may be reaching too far.>+1 Racial bonus to attack rolls when throwing or slinging rocks
Halfling trait. Reference to when the future Pie sisters were portrayed using rocks as weapons. I like the idea.>Endurance: Earth Ponies gain Endurance as a bonus feat. If an Earth pony were to gain Endurance as a class feature, she may select any feat for which she meets the prerequisites.
Arctic half-orcs have this trait. It would define earth ponies as laborers. It would also allow earth ponies to travel long distances on hoof without getting tired, which would account for the lack of mounts. Some trimming to make up for my unwillingness to give them any more than +4 Str despite being +2 LA. Could be cut though, ask me about it.>Weapon Familiarity: Earth ponies treat the War-Sling, the Bolas, the Celt Stone, the Greatpick, the Battle Horn, The Lasso, the double-ended sword, and the Tailclub as martial weapons, rather than as exotic weapons.
I just went down the list here. These are all weapons I could imagine ponies using. Most of these exotic weapons are actually pretty somewhat crappy in comparison to scythes and falchions, and I doubt anyone has ever spent a feat to gain them. Still, weapon familiarities for certain exotic weapons could help make up for lack of arms, particularly double weapons and thrown/slung weapons.
A guy I know in a discord server made a particular homebrew for slings that I found interesting:https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/User:Balmz/sling
It's obviously more powerful and versatile than a regular sling, but not any moreso than a bow. If you wanted to treat slings as a main ranged weapon for ponies, it could be fulfilling to treat them like this.>Earthbond: Earth ponies cast [Earth] spells at +1 caster level
Similar to the pegasus ability. More trimming than anything else. I also had the idea of giving pegasi the [Air] Subtype and Earth ponies the [Earth] subtype, but decided against it since I didn't know what unicorns would have.>+2 Racial bonus to balance checks>+2 To saves against spells with the [Earth] descriptor
Was going to put an electricity equivalent to Pegasi, but i forgot. I'll post a revision to all these sheets after I get some feedback.>Plausible Natural Weapons: either 2 hoof attacks or a slam attack
Tbh, I think Italyanon had a good point with the natural weapons, considering the damming ramifications of lack of arms/fingers in a d&d game. A couple extra attacks at a penalty might not hurt.>+4 Racial bonus to profession (miner) and Profession (Farmer)
Because why not?
And those were my ideas for Earth ponies as a +2 LA race. It's pretty sloppy, tbh, and I say that mainly because I feel like a person like me wouldn't choose an ambiguous race with these stats if any of the other +2 LA races/templates were available. Not sure it it would be better to add to stats and lose traits, or just add other meaningful traits.
Gosh... It really says something about how crap I am at race design if it takes me three posts to communicate it... These are just ideas though.
In my researching of how illumian sigils could be appropriated as unicorn magic tricks, I've looked at almost every race and remembered that there are in fact a few +0 LA races that fly at-will... e_e>mfw
I forgot how stupid and inconsistent LA was, and how much i hated it. Core 3.5e was never consistent about it to begin with, let alone splats.
In the end, Level Adjustment is whatever you want it to be. LA was a shitty system to begin with, and pathfinder was kind of right to do away with it. Tbh, the only reason I'm doing all this work is because 1) I'm really bored, and 2) I had intentions to bring up a Pathfinder-like RP system where LA could be bought-off automatically at certain levels, allowing mid-level games to ignore it entirely... In fact, LA is such a crippling thing that I would really never even consider is without using the LA buy-off rules of UA:http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm
And PF says that GMs challenging races with high RP (PF's virtual equivalent to LA) can practically can ignore that RP at regular increments as class features quickly eclipse racial features.https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races/
By lvl 6, you can probably ignore +1 LA on PCs. By lvl 10, +2 LA would make almost no difference and you wouldn't need to work any harder to challenge them.
I was going to wait until i got done with my idea of the three races to say this, but I'll say it now: LA is bullshit.
I think the most important thing about LA in terms of ponies is just to make sure that Unicorn and Earth pony traits are at least as valuable as a Pegasus's Flight. You don't necessarily need to keep track of Level Adjustment in your game, tbh. CR is a meme to begin with. If giving Earth Ponies and Pegasi traits +2 LA leaning traits with at a cost of +0 LA means that low-level games are Monty Hall'd, then so be it. CR is a meme anyway; just add more monsters if it's too easy.
It might actually be better to aim for +1 LA with ponies, and then just be sure to start at levels 6-7ish.
Tbh, my Pegasus entry is probably closer to +1 LA than +2. Giving Earth ponies a Gestalt of Goliath and Mul traits could arguably put them near their level in terms of the value of At-Will flight.
Idk. I'll post my ideas for unicorn magic later and probably repost both Earth ponies and Pegasi as my interpretation of +1 LA races, with the mindset that said LA could be bought off at level 2 or just ignored at lvl 3.
Would you think that Sir McBiggen's sword in Ogres and Oubliettes would have counted as a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon? It looks like a greatsword to me. I'm considering how much a unicorn's physical strength should play into his/her ability to swing weapons.
I'm figuring out the logistics of how a unicorn could wield a weapon in combat. Originally, I had the idea of giving a unicorn's horn an effective strength of 10 and only being usable for one-handed weapons (though potentially at a 10 foot range), for the sake of them not being superior to Earth ponies in melee combat.. At the same time, I wouldn't want to pidgeonhole unicorn players into playing casters by baring them from doing things they were capable of doing in the show just so Earth ponies can feel good about themselves, because that's gay. Even then, they should have a reasonable limitation on how well they can flex their telekinesis in combat. Perhaps a unicorn could use her physical strength to wield as sword when it's within 5 feet of her (in which case it would be "locked" to the flexing of her neck), but would have an effective strength of 10 when 10 feet away.
I think ponyfinder just has them use their strength all of the time, but gives them no extra reach.. It's kind of weird to consider a strength-based supernatural ability though...
On another note, a Ram Helmet is top of the line equipment for pony warriors. Deals 1d6 Bludgeoning damage, and an extra attack is an extra attack. Take everything would can get when you don't have arms.https://www.realmshelps.net/stores/animal.shtml
As per barding rules, a Ram hemet could also be made into a Horned Helmet:https://www.realmshelps.net/stores/weapons/Helmet3_Horned
The damage is tiny, but deals double damage on a charge.
Horned Helmets are among my favorite martial weapons (I like to Totemkomf aesthetic). I use them even on creatures that aren't proficient with them (my rogue wears one, mostly for looks).
I remember being retardedly obsessed with the idea of an "Original do-anything Magic User". Constantly trying to figure out the best way for one spellcaster to do absolutely everything ever while also having big numbers. But to do it my own way with homebrew.
One idea was to be a Wizard with a Homebrew Race, "Lightborn Humans", who gain the Good cleric domain's spells for free and Divine Metamagic as racial abilities as they level up.
Lightborn Humans are humans from a shitty walled-off plague-stricken town that used to be sinful, but they offered their lives and bodies up to a god of lawful good in exchange for salvation, becoming divinely changed upon making a pact with that God. Immune to diseases and poisons, and light damage heals them, but if they turn Evil or Neutral they die on the spot. Lawful and Neutral good only, their society considers even Chaotic Good to be too far from Lawful Good. The city continues to exist as a walled-off theocracy dedicated to worshipping Insert Good God Here, Lightborn Humans will occasionally venture out of it to spread good deeds.
This let me get Mystic Theurge or a buffed copy of it that's not shit and has a better name.
Another route was a Homebrew Class called a Sage, an INT-focused spontaneous spellcaster that learns all forms of magic and gets two Domains plus Knowledge for free like a Cloistered Cleric. Can also use INT in place of any other statistic. Gains EXP and skill points at half the rate thanks to a class feature called Endless Study so it's balanced, I thought at the time.
The example of Sir McBiggen inspires me to think that a unicorn's melee weapon strength should be determined by their magical ability. His sword is pretty clearly >a longsword, and while not excessively huge, its canon that a powerful unicorn like twilight (even before muh wings) could use her horn to move incredibly massive objects and even creatures. So McBiggen would need sufficient magical strength and control to wield such a blade, but one could assume that greater magical feats would be beyond him (whether beyond his interest or ability).
As such, I would envision that a unicorn would have 2 strength scores, or some equivalent; one represents physiological strength, and one representing their magical strength as applies to physical objects.>earth pony monk ftw>>130353
If you're talking 3.5e, the Prestige class you're looking for is Mystic Theurge
yeah, I made a Mystic Theurge knockoff PRC that wasn't complete shit
it was necessary for a character build that was already using an OP custom race that should probably require LA.
Anyone else think being a "Lightborn Human" should require LA? It was basically Human just with extra boosts and a "going neutral or evil makes you die" effect.
>>130355>that wasn't complete shit
If you're gonna make a claim like that, you're gonna have to point out where/how the existing Theurge class IS shit, and then how yours 'isn't'. Your claim cannot be credibly taken at face value.
>>130355>Mystic Theurge knockoff PRC that wasn't complete shit
Mystic Theurge can
be pretty powerful, tbh. If you do Wizard/archivist or Wizard/Cloistered Cleric you won't suffer. You'll have to sacrifice 2-4 caster levels to get there, but you can only ask for so much if your goal was to have two spell lists.
The trick with theurges is to go for early-entry tricks, as with most prestige classes. You want to pick up Precocious Apprentice and Alternative source spell to meet the prerequisites as early as possible.
I guess you could also try a dragonwrought loredrake sorcerer with Greater Draconic Rite Of Passage and plausibly get there without sacrificing too many caster levels.
You can use Academic Priest or >>130356
The thing about theurges is that even though you're advancing two casting classes, you're not getting the highest level of spells for either class. Very few prestige classes are worth sacrificing caster levels to enter, since other, better prestige classes exist.
Theurges also require a lot of feats to get the best use out of them, such as Precocious Apprentice, Practiced Spellcaster, and Alternative Source Spell. Those are feats you're not spending on Versatile Spellcaster or Divine Metamagic. In trying to pursue two spellcasting classes, you wind up being mediocre at either of them. PrC'd Wizards and Clerics who focus on their own caster abilities are often much more powerful by themselves since they're not feat-starved, and they get their highest levels of spells.
Normally, I prefer versatile characters to minmaxed ones, but tier 1 Spellcasters are already plenty versatile, so trying to pick up another class might not help them at the levels they intend to play at.
It doesn't help that the class itself has no features other than spellcasting. Wizards can do better with initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Incantatrix.
I learned this the hard way when I tried to make my leprechaun Bard/Druid qualify for Fochlucan Lyrist, to put the prestige in prestige class. I had to use Shape Soulmeld to meet the Evasion prerequisite. Jack of all trades, master of none...>>130353
Ngl, I don't like homebrew casting classes.. A lot of them feel either mediocre or overpowered.
Using my own homebrew also feels like cheating... It kind of spoils the fun of optimizing if I'm writing my own class.
Your idea interests me though. I'd be glad to critique it.
*Academic Priest or Dynamic Priest
Or lost tradition, I guess. A Druid/Sorcerer Arcane Heirophant who only needs Constitution would be stupidly potent mid level.
The last Mystic Theurge I built was a Wizard/Archivist Primordial Menta Cyclopean. I actually made it work by abusing Spontaneous Divination to qualify for Versatile Spellcaster. It didn't matter to me that I lost caster levels, since I was able to access higher level spells from my Spellbook and Prayerbooks since so long as they were in my book they counted as "spells known". From that, I was able to cast any of my spells spontaneously by sacrificing two lower level spells, including spells in which i didn't have Wizard slots, due to having spent levels in archivist.
With access to divine spells from the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Adept and Divine Bard spell lists, scribed by a high-level Warlock cohort (also a primordial giant), I had access to virtually every spell in 3.5e, save for a few assassin spells. I was crap at metamagic, but who cares when you can cast virtually any spell spontaneously?
If it wasn't obvious, this character was meant for a very, very, very high-op game.
That character never saw the light of day though, since the DM decided he wanted to run next year instead. I was kind of ticked off when I realized I'd done all the work for nothing... I'm going to get a chance to play it again in the DM's 35 ECL spelljammer game, but I think I might want to play something a bit simpler for epic level... Maybe a druid /Sha'hir Arcane Heirophant instead...
Theurges pay themselves back at epic level, since your spells max out at 20 anyway. If you have alternative source spell and dip spellthief+unseen seer you can stack all of the caster levels for any new spellcasting classes you take.
>>130355>Anyone else think being a "Lightborn Human" should require LA?
Humans are already among the best commonly used 0 LA races. If your race amounts to "human, but better", it would have LA as far as WoTC standards should be.
Although, idk. Like I said before, WoTC hasn't exactly been consistent with LA. I saw that Crane Hengyokai fly at a 60 ft speed with average maneuverability, at 0 LA.
Ultimately, LA is whatever the DM wants it to be.
Sometimes it seems as though the real purpose to LA was largely just to make certain "NPC" races less attractive to players, like how Hobgoblins have +1 undeservingly, and Drow have +2.
If you want your players to actually play the race, you should probably aim for +0. I only even consider using LA races if buyoff rules are in place, since LA is a crippling mechanic if permanent.
And on that note.. I take back what I said about giving pegasi LA. LA is gay and not completely necessary if you're focusing on 3 main races.
I think it's just important to give Unicorn and Earth ponies traits that are as valuable as At-Will flight, so that they're at least close to equal.
I think giving Earth Ponies those Goliath and Mul traits is a good start.
>>130353>One idea was to be a Wizard with a Homebrew Race, "Lightborn Humans", who gain the Good cleric domain's spells for free and Divine Metamagic as racial abilities as they level up.
I feel like there's a way to build this using published 3.5e game statistics. Did you consider just using Illumians, Lesser Aasimar, or Humans with the celestial/saint template? Illumian Wizards and Clerics have a lot of nifty tricks with their sigils, one of which is very similar to Divine Metamagic. Humans also get that bonus feat, which let's them qualify for Divine Metamagic earlier than most races: a Human Cleric with two flaws and the Undeath and/or Planning Domain can pull off Divine Metamagic with Persistent spell by level 3.
Your society sounds a lot like those of the petitioners in Celestia, many of which may include Celestial Humans. Idk how appropriate it'd be for a society on the prime material plane, but it'd be interesting on the upper planes.
"Lightborn" human sounds a lot more like it would be a templated human than a humanoid with the human subtype. In Races Of Destiny, they really tried to hammer home the prospect of being able to "do anything", as a uniquely-human trait. Few creatures with the human subtype-
Human Aventi, Deep Imaskari, Illumian, Mongrelfolk, Neanderthal, Sea Kin, Sharakim, Underfolk, Karsite...
-with the exception of Vashar and Skulk, have any alignment leading. Skulks are evil because they're practically monsters; not humanoids but monstrous humanoids.
Vashar are an exception, although they're meant to be fluffed as flawed humans who lack the inherent dignity to choose their own alignment, having their flexible bonus feat replaced with a Vile feat (making them mechanically inferior).https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Vashar
A good-aligned variation of just replace that Vile feat with an exalted feat.
Similarly, few creatures with the human subtype have a favored class. Illumians have a very wizard-esque feel to them though (their fluff stinks of Truenamer, but I shant speak of that wet fart of a class)
.>Another route was a Homebrew Class called a Sage, an INT-focused spontaneous spellcaster that learns all forms of magic and gets two Domains plus Knowledge for free like a Cloistered Cleric. Can also use INT in place of any other statistic.
Tbh, I don't like the idea of making buffed-up versions of tier 1 classes, just because most of them can already do virtually anything, often better than other classes that specialize in their specific niches. If "doing anything" is your goal, it's possible to get there through optimization (see >>130380
). I think Archivist already kind of fits the idea you're looking for. Domain Wizard works too as the best Generalist variant. You could also use the UA spontaneous Cleric and apply Cloistered Cleric ACFs to it, and Make it Int-based via Academic Priest. You can plausibly pick up Turn undead without a Cleric dip through Catalogs of Enlightenment on the grounds of how the description for mystic says that a non-cleric who gains the Sun Domain gets the power to Turn Undead as a Cleric of their level.>Gains EXP and skill points at half the rate thanks to a class feature called Endless Study so it's balanced, I thought at the time.
Variant exp progressions was an idea that died in 2e. Part of the original sin of 3.5e class imbalance was the grandfathered mentality that "Of course the Wizard should be better than the fighter. He worked harder to get there." even after they standardized leveling progression. Variant leveling progressions for classes that obviously have astronomical power differences makes sense, but the thought of resurrecting that thought for a single homebrew class when Fighters and Clerics still level up the same way doesn't sound like it would be the most fulfilling endeavor at a table, just imo. It'd be hard enough to get a DM to agree to allow a homebrew tier 1++ spellcasting class.
Then again, I haven't played with your group, so I'm none to judge. If your group was cool with the idea, then good for you. I'd actually like to hear more about it, if you'd like to share.
I was actually waiting for that British Anon's input before I posted my ideas for the unicorn stats. Idk though; I was questioning if anyone was still interested.
I for one am really interested in this. I'm going to need Endless Study as an irl class feature just to understand all this, but it's fascinating.
If "Endless Study" is what I think it is, it probably means that the character only gains half as much XP as a regular character, in exchange for having a class that's outright stronger than any other in the game.
Tbh, I don't really like the idea. Sounds more like a 2e thing, since they did away with variable XP progressions as 3.0 was released. I'd prefer to just play a regular tier 1 class (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Artificer, Archivist, Erudite) and just level up normally like any other character.
To get back to the old topic, I think the main priority of making a hybrid milieu is to standardize the wealth system.
D&D uses cold pieces as it's standard. Loot, plunder, WBL, item creation costs, spell component costs, and more are all dependent on the gold piece standard. It's so ingrained into d&d that it's virtually impossible to run a game smoothly without paying at least partial attention to it. WBL is practically synonymous with character power/capability; in earlier editions, XP and wealth were the same thing, since D&D is at its core a game about treasure-hunting. Undergeared PCs will struggle to get through dungeons, especially martial ones who only have a narrow scope of attack options.https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/SRD:Wealth_and_Money
50 gp is one pound of gold.
D20 modern uses a different system entirely. It employs wealth checks and purchase DCs:http://dmreference.com/MRD/Basics/Wealth.htm
In d20 modern, individual prices of certain things aren't always listed. PCs also regain their wealth levels much more quickly using their profession skill. It doesn't necessarily translate into d&d, but it's a start.
Now, the real question is, how does your modern economy work? The d&d gold standard is based on medieval fantasy; it doesn't necessarily translate into modern economics, but the ramifications of magical commodities on a modern market are too great to list in one post.
Imo, the aim shouldn't be to be "realistic", but to aim for what's fair to PCs and what gives them the chance to have adequate access to both fantasy and modern resources. If it leads to the game being Monty Hall'd, so be it, imo. Player characters are supposed to be rich.
I'll also note that the d20 modern wealth system isn't exactly balanced... You can start D20 Modern with a wealth bonus of 3 to 13 depending on rolls and choices. That is a huge difference. It's also got a lot of other problems, and the fact that money itself isn't explicitly tracked makes the Wealth Level system downright incompatible with any edition of d&d, as the gold standard is necessary for so many metamechanics.
3.5e is actually decently balanced in terms of items, imo. Not because of the economy, but because the WBL system ensures a shred of consistency, something that you don't have in 5e. I've there's still plenty to complain about, but I find it's actually better than other similar games, imo. My only real complaint, after trying and reading about other systems, is how incredibly item-dependent PCs are. An undergeared Fighter barely stands a chance in a challenging dungeon, because is power is going to be almost directly proportionate to how how hes managing his equipment, perhaps just as much so as his feats. It's for that reason why it's important to keep track of WBL.
OP, I gotta ask: What exactly is your goal in this thread?
Like, are you looking for general ideas concerning tabletop games? Are you looking for specific ideas or criticisms on how to improve an existing game? Are you just trying to figure out how RPGs works? Is this just a general thread for meta?I've posted a lot here, but I'm getting the feeling like I haven't really addressed what you were looking for...
I'm going to just go down the list for things mentioned in your OP:>highest priority would be playable races and monsters
The highest priority for homebrew ponies would be making sure they're all of the same relative power level with eachother. I posted my ideas for Earth ponies; I'll post my ideas for unicorns if anybody asks.>Amazingly entire campaigns have been played without precise knowledge of creatures' strengths and weaknesses, but setting the definitions straight will help nuance and variety.
I don't think that's accurrate, tbh. We've only had a couple "campaigns" here, and by the looks of it most of the GMs involved had an idea of player stats. This is the kind of thing you decide before a game, and maybe retroactively fix if it's bad.>Campaigns set outside the typical high fantasy realm of DnD
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's probably more work than it's worth to try and hombrew all this stuff. D&D was made for medieval/classical fantasy, not modern warfare. You'll probably have a better time playing Shadowrun or something else than doing all that work to combine two concepts.>present further uncertainty
In more ways than you'd think.>Most guns
The 3.5e DMG says to refer to D20 modern for rules and stats concerning firearms. The stats there are usable.>vehicles function in combat?
Also in D20 Modern, but the bigger concern is how your characters will be able to use them, particularly if they'll be able to use their D&D abilities aboard a vehicle, and if the presence of said vehicles will impact the dungeoneering experience.
The elemental Vessels in Eberron are also worth looking at.>given it's a WW2 setting
Are you playing d&d, or are you paying a wWII sim? It's going to be a bit of extra effort to make "Dungeons And Dragons" look as expected in WWII level warfare is the focus of the adventures, especially since most PC classes do not equip PCs will the skills and abilities for such; unless of course your PCs built for that in particular.>Can bits be expected to buy the same things as the recommended valuation of GP?
50 gp is a pound of gold. A bit is probably closer to a copper at most, a lead bead at least. What you call the currency really doesn't matter, but imo it's much easier to simply use gold, as gold/silver/platinum pieces, as precious metals can't be created/fabricated as easily.>playable races and monsters
There are 5 monster manuals in 3.5e, and dozens of templates. Finding monsters is a non-issue. To reinvent human-shaped monsters, just make the quadrupedal, increase their movement speed, possibly swap out their natural weapons, and apply the Fingerless rules I posted before.
as for playable races, focus on giving them equal abilities. At-Will Flight on pegasi is a lot, especially if you intend to make ranged combat stronger. Make sure that Earth ponies and Unicorns get equally-valuable abilities, and make sure said abilities are specifically defined before players make their characters.>why don't we build a reference as a community project?
There are a lot websites dedicated to this. you should check them out.>What needs improving?
No comment on this for now.>unfortunately I don't have the book
You don't need the books, just know where to find the PDFs online. I already told you about TheTrove.>We've had some longstanding campaigns on /vx/
Ngl, I've participated in some of those games, but over the years I've come to the conclusion that chansites might not actually be a very good medium for good tabletop games, just imo... I'd recommend trying out other mediums; online d&d can be fun if it's organized properly.>there is no complete rulebook or conversion set that allows for an immersive experience
Well, Ponyfinder technically counts as "Complete" if you're looking for a place to start. I don't really like it though (then again i prefer 3.5e).
Also, your OP includes links from 5e, 3.5e, and pathfinder. If you want clear gameplay, you're going to have to be clear about what system you're using.
>>127612>A big problem for MLP in DnD is that there are a lot more potential playable races than in DnD making balance a very complex affair.
There are hundreds of races in d&d. In comparison, there are incredibly few races in an MLP game. That's why it's important to make sure that the MLP races you do stat are good.>earth ponies, pegasi, and unicorns look a little mundane or even underpowered compared to other races
The opposite seems true to me, particularly with pegasi. Very few races fly at-will from level 1. Earth ponies and unicorns are implied to have abilities equally valuable to flight.>but I had to be creative to give niches to the other creatures.
No you don't. There'd be nothing wrong with making ponies statistically superior, because they're the race you want players to use. Most players who sign up for pony games are going to want to play ponies, because that's the point.>>127613>As far as game mechanics go, 5e might be a more suitable platform for pony-related gaming.
I disagree. 3.5e has far more support for these sorts of questions than 5e. The supplements are what makes it versatile and adaptable.
5e only seems
better for homebrew because the lack of existing rules simply forces the DM to make up rules as he goes. It doesn't actually make hombrew any easier.
After checking Roll20 and various discords, it's come to my knowledge that there are very few pony groups that use 3.5e Rules; most of them use Pathfinder or 5e, running off of the Ponyfinder book. I guess it's to be expected, since Pathfinder accommodates ponies a bit better (Pathfinder races are generally stronger than 3.5e races), and since they make Flight a skill-based check lvl 1 flying creatures aren't nearly as imbalanced.
Still, it's sad PF will never be 100% compatible with my beloved 3.5e Splats. Sure, they fit, but they'll never be "official"...
I think I'll give up on writing a +2 LA 3.5e unicorn. If I ever do a 3.5e pony game, I'll just use the Ponyfinder stats. The setting is cringe (imo), but the racial meta is decently usable.
Oof, sorry to hear that
Eh, it's not really anything to be that sad about, it's just that overthinking elf games has kind of been my only pastime in recent months due to the kung flu.
After reading a bit more into ponyfinder groups, I think the system they use is worth more than I initially gave it credit for. I think I'd like to try it myself some time soon. Would be a great way to get into pathfinder.
I've recently had an idea of appropriating the Elements Of Harmony as Sovereign Archetypes (Eberron) or Elemental Spheres (Dark Sun) that Clerics could tap into. Each Element could essentially be it's own archetype, and grant four to six domains to a Cleric of that archetype.
It could be something like:
>Inquisition, Truth, Family, Humility
>Healing, Good, Patience,
>Law, Courage, Community, Competition, Protection
>Generosity, Charity, Wealth, Nobility
>Hope, Pleasure, Joy, Courage, Trickery, Emotion
>Magic, Spell, Knowledge, Planning, Destiny, Mysticism
Do these ideas look like they're worth exploring? I feel like I'd use something like this if I wanted to use a homebrew pony setting.
If it wasn't obvious, I didn't include any evil-leaning domains here, or a lot of the more popular domains for Clerics. The Elements of Harmony are presented as forces of Good and opposition to chaos, although an antithetical list of "Dark Elements" could be created for Evil Clerics and worshipers.
I would consider the elemental sovereigns to be flavor text for ideal Clerics, not a complete list. The Sovereign Archetypes of Eberron were only a small fraction of the ways in which Clerics could receive power in Eberron, coming in part as a supplement to the various gods of the setting who may or may not exist (it's ambiguous what gods exist or if they do at all in Eberron; but at the same time there's a lot more "ideal Clerics"; the setting is unique in that regard). Limiting Clerics to only a handful of domains due to the narrow nature of an Equestrian wouldn't really be fair to Cleric players, so Sovereign Archetypes could help fill that gap.
I feel like it's actually pretty important for Clerics to have pantheons to work with in terms of worldbuilding, because they're kind of boring without flavor text. I, personally, find religion to be one of the most important factors in character creation even for non-divine characters. A character's religion is likely to effect their alignment, motivations, mechanical powers, enemies, allies, outlook on the world, and even their afterlife. Religion might even serve as a character's highest moral authority, since "God told me to do it" is often a better way to play than "It's just what my character would do".
The Elements Of Harmony would be a poor substitute for gods in terms of worship and character development, but they could at least give Clerics something to work with; perhaps they could even give roleplaying guides to nonclerics if they're given their own church affiliation ranking systems.
Someone shared Tactics of Everglow with me today, so I figured I'd share it.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IxF5mxSobK_ws-4Clto41_HwK6zpCo3l/view?usp=sharing
Has stats for Kirin in PF and 5e, although it was clearly written before season 8.