/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

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
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Pegasi: +2 dex, -2 con, flying, cloud walker, run
Natural weapon: hooves
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Unicorns: +2 int, +2 wis, mage hand cantrip, run, spell knowledge
Natural weapon: hooves
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Bat ponies: +2 dex, -2 con, flying, stealthy, dark vision,
Natural weapon: hooves
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Crystal ponies: earth mastery, sonic vulnerability, toughness
Natural weapon: hooves
Natural armor: crystal (+3 AC)
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Kirins: +2 wis, can cast spell: produce flame when using racial feat: rage,
Natural weapon: hooves
Natural armor: armored scales (+1 AC)
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Horses: +2 con, base land speed faster than ponies, run, toughness
Natural weapon: hooves
large, quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Breezies: +3 wis, +2 dex, -4 strength, flying, +2 on all saving throws, +2 move silently, can cast detect magic
Natural weapon: hooves
tiny, quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

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
biped
Mostly carnivorous

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)
biped
Omnivorous; prefer gems

Zebras: +2 con, -2 int, use magic device +3, endure heat, run
Natural weapon: hooves
quadruped
Mostly herbivorous

Mules: -2 int, +2 climb, can cast spell: resistance
Natural weapon: hooves
Mostly herbivorous

Buffalo: +4 con, -2 cha, feat: trample, run
Natural weapon: gore
large, quadruped

Deer: -2 con, +2 dex, immunity to magic sleep effects, low light vision, +2 listen, search, and spot, run
quadruped
Herbivorous

Minotaurs: -2 cha, +2 dex, +2 str, stonecunning, +2 craft, dark vision, great fortitude, power attack, base land speed slow
Natural weapon: gore
large, biped
Herbivorous

Yaks: +3 con, -2 int, -2 diplomacy, endure cold, endurance
Natural weapon: gore
large, quadruped
Herbivorous

Abyssinians: +3 cha, -2 str, low-light vision, balance +2
Natural weapon: claws, bite
biped
Carnivorous

Hedgehogs:
biped
Mostly herbivorous

Parrot: +1 concentration, +2 perform
biped
Omnivorous

Hippogriffs: run
quadruped
Omnivorous

Diamond dogs: +3 strength, -2 int, weapon focus: bite
Natural weapon: bite
biped
Carnivorous

Gnolls: dodge
Natural weapon: bite
small
Carnivorous

Jackals:
Natural weapon: bite
Carnivorous

Seapony:
aquatic

>>127611
>bits
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.

>>127613
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.

>>127613
>>127614
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.

>>127616
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.

>>127612
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.

>>127613
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.

>>127616
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).

>>127881
>>127883
>>127884
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.

Books I would reccomend reading, after scanning all of the subjects brought up in this thread:

Savage Species (for monsters as races):
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.0e%20Core/Savage%20Species.pdf
Cityscape (for all things urban):
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Cityscape.pdf
The Complete Warrior, and especially the Tome Of Battle (to make melee combat suck less, but also because it's really good):
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Complete%20Warrior.pdf
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Tome%20of%20Battle%20-%20Book%20of%20Nine%20Swords.pdf
Heroes Of Battle (for guys who want an army to do something productive before they all get fireball'd)
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Heroes%20of%20Battle.pdf
Dungeonscape (just because i like it, tbh)
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/3rd%20Edition%20(3.x)/D&D%203.5e%20Core/Dungeonscape.pdf

>>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.

>>127897
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.

>>127899
>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.

>>127900
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..

>>127900
>>127902
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.

>>127902
I never liked EaW for it's characters, lore or geography, but Rosa is just top waifu.
Necromancers ftw.

>>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.

>>127912
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...

>>127909
sigh
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.

>>127612
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/

>>127932
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.

>>127888
forgot meme

>>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
Good advice!
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"
LMAO

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 creatures
>Rainbow Dash
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 the show.

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.

>>127611
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.

>>128025
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.

Basics

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.

Damage Mechanics

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.

Weaponry

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”:
20mm-45mm
46-75mm
76-100mm
101-120mm
120-150mm
150+mm

Movement

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 mitigates this).

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

>>128801
Here is the table

>>128800
>>128801
>>128802
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.

>>128800
>>128801
>>128802
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.

>>128806
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St8iEpkcDJc

>>128810
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.

>>128806
>>128808
>>128811
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?

>>128859
Um... I can

>>128859
It's all available online.
Which books do you want?
>Anyone willing to DM a quick "test" campaign?
A campaign or an adventure?
A campaign takes months.

>>128861
I get all of my books from TheTrove:
https://thetrove.net/Books/

>>128862
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

>>128863
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.pdf
https://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
typo
It warns to use modern tech sparingly. Says to treat them like artifacts.

>>128859
>>128863
What kind of test are you aiming at? Like, a one-shot?

>>128871
Yes, with throwaway characters, just to get a feel how combat with any armored vehicle might play out.

>>128884
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.

>>128890
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

>>128892
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.

>>128894
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.

>>128896
>>128892
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?

>>128896
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.

>>128898
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.

>>128898
>>128901
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.

>>128902
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.

>>128905
Understandable, best of luck on the exams. I prefer steering away from Discord whenever possible.

>>128906
Suit yourself.

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"

>>128915
That Article:
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/Magazines/Dragon/301-350/Dragon%20Magazine%20%23321.pdf
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
Errata:
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/d20%20Modern/d20%20Modern%20Errata.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.php
http://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.

>>128916
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.

>>128920
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.

>>128920
>>128921
Dead From Above has meta concerning WWII era planes for the D20 system:
https://thetrove.net/Books/Savage%20Worlds/Weird%20Wars/Weird%20War%20II/Weird%20Wars%20D20%20-%20Weird%20War%20II%20-%20Dead%20From%20Above.pdf
Land Of The Rising Dead is based on the Pacific Wars. More Plane/Navy stuff:
https://thetrove.net/Books/Savage%20Worlds/Weird%20Wars/Weird%20War%20II/Weird%20Wars%20D20%20-%20Weird%20War%20II%20-%20Land%20of%20the%20Rising%20Dead.pdf
And Just about everything else important for D20 is in Blood On The Rhine:
https://thetrove.net/Books/Savage%20Worlds/Weird%20Wars/Weird%20War%20II/Weird%20Wars%20D20%20-%20Weird%20War%20II%20-%20Blood%20on%20the%20Rhine.pdf

>>128922
Flipping through Blood On The Rhine, a lot of this looks decently usable.

>>128920
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.