Like the title says, this is a thread for any and all table top games and things related to them.
If you have a question about homebrew, worldbuilding, game mechanics ect this is the thread for it.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
104 replies and 7 files omitted.
>>149800
I might not have understood what >>148233 meant, which is why I asked for his exoperience in the matter.
>>148233
>The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
How do you usually go about implementing this? Do you actually kill them, or do you not? What's the level of game lethality you're looking for?
Usually early deadly encournters that install fear of death in players are meant to set up the expectation that they could die, but also make them more okay with the potential of dying. PCs who don't want to risk dying wouldn't go on adventures in the first place: heroes are by their nature braver than usual.
Idk if you're even still alive, but I want to understand what you're getting at.
I might not have understood what >>148233 meant, which is why I asked for his exoperience in the matter.
>>148233
>The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
How do you usually go about implementing this? Do you actually kill them, or do you not? What's the level of game lethality you're looking for?
Usually early deadly encournters that install fear of death in players are meant to set up the expectation that they could die, but also make them more okay with the potential of dying. PCs who don't want to risk dying wouldn't go on adventures in the first place: heroes are by their nature braver than usual.
Idk if you're even still alive, but I want to understand what you're getting at.
Anyone else here tried PF2e?
It's been growing on me. I was originally a 3.5e/PF1e fan, but I'm liking this edition.
It's been growing on me. I was originally a 3.5e/PF1e fan, but I'm liking this edition.
Kek, I don't think any other deity takes such great lengths to defend her followers.
Look at this. Do not ever fuck with dead hobbits.
Look at this. Do not ever fuck with dead hobbits.
1627861760.png (1.6 MB, 1348x1357, a5971901c085d9a1565c305b19d2c48d.png)
5e modules are such shit.
So... Anybody around here like Pathfinder?
1631142907.png (763.2 KB, 807x658, 241359639_4535700039826794_3322270158113703800_n.png)
>>151681
What if the solution to the Martial Caster Disparity is to give melee classes a highly limited class-specific pool of "Techniques" they can perform?
Like a spell list, only with more uses per day and lower power levels until the highest levels.
That'd stop DMs from treating Melee Classes like moderately-fit humans with "I don't care if your STR is over 20 you cant break your cage's iron bars because they're magic and I don't want you to" talk.
At the low levels, combat techniques like "Barbaric Blow" and "Graceful Slash" and whatnot to add STR or DEX numbers to your effectiveness as a reward for picking that particular class and using up one of your limited-use-per-day Techniques.
Perhaps "Brandish Weapon" to boost the Warrior's Intimidation roll or "Deft Hands" to boost the Thief's chances of successful thief shit.
At mid-level, more advanced techniques that represent the peak of human ability. And things accelerate rapidly from there.
At high-level, we get into the "Slash a hole through reality with your blade, casting Dimension Door" tier. This is where your character can use a spell slot to do something casters could probably do better if you didn't have this option. Being so tough you can block a spell with your pecs. A spellcaster can make himself invisible but a max level Thief should be so stealthy he's "Better than invisible" and can do more thief shit. The Wizard will be happy he no longer has to spend spell slots on things his teammates can now do better than him.
You'd still be a raging barbarian with a shitton of survivability, but you'd also have Techniques like "Run faster because you're trying harder now" or "Scream so hard your foe's next spell fails" or "Hit his spell with your weapon so hard it bounces back at the foe" or "If raging, enemies that try to mind control you get mind-controlled harder instead".
[Read more] What if the solution to the Martial Caster Disparity is to give melee classes a highly limited class-specific pool of "Techniques" they can perform?
Like a spell list, only with more uses per day and lower power levels until the highest levels.
That'd stop DMs from treating Melee Classes like moderately-fit humans with "I don't care if your STR is over 20 you cant break your cage's iron bars because they're magic and I don't want you to" talk.
At the low levels, combat techniques like "Barbaric Blow" and "Graceful Slash" and whatnot to add STR or DEX numbers to your effectiveness as a reward for picking that particular class and using up one of your limited-use-per-day Techniques.
Perhaps "Brandish Weapon" to boost the Warrior's Intimidation roll or "Deft Hands" to boost the Thief's chances of successful thief shit.
At mid-level, more advanced techniques that represent the peak of human ability. And things accelerate rapidly from there.
At high-level, we get into the "Slash a hole through reality with your blade, casting Dimension Door" tier. This is where your character can use a spell slot to do something casters could probably do better if you didn't have this option. Being so tough you can block a spell with your pecs. A spellcaster can make himself invisible but a max level Thief should be so stealthy he's "Better than invisible" and can do more thief shit. The Wizard will be happy he no longer has to spend spell slots on things his teammates can now do better than him.
You'd still be a raging barbarian with a shitton of survivability, but you'd also have Techniques like "Run faster because you're trying harder now" or "Scream so hard your foe's next spell fails" or "Hit his spell with your weapon so hard it bounces back at the foe" or "If raging, enemies that try to mind control you get mind-controlled harder instead".
>>151690
I recall some DND-like giving players a pool of "Awesomeness Points", and they can spend one to improve their odds when rolling die. Or did it outright guarantee the success of an action? Was there a system where enemies could spend their own Awesomeness Points to dodge, and whoever expended more resources won the advantage? I forget what the points were called.
Anyway these Techniques would effectively be consumable "points" you can use X number of times per day to make your character better at something. Could be a skill, a combat action, a temporary buff you can instantly apply to yourself, a permanent passive buff that can fill the slot of a technique when you're able to learn new ones, even give some ideas to players for what their characters could do. Rogues could try to steal the weapons of their enemies. Or Fighters could use their "Initiate Weapon Bind" technique to rob themselves and their target of their next action, giving teammates an opening to strike.
The Martial-Caster Disparity only seems like a problem because it gives casters the ability to do something better than a Martial, but a Martial can do it more times per day without needing spells.
The Technique System would let Martials have their own pool of cool shit to do a limited number of times per day, but easier Techniques should have more uses per day even at low levels.
[Read more] I recall some DND-like giving players a pool of "Awesomeness Points", and they can spend one to improve their odds when rolling die. Or did it outright guarantee the success of an action? Was there a system where enemies could spend their own Awesomeness Points to dodge, and whoever expended more resources won the advantage? I forget what the points were called.
Anyway these Techniques would effectively be consumable "points" you can use X number of times per day to make your character better at something. Could be a skill, a combat action, a temporary buff you can instantly apply to yourself, a permanent passive buff that can fill the slot of a technique when you're able to learn new ones, even give some ideas to players for what their characters could do. Rogues could try to steal the weapons of their enemies. Or Fighters could use their "Initiate Weapon Bind" technique to rob themselves and their target of their next action, giving teammates an opening to strike.
The Martial-Caster Disparity only seems like a problem because it gives casters the ability to do something better than a Martial, but a Martial can do it more times per day without needing spells.
The Technique System would let Martials have their own pool of cool shit to do a limited number of times per day, but easier Techniques should have more uses per day even at low levels.
>>151691
>>151690
Can you name any systems or subsystems that do this well?
I mentioned the ToB and PaW.
I find that martials and casters seem to be pretty balanced in PF2e, and not in a fake-ass homo way like 5e does it like rationing extra attacks and whatnot. The crit specializations give weapon-fighters their own niche.
>>151690
Can you name any systems or subsystems that do this well?
I mentioned the ToB and PaW.
I find that martials and casters seem to be pretty balanced in PF2e, and not in a fake-ass homo way like 5e does it like rationing extra attacks and whatnot. The crit specializations give weapon-fighters their own niche.
>>151705
I think one of the FIM-inspired DND fanmade systems used a system where teammates who work together get bonus points for "Acting in harmony", that would be a cool way to incentivize teamwork.
I think one of the FIM-inspired DND fanmade systems used a system where teammates who work together get bonus points for "Acting in harmony", that would be a cool way to incentivize teamwork.
I'm getting close to finished with my current campaign, and I'm been considering starting a tabletop game meant to feature /mlpol/ memes, and include as much of the /mlpol/ community as I can, for the purpose of bringing more tabletop content to this board and its culture. Probably a West Marches style Pathfinder game where people can join and leave as they please, possibly even with multiple DMs or Co DMs.
It could be a really big project, and could be some work to implement, so I'm wondering if there's a strong willingness to bring such a game to this community before I start doing the work for it.
It could be a really big project, and could be some work to implement, so I'm wondering if there's a strong willingness to bring such a game to this community before I start doing the work for it.
>>151808
if it does not include discord then sure, I'd be in. I already set up a mumble server on the domain horseholes.brony.team but could easily change it to almost anything else. iwtci.science.horse for example, using one of my other domains.
Still have to read up on PF2e and how it relates to ponyfinder. Shouldn't take more than a day though.
if it does not include discord then sure, I'd be in. I already set up a mumble server on the domain horseholes.brony.team but could easily change it to almost anything else. iwtci.science.horse for example, using one of my other domains.
Still have to read up on PF2e and how it relates to ponyfinder. Shouldn't take more than a day though.
>>151808
I'm intrested but it also kinda depends. Are we playing in the pony world? I'd like to play in ponyland as pony with poners.
I've thought a lot about these threads, >>106507 → and >>111710 →
There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign. Many showed up and I don't think that was because it was epic level, or at least mostly, but because was a typical fantasy trpg adventure: A party, in Equestria, going on an adventure with a clear plot together.
I have been working on a campaign. I thought that the way of getting people on board with a campaign I had to truly put some effort into it. So I have been creating a bunch of stuff like, races(really, just written up lore and mechanical things about already existing races in equestria), classes, lore, worldbuilding. I've been chipping away this from time to time.
There's a lot of homebrew. I'm actually fairly proud of it.
I didn't mean anything with the spoiler. I'll probably never be done with it anyway. I just couldn't keep myself from telling you about it.
[Read more] I'm intrested but it also kinda depends. Are we playing in the pony world? I'd like to play in ponyland as pony with poners.
I've thought a lot about these threads, >>106507 → and >>111710 →
There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign. Many showed up and I don't think that was because it was epic level, or at least mostly, but because was a typical fantasy trpg adventure: A party, in Equestria, going on an adventure with a clear plot together.
I have been working on a campaign. I thought that the way of getting people on board with a campaign I had to truly put some effort into it. So I have been creating a bunch of stuff like, races(really, just written up lore and mechanical things about already existing races in equestria), classes, lore, worldbuilding. I've been chipping away this from time to time.
There's a lot of homebrew. I'm actually fairly proud of it.
I didn't mean anything with the spoiler. I'll probably never be done with it anyway. I just couldn't keep myself from telling you about it.
>>151815
>There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign
Yeah, sadly the DM of that campaign had to cancel due to his life throwing a ton of problems at him that made him unable to run anything, let alone epic level.
>>151809
I'm considering mediums. I definitely don't want it to just be a discord server. I'm trying to think of a way to involve as much of the /mlpol/ community as possible, although due to my prior experience I've determined chansites aren't exactly the best for running traditional combat encounters. Some sort of off-site medium or electronic tabletop feels necessary just so that encounters don't take days to resolve.
PbB style could run right on the board, although I'm not sure if PbP and West Marches are compatible in a fulfilling way.
>>151815
>Are we playing in the pony world?
Ideally something close to Equestria, since it would be a moot point to make an /mlpol/ adventure without featuring ponies. It could also be a pony setting made for more traditional RP, kind of like Everglow, but less gay. Either case would take some world-building.
[Read more] >There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign
Yeah, sadly the DM of that campaign had to cancel due to his life throwing a ton of problems at him that made him unable to run anything, let alone epic level.
>>151809
I'm considering mediums. I definitely don't want it to just be a discord server. I'm trying to think of a way to involve as much of the /mlpol/ community as possible, although due to my prior experience I've determined chansites aren't exactly the best for running traditional combat encounters. Some sort of off-site medium or electronic tabletop feels necessary just so that encounters don't take days to resolve.
PbB style could run right on the board, although I'm not sure if PbP and West Marches are compatible in a fulfilling way.
>>151815
>Are we playing in the pony world?
Ideally something close to Equestria, since it would be a moot point to make an /mlpol/ adventure without featuring ponies. It could also be a pony setting made for more traditional RP, kind of like Everglow, but less gay. Either case would take some world-building.
>>151816
If you want I could share my own homebrew with you, if you'd like to use 'em. Or, if you'd like some inspiration or whatever. It's all free; take everything or take nothing, it's up to you.
Races: Short version.
>Earth Pony
The customizable pony race.
Hit die per character level: d8
>Pegasus
The fast flier but not good at maneuverability. Can manipulate clouds and cause weather (only pegasi can).
Hit die per character level: d6
>Unicorn ( and Bladehorn)
Arcane spellcaster. Different moonlight enrforces spells. (Bladehorns get more spell slots with moonlight instead)
Hit die per character level: d4
>Crystal Pony
Tanky. Has a 10% (or 5%) chance of reflecting spells back at caster.
Lore: Is Crystal but produces something by oxygen in their body that makes their body malleable so if they hold their breath or lack oxygen they become hard like crystal with the cons and pros of that.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Bat Pony
Flier. Has better maneuverability than pegasus but lower speed. Echo-location: Can 'Ree' and then do a listen check with (int) for it's modifier. This listen check does not help in hearing what's being said but makes the bat pony visualize to an extreme detail if majorly successful every objects in a space and the space itself in their head.
Hit die per character level: d6
>Kirin
Arcane spellcaster. Blindrage(Or Nikirin or whatever they are called): If the kirins takes too much damage in one go they will go into a blindrage causing them to attack anyone nearby and the DM to take over the character. The player also has to tell the DM three things that pisses the pc off, which the DM will call upon a wisedom check to keep them from going berserk and blazing with fire. With different DC, one which is unlikely to set the pc off and one that is almost garanteed to set them off.
Hit die per character level: d4
>Zebra
Increadible constitution. Can run forever and so on. But what makes this race intresting is the two classes I made for it, which are still in their conceptional stage but still: Witchdoctor(mare only) and Spearchugga(Stallion only).
I instead for stallions to have int: -1 and Mares int: +1.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Trojan Horse
You're a foal of a legendary creature if you play this race as a pc. Trojan horse grow to the sizes of dragons and about the same age as well.
You're combat stick is that you have special attacks that scale in power with character level.
Size: As a foal Trojan horse you're large.
Hit die per character level: d12
>Breezy
Lore: Breezies have a fragmented souls. They only reincarnate and never get to go to the afterlife. The way for them to get to the afterlife is to fuse their soul with another sentient being's soul. This soul bound levels with the summation of the pairs' experince points an gives them both new abilties and drawbacks. Telepathy, deleivering touch attacks through each other, and switching place in space are a few abilties that get unlocked but if the whole soul dies, the breeze pc dies as well.
Breezies have the best maneuverability of the flying pcs but the slowest speed.
Size is smaller than small, probably tiny.
Hit die per character level: Doesn't have die. Instead player's toss a coin. Tails is one and heads is two.
>Human
Thought that maybe they could have techonlogy or something but haven't really come up with more than how they connect with the basic pantheon I made.
Is customizable though, I think.
Hit die per character level: Haven't considered it yet.
[Read more] If you want I could share my own homebrew with you, if you'd like to use 'em. Or, if you'd like some inspiration or whatever. It's all free; take everything or take nothing, it's up to you.
Races: Short version.
>Earth Pony
The customizable pony race.
Hit die per character level: d8
>Pegasus
The fast flier but not good at maneuverability. Can manipulate clouds and cause weather (only pegasi can).
Hit die per character level: d6
>Unicorn ( and Bladehorn)
Arcane spellcaster. Different moonlight enrforces spells. (Bladehorns get more spell slots with moonlight instead)
Hit die per character level: d4
>Crystal Pony
Tanky. Has a 10% (or 5%) chance of reflecting spells back at caster.
Lore: Is Crystal but produces something by oxygen in their body that makes their body malleable so if they hold their breath or lack oxygen they become hard like crystal with the cons and pros of that.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Bat Pony
Flier. Has better maneuverability than pegasus but lower speed. Echo-location: Can 'Ree' and then do a listen check with (int) for it's modifier. This listen check does not help in hearing what's being said but makes the bat pony visualize to an extreme detail if majorly successful every objects in a space and the space itself in their head.
Hit die per character level: d6
>Kirin
Arcane spellcaster. Blindrage(Or Nikirin or whatever they are called): If the kirins takes too much damage in one go they will go into a blindrage causing them to attack anyone nearby and the DM to take over the character. The player also has to tell the DM three things that pisses the pc off, which the DM will call upon a wisedom check to keep them from going berserk and blazing with fire. With different DC, one which is unlikely to set the pc off and one that is almost garanteed to set them off.
Hit die per character level: d4
>Zebra
Increadible constitution. Can run forever and so on. But what makes this race intresting is the two classes I made for it, which are still in their conceptional stage but still: Witchdoctor(mare only) and Spearchugga(Stallion only).
I instead for stallions to have int: -1 and Mares int: +1.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Trojan Horse
You're a foal of a legendary creature if you play this race as a pc. Trojan horse grow to the sizes of dragons and about the same age as well.
You're combat stick is that you have special attacks that scale in power with character level.
Size: As a foal Trojan horse you're large.
Hit die per character level: d12
>Breezy
Lore: Breezies have a fragmented souls. They only reincarnate and never get to go to the afterlife. The way for them to get to the afterlife is to fuse their soul with another sentient being's soul. This soul bound levels with the summation of the pairs' experince points an gives them both new abilties and drawbacks. Telepathy, deleivering touch attacks through each other, and switching place in space are a few abilties that get unlocked but if the whole soul dies, the breeze pc dies as well.
Breezies have the best maneuverability of the flying pcs but the slowest speed.
Size is smaller than small, probably tiny.
Hit die per character level: Doesn't have die. Instead player's toss a coin. Tails is one and heads is two.
>Human
Thought that maybe they could have techonlogy or something but haven't really come up with more than how they connect with the basic pantheon I made.
Is customizable though, I think.
Hit die per character level: Haven't considered it yet.
>>151826
In my homebrew hit dice depend on choice of race instead of class (I thought it was intresting as a concept) and character level.
In my homebrew hit dice depend on choice of race instead of class (I thought it was intresting as a concept) and character level.
>>151827
I think it would be simpler to just give them Constitution bonuses or penalties.
By this logic, an earth pony barbarians only have d8 HP, and crystal pony wizards get d10 HP.
I think it would be simpler to just give them Constitution bonuses or penalties.
By this logic, an earth pony barbarians only have d8 HP, and crystal pony wizards get d10 HP.
>>151828
Well, crystal ponies don't have spellcasting or well I been thinking about maybe letting them be clerics.
Anyway, this is just the basic concepts. I just wanna make them distinct to begin with.
Well, crystal ponies don't have spellcasting or well I been thinking about maybe letting them be clerics.
Anyway, this is just the basic concepts. I just wanna make them distinct to begin with.
>>151829
I think you'd be better off sticking to constitution adjustments. It's a tried and true method, since HP is based on class for the purpose of said class fitting a particular niche, like frontline warrior vs caster. This looks like it could be unbalancing, and more importantly it pigeonholes races into particular niches even more so than standard racial penalties though. With this system, a Kirin couldn't play an effective Barbarian, Swordsage, or Druid because their hit points are too low to survive melee, even if . Meanwhile, an Earth pony Fighter or Barbarian somehow has less HP than a typical Fighter/Barbarian.
The breezie probably has a lot of bonuses, but with 1d2 HP they'd be in a position where any single attack could kill them at most levels.
>Don't have spellcasting
What about Psionics? With their crystal aesthetics, crystal ponies work well as Psionicists.
>Letting them be Clerics
What about Druids?
If you do intend to change the hit dice for races in X niche, consider making Racial Substitution levels for the races. The Elf Ranger racial substitution level has d6 HP, and the Half-Orc Barbarian has d12 HP, and more importantly both classes have different features.
http://marksworld.zeemer.com/files/Racial%20Substitution.html#9
Pathfinder would do this by making favored class bonuses for the races, which is based on the same idea. I think Ponyfinder already has several written.
[Read more] I think you'd be better off sticking to constitution adjustments. It's a tried and true method, since HP is based on class for the purpose of said class fitting a particular niche, like frontline warrior vs caster. This looks like it could be unbalancing, and more importantly it pigeonholes races into particular niches even more so than standard racial penalties though. With this system, a Kirin couldn't play an effective Barbarian, Swordsage, or Druid because their hit points are too low to survive melee, even if . Meanwhile, an Earth pony Fighter or Barbarian somehow has less HP than a typical Fighter/Barbarian.
The breezie probably has a lot of bonuses, but with 1d2 HP they'd be in a position where any single attack could kill them at most levels.
>Don't have spellcasting
What about Psionics? With their crystal aesthetics, crystal ponies work well as Psionicists.
>Letting them be Clerics
What about Druids?
If you do intend to change the hit dice for races in X niche, consider making Racial Substitution levels for the races. The Elf Ranger racial substitution level has d6 HP, and the Half-Orc Barbarian has d12 HP, and more importantly both classes have different features.
http://marksworld.zeemer.com/files/Racial%20Substitution.html#9
Pathfinder would do this by making favored class bonuses for the races, which is based on the same idea. I think Ponyfinder already has several written.
>>151831
Anyway, I can't guarantee that I'll be an active participant in any campaign you're making although I'm intrested in such a project. So don't make it big or put too much energy into it for my benefit.
Anyway, I can't guarantee that I'll be an active participant in any campaign you're making although I'm intrested in such a project. So don't make it big or put too much energy into it for my benefit.
>>152203
The point of a west marches is that it doesn't need active participants.
Anyways, it's just a thought for now, but I wanted to see if there was a willingness to play.
The point of a west marches is that it doesn't need active participants.
Anyways, it's just a thought for now, but I wanted to see if there was a willingness to play.
Thing about an /mlpol/ based game is idk what era to set the world in, or how close to Equestria the map should be... It's hard to balance expectations of the show's mileau with the appeals to exploration, violence, and nuance that come with a classic fantasy TTRPG.
A Savage World's ruleset for FiM-based games where most encounters are meant to be resolved nonviolently:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13rx6jUoOR8izx4_M4nqc8Wt5g0FyF2qR/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13rx6jUoOR8izx4_M4nqc8Wt5g0FyF2qR/view?usp=sharing
>>152235
Maybe I should do a world-building thread for pony RPGs. I've never done a pony game or a west marches before, so it should be worth it to brainstorm with the people who actually might play it.
Maybe I should do a world-building thread for pony RPGs. I've never done a pony game or a west marches before, so it should be worth it to brainstorm with the people who actually might play it.
I'm starting a D&D 2e game soon. It's Dark Sun.
I've never played 2e before. Does anybody have advice on what's a good starting place?
I've never played 2e before. Does anybody have advice on what's a good starting place?
New 5e UA came out. Looks like the next release is going to be Spelljammer. The UA had a bunch of races.
Worth a thread, or nah?
Worth a thread, or nah?
How many roleplayers do you think we have in this community? Like, in total?
1639348205.png (1.2 MB, 1606x1710, doodle_by_marenlicious_devco3o.png)
I made this discord server community with the intet to connect all roleplayers across the extended /mlpol/ community to generate content and find players:
https://discord.gg/SvvxKYECcF
I was hesitant to announce it on this board because I'm still working on an expansive west marches game project that I had hoped the whole community could partake in and I didn't want to disappoint people with early announcements (and end up like Cyberpunk). Still, if anyone wants to get involved in developing or just casually talk about pony-roleplay, feel free to enter it.
I might make a thread about the game project later, or earlier if anyone wants it. I was going to make it a multi-media project to incorporate mumble and matrix in addition to ths board, but I'm still in the writing phase.
https://discord.gg/SvvxKYECcF
I was hesitant to announce it on this board because I'm still working on an expansive west marches game project that I had hoped the whole community could partake in and I didn't want to disappoint people with early announcements (and end up like Cyberpunk). Still, if anyone wants to get involved in developing or just casually talk about pony-roleplay, feel free to enter it.
I might make a thread about the game project later, or earlier if anyone wants it. I was going to make it a multi-media project to incorporate mumble and matrix in addition to ths board, but I'm still in the writing phase.
Would anybody from here like to play pathfinder/ponyfinder in the near future?
I could GM, pretty much any medium works for me.
I could GM, pretty much any medium works for me.
>>156670
I would love to but my damn work is all over the place so I can never know when my day off is.
I would love to but my damn work is all over the place so I can never know when my day off is.
>>156709
As in, what do you want to play on?
Discord is easiest for me when it comes to short games, but I could try roll20 or foundry, or anything else you might think of.
I could even try the board itself, although lack of VC makes it difficult. Maybe a combination of pbp and anonyous Mumble for VC.
As in, what do you want to play on?
Discord is easiest for me when it comes to short games, but I could try roll20 or foundry, or anything else you might think of.
I could even try the board itself, although lack of VC makes it difficult. Maybe a combination of pbp and anonyous Mumble for VC.
>>156999
I've been dinking around with foundryVTT for a bit and I really like it. Stopped for a little while because it just had a major release update and I wanted to wait a week or two for the important modules to catch up.
It feels kinda like roll20 but a lot less faggot. Probably slightly more setup, but a shit ton more aesthetics. It looks like there are modules that already define most of the pathfinder weapons and monsters. Also it looks like ponyfinder is working at getting an official module too.
I've been dinking around with foundryVTT for a bit and I really like it. Stopped for a little while because it just had a major release update and I wanted to wait a week or two for the important modules to catch up.
It feels kinda like roll20 but a lot less faggot. Probably slightly more setup, but a shit ton more aesthetics. It looks like there are modules that already define most of the pathfinder weapons and monsters. Also it looks like ponyfinder is working at getting an official module too.
1642980407.mp4 (1.2 MB, Resolution:640x462 Length:00:00:32, 70faf18c762ecb51ffea39ab306b729e80cf1e5cea4e98d5923391ef20de79b5_1.mp4) [play once] [loop]
GMs, wanna spice up ur dungeons and make them more challenging?
Put em under water cuz reasons! Blah, breathe water is low level, but its a good intro to 3d combat, and it l.
For added challenge AND consistency, look up the dynamics of diving (pressure? silt? limited lighting?) and go from there. Mrballen recommended.
Put em under water cuz reasons! Blah, breathe water is low level, but its a good intro to 3d combat, and it l.
For added challenge AND consistency, look up the dynamics of diving (pressure? silt? limited lighting?) and go from there. Mrballen recommended.
>>160837
I've seen plenty of underwater dungeons, although they're not really as challenging as they sound, with access to magic.
However, if you add in some self-resetting traps of dispel magic, you can royally fuck-up PCs who were depending on spells to breath.
I've seen plenty of underwater dungeons, although they're not really as challenging as they sound, with access to magic.
However, if you add in some self-resetting traps of dispel magic, you can royally fuck-up PCs who were depending on spells to breath.
>>160837
I think your first step should be to figure out a reason why the dungeon is underwater in the first place.
I think your first step should be to figure out a reason why the dungeon is underwater in the first place.
>>162385
???
That is the logical first step.
I've seen a lot of dungeons that were at least partially underwater, some tasteful, and some bland.
The best one I saw was occupied by cultists of a sea god who we had to defeat. The less-cool ones were basically just "muh Zelda reference".
???
That is the logical first step.
I've seen a lot of dungeons that were at least partially underwater, some tasteful, and some bland.
The best one I saw was occupied by cultists of a sea god who we had to defeat. The less-cool ones were basically just "muh Zelda reference".
I always like it when dungeons are thematic to the overall plot or theme of a game. Dungeons are honestly my favorite part of a lot of RPGs, and they'll naturally be the place where players experience a lot of their most memorable encounters.
A good dungeon has a background and history for players to explore, as well as encounters that fit its theme and purpose (was it a temple, a fortress, a library, a catacomb, etc?). A dungeon hastily thrown together can still be fun, but might not be as immersive.
A good dungeon has a background and history for players to explore, as well as encounters that fit its theme and purpose (was it a temple, a fortress, a library, a catacomb, etc?). A dungeon hastily thrown together can still be fun, but might not be as immersive.
>>162387
A logical first step would be to realize that a random game idea thrown out over a month ago is probably fully intrgrated, and that any well-intentioned advice is better directed to others
A logical first step would be to realize that a random game idea thrown out over a month ago is probably fully intrgrated, and that any well-intentioned advice is better directed to others
Anybody here play GURPS?
Theres a noticeable divide in the TTRPG community about the following question:
Are (you) your character, or do you CONTROL your character?
Having spent time on both sides of the issue, I favor the mind that the player IS the character, with extra steps.
To do with the gaming experience, the player is most engaged and gratified when they immerse themselves in their character, as though they were them. Schitzo shit aside, the player isnt a person staring at a sheet full of stats and whatnot. Literally they are, but thats not the reality the character experiences, so to better experience/express the character, the player is best suited to aligning with themindset of their character and playing sincerely.
This isnproblematic, in many gamibg circles, and often resukts in the "its what my character would do" derail excuse. And while thats technically not wrong - people fuck shit up all the time without malintent, and DnD should be no exception - I would also prescribe a mindset of "This is what my character would do, IF they werent trying to break the game."
The fixation ofbthe player then would be to operate as intellectually as possible/appropriate, whike akso allowing the GM and others to advise the player should their character become disruptive. It IS the responsibility of the player to not perform disruptively, however I maintain that the sincerety and genuinity(?) of the character is what makes for a good story. As such, there is a balance, and one maintained only by having an open rapport with one's GM.
Either way can work, but I favor immersion, which is why I recoil at overly-meta structures like "what combination of prestige classed and alt book classes csn I use to haxx the game".
I favor the mind where what the CHARACTER would NATURALLY want (outside of meta) is what truly expresses the character. Because the character isnt (you); they know of not statblocs or books, they only know the environment they have known.
[Read more] Are (you) your character, or do you CONTROL your character?
Having spent time on both sides of the issue, I favor the mind that the player IS the character, with extra steps.
To do with the gaming experience, the player is most engaged and gratified when they immerse themselves in their character, as though they were them. Schitzo shit aside, the player isnt a person staring at a sheet full of stats and whatnot. Literally they are, but thats not the reality the character experiences, so to better experience/express the character, the player is best suited to aligning with themindset of their character and playing sincerely.
This isnproblematic, in many gamibg circles, and often resukts in the "its what my character would do" derail excuse. And while thats technically not wrong - people fuck shit up all the time without malintent, and DnD should be no exception - I would also prescribe a mindset of "This is what my character would do, IF they werent trying to break the game."
The fixation ofbthe player then would be to operate as intellectually as possible/appropriate, whike akso allowing the GM and others to advise the player should their character become disruptive. It IS the responsibility of the player to not perform disruptively, however I maintain that the sincerety and genuinity(?) of the character is what makes for a good story. As such, there is a balance, and one maintained only by having an open rapport with one's GM.
Either way can work, but I favor immersion, which is why I recoil at overly-meta structures like "what combination of prestige classed and alt book classes csn I use to haxx the game".
I favor the mind where what the CHARACTER would NATURALLY want (outside of meta) is what truly expresses the character. Because the character isnt (you); they know of not statblocs or books, they only know the environment they have known.
>>165352
>Are (you) your character, or do you CONTROL your character?
I've always been more of the latter.
I also try to play something different every time, in build or in character, unless I'm recycling and old one due to not having opportunity to play it to the point where I was satisfied.
Although every character I've made is of course a manifestation of my own subconscious, in sometimes in more psychotic ways than I'd care to admit... Still, I always consider my characters to be something other than me, which is why I tend to speak in third person while roleplaying every now and then.
>often resukts in the "its what my character would do" derail excuse
Tbh, imo you should usually stay in-character, even if that characters normal actions may be suboptimal or controversial; HOWEVER, you should also make a character that is appropriate to the game. If your character has no motivation to do the main quest, then drop that character and make one that actually wants to play the game.
>The fixation ofbthe player then would be to operate as intellectually as possible/appropriate
Tbh, I've tried this before, but it led me towards munchkinry; such as choosing feats, spells and items that weren't appropriate for my character or taking on tasks and quests that conflicted with personality, just because doing so made me most useful to the party. I find that I'm happy when I just stick with the character's actual habits and ambitions, even if it's a bit suboptimal or self-destructive. Of course, I try not to cause inter-party conflicts.
>I favor immersion, which is why I recoil at overly-meta structures like "what combination of prestige classed and alt book classes can I use to haxx the game".
Imo, I consider the meta to be a vehicle of immersion, which is why I try to study the system to make the build that best represents my character, their backstory/habits, and the abilities I wanted them to have.
>prestige classes
Ah, so you play 3.5e.
When it comes to 3.5e, there is no real ceiling to power scaling and optimization; as a result, trying to build a character solely on optimization is an errand I've found unrewarding and time-wasting. It's not worth it to make flavor sacrifices to optimize, because there's usually another build that's more appropriate for your character while still achieving the level of power appropriate for the game.
When I build characters in that system, I typically try to look for what's most appropriate for the character I made. It varies wildly, and some characters I've made for just silly TO gags, but I like the system because it has my back to create any kind of character I want.
>they only know the environment they have known.
I usually take mental stats, knowledge ranks, backstory and experience into account when making a character, picking abilities that I deem appropriate for aforementioned character.
[Read more] >Are (you) your character, or do you CONTROL your character?
I've always been more of the latter.
I also try to play something different every time, in build or in character, unless I'm recycling and old one due to not having opportunity to play it to the point where I was satisfied.
Although every character I've made is of course a manifestation of my own subconscious, in sometimes in more psychotic ways than I'd care to admit... Still, I always consider my characters to be something other than me, which is why I tend to speak in third person while roleplaying every now and then.
>often resukts in the "its what my character would do" derail excuse
Tbh, imo you should usually stay in-character, even if that characters normal actions may be suboptimal or controversial; HOWEVER, you should also make a character that is appropriate to the game. If your character has no motivation to do the main quest, then drop that character and make one that actually wants to play the game.
>The fixation ofbthe player then would be to operate as intellectually as possible/appropriate
Tbh, I've tried this before, but it led me towards munchkinry; such as choosing feats, spells and items that weren't appropriate for my character or taking on tasks and quests that conflicted with personality, just because doing so made me most useful to the party. I find that I'm happy when I just stick with the character's actual habits and ambitions, even if it's a bit suboptimal or self-destructive. Of course, I try not to cause inter-party conflicts.
>I favor immersion, which is why I recoil at overly-meta structures like "what combination of prestige classed and alt book classes can I use to haxx the game".
Imo, I consider the meta to be a vehicle of immersion, which is why I try to study the system to make the build that best represents my character, their backstory/habits, and the abilities I wanted them to have.
>prestige classes
Ah, so you play 3.5e.
When it comes to 3.5e, there is no real ceiling to power scaling and optimization; as a result, trying to build a character solely on optimization is an errand I've found unrewarding and time-wasting. It's not worth it to make flavor sacrifices to optimize, because there's usually another build that's more appropriate for your character while still achieving the level of power appropriate for the game.
When I build characters in that system, I typically try to look for what's most appropriate for the character I made. It varies wildly, and some characters I've made for just silly TO gags, but I like the system because it has my back to create any kind of character I want.
>they only know the environment they have known.
I usually take mental stats, knowledge ranks, backstory and experience into account when making a character, picking abilities that I deem appropriate for aforementioned character.
>>165352
>break the game
>haxx the game
This is a highly subjective area, especially in games that have high optimization ceilings. While there are obvious limits to what's appropriate for any sane character, optimization expectations vary wildly by game, especially in high-crunch, high-fatality games, such as high-level 3.5e and PF1e.
>break the game
>haxx the game
This is a highly subjective area, especially in games that have high optimization ceilings. While there are obvious limits to what's appropriate for any sane character, optimization expectations vary wildly by game, especially in high-crunch, high-fatality games, such as high-level 3.5e and PF1e.
>>165352
>they only know the environment they have known.
This is another reason to ask your DM/GM before using setting-specific content.
>they only know the environment they have known.
This is another reason to ask your DM/GM before using setting-specific content.
>>165353
>u play 3.5e
No, 3.5e is cancer. Prestige class is a term that goes back to 2e.
>build
This term is anathema to the player who is fixated on immersion. Do you look at yourself irl and "contemplate builds" about what you're going to do, or where you would like to progress in life? You affect that you comprehend what Im saying, while displaying that you have no idea.
>optimization
Are you playing a DnD charachter, or trying to speedrun dark souls?
>u play 3.5e
No, 3.5e is cancer. Prestige class is a term that goes back to 2e.
>build
This term is anathema to the player who is fixated on immersion. Do you look at yourself irl and "contemplate builds" about what you're going to do, or where you would like to progress in life? You affect that you comprehend what Im saying, while displaying that you have no idea.
>optimization
Are you playing a DnD charachter, or trying to speedrun dark souls?
>>165356
>3.5e is cancer
How is it cancer if it's userbase is slowly shrinking? It's been 20 years since it was printed. It's not exactly growing. Most 3.5e players have moved to PF1e over the years.
>Do you look at yourself irl and "contemplate builds" about what you're going to do, or where you would like to progress in life?
For a lot of my most important decisions in my health, education, and career training yes. I wish I'd done it more.
>Are you playing a DnD character, or trying to speedrun dark souls?
What's with the false dichotomy? D&d can be a challenging game of cutthroart combat, and building the character is part of the fun.
>anathema to the player who is fixated on immersion
I am fixated on immersion. I care about builds. To me, the stats are representative of the situation. Games that neglect to invoke substantive mechanical differences between situations are immersion-breaking, imo, because they just refluff the same mechanics over and over again.
This is a matter of taste, of course.
>term that goes back to 2e.
Yes, but they're most popular in 3e, and since you referred to unique combinations of prestige classes, I could only assume you meant 3e or PF1e.
[Read more] >3.5e is cancer
How is it cancer if it's userbase is slowly shrinking? It's been 20 years since it was printed. It's not exactly growing. Most 3.5e players have moved to PF1e over the years.
>Do you look at yourself irl and "contemplate builds" about what you're going to do, or where you would like to progress in life?
For a lot of my most important decisions in my health, education, and career training yes. I wish I'd done it more.
>Are you playing a DnD character, or trying to speedrun dark souls?
What's with the false dichotomy? D&d can be a challenging game of cutthroart combat, and building the character is part of the fun.
>anathema to the player who is fixated on immersion
I am fixated on immersion. I care about builds. To me, the stats are representative of the situation. Games that neglect to invoke substantive mechanical differences between situations are immersion-breaking, imo, because they just refluff the same mechanics over and over again.
This is a matter of taste, of course.
>term that goes back to 2e.
Yes, but they're most popular in 3e, and since you referred to unique combinations of prestige classes, I could only assume you meant 3e or PF1e.
>>165361
I would say that's more to do with detatched normies who enter the hobby through influence of youtube, crit role, or stranger things because of snowballing popularity than anything else.
Blaming that on people who actually enjoy the power fantasy aspect of the game or take time to gain knowledge and mastery of the system is just fingerpointing, because those players have visible interest in playing the game. Every table is unique, and players can have fun in different ways as appropriate for their table.
I would say that's more to do with detatched normies who enter the hobby through influence of youtube, crit role, or stranger things because of snowballing popularity than anything else.
Blaming that on people who actually enjoy the power fantasy aspect of the game or take time to gain knowledge and mastery of the system is just fingerpointing, because those players have visible interest in playing the game. Every table is unique, and players can have fun in different ways as appropriate for their table.
>>165364
>pic
Yes.
The most direct way to maintain the hobby/table/group is to keep it at the second (or first) stage.
Applied Pressure.
The next option is filtering potential people who would join who would already have the stuff that makes the heart of such a group.
Gatekeeping.
Another option is to have the behavior(s) replicate.
>pic
Yes.
The most direct way to maintain the hobby/table/group is to keep it at the second (or first) stage.
Applied Pressure.
The next option is filtering potential people who would join who would already have the stuff that makes the heart of such a group.
Gatekeeping.
Another option is to have the behavior(s) replicate.
>>165365
>keep it at the second (or first) stage.
This isn't really realistic if the hobby itself changes with editions, particularly with d&d. D&D has rebranded itself multiple times over the past 50 years with the intent of attracting new audiences.
Of course, you could always just play the old versions of the game, but that doesn't last forever either.
At this point, D&D is at stage 6 (hobby is casualized to appeal to a wider audience). It's been at stage 6 for the past 6-12 years, and it can't really be reverted at this point. People who say they want to gatekeep 5e communities to keep the 'normies' out are kidding themselves.
Despite that, I still consider ttrpgs to be worth playing with the new generation. I play with old groups and new groups.
>The next option is filtering potential people who would join who would already have the stuff that makes the heart of such a group.
Naturally, although you can only filter players at your own particular table. That doesn't prevent new people from entering the fandom/hobby as they please. Teenagers buy books and play games with their friends on middle school, like the book tells them to. Trying to gatekeep it on a fandom-wide level is kind of a moot point.
[Read more] >keep it at the second (or first) stage.
This isn't really realistic if the hobby itself changes with editions, particularly with d&d. D&D has rebranded itself multiple times over the past 50 years with the intent of attracting new audiences.
Of course, you could always just play the old versions of the game, but that doesn't last forever either.
At this point, D&D is at stage 6 (hobby is casualized to appeal to a wider audience). It's been at stage 6 for the past 6-12 years, and it can't really be reverted at this point. People who say they want to gatekeep 5e communities to keep the 'normies' out are kidding themselves.
Despite that, I still consider ttrpgs to be worth playing with the new generation. I play with old groups and new groups.
>The next option is filtering potential people who would join who would already have the stuff that makes the heart of such a group.
Naturally, although you can only filter players at your own particular table. That doesn't prevent new people from entering the fandom/hobby as they please. Teenagers buy books and play games with their friends on middle school, like the book tells them to. Trying to gatekeep it on a fandom-wide level is kind of a moot point.
>>165368
3e, although I play a bit of 5e with my friends and also some 2e games. I've actually grown quite partial to 2e, although some of the nonweapon proficiency rules feel a little dated (still better than 5e's tool and skill systems though).
I've really gotten into Pathfinder as of late (both editions). I enjoy Chaosium too. I also want to play more GURPS and Savage Worlds, but I've been too busy to give those the attention I wanted.
3e, although I play a bit of 5e with my friends and also some 2e games. I've actually grown quite partial to 2e, although some of the nonweapon proficiency rules feel a little dated (still better than 5e's tool and skill systems though).
I've really gotten into Pathfinder as of late (both editions). I enjoy Chaosium too. I also want to play more GURPS and Savage Worlds, but I've been too busy to give those the attention I wanted.
>>165369
Ah. Well. I started with DnD (editions what?) so you'll forgive me if I give less weight to your testimony. Not to say its invalid, but that youre operating from a much more narrow frame of reference. Not an argument, I know, just saying.
Ah. Well. I started with DnD (editions what?) so you'll forgive me if I give less weight to your testimony. Not to say its invalid, but that youre operating from a much more narrow frame of reference. Not an argument, I know, just saying.
>>165370
From my experience, being in the hobby longer does not always translate to better players...
Especially when they try to apply things they considered normal for an edition of the game 30 years ago in a community around that edition that dissolved 15 years ago to modern players and their rendition of the game. Different versions of the game and different generations of people who play it are profoundly different from one another, and for those who played older systems to assert behavioral authority over those who play a newer system is really just absurd, because the ones who play the new system will have just as much if not more relevant experience as they do in the current system.
I dunk on 5e players a lot, but that's mostly because I think the system is poor quality, not how they choose to play it or enjoy it for themselves; I don't go as far as to imply that they're bad at the game. Considering 5e is a tertiary system for me, I consider anyone who plays it more often than I do to set the standards for appropriate behavior in that game at their tables.
The earliest version of D&d involved 6-20 players, with one referee for each 10 players (because it was more player vs DM), and each player playing 5 characters and each of those characters having a dozen henchmen: the game has changed a lot since then.
[Read more] From my experience, being in the hobby longer does not always translate to better players...
Especially when they try to apply things they considered normal for an edition of the game 30 years ago in a community around that edition that dissolved 15 years ago to modern players and their rendition of the game. Different versions of the game and different generations of people who play it are profoundly different from one another, and for those who played older systems to assert behavioral authority over those who play a newer system is really just absurd, because the ones who play the new system will have just as much if not more relevant experience as they do in the current system.
I dunk on 5e players a lot, but that's mostly because I think the system is poor quality, not how they choose to play it or enjoy it for themselves; I don't go as far as to imply that they're bad at the game. Considering 5e is a tertiary system for me, I consider anyone who plays it more often than I do to set the standards for appropriate behavior in that game at their tables.
The earliest version of D&d involved 6-20 players, with one referee for each 10 players (because it was more player vs DM), and each player playing 5 characters and each of those characters having a dozen henchmen: the game has changed a lot since then.
>>165373
Dnd everything (incl. Variants like Spelljammer) EXCEPT 3e, Shadowrun, Vampire the Mask/Werewolf, and a couple of simplified - not in any way serious, and designed to be outrageous randomness - systems more suited to a frat party than a serious game.
>>165371
>for those who played older systems to assert behavioral authority over those who play a newer system is really just absurd, because the ones who play the new system will have just as much if not more relevant experience as they do in the current system
Well, players with more experience are A. more likely to assume the responsibility of being GM, B. are more aware of the problems and issues that can develop in a group, in observance that there are LOTS of ways to play BEYOND the charachter-consciousness I promote AND the min-max-whore-building you suggest. However, the minmaxwhorei s the LEAST compatible with other play styles, and MOST likely to cause disruption at a table.
Dnd everything (incl. Variants like Spelljammer) EXCEPT 3e, Shadowrun, Vampire the Mask/Werewolf, and a couple of simplified - not in any way serious, and designed to be outrageous randomness - systems more suited to a frat party than a serious game.
>>165371
>for those who played older systems to assert behavioral authority over those who play a newer system is really just absurd, because the ones who play the new system will have just as much if not more relevant experience as they do in the current system
Well, players with more experience are A. more likely to assume the responsibility of being GM, B. are more aware of the problems and issues that can develop in a group, in observance that there are LOTS of ways to play BEYOND the charachter-consciousness I promote AND the min-max-whore-building you suggest. However, the minmaxwhorei s the LEAST compatible with other play styles, and MOST likely to cause disruption at a table.
>>165374
>A. more likely to assume the responsibility of being GM
This isn't true either.
Heck, I have a 14 year old cousin who started GMing the same year he started playing.
>B. are more aware of the problems and issues that can develop in a group
Yes, although this does not translate between additions or communities thereof.
If you've played so many different kinds of games, you should have noticed this by now. 5e communities are completely different from 2e, 3e or 4e communities, and many behaviors that were appropriate for older tables are not appropriate for new ones, because the game is different and the people are different.
>min-max-whore-building
I don't think you and I have the same definition of "minmaxing"...
>A. more likely to assume the responsibility of being GM
This isn't true either.
Heck, I have a 14 year old cousin who started GMing the same year he started playing.
>B. are more aware of the problems and issues that can develop in a group
Yes, although this does not translate between additions or communities thereof.
If you've played so many different kinds of games, you should have noticed this by now. 5e communities are completely different from 2e, 3e or 4e communities, and many behaviors that were appropriate for older tables are not appropriate for new ones, because the game is different and the people are different.
>min-max-whore-building
I don't think you and I have the same definition of "minmaxing"...
What do you guys think of the Wrath Of Elements Kinecist playtest for PF2e?
Is it worth a thread?
Is it worth a thread?
1660913400.png (745.4 KB, 1080x1054, Screenshot_20220819-084352.png)
Anybody care for a thread about the 5e update?
5e dark sun leaked through D&D beyond. Apparently there's a background called "Athasian Dune Trader"
Anyone care enough for me to put together a thread?
Anyone care enough for me to put together a thread?
Anybody here have experience in managing/playing-in a west marches style game?
I'm planning on creating one soon.
I'm planning on creating one soon.
1726786869.jpg (17.9 KB, 540x382, 2997a83df588e16d30c7a523d8eacd8d-2746690295.jpg)
>>176300 → →
<And if you have an intelligent undead, it's still an automaton
>I disagree, but I'm not the GM, so whatever. I can accept that.
>Intelligent undead are capable of being cunning villains, taking heroic class levels, and even forming their own societies. If they're autonomous, it's questionable if living things are as well.
When you put it that way, it comes down to perspective (with a sprinkling of semantics). In the case of vampires, outside supplemental material there is no mention of the retention or loss of the soul (though the legend/lore of vampires make it for a quick and easy GM decision which I agree with). It does seem to beg the question of 'what is intelligence' though, assuming a GM allows that level of meta discussion. Lol, imagine a vampire that has short-term memory loss, constantly waking up thinking this is the day after they turned.
Liches make for a different case because the material specifically states:
>A lich is created by an arcane ritual that traps the wizard's soul within a phylactery.
[...]
>The wizard falls dead, then rises as a lich as its soul is drawn into the phylactery, where it forever remains.
One could easily interpret that to mean the soul is destroyed and replaced entirely by dark magic (which gives me ideas), and the monsters manual is (seemingly) deliberately vague to allow for seamless implementation of variant/house rules.
Having said, the idea that most undead (except those that distinguish themselves specifically) become a form of automaton is interesting, and not one that can be lightly thrown out.
[Read more] <And if you have an intelligent undead, it's still an automaton
>I disagree, but I'm not the GM, so whatever. I can accept that.
>Intelligent undead are capable of being cunning villains, taking heroic class levels, and even forming their own societies. If they're autonomous, it's questionable if living things are as well.
When you put it that way, it comes down to perspective (with a sprinkling of semantics). In the case of vampires, outside supplemental material there is no mention of the retention or loss of the soul (though the legend/lore of vampires make it for a quick and easy GM decision which I agree with). It does seem to beg the question of 'what is intelligence' though, assuming a GM allows that level of meta discussion. Lol, imagine a vampire that has short-term memory loss, constantly waking up thinking this is the day after they turned.
Liches make for a different case because the material specifically states:
>A lich is created by an arcane ritual that traps the wizard's soul within a phylactery.
[...]
>The wizard falls dead, then rises as a lich as its soul is drawn into the phylactery, where it forever remains.
One could easily interpret that to mean the soul is destroyed and replaced entirely by dark magic (which gives me ideas), and the monsters manual is (seemingly) deliberately vague to allow for seamless implementation of variant/house rules.
Having said, the idea that most undead (except those that distinguish themselves specifically) become a form of automaton is interesting, and not one that can be lightly thrown out.
1726791056_3.jpg (195.6 KB, 736x920, ae0b2710ff420d38517da7d76ae70063.jpg)
>>176312
>'what is intelligence'
In game terms, any creature with an intelligence score, particularly those with more than 3 Int (capable of speaking), would be considered intelligent. The game differentiates between mindless and intelligent undead quite clearly. Zombies and ghouls may look similar, but they are not the same.
Whether they are a continued existence of their past selves is an open question, and likely varies based on the type of undead, their past experiences, and
Ghouls in particular have their own kingdoms, religion, and even their own realm of the abyss. They are an underrated faction of intelligent creatures, likely because most DMs use them as little more than fancy zombies.
When it comes to out-of-game mythology though, a ghoul is actually closer to a demon than it is a zombie. It's a shapeshifting, corpse-eating demonic creature from Arab folklore that uses cunning trickery to lure mortals away so it can devour them.
(Worth noting, it often takes the form of a Hyena).
>imagine a vampire that has short-term memory loss, constantly waking up thinking this is the day after they turned
Undead experiencing memory loss and existential crisis is a common trope, even in d&d.
>One could easily interpret that to mean the soul is destroyed and replaced entirely by dark magic
I agree with this assessment.
>the monsters manual is (seemingly) deliberately vague to allow for seamless implementation of variant/house rules
It gets even more complicated when you consider the idea of creatures without souls becoming liches, such as Lichfiends.
>Having said, the idea that most undead (except those that distinguish themselves specifically) become a form of automaton is interesting, and not one that can be lightly thrown out.
Fair, but "automaton" or not, intelligent undead are still free thinking creatures. Treating them the same way you would mindless undead closes more doors than it opens, imo.
I think it depends what you mean by "automaton" though.
[Read more] >'what is intelligence'
In game terms, any creature with an intelligence score, particularly those with more than 3 Int (capable of speaking), would be considered intelligent. The game differentiates between mindless and intelligent undead quite clearly. Zombies and ghouls may look similar, but they are not the same.
Whether they are a continued existence of their past selves is an open question, and likely varies based on the type of undead, their past experiences, and
Ghouls in particular have their own kingdoms, religion, and even their own realm of the abyss. They are an underrated faction of intelligent creatures, likely because most DMs use them as little more than fancy zombies.
When it comes to out-of-game mythology though, a ghoul is actually closer to a demon than it is a zombie. It's a shapeshifting, corpse-eating demonic creature from Arab folklore that uses cunning trickery to lure mortals away so it can devour them.
(Worth noting, it often takes the form of a Hyena).
>imagine a vampire that has short-term memory loss, constantly waking up thinking this is the day after they turned
Undead experiencing memory loss and existential crisis is a common trope, even in d&d.
>One could easily interpret that to mean the soul is destroyed and replaced entirely by dark magic
I agree with this assessment.
>the monsters manual is (seemingly) deliberately vague to allow for seamless implementation of variant/house rules
It gets even more complicated when you consider the idea of creatures without souls becoming liches, such as Lichfiends.
>Having said, the idea that most undead (except those that distinguish themselves specifically) become a form of automaton is interesting, and not one that can be lightly thrown out.
Fair, but "automaton" or not, intelligent undead are still free thinking creatures. Treating them the same way you would mindless undead closes more doors than it opens, imo.
I think it depends what you mean by "automaton" though.
>>176313
The point was 'what is intelligence' as a concept not 'what is the score threshold'.
>Treating them the same way you would mindless undead
Who said that? The suggestion is that an undead creature can be BOTH: a fully/highly intelligent creature capable of learning, thinking, and otherwise displaying the many facets of consciousness AND YET still be an absurdly sophisticated automation.
Again, it comes down to perspective at that level, but it is forcing me to reevaluate my assumptions to do with the nature of life, unlife, animation, etc.
The point was 'what is intelligence' as a concept not 'what is the score threshold'.
>Treating them the same way you would mindless undead
Who said that? The suggestion is that an undead creature can be BOTH: a fully/highly intelligent creature capable of learning, thinking, and otherwise displaying the many facets of consciousness AND YET still be an absurdly sophisticated automation.
Again, it comes down to perspective at that level, but it is forcing me to reevaluate my assumptions to do with the nature of life, unlife, animation, etc.
Example:
>>176328
I would already consider a mindless skeleton to be a highly sophisticated automaton. I think the behavior of most intelligent undead demonstrates that they are self aware, free-thinking creatures. Idk though.
I really don't see what it is about the undead creature type that makes an intelligent creature an automaton. Why undead, but not humanoids, animals, dragons, fiends, celestials, fey, or other creatures? What's so different about the undead type?
I would already consider a mindless skeleton to be a highly sophisticated automaton. I think the behavior of most intelligent undead demonstrates that they are self aware, free-thinking creatures. Idk though.
I really don't see what it is about the undead creature type that makes an intelligent creature an automaton. Why undead, but not humanoids, animals, dragons, fiends, celestials, fey, or other creatures? What's so different about the undead type?
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-204] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
204 replies | 32 files | 48 UUIDs | Page 6
[Add to Thread Watcher]