/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

>>140645
what is the most powerful Cleric domain/dominion in 3.5e?

>>140792
Definitely a Persistomancer who abuses Divine Metamagic to persist short-term buff spells. Persist Greater Consumptive Field and walk past a pile of ants for near-infinite strength all day (or murder a sack full of kittens in a consumptive field ritual). Use Extraordinary Spell Aim to exclude yourself from your persisted Antimagic field.
Undeath Domain gives you Extra Turning. Planning Domain gives you extend spell. Being a human with two flaws and a positive charisma score means that you'll become a demigod rather early in the game. Not sure which deity grants them both though.

So anyone one here building a world? If so what is it based on?

>What if
and hear me out here
>a druid
now here's where shit gets wacky
>but they use mimics for clothing
somebody tell me how this isn't a good idea

>>141856
Wont said mimic just eat him when he wears them?

>>142087
yeah, but not if the druid's already made a deal with them that they protect him and in exchange they get to eat everyone he kills

What kind of homebrew creatures have you guys created?

I am wondering was the cocept of giant evil spiders just a thing created in LOTR or did they exist in european mythos?

>>141856
I think there's something like that in the Dark Sun life shaping handbook.

>>141856
>>142232
Do they necessarily need to be mimics, or just abberrations?
Aberrant Druids could become impure princes, and wear a whole wardrobe of abberrant symbiotes.

>>142987
I DM 3.5e, so the creatures I create are mostly templated and refluffed existing creatures. It makes it easier to calculate CR of monsters and treat the party fairly.

>>145341
There's plenty of giant spiders in mythology. Them being especially evil was probably more of Tolkien's personal taste.

>>142987
>>145345
The "Pyroclastic Barghests" (see >>145336 → ) are my take on on variant Barghests for use in Red Hand of Doom. I decided to use traits of variant fiends to make them closer to Abishai, using the variant half-fiend traits on the old WotC articles. Igave them dragonspawn traits, using pyroclastic dragons, since Pyroclastic dragons are planar dragons of Gehenna. I won't go into specifics of their stats here since I still intend to use more of them in my ongoing campaign.

I've also made statblocks for several monsters in the past year, most of which I never actually got to use since the PCs didn't travel in the direction I expected them to or they ended up not being necessary to the plot. Examples include "Timber Wolves" (Greenbound Horrid Dire Wolves), "Lizard Queen" (Half-Abishai variant half-fiend Female Blackscale lizardfolk, Dragon Shaman 4), an "Ordained Zealot" (Greenspawn Zealot with the Monster of Legend Template, Cleric 1, Talon of Tiamat 2; casts as lvl 7 Cleric), and an "The Great Spirit Lion Ikelos" (Advanced Elder Ghost Brute Horrid Dire Lion, Evolved Undead, Spirit of the Woods).
I didn't actually use any of these guys, but I had their statblocks just in case I wanted to take the story in a different direction.

Red Hand Of Doom spoilers:
I'm also working on a certain multi-headed, tauric, monster-of-legend, half-dragon, fiendish lammassu to throw at my party at my party later if the time calls. And of course, plenty of variant Dragonspawn abominations.

>>145346
Yea its weird, most spiders in mythos are not evil but curent popular media makes them so. I'm trying to figure out how to put dark elves in my homebrew based on more real life myths and legend.

>>145348
Dark elves in mythos had nothing to do with spiders.
I think at some point they were actually synonymous with dwarves.

For DMs:
How do you keep your games moving? In my games (d&d) ensuring that the party gets to experience at least a set minimum amount of content (about 4 party-level encounters per adventuring day, and one adventuring day per session; social events count if skill is involved) is my highest priority as a DM. I can't stand games where the PCs just stand around talking and not doing anything, or when time stretches into infinity and twelve or sessions are spent in the same week. However, it can be difficult keeping things up to speed, and takes a lot of energy out of me. My sessions tend to go on for a long time, and once I get exhausted I find myself cutting a few corners to not-suck, particularly with NPC dialogue that I sometimes skip when not essential, but that threatens to make my games look like combat marathons and might bore my party in a different way. Keeping pre-written maps/stats/quotes/descriptions/flowcharts on hand helps, but it doesn't help with improvising.

Does anybody have some strategies to share for what makes a fun, action-packed, colorful and descriptive, dialogue-intensive adventuring session? I want to hone my skills to be a better DM for my next game.

>>145349
Are dark elves not a Original idea from DnD?

>>145632
Not at all.
Literally just search "Dark elf mythology":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6kk%C3%A1lfar_and_Lj%C3%B3s%C3%A1lfar

>>145636
Interesting, will see if i cant find more info on them.

By the way, you guys know any good books or what not about european creatures and legends/myths? I want to make my homebrew more european acurate and i need some good info.

>>145798
I usually just use wikipedia, but I've also seen a couple dragon magazine articles that sometimes give insights into the historic roots of certain races.

>>145344
Ok, now that I have more DnD experience and know the full deal with aberrations, I suppose that fits my characteristics. Idk, I just like the idea of somebody taking a druid hostage only for the druid's clothing to suddenly go fucking apeshit and kill everything in sight before calming down and putting itself back on him.

>>146968
>him
Fag

>>146969
Not everything is sex.

>>146968
Could work, just make sure its not overpowerd.

>>146968
What edition of d&d is this supposed to be?

Despite having a place to do it here, I tend to find myself drifting back to other forums to for fulfilling tabletop discussion. It's not that there's nobody here to talk about it with, it just feels like threads just don't stay active.

What would be a good way to facilitate tabletop discussion, for various games, on this board?

>>147497
Like, we have ttrpgs being played on this board, but virtually no discussion of them. I've tried making threads before, but I don't get very many replies.
I know the Horsefucker Pathfinder community is abundant, but maybe this site's username is just to thin to facilitate discussion...

>>147551
Perhaps, but while many anons play ttrpgs, not everyone cares to discuss the, self included
>literally playing dnd right noe

>>147552
What edition do you play?
I've been trying to get into Pathfinder.

>>147553
I've played every edition of dnd, including the 'advanced' ones (except 4e). I really like 5e, but 2eAd is my favorite (good luck finding players tho e_e).
Havent ventured into PF, heard good things about PF1 and mixed reactions to PF2

>>147554
PF2e is pretty well designed. Much better than D&D 5e, in my opinion. Not hard to play, and pretty well balanced. I really want to play more of it. I'm actually just about to join a Ponyfinder game in that edition.
I find that PF2e has a couple vague similarities to what was innovative about d&d 4e, except it's not full crappy pitfalls.
PF1e is similar to d&d 3.5e, improved in many ways and questionably changed in others. It's pretty fun.

I haven't played 2e, but I've read the rules. I like it better than 5e.
I've been aiming to play d&d 2e for a while just to get an authentic Dark Sun experience, although that's a quest that's been going on for years now... No other edition really represents Athas correctly, except maybe d&d 4e.

D&D 5e is my least favorite edition, tbh. I've spent a long time playing it and reading all of its books hoping I'd learn to like it, but that just had the opposite effect on me. It's just not my cup of tea, and I could go on for days about why I don't like it, but I don't feel like doing that now.
It is easy to get into though, which contributes to it's popularity. I think it's simplicity is highly overrated though, considering that nearly every 5e DM ends up writing half a book's worth of homebrew
and houserules just to make it enjoyable.

For D&D 4e, all I can really say is that an attempt was made. The edition flopped for reasons (primarily because it alienated 3.5e players and failed to create its own fanbase), but not for any lack of trying. I think some of its combat mechanics and abilities are actually pretty well designed. It's also very well balanced on a class by class level, with all classes being consistently good at what they do without overshadowing each other. However "balance" isn't always what people want out of an RPG.
I'd still gladly play a short game of it if I had the chance though.

We have indeed had a couple long-running ttrpg games on this board. I don't really consider chansites to be the best medium for most ttrpgs though. Most of the ones that have run more like unformal CYOAs.
Although maybe I should have a bit more faith in it and we could get more gaming threads running here. Not sure what a game on a chansite really requires to run smoothly though.

>>147556
>I don't really consider chansites to be the best medium for most ttrpgs though.
No contest, discord was the superior platform for managing a small group of intrepid adventurers. Once
Having said, I would much prefer a (notably delayed) anon forum to the potential risks of having everything axed cuz some zebra got his panties in a bunch over pale horses

>>147557
Discord is only good for voice, tbh. Most competent groups also incorporate an online tabletop of sorts like Roll20 or Foundry.
I am open to the idea of Anon forums only because I want to use /mlpol/ as much as possible, but I don't know how to really enable a quality game that runs entirely on /mlpol/. If anything, it would require a well thought-out system, and even then it can only realistically run at a small fraction of the pace of a typical PbP game (and boy are PbP games SLOW).
/mlpol/ has better potential to run /qst/ style games than ttrpgs. I just haven't heard of any interest in the matter.

>>147560
Mlpol is fine for a slow-paced, not 'sitting down and concentrating' sort of non-intensive game. Beyond that, meh, I dont recommend

>>147561
That's why I said it's better for /qst/ style games, or CYOAs. Other chansites do that pretty well.

>>147562
>/qst/ and COYA
Enjoy the cancer

>>147563
Wtf are you talking about? CYOAs are fun. And /qst/ has plenty of good content that actually works on chansite mediums.
Besides, a slow-moving "ttrpg" with almost no combat or exploration may as well just be a CYOA.

There was the Luftkrieg CYOA that sadly ground to a halt when /pone/ did. Maybe those threads are worth resurrecting. This site could use more original Aryanne content.

>>147563
What's not to like about collaborative storytelling?

Support this it needs to be a thing

>>147568
Why to atomize the poners?
/mlpol/ central s just fine. Or I missing something?

>>147568
What is this and how does it relate to ttrpgs?

How many of you guys play Ponyfinder and/or play any other ttrpgs that take place in Equestria or pony-themed settings?

>>147571
me, they are hard to find though. Really would like to try early D&D

>>147572
How early are you talking about?

>>147573
advanced or 2nd edition

>>147575
I've been looking into second edition a bit, but finding groups is tough. They do exist out there though.

>>147568
What is it?

>>147577
It looks like a twitter page.

What do you guys think of the 2e conversation handbook for Ponyfinder?

>>148198
Sorry, I have no knowledge of this, and therefore cant comment,... yet
2e conversion you say? Ima have to look that up
What are anon's impressions of using weighted scenarios to challenge the party? At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes, under the context of 'if you dont run/escape, you will be killed', to emphasize the fact that 'no, you cant just murderhobo your way through'. This could be anything from villains and adversaries, to a really pissed off group of soldiers/guards (often because of a rogue). 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.

>>148233
>At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes
No matter how clear you try to make the danger, at least half of the PCs will believe that the danger is supposed to be a challenge that they're supposed to overcome. Even if they know running is the better option, PC mentality encourages them to be "brave".
Of course, it's fine to do that, but you should have a backup plan for how you will react if the party does the opposite of what you want/expect them to do. For example, you could cause them to get captured, with a chance to escape later. Unbeatable enemies should also have nonlethal tactics at their disposal: for example, the overleveled werelion lich king in my most recent game was predisposed to be a cautious fighter since he had no knowledge of the party or their allies; his paralysis attacks would have likely incapacitated most of the party, and I had him prepare some extra spells that could explicitly incapacitate the elf and the dragon without killing them. If they lost, they would have been captured and tortured by the enemy bard. If they won, kudos to them. Either way the campaign would have continued.
>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.
A good idea to do that is to do the overleveled encounter early on, on the third or fourth session. However, the objective shouldn't be to make the party run away, but to just let them throw themselves at the encounter and then watch them get captured. I wouldn't make the encounter too obviously overleveled either, but instead just deceivingly deadly (making it obvious will feel like railroading and will be unfun), like partof a group of seemingly weak goblins suddenly shapeshifting into half-dragon barghests. This way you can set expectations, and teach the party about the very real possibility of TPKs. The current module I'm using had an encounter like that, although I never really needed it since my enemy tactics were good enough to consistently scare the party for most of the game.
>avoid dying as a person likely would
Normal people don't crawl into dungeons full of skeletons to make a few hundred bucks; PCs are meant to be heroes, and risk dying like heroes, or fools. Death is a natural part of D&D. While PCs who kamikaze themselves at every danger may be annoying, it's also important to acknowledge that players should also be free to play their characters how they wish. If their choices result in their capture or death, so be it. Just make sure you've got robust flowcharts and you narrate well enough to make the dangers clear. Expecting players to make the decisions you want is just setting yourself up for frustration.
Enemies with nonlethal tactic options to capture the PCs are also a good method to prevent the party from being TPK'd at moments that would be inconvenient to your plot.

>>148233
>2e conversion you say?
The PF2e conversion for Ponyfinder, which was originally PF1e.
I say it converts really well, relatively. PF2e's modular and scaling racial abilities are pretty accommodating for pony races. You can have races that fly and races with innate magical powers without them being too front loaded.

>>148233
>as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk
In my experience, I have been more frustrated by characters who continuously run away and refuse to enter danger than characters who are too reckless.
Reckless characters can be replaced, but if the plot can't advance because PCs don't enter the cave the game grinds to a halt.

>>148198
Maybe this board needs a Ponyfinder thread

What's the best platform for online games? I've been trying to get savy with Foundry to improve my games, but I think there are some other electronic tabletops worth using. I'm used to using discord for voice chat, but I want to break my dependance on my site.
On the subject of voice chat (or lack thereof), what makes a good PbP game? I really believe that PbP games can be good and fun, but my personal experience with them hasn't been all that great, from both a DM and player perspective. They've in my experience been slow and inconsistent with rules, often frustrating because players get up and walk away during roleplay. I find that they seem to be difficult with mechanics too because combat become a slough, or the entire game goes full magic tea party.

>>148550
Probably matrix, mumble, and foundryVTT if you care about freedom.

>>148551
I care about freedom, but I also care about functionality.
I've never heard of mumble. I guess I'll try it out.

>>148552
Mumble is good... if your ping time is over 1 second (satellite internet) discord drops all packets over that, mumble does not.
Found that out playing ponyfinder... lul.

While the protocol for matrix is fine, as far as I know none of the clients have voice functioning very well unless its the element web browser client. Even then there is no push-to-talk which is super fail in my book.
There are no tech companies paying for any of the matrix clients development. So far its just one or three guys working on the client. Mind you there are like a dozen different kinds with a different focus for each.
Look for one that will work well for what you want and throw money at them.

I could pop open a mumble server though. Easy to do and uses almost no resources. Works well for voice communication within games of any kind. Heh, I have the domain area51.world I could use it for if you want.

Anyone know a good place to get players online? Do we have a ""Discord"" or whatever else thats better?

>>148703
I made a games matrix channel on https://mlp.chat - depending on how things go I might rename it to tabletop or whatever. For now there is not enough activity to have such a divide.

#games:mlp.chat

>>148704
Oh nice. Btw I know its not really the best but its the only version i have. Would anyone be interested in a game of DnD 5e?

>>148705
Depends how long the game would be.

>>148705
i think i have a version of pony finder in my archives.

>>148705
Do you have something in mind?

>>148708
>>148710
>>148711
If my mic works i wanted to try DMing a game of Lost Mine of Phandelver. Or if a game already exist maybe join. Honestly just want to try tabletops it seem like fun time.

>>148732
It is indeed a fun time.
I'd invite you to my current campaign, but it's already kind of nearing its end. I'm probably going to run a new one this winter though, and I'd gladly take players from this board.

Wonder if anyone here paints minis.

>>149012
I've painted them before, but I don't really buy them.

>>149012
Hell yeah. I 3d print my minis and paint 'em. Theyre alot more fragile/brittle than the old-school pewter ones, but they take paint alot better, and the price is right.

>>149014
Do you design the 3D printed models too?

Anyone of you know a good place for a leaf to get good price minis? The ones i get from wizkid are good but i wish i could prime them myself.

>>149024
It depends what kinds of minis you want.

>>149015
No, I just choose from what is free and available

The cover of the new 5e book was leaked.
Anybody care?

>>149298
Yea post it

>>149300
I thought of making a thread for 5e, but it would basically be a general and I never really felt like it or thought anyone was interested.

The cover was found in the source code of d&dbeyond, which once again shows how crap Hasbro is at protecting their property.
Looks like it's going to be a generalist book, like Volo's Guide, only with Dragons. The name on the cover is of course a Dragonlance reference, although we also know that this book features Gemstone Dragons, which don't fit into the mileau of Krynn at all; from that we can assume that it's not a setting book, but a generalist book. Basically 5e's Draconomicon. As for why they would invoke the name of Fizban, I can only assume they want to either milk nostalgia or possibly reboot a Dragonlance adventure book in the future.
All of the player content has already been published in UA. It's only a question of what they're going to nerf into oblivion.

>>149302
Them again, they're probably just using Fizban's name. They used Tasha for their last book, and they haven't said anything about Grayhawk whatsoever.

Don't you just love it when book writers name-drop characters from old settings and say a couple words like "yeah, you can totally play in this setting", and then proceed to not produce any content for the setting whatsoever? No modules. No maps. No nothing.

>>149302
>Basically 5e's Draconomicon
Gay! We need new maps and worlds.
>>149303
That’s even gayer. We even name drop in the first place then?

>>149306
WotC tries to get as much hype as possible with minimal effort. Name-dropping old characters and half-ass reviving old settings let's gets people excited enough to get a book printed.
Welcome to 5e.
>new maps and worlds
Lmao, no. That would require hiring actual writers to produce actually content. WotC doesn't do that in 2021.

Also, maps and worlds aren't worth very much on their own if they don't print any adventures to enjoy them.

>>149308
>>149309
True unfortunately. WOTC like all corporate stooges kill everything artistic and fun

>>149310
They weren't always this terrible. They've gotten lazy, or at least unwilling to hire writers.

>>149311
>they weren’t always this terrible
I’m not so sure. They were better at hiding their Disdain.

>>149312
I mean they used to actually produce books. There was a time when they'd pump out books full of mechanical content at least once a month.

>>149313
They just wanted shekels. The books were alright though.

>>149314
Tbh, with the most recent edition, the problem isn't just lack of content, but the game design itself. The game isn't modular enough for new character content to really enrich the game. Every feat and subclass it mutually exclusive with all of the previous feats and subclasses, so there's little that you can add to a character concept with a new book.
It's a shame. They tried to make 5e so "simple" that they quashed any room it could have had to improve. Too bad it's not modular like PF2e.

>>149302
Might get it if its a monster manual of sort. I always love those.

>>149318
Cant they just put new ""harder"" rules in some new books?

>>149323
They could, but they don't.

Favorite game?
What do you like about it to that other games don't do well?

https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-novels-non-5e-lore-are-officially-not-canon.681553/
Thoughts? I didn't think it warranted a thread.

>>149624
Homebrew seems better anyway.

>>149797
Elaborate.

>>148233
I'm bored, so I feel like inquiring this again, if you're still there.
What exactly is your experience with "weighted scenarios"? I think I've been in plenty of games that might have something similar to what you are describing, but I'm not sure.

>>149799
weighted scenarios?

>>149799
The thing about "weighted scenarios", as you describe them, is that they often include situations where the party has their backs to the wall and there is only one viable solution to the predicament. The problem with that is if there was no way of avoiding that situation in the first place, it's basically just railroading. Now, nobody likes railroading, but a little bit of subtle railroading to keep the game on track doesn't hurt that much. However, if the railroaded situation you create is "Do what I expect you to, or you'll be TPK'd", a variety of things could happen.
>1. The party immediately realizes that it's railroaded, and does what you want them to do (run away, negotiate, surrender, etc)
This is a likely scenario, but it's rather unfun when the players realize that they're not getting to make choices in the matter, which can lead to situation 2b (see below) if you do this more than once.
>2. The party recognizes it's a railroaded situation, but misinterprets what they are supposed to do (fight until expected help arrives, die with honor, kill the enemies' leader, distract the enemy and die while the rest of the party escapes, destroy the McGuffin, use up all of their resources, etc)
This is a situation you create for yourself when you give the party problems with only one solution. If there is only one solution in the situation, any other significant action has potential to derail the plot that you tried to railroad. As the GM, you are responsible for eloquently communicating the situation to the party; any inadequacy in making the situation clear is a failure on your behalf.
>2b. The party realizes that the situation is railroaded, and gets frustrated or antagonistic as a result, leading them to do something you don't expect them to (destroy the McGuffin, kill themselves, fight to the death in a show of 'bravery', join the evil side, exploit a mechanical loophole, sacrifice a key NPC, destroy the world, etc)
This outcome is more likely than you think. If you haven't been communicating with the party well, or you've frustrated them with your plot resolution, they're going to be unpredictable. Players who feel like they're being deprived of choices will try to create choices for themselves, leading them to subvert the plot and/or to the one thing you haven't prepared for them to do. Some players will do this without even realizing it, or just have a belief that they're supposed to outsmart the GM even when surrounded and supposedly out of options. This is something to watch out for, because players will never fail to surprise you in their plot-derailing ingenuity or equally-powerful stupidity. Cornered PCs can act like cornered animals, even if they don't realize they're cornered (see number 3 below).
>3. The party DOESN'T recognize that the situation is railroaded, and does the opposite of what you expect them to (fight to the death, destroy the McGuffin, join the evil side, sacrifice a party member, use up all of their resources in desperation, etc).
You can expect at least one party member to misinterpret the situation, so this outcome is rather likely.
>3b. The party is more optimized/powerful than you expected, leading them to simply bulldoze right through odds you thought to be "insurmountable" with brute force and clever tactics.
This happens all of time, but isn't really a problem unless you hinged your entire plot/universe on the the party's failure, which you should never do. If you don't want the PCs to murder the goddess of light, you shouldn't have put her there in the flesh (if it has stats, you can kill it).
>4. The party doesn't recognize the situation is railroaded, but still does what you expect them to.
This is the most desirable outcome, but notice how it's only one of 4-4 outcomes possible, and with 4-6 party members you can expect at least one player to try something whacky. It is also the outcome that requires the most skill as a GM, because it means getting the party to do what you want without letting them realize that they aren't the ones making the choices.

From what is listed above, there are 4-6 ways a party can react to any situation with "insurmountable odds", and only 1-2 of them are really any good. As a GM, you shouldn't really be depriving your party of choices, because when you do that you deprotagonize the players and worse you create the possibility of PCs frustrating you by defying your expectations. Not only is railroadinging in this fashion unfun, but it gets even worse when you realize that the party might not properly cooperate with the actions you are trying to force them into.

Of course, it's not always bad. This stuff happens in games all of the time, but you might be setting yourself up for failure if you rely on the PCs doing exactly what you expect them to.
>>149800
Idk. I might have just wasted 15 minutes typing the post above if i've misinterpreted Anon's post.
See >>148233

>>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.

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.

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.

5e modules are such shit.

So... Anybody around here like Pathfinder?

>>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".

>>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.

>>151690
What you describe is basically the maneuvers in the Tome of Battle or Path Of War.

>>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.

>>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.

>>151706
Are you talking about Tales Of Equestria?

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>151817
When Crystal ponies die, they becomes crystal statues, there and then.

>>151817
Also, breezies have spellcasting as well.

>>151817
What system is this for?

>>151821
D&D 3.5

>>151823
But it's probably easy to translate these concepts to any other system, I reckon.

>>151823
I don't understand. What's with the radial HD? Are you making savage progression?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>152350
Yes, perhaps.

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?

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?

How many roleplayers do you think we have in this community? Like, in total?

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.

Would anybody from here like to play pathfinder/ponyfinder in the near future?
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.

>>156683
Well, I'm available whenever.
What mediums are good for you?

>>156708
Medium?

>>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.

>>156670
Best thing you can do is try to pick a time

>>156760
Oooh ok, i guess discord or roll20 would be best.
I never tried foundry, how is it?

>>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.

>>156999
If you're interested in discord as a medium, I can be contacted through the server posted here >>155257 , then we can try to get players online and see when we can actually do it.

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.

>>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.

>>160837
I think your first step should be to figure out a reason why the dungeon is underwater in the first place.

>>162377
Awww, thats adorable

>>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".

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.

>>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

>>162447
Maybe the topic of dungeon design is better off as it's own thread then..

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>165352
>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?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>165365
What behaviors?

>>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.

>>165367
You're right, it has rebranded many times. What edition did you start with?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>165370
How many different games have you played?

>>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.

>>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"...

What do you guys think of the Wrath Of Elements Kinecist playtest for PF2e?
Is it worth a thread?

Anybody care for a thread about the 5e update?

>>165582
Sure

>>165583
Done
>>165584 →

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?

>>165824
Pass

Anybody here have experience in managing/playing-in a west marches style game?
I'm planning on creating one soon.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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?