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
154 replies and 22 files omitted.
>>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] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-204] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
204 replies | 32 files | 48 UUIDs | Page 6
[Add to Thread Watcher]