|
Skeletons will happily debone another trapped skeleton for you
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
You could probably use some form of lye to easily de-meat a corpse. Doesn't smell as bad either in the end, which probably helps when you're trying to dress them up like a group of silent thugs with ataxia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Are there any decent character builders for 5E?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
E: whoops!
Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Nash posted:In my homebrew setting Tieflings are from essentially not Egypt. For them, raising the dead in general is not a taboo thing, but with certain rules, customs, and restrictions. I really like this. It's necromancy as it ought to be considered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:Speaking of digging things up, how do you guys flavor up necromancy in your games? I’ve been trying to let the wizard carry around a bag of specific body parts as ingredients for their undead army, but that’s pretty gross and likely only works in this particular group of weirdos. Wouldn't he run into weight restrictions? Even a bag of holding has a weight limit of 500lbs which is like 3-4 people. As flavor goes, I have been rolling around in my head the idea of an aristocratic necromancer who passes off his zombies as butlers and maids. Just need some uniforms, disguise kits and lots of perfume for the smell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:If I ever get to run a Necromancer, he'll constantly argue that Necromancy isn't any different from a leatherworker making armor, or a cook making meals from produce. The body is already dead and has no connection to its soul anymore so what does it matter? As a counterpoint, if the material is just material, then why stop at corpses? Why do necromancers limit themselves to dead bodies when they could be animating stones or logs or clay with much less social stigma, if it's all just a matter of having a vaguely humanoid starting material? No, there has to be something essentially special about formerly-living material, some residual trace of life or spirit or soul attached to those old bones, that drives people to become necromancers rather than golemancers. Whatever the reason, those bones must somehow "remember" being alive, which is why raising a zombie from a corpse is much easier than animating a golem from clay. This also explains the common cultural taboos against necromancy - those aren't just grandpa's bones being animated, there's a little bit of "grandpa" in there too, and raising a skeleton would enslave that little piece of essence to the necromancer's will. On the other hand, you could argue that necromancers are just golemancers that are way too committed to an aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:Are there any decent character builders for 5E? I haven't found anything I like more than More Purple More Better. A little annoying to get started but once you do it's super easy. https://www.reddit.com/r/mpmb/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
Yeah MPMB is my go to, the only downside is generating Spell Sheets takes a while and if you are creating a 12th level spell caster or something it takes an age to compile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
The v13 beta MPMB sheets take care of that issue, generating like a level 20 cleric's full spell sheets in less than 20 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
lightrook posted:As a counterpoint, if the material is just material, then why stop at corpses? Why do necromancers limit themselves to dead bodies when they could be animating stones or logs or clay with much less social stigma, if it's all just a matter of having a vaguely humanoid starting material? The same reason a sculptor will spend their entire life learning to make perfect marble statues but doesn't know how to make them from bronze.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
lightrook posted:As a counterpoint, if the material is just material, then why stop at corpses? Why do necromancers limit themselves to dead bodies when they could be animating stones or logs or clay with much less social stigma, if it's all just a matter of having a vaguely humanoid starting material? Terror weapons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Nash posted:In my homebrew setting Tieflings are from essentially not Egypt. For them, raising the dead in general is not a taboo thing, but with certain rules, customs, and restrictions. This is great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
I'm a newish DM (5 sessions deep) and have been a player for a while. I'm running Mines of Phandelver with newbies and my Fighter Champion wants to switch up his character a bit. He dug up this Archer thinking it was official. https://www.5esrd.com/classes/fighter/fighter-martial-archetypes/archer-3pp/ I'm thinking about just letting him have it, but I just wanted to get some thoughts on allowing outside classes like this. I try to be a very accommodation DM and this doesn't seem too crazy to me. I was also wondering about UA stuff. Do most people run with UA changes as they come out? It seems like it improves a bunch of classes and I want to offer it to my players for our next campaign. I'm not too worried about them being "OP" as I think it will be more fun for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
That Archer subclass is fine. Let him have it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Not only is that archer ok, but you're also definitely doing the right thing by not being massive weirdo about a player switching to a character they think they'll have a better time with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Robiben posted:I'm a newish DM (5 sessions deep) and have been a player for a while. I'm running Mines of Phandelver with newbies and my Fighter Champion wants to switch up his character a bit. Yeah Rob you should let them change. They also won't be OP, as you can tailor encounters to them if it's been too easy switch things up. Add a couple of extra trash mobs to each encounter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Oh the issue wasn't them wanting to change, its just I don't really have any experience with homebrew characters at all. I just had a twinge of "hmm is this ok?". But yeah I think I just needed that nudge, i'll let him have it. I feel like its more interesting than Champion which is Improved Critical. He had already taken the Archery fighting style so it fits. Thanks for the advice. Gonna be interesting next campaign as i'm probably going to allow Feats and maybe UA stuff? Edit: For clarity I don't disallow Feats it's just they are not really aware of them. They are pretty new. Robiben fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
My table allows you to take a feat and an ASI at the appropriate levels. A choice between something that might be neat or falling behind in the strict numbers game is a bad choice to make. And if they end up overpowered, increase the difficulty or let them feel badass for a while, who cares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:My table allows you to take a feat and an ASI at the appropriate levels. A choice between something that might be neat or falling behind in the strict numbers game is a bad choice to make. And if they end up overpowered, increase the difficulty or let them feel badass for a while, who cares. Ditto. Nothing breaks, everyone's happy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Longbows in D&D are dumb, but not really all that dumber then "studded leather" (or even just the idea of just soft leather armor in of itself), bucklers you strap to your arm, dual wielding long swords, and a long list of other things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
For a game so obsessed with simulation, it's amazing they never went with "arming swords" instead of longswords.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Azran posted:For a game so obsessed with simulation, it's amazing they never went with "arming swords" instead of longswords. It successfully simulates the reality in the heads of a bunch of 1970s Americans who didn't know what they were talking about
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:It successfully simulates the reality in the heads of a bunch of 1970s Americans who didn't know what they were talking about Yeah, it's important to note the actual history of D&D is that it was made by dumb nerds who had broad but very shallow knowledge about the massive medieval era, and massive egos leading them to assume they were masters of it. Since then their, numerous mistakes have been repeated by increasingly dumber nerds who still have very shallow knowledge and lots of arrogance, but now also have reverence for those numerous mistakes to boot. Also, well, timing. A lot of the modern interest in HMA and such was born about in the 90's, 20 years after Gygax just did a lot of loving up. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
I wouldn't exactly call a game that involves killing dragons with punches obsessed with simulation. It's simulation by way of Hollywood and pulp fantasy. Plus longswords were a real thing that were different from arming swords. Short swords would more equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Yeah, it's important to note the actual history of D&D is that it was made by dumb nerds who had broad but very shallow knowledge about the massive medieval era, and massive egos leading them to assume they were masters of it. Since then their, numerous mistakes have been repeated by increasingly dumber nerds who still have very shallow knowledge and lots of arrogance, but now also have reverence for those numerous mistakes to boot. Considering that most D&D settings are medieval Europe without Christianity, well...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Studded leather erased the loyal and trustworthy brigandine, friend to common soldiers and adventurers, and is thus entirely unforgivable 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Longbows in D&D are dumb, but not really all that dumber then "studded leather" (or even just the idea of just soft leather armor in of itself), bucklers you strap to your arm, dual wielding long swords, and a long list of other things. Dual-wielding longswords? You are like a little baby. Watch these monkey gripped greatswords
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
What are all the weapons/armors that are actually bullshit and what are they actually called? And why the gently caress are glaives and halberds even different things when they have the same numbers? They could have put in a Lucerne hammer or something for a blunt pole arm option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
They have to be different things because we need to maintain the age old D&D tradition of having way more polearms in the game than any human being could ever care about (which is any number larger than 1) Edit: also, the only things off the top of my head that are not real aren't really specific to D&D. I think the usual conception of a longsword would actually be called an arming sword (as in longswords do exist but the swords we call longswords usually aren't those) and I think the typical depiction of the double headed axe is something that never existed because when you think about it it's actually a really stupid design. I don't think scale mail is a thing that's ever existed? Glagha fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Rabble rabble Spears and tridents
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
I’m not an expert at all but I learned from a lot of different people that Scale Mail was like a dress armor and you would never wear it battle but it looked sweet when you were meeting important people or walking through town
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Joke Miriam posted:What are all the weapons/armors that are actually bullshit and what are they actually called? Weapons/Armour are incrrrreeedibly fluid in real life and variations of very similar things that change quite a lot over time. Apart from flails, which likely never existed as actual used weapons, most of the DnD weapons are accurate if not really good representations of real life. Like, a longsword is a two handed weapon generally used with heavy armour (mostly plate) so you didnt really need a shield as much. Whereas a shorter "arming sword" was intended to be used with a shield as well and balanced for use in a single hand. DnD doesnt really emulate this at all. Bows are kind of mostly okay, apart from really being useless at the ranges DnD usually fights at (30 foot rooms, but then you're meant to be roleplaying Legolas really so whatever) although crossbows are just dumb. IRL crossbows would take like three rounds of not being attacked to reload and thats just the low powered ones. High powered ones needed mechanical advantage to even pull back which could be 30+ seconds depending. The big issue with Bows is making them a dex weapon. Warbows were often 160+pound draw weight which requires years of training and strength building to shoot. Armour is a lot more all over the place really. Basically leather armour wasnt really a common thing although it was used. Its just that fabric gambesons and brigadines are just as, if not more, effective then trying to wear leather thick enough to do everything you need it to do. On top of that, studded leather wasnt a thing as "Studs" would have no protective qualities at all. The confusion comes from "coat of plates" style armour where metal plates were riveted to the inside of a leather or fabric coat. So the inside was metal armoured whilst the outside just looks like a bunch of rivet studs. Most of the types of mail (Mail also is just chainmail btw, its origin is uncertain but it was traditionally used to mean specifically riveted chain armour) exist in certain forms but again, its hard to pin point and classify certain types as being in a a definite group. Platemail is obviously a thing but theres like centuries of varying style of plate mail with different aspects. You pretty much always have a coat of mail plus other brigadine style padding under it though so in the game you really would need a bunch of armour types to make up plate mail but then you just getting into "is this really fun?" territory. Shields are also all over the place as well and really should be more of an active aspect of the combat system then just +2AC which is extremely simplistic and boring. DnD kind of sits at 14/15th century borderline renaissance era anyway so you can kind of mix and match from just about any period. Glagha posted:They have to be different things because we need to maintain the age old D&D tradition of having way more polearms in the game than any human being could ever care about (which is any number larger than 1) Yeah double bitted axes are the realms of lumberjacks and fantasy. Woefully heavy as most hand weapons weighed in between 1 and 1.5kgs. Even greatswords didnt really get above 3kgs. Of course youll be able to find examples lighter/heavier then these but in general you needed a weight you could actually swing with reasonable dexterity and without rapid fatigue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:The big issue with Bows is making them a dex weapon. Warbows were often 160+pound draw weight which requires years of training and strength building to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It sounds like you could get some mileage out of minimum strength requirements for bows like you do for armour, assuming you mitigate the MADness by e.g. merging str and con Potentially. The thing is, whilst being more accurate I have no idea if it makes it any more fun or even balanced. I think synergising stats rather then merging them might make for something interesting. It always seemed weird how a "wise" caster can also dump intelligence for no real disadvantage. Fallout did it well where dumping intellect stats made your character.. well actually dumb as bricks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Playing a Blade-Lock in 5e makes me wistful for my level 15 Soul Knife from the 3.5 psionics handbook. Jesus you could some awesome stuff with that class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
DTAS but Intelligence in 5e is the most useless of them all if you're not a Wizard or now Artificer. I don't think there are other classes that use it? It only modifies knowledge skills otherwise and those aren't all that great. At least Con gives you hit points. I guess Arcane Trickster needs a little. 4e had several martial builds that used Intelligence without just being "Wizard but worse". Warlords, Fighters, and Rogues had Int as a secondary that represents knowledge of battle tactics, which translated to making certain Powers get better with higher Int, or some talent that helped the party. Warlords could add Int to the entire party's Initiative roll, I believe. Defenses were also based off of all the scores and in a sensible way; Fortitude Defense was Strength or Constitution, Reflex was Dex or Int, and Will was Wisdom or Charisma. Instead of now where every class gets a good save and a useless save like Strength. Admiral Joeslop fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
God drat do i wish i'd had a chance to play 4th
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Yeah double bitted axes are the realms of lumberjacks and fantasy. Woefully heavy as most hand weapons weighed in between 1 and 1.5kgs. Even greatswords didnt really get above 3kgs. Of course youll be able to find examples lighter/heavier then these but in general you needed a weight you could actually swing with reasonable dexterity and without rapid fatigue. The best place to see this in action is actually The Grapes of Wrath. At the camps where security patrols are a thing people take the heads off axes and picks and mob around with the handle, which is a long hickory stick and more than enough to bash a skull in. So a Common Dwarf Fighter probably wouldn't use a "War Pick" to dig holes. He would likely fight with a Club that was really a handle, and would have a pick and hammerhead in his inventory that he attached to do labor things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Playing a Blade-Lock in 5e makes me wistful for my level 15 Soul Knife from the 3.5 psionics handbook. Jesus you could some awesome stuff with that class. Psionics is always either busted or useless. There's no middle ground. Why is that? I still remember the 3.5e PHB's picture of chainmail featured links that had a 90-degree twist in them, kind of like curb chain except in a sheet form. And of course no rivets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 16:29
|
|
