|
Dexo posted:I get the idea of poverty. But Man, that is haaaarsh, like they literally can't have like lets say a health potion on them. Common health pots are 1gp in this setting  But yeah an exception to relics etc would make sense Or maybe I should rethink it some more
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Enjoy posted:Common health pots are 1gp in this setting This was 3.5's attempt at a vow of poverty: https://dndtools.net/feats/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/vow-of-poverty--3081/ But 3.5 was predicated on a lot of magic items. However, it's interesting to see the through-line to 4e's inherent bonuses and then 5e's bounded accuracy and flatter math.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Common health pots are 1gp in this setting As a DM I feel like this would probably turn into a different version of encumbrance, complete with the arguments over what an object is technically worth, and pedantic discussions about ownership and possession. Limitations like this seem fun in theory, but get old quick if players have to deal with them every session. I would tone down the mechanic, so for example only linking it to actual currency rather than object values. Or make the limitation based on recharging Ki rather than using it. The relic exception is a good idea, but it will also ensure that every single item will be viewed as a potential relic. As it is, it seems like a ribbon ability with a real potential for unhappiness at the table. Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
There is one kind of poverty feature that works pretty well, but it predates 3e. Paladins in 1e cannot possess more than ten magic items at a time, and cannot keep more money than is necessary to support themselves, any followers, and any strongholds they build. A ten % cut off the top and any excess is given to the church they serve. So it gives them restrictions, but not unduly so or to the point where the GM and the player have a whole extended minigame going on. Paying money for followers and strongholds was an important part of the game at that time, so every player was already doing that accounting, the paladin PC just tithes the excess at the end. 10 magic items requires some difficult choices but is not extraordinarily difficult. I've used these rules a bit and they're interesting enough to be relevant, but not so much that they're overwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Vow of Poverty Part of the fun is getting all kinds of neat magical loot. You'll have the rest of the players going wow, look at all this neat stuff I have, and the monk player will be sitting there in their tattered robes looking at everyone else wistfully. ...And I just noticed that the amount of cool stuff you are allowed to have DECREASES a your level does, so even if you found some cool stuff, you'll have to give it up, while everyone else gets more stuff? What do you think, does that sound like 'fun'? EDIT: What is a check to enter heaven? Is that a common thing which will be required in the setting? I don't understand what that does and the purpose it serves. Vow of Celibacy Why is this in the title? I see no mechanic associated with it if they break that vow. That's good, because that would only serve to restrict a player's roleplaying ability. You can suggest that "monks usually take a vow of celibacy", in the flavor text, but I wouldn't mechanically force it. So take that out of the feature title.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 13:10
|
|
|
i think vow of poverty is a great option that i or nobody i know will pick because it is not fun to be devoid of equipment but on the other hand if someone wants to play that the option is there. but it has to be an option, something you can opt in to, a sort of d&d hard mode. if you are forced to do it then it is no good and should be made optional or taken out entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 13:17
|
|
|
A good vow of poverty mechanic (which can be interesting), should include 1) some sort of inherent bonus mechanic to allow the impoverished character to keep up with the usual character math. For good measure, maybe crib artificer infusion mechanics and tie them to “for every x gold you give away, you discover a new lightness of Holy Spirit. You may infuse your garments as though they were magical items, though others may not wear them” 2) with your vow of poverty comes ties to an organization that will support you and meet your needs, and a reputation for generosity. When you do need material resources, you have access to [levelled amount of gold or goods] with [a relatively easy check], whether from your church, or from a local benefactor who is impressed by your cause and commitment. This can be called upon once per level, and doing so has [some minor penalty or significant role play consequence that the monk has to deal with now]. Tl;dr, the vow shouldn’t make the character mathematically weaker, and it should provide some sort of benefit. Chevy Slyme fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Jun 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Common health pots are 1gp in this setting So a L 20 Monk could carry a healing potion, but only while completely naked and carrying a staff? I think it’d be more reasonable to put a maximum value on any single item carried, but even that runs counter to the basic reward structures of the game. Better, I think, to have a tithing mechanic if you insist on modeling a poverty vow in this way. If the monk acquires anything valuable, he or she must proceed to the nearest church and donate it. The church might then allow the monk to use certain items. Honestly, if you’re interested in even loosely basing this setting on reality, the vow of poverty does not seem to have been consistently observed and might not make a good basis for an ability. PCs are likely to abuse it in a variety of ways, like having the monk carry other PC possessions “on loan” or the like. And “I can’t carry money” is meaningless when the other PCs are paying for everything. Are you prohibiting multiclassing? Because the “double damage for 1 ki” ability seems like a better choice for a proficiency bonus-per day limit than clearing exhaustion levels, especially if a monk picks up two levels of fighter or a non-monk picks up 6 levels in this archetype.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
Given that this setting is in the heydey of questions of corruption in the church, I'd 100% expect prominent monks who are in good with the church to have some sort of agreement where all the copious amount of stuff they're carrying is technically church property, they're just a servant carrying it on behalf of their master.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:This was 3.5's attempt at a vow of poverty: DM: It's a 3 day journey to the next town. Ascetic: Okay, I borrow enough gold from a party member to buy 3 days worth of rations. DM: You're not allowed to touch money. Ascetic: Fine. I ask Bob to buy me 3 days worth of rations. DM: You're not allowed to carry more than 1 days worth of food. Enjoy posted:Does this seem fun Unless you're drastically increasing the sources of acquiring Exhaustion, you can replace the 11th level feature with a line of text saying "This feature does nothing until you're 17th level." And if you're increasing the sources of acquiring Exhaustion, that'll screw over most other classes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
A good vow of poverty for ann adventurer who doesn't live in a monastery and make their own food and clothes is probably more like "you can't own more than you can carry, and only keep enough money to feed yourself and find shelter," and let them carry magical items as normal, keeping it as mostly a role-playing consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
I play a weird hermit character who hates civilization and wealth, but that only works because she is an Artificer who can make temporary magic items out of worthless trash. Rations? I don't need em, the Alchemy Jug provides more than enough calories via mayo for my daily needs 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
The idea of a vow of poverty that requires an adventurer to forego just enough of what their companions would have to be annoying but not stop them completely is nonsensical when looking at how real world vows of poverty worked both at the time that the setting is inspired by and even now. The point of such a vow is that one then devotes themselves entirely to the Church, to the exclusion of all else. The poverty is not an end in itself, as the mechanic here is trending towards. Either the vow would be so onerous as to preclude anyone who took it from being an adventurer in any meaningful sense or it would be sufficiently flexible as to allow them to fully be an adventurer. In the former example, they need to stay near population centers who can provide for them day to day, they cannot own weapons, armor, or other magic items sufficient to survive, that sort of thing. In that case, the whole point of the vow is that it would preclude that particular lifestyle by design. In the latter example, the adventurer could still take a vow of complete poverty with the caveat that the vow does not prevent them from using things owned by other people, or spending money given to them by the Church. They might have a full set of magical items and artifacts of staggering value on their person at any given time, but the items do not belong to them, they belong to the Church. Same for money they might be given. If their abbot gives them 100 gold but says that it can only be spent on food, lodging, necessities of survival, etc., that money does not in any meaningful way belong to them and while they may have some discretion about how it is used, that is devolved authority, not authority they themselves innately possess because it is their property. Looking to how vows of poverty from the direct inspiration would work, even monks in a monastery who had taken strict poverty vows that precluded all but the barest personal possessions would still have access to valuable items such as books, farm equipment, etc. because that range of activities is within what is allowed by the Church. If the Church has determined that having one of its members be an adventurer is an acceptable vocation, then there will by necessity be flexible enough vows that they would be able to do that. Otherwise, the vows would be so strict that anyone trying to be an adventurer would be in breach of their vows to even attempt it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Like hypothetically if you go adventuring to cleanse a tainted temple or whatever. And you find a bunch of sweet loot, mechanically while traveling back to your temple even if you intend to tithe it all back you are literally incapable of using your Ki. This is something I would honestly not try to mechanically implement and instead just make it a tenet of a specific character or religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:EDIT: What is a check to enter heaven? Is that a common thing which will be required in the setting? I don't understand what that does and the purpose it serves. It was a joke, I've removed the feature from the PDF
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
The general theme for this class is "holy person who is not actually controlled by / associated with the church as a political entity". I think what you're running into then is that the vow of poverty just doesn't really make sense in that context, and it'd be better to find some other code of conduct that you can, well, codify into game rules. And then the issues with codes of conduct is that they can be intrusive into gameplay, e.g. the old problem of the paladin feeling like they have to protest / loudly pretend not to be paying attention when the rogue does anything. I don't have any good solutions off the top of my head 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
For those complaining about the butt rock in Dark Alliance's early trailers: You appear to be vindicated, most of the Steam reviews are saying it's trash
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Very baffling choices in all aspects of that game it seems. Like they picked 4 characters who are set classes, similar to the old Dark Alliance games but they picked a bunch of classes that are all very similar instead of the varied classes they have available. It's a fighter, a fighter (who is an archer tbf), a fighter/ranger and then a barbarian.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIEOF-Aa1Rk Dungeons and Dragons: Dark Alliance is truly, truly awful (Review)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
thebardyspoon posted:Very baffling choices in all aspects of that game it seems. Like they picked 4 characters who are set classes, similar to the old Dark Alliance games but they picked a bunch of classes that are all very similar instead of the varied classes they have available. It's a fighter, a fighter (who is an archer tbf), a fighter/ranger and then a barbarian. Even Diablo 1 had a wizard. Geez
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
I watched a couple videos and it's absolutely incredible how broken, buggy, and unfun the game is. It's also doing that thing where they're like "Look! It's your old pals Drizzt, Bruenor, Caddie, and that other guy!" and a ton of modern players go "huh?" I mean, all other issues aside, and there's a mountain, you had the opportunity to set this in ANY of your settings and flesh them out with a game and your choice was the most fleshed out setting, using the most fleshed out characters, with almost zero player agency, in a game about -D&D-. A game famous for letting you go, do, and be anything. I legitimately cannot fathom the series of decisions that led to this game releasing in the state it's in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIEOF-Aa1Rk This really, really really really seems like a PS2 game
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
thebardyspoon posted:Very baffling choices in all aspects of that game it seems. Like they picked 4 characters who are set classes, similar to the old Dark Alliance games but they picked a bunch of classes that are all very similar instead of the varied classes they have available. It's a fighter, a fighter (who is an archer tbf), a fighter/ranger and then a barbarian. Game needs wizard, badly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
I’d rather play old school arcade Gauntlet with my buds from the looks of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Pussy Quipped posted:I’d rather play old school arcade Gauntlet with my buds from the looks of that. Hell, play PS2 Dark Alliance
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Eh, I don't necessarily think so. From a mechanical and roleplay perspective they still do different things and have different secondary focuses. Being able to roll with cantrip + weapon attack is really neat, though it does mean you need to invest more in your intelligence compared to a melee EK that gets away with booming blade spam - as a ranged attacker at some point you need to roll as a spell attack or spell save. Create bonfire and chill touch would probably serve you well for cantrips, especially the former once you get the ability that makes enemies throw saves against you at disadvantage. I'm more or less going to use shield, absorb elements initially and autoattack with sharpshooter. Thematically I like the idea of using reactions rather than action spells to bamf around, summon my rapier to my hand for surprise melee, etc. This may change when it turns out to be garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Darn, I was hoping Dark Alliance or whatever it’s called would be fun. Not surprised, however. How has no one made a good Gauntlet Dark Legacy rip off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Something like Dark Alliance for the PS2 might have been nice, but this didn't sound good from the very first video. Also it seems weird to go with established characters like Drizzt and co, instead of making new characters whole cloth that can have their own hand crafted backgrounds, or just vague backgrounds as the case may be, instead of books and books of background that most players now a days have no knowledge of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Something like Dark Alliance for the PS2 might have been nice, but this didn't sound good from the very first video. Also it seems weird to go with established characters like Drizzt and co, instead of making new characters whole cloth that can have their own hand crafted backgrounds, or just vague backgrounds as the case may be, instead of books and books of background that most players now a days have no knowledge of. Yeah, does anyone new to D&D know who the hell Cattie-Brie is? Maybe the books are still selling or something but there a lot cooler characters out there or, as you said, just make some cool ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
denimgorilla posted:Yeah, does anyone new to D&D know who the hell Cattie-Brie is? Maybe the books are still selling or something but there a lot cooler characters out there or, as you said, just make some cool ones. i started playing d&d like 2 years ago and booting up the game today was the first i’d ever heard that name
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
The only reason I know who anyone other than Drzzt is, is because Wizards has shoehorned them into modules I've considered running. Said modules didn't explain who these people were either. I was clearly supposed to both know and care already. Also, the only reason I know who Drzzt is is because of basic cultural osmosis. I've never consumed any media with him as a character. Really, it's the same reason I know any of the major figures of D&D lore. For example, I know Mordenkainen because of the Dead Alewives sketch that has one of the characters try to cast Mordenkainen's Spateful Watchdog. Literally no connection other than that. I assume that there exists a decent enough market for nostalgia with said characters that it's worthwhile to include them, but I'm just not connected with anyone who is. I suspect that back in the old days, that kind of knowledge would be passed on from GM to player as the GMs brought in new players, but I'm one of the many people who wasn't brought into the game by someone who could have passed that on to me. My read is that the folks at Wizards are so enmeshed in this kind of lineage of players that they assume everyone who plays ends up with graybeard DMs dropping these names into campaigns and loaning out battered paperbacks that they just assume most players have a similar connection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
change my name posted:For those complaining about the butt rock in Dark Alliance's early trailers: You appear to be vindicated, most of the Steam reviews are saying it's trash I played it for 45 minutes on Steam and it was user-hostile from start to finish. I honestly can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Every second from "can't set resolution and its console 'designate safe screen space' thing doesn't work with computer monitor aspect ratios so have fun playing in letterbox, I guess" to "janky animations that lock you down way too long and terrible controls + target lock that restricts your camera completely" was excruciating. I'm an old school Drizzt fanboy, so you'd think I'd be the perfect target market...but it became the second game I ever refunded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
Shelvocke posted:I'm more or less going to use shield, absorb elements initially and autoattack with sharpshooter. Thematically I like the idea of using reactions rather than action spells to bamf around, summon my rapier to my hand for surprise melee, etc. Having tried out an Eldritch Knight and a Warlock, you get a lot more bamfing around at earlier levels as a warlock than an EK does. EKs are, I think, generally better at taking hits and, you know, fighter things, but as soon as I got Misty step as a warlock I was just teleporting everywhere, limited spell slots be damned. I still liked being an EK, they just don't really get any teleportation moves for quite a while, and that Arcane Charge move was one of the things that attracted me to be an EK (before I knew most games don't go nearly that high). By the time the EK gets Misty step, the warlock has had it for several levels and can take an invocation with hex that lets you teleport towards your target, and a couple levels after that you get far step as a warlock and you're just bamfing all over combat. Doesn't necessarily tie into the rest of your character build concerns, just something I've noticed playing a warlock I didn't plan on teleporting everywhere after playing an EK I wanted to teleport everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 08:15
|
|
|
denimgorilla posted:Yeah, does anyone new to D&D know who the hell Cattie-Brie is? Maybe the books are still selling or something but there a lot cooler characters out there or, as you said, just make some cool ones. The Drizzt books are the only ones WotC is still producing/bothering to reprint, and they are continuing to produce new advertising content for Drizzt as a character and a series as of earlier this month with that new animation thing. Having him and the other Companions of the Hall be the characters isn't an obscure throwback, these are characters and stories that are actively being sold by WotC right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 08:36
|
|
|
Zonko_T.M. posted:Having tried out an Eldritch Knight and a Warlock, you get a lot more bamfing around at earlier levels as a warlock than an EK does. EKs are, I think, generally better at taking hits and, you know, fighter things, but as soon as I got Misty step as a warlock I was just teleporting everywhere, limited spell slots be damned. If your goal is to teleport all over, the correct fighter build is an Echo Knight anyway, but lol wildemount
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
CaptainPsyko posted:If your goal is to teleport all over, the correct fighter build is an Echo Knight anyway, but lol wildemount Or a monk with fey touched
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Be a Hex-touched Fey-Touched Alchemist and like me and you can slip out of any situation. Just don't try to do any damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The Drizzt books are the only ones WotC is still producing/bothering to reprint, and they are continuing to produce new advertising content for Drizzt as a character and a series as of earlier this month with that new animation thing. Having him and the other Companions of the Hall be the characters isn't an obscure throwback, these are characters and stories that are actively being sold by WotC right now. I’ve played D&D for well over a decade and I’ve never read any books about Drizzt, and honestly from what I’ve seen in passing he seems like a boring Gary Stu? WotC shoehorning their dumb characters into a thing makes me like it less. I’m sure there exist people who like them, I just… have never met any and have no idea who they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Drizzt is boring rubbish. Make a video game where I can play as Mordenkainen 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 14:47
|
|