Dungeons & Dragons (5e) Thread
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Aug. 4, 2021, 3 a.m. by TypicalTimmy
Forgotten Realms introduced a lot of MTG players to D&D for their very first time. While some of us are seasoned veterans (I've been playing for somewhere between 13 - 15 years), many MTG players are new to D&D.
I figured since so many MTG players are now taking a keen interest in D&D, this might be a useful resource to ask questions and get advice from more experienced players.
Personally, I started with 3.5 although I have played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, Pathfinder 1E, 5e, Call of Cthulhu and GURPS and am currently rolling up new Pathfinder builds and looking to DM again.
- My current build is a Leonin Cleric who is on a mission to kill his own god.
So, if you're new to D&D, or are a returning player, welcome!
For simplicity's sake, because most new players to D&D enter with 5e (5th Edition), I think it's fair and safe to consider this a 5e thread.
As an avid fan of D&D with a lot of Dungeon Mastering under my belt, I also would be happy to discuss both the game and provide help to new and old players alike! For now, I can provide a bit of my backstory:
I began playing D&D about eight years ago with 4e. Yes, I know 4e is not very popular, but I will happily explain why, in many regards in is superior to 5e. When 4e's digital tools were shut down, I migrated to 5e, which is what I currently play.
More often than not I have DMed. I exclusively run homebrew campaigns and spend an excessive amount of time on the worldbuilding. If you are wondering what excessive means, I am in the process of building a new campaign that is set to start after one of the ones I am currently in concludes. The worldbuilding document sits at 80 pages of single-spaced prose. The campaign I am currently running has been going on since May of last year (via Zoom; thanks COVID), with us usually getting in 2-4 6+ hour sessions a month. We probably have another couple of months before that one concludes.
As a DM, my philosophy is as follows:
- The alignment system is not absolute, and anyone who treats it as such is being a bad DM.
It is important to know who every major NPC is and how they got to be who they are--then they should react to circumstances based on their backstory and personality, not just on their alignment.
I have played campaigns where the DM treats evil gods as "they must always do the most evil thing possible"... despite their own backstory for the god showing their motivation is not "evil for the sake of evil" but "increase my power because I am very afraid." That made for a particularly dull campaign, since our villain had all the depth of a throw-away NPC, not any real personality to their name.
On the other side of the coin, I ran a campaign where Asmodeus was the "good guy" of the campaign. He was still very much Asmodeus--every bit the evil schemer who tried to trick the party into making Faustian bargains--but he also is someone who desires order and structure. The party had to stop an entity of divine chaos from afflicting the world; and what better god to serve as their guide than one whose domain includes the imposition of order?
- It is the DM's job to make the game fun for players.
I generally allow a lot of customization beyond the official rules (and really like how 5e's online system makes customization easy), provided everything remains relatively balanced.
- Never leave an players behind.
Every player has their own personal backstory and objectives--it is important to foster those backstories, but do so in a manner that keeps everyone interested and engaged.
So, for an example of what I think one should not do--I was in a campaign where we ran into an NPC that one of our party members knew from backstory; and the rest of us had no idea who they were. The DM and PC whose backstory was being advanced talked for a while while the rest of us twiddled our thumbs and got no valid information.
Whenever a DM brings in a backstory element, I think they should try to engage the other party. Bring that character in as someone who is helping the party on their current quest, or, at the very least, have that individual interact with other party members and provide them information they care about.
Endgames for each person's personal quest should substantially tie into the endgame of your main quest--you do not want someone's personal quest to be completed well before the campaign does, but you also do not want to interrupt your main campaign's climax to non sequitur deal with someone's personal drama.
- Cheat.
The DM screen exists for a reason. No one likes if their boss encounter ends because the monster cannot land a hit or the monster lands too many--fudging your dice rolls tactically can lead to more fun for everyone. Other options include having a monster who is dying to easy go under a transformation to a different form, or simply adjusting the monster's max HP on the fly to ensure the fight is longer or shorter.
The key is never to get caught doing this, and also never to abuse this power to the point your players are no longer having fun. You are not cheating to help yourself win; you are cheating to help them enjoy themselves.
- Be flexible.
The party is going to want to do things that are unpredictable which could have drastic effects on the campaign as a whole. You have to live with those and incorporate them into your story--an inflexible DM who tries to force parties to stay on the rails makes things unpleasant for all involved.
- Do not force things on your player.
I am currently playing a Fallen Paladin who has some emotional baggage. My DM has spent the entire campaign poorly handling the character--he has (a) forced my character to read a letter I clearly said I was not ready to read; (b) forced my character into subservice to not one, but two gods; and (c) has made the gods so one-dimensional in their thinking that there really is no nuance to explore in the Paladin-God relationship. It has been decidedly unfun to play.
Now, that is not to say you should not impose consequences and rewards to guide your player characters in their development. The trick is not to force change on a player, but react organically to their decisions. For example, I am about to royally screw over the warlock in the campaign I am currently DMing. He has been ignoring his patron's wishes for weeks of in-game time, and fully expects some sort of consequence. Still, he knew he was free to make the choices his character would make.
- Talk with your players out of game and make sure it is clear they can offer constructive criticism.
You do not want to be overly committed to something one of your players' hate--you want your player to come forward so you can address any concerns they have.
- Do not forget the little details.
Small things are what make a campaign come alive. Little references to an NPC that the players met once but rather enjoyed. People in bars talking about various things the party did. Throw away NPCs that the party is sure to like. References to past campaigns with those players so the party feels like their decisions have a tangible effect on the world.
As a player, my general goal is to take some sort of stereotype and turn it on its head. For example, in a campaign I will start soon, I am playing a Neutral Good character; but I am talking the traditional Lawful Good "Kill everything that does not comport with my Lawful Good ideals" approach to Neutral Good. My character will have a sense of right and wrong and will be willing to kill to protect that code--but is not killing to impose some sort of lawful end or chaotic one. They will kill because that's simply the way to get evil out of the world.
Anyway, that is enough about my philosophies--I figured I would set them out to start in case anyone thinks my perspective would be helpful. If you do, feel free to tag me and ask questions! I am always happy to discuss the game!
August 4, 2021 10:25 a.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum - Nope. Chaotic Good has the chaotic element to it; an element of "consequences be damned, I am going to do what feels good in this particular moment." The goal will be to play someone who is forward thinking; who takes action because it is necessary not just to stop a present ill, but to prevent future ills down the road. However, who is also not doing so in a manner that would be Lawful Good--they would not be trying to impose a certain code or order upon the world, merely a long-term utilitarian view of what should happen.
I have always found the most fun in being a player character is exploring the shades of grey that exist within the alignment system. I find too many players get stuck in playing to the tropes of what constitutes Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, etc. and that can lead to rather stale characters.
Wizards itself has tried to push back on the alignment system being absolute, adding a number of complexities to already existing entities within their universe. My favorite example is Vecna--Vecna is seen as one of the major evil gods... but Wizards makes it clear he is far more complex than that. In addition to his evil nature, he also does a lot of good for the world, including secreting away information from other evil gods and using his mantle as the God of Secrets to keep revolutionaries protected when overthrowing oppressive governments.
That's where the fun lies--coming up with something that takes a traditional alignment and ask "well, what if I spliced in stereotypical tropes of Lawful Good or Chaotic Good, but implemented them as a Neutral Good character might?"
August 4, 2021 11:22 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #6
To touch on alignment, mentioned by Caerwyn, here's an example of why it is not absolute.
My Cleric began life born into slavery. He was born without a name and forced to work against his will. As he grew older, he eventually escaped his slave owners and, through backstory that's not relevant here, freed his family only to watch them be killed in the temple of the God he worshipped, which is why he blames her and is now seeking out a divine vengeance.
Because he follows an extremely rigid set of beliefs and core values, he is Lawful. But because his actions to achieve such goals are malicious and violent, he is evil.
Lawful Evil.
But, according to Pathfinder, the actual disruption of slavery is Chaotic Good. In Pathfinder, slavery is more common than uncommon. So actively trying to stop it is going against the structure and way of life. If 80% of the world believes and follows a practice and you aim to destroy that process, you are Chaotic. And because he is doing what is morally appropriate and for the true best of Humanity, he is Chaotic Good.
And so he plays Chaotic Good despite being Lawful Evil.
This diametric opposition is why alignment is so difficult for players to understand and grasp, which is why most players ignore it, lest for a few small examples:
- Demons are always Evil, but not always Lawful or Chaotic.
- Paladins and Clerics should try to adhere as best as they can. It's more important to follow the path of your God than the path of code and ethics.
- Angels are always Lawful, but can be Evil or Good.
Basically, alignment only matters with religious text. The rest is kind of open to interpretation.
August 4, 2021 12:16 p.m.
TypicalTimmy - I completely agree that alignment is one of the more confused elements of the game. I think a lot of that stems from the early days of D&D, where Gygax and some of the other early developers tended to view the world in black-and-white, so, for decades, alignment categories were much more defined than they are now.
I think Wizards has done a really good job trying to push for a more dynamic alignment system that treats them as broad categories--but not as the absolute end-all-be-all of a character's personality. Tasha's did a pretty good job on this front, as well as provided some good advice for players to branch out of traditional D&D stereotypes, but there is still clearly a lot of old-school thinking on alignments.
I am fairly lucky with my D&D party I am DMing--they all have a great understanding of the moral complexity of the alignment system, and it has led to some great gameplay. Amusingly, their moral compass is their Lawful-Evil yaun-ti--her character is driving the party to save the world not out of the goodness of her heart, but because the only way the yuan-ti can conquer the world is if there is still a world to conquer.
As for the gods and religion, I think D&D has done a really, really good job making the gods complex. It is really easy for divine creatures in fantasy to just exist as their tropes, but D&D has an excellent set of complicated gods who all have their own motivations and ideals, beyond simply their alignment. They feel a lot like some of the old stories of the Greek gods, who were every bit as flawed and petty as mortals.
August 4, 2021 2:37 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #8
I started playing D&D in the 80’s and am excited that so many people (and more to come!) are opening up to it. I recommend, as usual, just jumping in and running amok with what you like most. From there, though, you’ll start peeling back layers of the onion and finding that deep treasure trove that awaits. I enjoy making characters in this order: background and description, stats and skills, and then class selection. This helps me avoid falling into the general tropes (though those are great for starters!) and provides opportunity for really fun and interesting takes on the classes and their mechanics. One of the characters I’m running right now is half of a Mulder/Scully cop team as a barbarian. Definitely not a min/max character, but extremely enjoyable and rewarding.
August 4, 2021 2:45 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #9
One of the issues, I would suggest, with alignment is dependent on the micro/macro scale. For example, a King who we, as the players, may view as fundamental and irrevocably evil may be doing what is truly for the good of the nation.
Scale this up, what a God may be doing, which can be viewed as evil, could be for the good of the cosmos.
Following the other axis, Lawful is meant to be, not following societal structures, but a code of ethics and views. A Druidic Vow is Lawful. A Monk's Way is Lawful. The Thieves Guild is, ironically, Lawful. While the guild itself may be Chaotic in that they go against the grain of society and structure and attempt to disrupt the status quo, the members FOLLOWING those codes and guidelines are adhering to a structure of beliefs, making the MEMBERS lawful in the face of a Chaotic organization.
A Druidic Vow mandates you wear no metal. Therefore a Druid wearing metal bracers is technically Chaotic.
A Monk is supposed to live a life of willing poverty, using only the clothes on their back and a single weapon. If a Monk dons $15,000 in magical gear, they technically have broken their sacred Way, thus becoming Chaotic.
I think it's this disconnect that is what confuses new players, and DMs, alike. The L-C / G-E axis is very easy to comprehend, but when you being asking questions it very rapidly unravels.
For example, I am sure 99% of players may consider Nicol Bolas as Chaotic Evil. He's not. He's Lawful Evil. He has a goal, beliefs, structure and a means to an end.
On Nixilis and Tibalt. They are Chaotic Evil.
And I would conside Vraska as Neutral Evil.
August 4, 2021 2:53 p.m. Edited.
FormOverFunction says... #10
On the topic of alignment, I like to use it as more of a touchstone when you’re not sure how your character would react to something. Generally, you know what your character thinks/wants/etc. and as you progress, I would rather you grow your character and potentially change your alignment (alongside your DM) rather than tie down your character to what they thought about things when they became an adventurer (or even before when they were a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker).
August 4, 2021 3:04 p.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum says... #11
Caerwyn i still think that falls under chaotic good if they’re willing to break the law to uphold their morals.
August 4, 2021 5:03 p.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum says... #12
When i used to DM i just told my players to ignore alignment entirely. For example it made no sense that monks had to be lawful good. Evil people learn martial arts all the time.
August 4, 2021 5:08 p.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum - Following the law is not an underlying element of the Lawful-Chaotic dynamic. A lawful character might choose not to follow laws they believe are immoral; a chaotic character might choose to follow all laws, since it behooves their interests to do so. A chaotic character might be less inclined to follow the law, and a lawful character more so - but the following of law is, in and of itself, not a determinative factor.
That side of the scale is concerned mostly with one’s ultimate end. A chaotic character is mostly focused on the present and themselves; thus a chaotic good character will generally take action without significant thought to the long-term consequences. On a whim, they might kill a man they see abusing others, but not think through “who is that guy, and will there be anything worse that happens due to his death?”
There’s an element of chaos to that, which sets it apart from a neutral good character, who might be more discerning in their decision-making process. They are not acting rashly, like the chaotic might, nor are they blindly following a code they see as greater than themselves, as a lawful character might. They simply are taking an action they see as necessary and justified.
It’s things like this that make the alignment system so interesting - different folks might see different actions in the light of different alignments. It’s also why it makes a helpful guideline and tool… but a very useless system if the DM or player tries to stick just to their perception of absolute alignment.
August 4, 2021 5:27 p.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum says... #14
Caerwyn call it what you want i guess but i fail to see how the “law” doesn’t come into play in “law”ful.
August 4, 2021 7:11 p.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum - As explained above, because the lawful-chaotic dynamic does not care about whether you actually follow the law. It is about whether your actions are governed by a set of rules greater than yourself (lawful) or if your actions are governed by no set guiding principles (chaotic).
Let’s use the easy and obvious example. A lawful good paladin overthrows an oppressive government. In the process, he probably broke dozens of laws. That does not make him chaotic - he just subscribes to a different set of laws than the mortal ones he broke.
You can have a lawful character whose basis is exclusively on mortal laws, but following the law is not determinative of whether you are lawful under alignment definitions.
August 4, 2021 7:35 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #16
"Lawful" is often confused with "law".
Consider "Lawful" more like ethical. Following a core set of beliefs directed towards a common goal or ideal.
When a Paladin follows the "Lawful" path, he or she is not going from city-state to city-state changing their beliefs and actions according to that regions political motivations, rather he or she is following the scripture, beliefs, values, codes and ethics of the God they worship.
If a particular God says you must fast every 3rd day of each month, the Paladin will fast for the 3rd day of every single month. Breaking this tradition and value would be "unlawful".
Consider "lawful" less about the societal structure and more about the ethical one.
I understand it can be confusing having multiple people chime in, so I'll sit this out now. When in doubt, there is a plethora of aid on YouTube. You also have the books and core rule sets that guide you, and at the end of the day your DM has final say.
August 4, 2021 7:49 p.m.
Gruul_Ultimatum says... #17
Caerwyn you do you man. As long as your dm allows it its no skin off my back
August 4, 2021 8:11 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #18
Here's a great example, and then I'll head out from the Alignment conversation.
Have you watched The Mandalorian on Disney+?
If so, great. If not, spoilers.
Mando, following the creed of never removing his helmet in front of others, living or otherwise, is an example of being Lawful. The Mandalorians have a code they adhere to, and live by, and follow. It is a set of principals they use to keep their society in check and balance. Breaking these codes shows a wavering approach to their customs and traditions and shows, to them, weakness and incompetence.
Mando is also a bounty hunter at first. He puts himself before others, kills for profit and will stab in the back. He does what must be done, because he is in it for himself. But, he does not go out of his way to incite harm and violence, nor does he act out of hatred or malice. He is neutral in his morality.
Therefore, he starts the adventure as Lawful Neutral.
As the show progresses, he realizes there is more to the world than himself and he now sacrifices everything and puts himself in danger to save a child. He slowly shifts to Lawful Good.
Toward the end of the season, where he forsakes his people and their customs and removes his helmet to succeed at a goal, he slowly leaves behind the ways of his order.
He slowly becomes Neutral Good.
Conversely, Boba Fett outright threw the order aside, discarded his armor (though it was to survive) and spit in the wind. To him, The Mandalorians are a bunch of old crooks bent in an ancient way not relevant anymore.
Boba Fett is Chaotic.
He also is a malicious and violent man who will kill anything in his way without regards to the standing or implications it brings.
Boba Fett is Chaotic Evil, possibly slowly shifting to Chaotic Neutral.
Darth Vader.
His righteous indignation and near worship of The Sith makes him Lawful Evil. He slowly becomes Lawful Good when he sacrifices himself for his son and overall peace.
Emperor Palp is and always was Chaotic Evil. The Sith are a means to an end to exploit power for himself.
Note: This is merely my interpretation of the dynamics. My rulings and opinions can't hurt you as they hold no weight except at my table. You are freely welcome to disregard everything I say, as is your DM.
My opinions matter only to my players. With that said, I truly hope perhaps I was able to help to some capacity.
August 4, 2021 8:12 p.m. Edited.
Gruul_Ultimatum says... #19
TypicalTimmy: ethical is subjective. Lawful is not.
August 4, 2021 8:14 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #20
Gruul_Ultimatum, and honestly, if that is your view and it is truly that rigid, you would make an AMAZING Paladin and / or Cleric :)
August 4, 2021 8:24 p.m.
Messed around in 3.0, skipped 3.5, got serious in 4E (which is absolutely a valid system--think of it as D&D Squad Tactics), and am currently helping a new DM learn the ropes a 1-on-1 adventure. I had a campaign recently go on indefinite hiatus as schedules shifted, so I'm missing the group dynamics. If you see a gnome with a ridiculous family running around, probably druid or (TCoE) ranger, there's a good chance that's me.
Thoughts for people getting into the game: Having fun is the most important part. Look for a group that's willing to play the same style you are. I've been in a light-hearted, story-driven group where nobody was numerically optimized, and that was one of the best campaigns I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. Play the game you want to play.
Tips for DMs: Work to your strengths, and build up your weaknesses. I've never been good at describing physical characteristics of people or places on the fly, so I don't know what half my characters (PC or NPC) look like. "Yeah, the merchant has kind of messy hair and a poorly trimmed beard. Probably wearing something red." I'm much better with improvising personality and action descriptions, so I take the time to prep a handful of physical descriptions before they come up, and let the rest come out naturally.
Find your balance between improvisation and prep work. I know I just said I can pull out personalities and action descriptions, but that's about all I can improvise. I can't DM a session without at least a couple pages of notes on what the party's likely going to do, how the bandits on the meadow road work, and what the Great Jewel actually does and where to find it. I need the prep work. One of my friends DMs with nothing more than a Monster Manual and a dice set, and somehow makes everything come to life.
August 5, 2021 2:21 a.m.
I agree that 4e gets a lot of unfair flack - frankly, in a number of ways, I find superior to 5e.
-
Spell saves are a vastly inferior system to 4e’s use of multiple defences (for those who don’t know, each attack went against either AC, Fortitude, Willpower, or Reflex). This replaced using your six attributes to save against various effects. Why was this better? For players, this meant they always got to roll their attacks. It’s fun to roll the dice and see if you hit - having the DM roll your Fireball attack is not anywhere close to as enjoyable. For DMs, it gave them control over their attacks and deciding when they land, making it easier to fudge numbers in combat to make combat more dynamic.
-
The way abilities were set up was better. Certain abilities where “at will”, meaning you could use them anytime; others were “encounter”, meaning you could use them once per encounter; and certain were “daily”, and could only be used once per day. This avoided the 5e problem of finding yourself in a fight and your Paladin/Caster being useless because all their spell slots are gone.
-
Martial classes were more fun to play. In 5e, your martial classes are generally just attacking multiple times. In 4e, they had their own set of abilities with dynamic effects, allowing you to adjust your attacks to fit with the encounter.
-
The item system was better than 5e. 5e’s items are a disaster, with very inconsistent power levels and forcing players to use a third-party list, such as same item prices, to tell value. Everything in 4e had a guideline value and recommended level, in addition to its rarity, making giving out fair loot a lot easier. Items also scaled better - that +1 sword with a cool effect also had +2, +3, etc. versions.
-
Classes felt different. One of 5e’s big problems is how each class starts to feel the same - casters have access to the same set of big spells regardless of what class you pick. Each 4e class was decidedly different, making that choice feel more important.
-
Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies (which are mid and high level customisations for characters) were a great feature. By high levels in the 5e character system, you’re pretty much set on rails - these two aspects of 4e allowed for some fun customisation designed to reflect your character’s growth.
The biggest complaint I see with 4e is how long combat takes; but that, I have found, is mostly due to people not knowing what their own character does. Combat moved fairly quickly once everyone got used to and internalised their own character sheet.
August 5, 2021 9:24 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #24
I’ve never played D&D proper but I’ve spent some hours playing variations of World Of Darkness and other similar games. I had an idea that idk if it would work and somebody needs to tell me if PVP is possible in D&D.
So I was thinking of a campaign where the DM would hold 2 sessions a week with different players. One play group is the heroes and the other are the villains, or it could be two groups of heroes with intersecting goals, whatever. Basically every 2-3 weeks the 2 playgroups would meet up in the story somehow and battle it out.
How does this sound?
August 5, 2021 10:55 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #25
I have never played 4e but I hear it's designed more so as a war game first and a TTRPG second. So if you enjoy large scale battles, especially naval battles with fleets, 4e is great. I know people who play 5e and use 4e for battlefield sessions.
August 5, 2021 10:56 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #26
Daveslab2022, the issue with the intersecting games comes down to what equates to DMPC style gaming.
DMPC means Dungeon Master-Player Character, where the DM plays as a character while running the game. This is different from an NPC or BBEG (Big Bag Evil Guy) because there are generally far fewer, if any, stakes at play.
If a group of players had a character for Campaign A, and a character for Campaign B, inevitably A and B would cross.
When this happens, how would a player control both PCA and PCB?
The amount of metagaming and misdirection could become too great to run effectively. And if PCA is played by the player, does the DM then DMPCB?
If so, what happens if the player for PCA gets upset that the DM is playing PCB "wrong"?
I would simply advise against that. Even seasoned DMs should probably stick to one campaign at a time. You can run multiple groups, but don't have the groups cross unless you are running some sort of Dungeon Delver system, where multiple "teams" are working through a dungeon. But those are usually coordinated events with a DM at each table and an overseer DM for the whole party as a large, at an LGS. Those can take 5 - 10 hours, easy.
August 5, 2021 11:03 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #27
Daveslab2022, I misread. You mean two distinct groups.
It could work but balancing power levels is difficult. For example, what if one group has a player who That Guy's very hard. A Bloodline Sorcerer can easily deal 500+ damage in a single round.
One PC can take out the entire party in, quite literally, a snap of his fingers.
It would be sad to see months of work go down the drain because someone's idea of fun is playing by himself.
August 5, 2021 11:05 a.m.
Daveslab2022, to build on what TypicalTimmy said, D&D is notoriously unbalanced in terms of classes and races. I do not mean this as a slight (more a point of amusement), since PvP balance is not D&D's goal--it wants to make as many different options for players, and does not spend much effort thinking through the PvP ramifications of various player combinations.
I do not even think you need a "that guy" who min maxes their character to make a PvP centered campaign unfun--some matchups just do not work in combat (ex. one race provides resistance to almost all magic attacks; they'll have a huge advantage in PvP over any magic user), other classes can just steamroll pretty much everyone, even if not min-maxed, and, even where characters are relatively even, it is usually the dice, not skill that decide how the events play out.
The system works pretty well for cooperative, and can be fun for short little bouts of party combat where everyone is trying to resolve some argument, but everyone is also specifying that they are not dealing lethal damage. But in an actual brawl with fatality on the line, the balancing is far too bad for it to be fun.
You would be better off just running one campaign where the party is playing either the villainous or heroic characters, and the other "campaign" is a party made up of very powerful NPCs, and the DM controls and tracks their exploits independent of the party.
August 5, 2021 11:34 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #29
For anyone interested, I think one of the best channels is Runesmith
He does some down and gritty satire in his series "Basically D&D" where he over simplifies creatures, races and classes in a comedic style.
But he has another series where he explores and develops everything from homebrew spells to generic NPCs to entire kingdoms.
He's also a published author, so he has strong credibility.
August 5, 2021 12:21 p.m.
Has anybody here been part of an evil campaign, where the PCs are the villains? If so, how did it work out?
August 5, 2021 1:13 p.m.
I have not run a campaign that is 100% villainous, but I have had some party members take the role of villain as part of other campaigns. Currently one of the members of a party I am DMing is lawful evil and, at times, has actively filled the role of villain. Her character is a yuan-ti (snake person with a very hierarchical, slave-based society) completely dedicated to her people--so she has helped topple governments, enslave humans, and engaged in other acts that are pretty evil, all for the glory of her society. This caused some issues with the rest of my party, who are not evil (though more neutral than good), but I was able to push them down a different path before the party devolve into murdering one another.
I have an idea for an evil campaign that I have wanted to run for a while, but have not found the right group. Here is the basic idea:
The party all starts as members of an elite fighting force designed to help secure the country against the most dangerous of threats. The party would start with small scale missions--putting down bandits, helping slay monsters, etc. As they level up, they would be sent on more important tasks--quelling rebellions and trying to help capture territory from enemy nations.
The whole time, the nation they serve would appear to be the good guys... but the more they investigate the riots and rebellions, the more they would learn that their country is probably the bad guys in the story. The party would eventually have to decide what they wanted to do with that information--are they going to join the rebellions, or are they going to continue to serve as the enforcers for what appears to be an evil regime.
August 5, 2021 2 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #32
legendofa, I have! It was 3.5
Hardest thing is keeping everyone aligned on a goal. Players think being evil allows them free reign to do as they please, which does not make for a "campaign".
August 5, 2021 2:17 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #33
I've been thinking about it and I believe I have a wonderful idea, legendofa.
Start the campaign in The Underdark. Every player must choose a race that lives in there, maybe add Orc and Human as they can believable suffice. The campaign is about how a Lord or King keeps sending adventurers into The Underdark for (plot device) and the denizens are tired of having their people massacred.
So the party is a bunch of Underdarklings, going to the surface world to disrupt and destroy the kingdom to get the endless invasions to stop
August 5, 2021 8:43 p.m.
ThePerilousRealm says... #34
The last set of rules I'm familiar with is Second Edition. How hard/easy is it to get up to speed on the current set? Are the rules like Portuguese to Spanish, Portuguese to Chinese, or something in between?
August 5, 2021 8:44 p.m.
TypicalTimmy Which races would you count as Underdark natives? Drow, tiefling, and dwarf are what come to mind for me, plus human and orc. Svirfneblin? Warforged?
August 5, 2021 8:48 p.m.
ThePerilousRealm - 5e is really easy to pick up, especially if you use D&D Beyond, the online digital tools. It is a great little character builder and even has some basic options for free, though you can spend money to purchase additional elements from more advanced rulebooks.
TypicalTimmy - Personally, I am of the camp that players should not ever be limited in terms of their race and class. As DM, I tend to tell my players "here is how you are going to start the campaign; come up with a backstory that gets you to that point." So, if doing a campaign like the one outlined above, I'd have no issue with someone saying they want to play an Aasimir, provided they can justify their existence in and loyalty to their subterranean world.
Though, if we were going to modify legendofa's list, I would probably remove Warforged, since those are fairly engrained with Eberron, and add certain colors of dragonborn, minotaurs, and reflavored Simic hybrids that represent the mutations caused by faerzess (the latent magics of the Underdark) to adapt something to Underdark living.
August 5, 2021 9:25 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #37
I want to build a Lizardfolk Barbarian. You get 19ac at 1st level.
- but muh tortol with 31ac an-
No.
You get their swim speed and holding their breath. That's nice.
Later on, become a Dhampir (with DM's acknowledgement prior to Session 0).
With the Deathless Self, I no longer breathe. This means I can now swim under water forever. Eventually you also get Spider Climb. So now I have a base 30' Swim and a base 30' Climb
Multiclass into Rogue.
Now you can climb a wall and ceiling, enter Rage, drop for advantage and get Sneak Attack.
Evasion out of there and Sentinel anyone trying to escape your wrath.
And eat everything on the way out.
August 7, 2021 10:26 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #39
This is the brew I am looking at.
Starting as a Lizardfolk, I begin the game with a Swim speed of 30' and can hold my breath for up to 15 minutes, which helps not just with swimming but also in areas of noxious or poisonous fumes, spores or in areas without an atmosphere such as in a Bag of Holding. I'd also get +2 Con and +1 Wis. The Constitution is what I am focused on here, Wisdom is alright for some builds but for me it's not needed. We are going to be replacing this later ;) I also get a Bite attack of 1d6 + Strength and can gain an amount of temporary HP equal to Con Mod. Using Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 08) this gives me 15 Con + 2 Racial for 17 Con or +3 mod. That's +3 temporary HP. Not the best, but at starting levels it's helpful.
We begin as a Barbarian and continue down this class until 7th level. While here, we take the Totem Warrior Path and select Elk. While Elk may be considered one of the weakest, we want it to increase our walking speed up by +15'.
Bare in mind the Lizardfolk, like many races, has a base speed of 30'. Now it's 45'. And with the Barbarian's Fast Movement, it's 55' and we still have our Swim speed of 30'.
At 6th level, we take Wolf. We want Wolf because we want to be able to travel stealthily while at our normal speed, which is now 55' walk and 30' swim.
We take 7th Level Barbarian because we get the additional d12 HD and Feral Instincts for Advantage on Initiative as well as being able to act during Surprise Rounds if we enter Rage first. Those are important for the next part.
Between 7th and 8th level we would work with the DM to become a Dhampir, possibly by fighting Vampires or eating the flesh of someone who is infected.
Here, we take the Lineage feature rather than the Racial one. We now get to move our ability modifiers around. We keep the +2 Constitution but we replace the +1 Wisdom with something more useful, such as +1 Strength or +1 Dexterity, depending on what feats we have been taking and what our campaign setting has looked like thus far.
As a Dhampir, our walking speed is now 35'. Recall that we still have +10' Fast Movement and +15' Elk, so we are now at an astounding 60'. We still retain the 30' swim.
ACTUALLY: According to the wording of Fast Movement,
- "Starting at 5th level, your speed increases by 10 feet while you aren't wearing heavy armor."
Because it does not specify Walking / Climb / Swim / Fly, I assume this applies to all speeds. So Swim would have been increased to 40'.
We also now get Spider Climb, EQUAL to our Walking Speed, which is 60'. So we now have:
- Walking 60'
- Swim 40'
- Climb 60'
We now don't need to breathe, so our ability to hold our breath for 15 minutes becomes a permanent boon, which is extremely helpful in many situations.
We get a Vampiric Bite, in addition to our Hungry Jaws. Being two differently named abilities, we can use both but we would, obviously, need to state which one we are using before the roll is made. Between Vampiric Bite (Healing) and Hungry Jaws (Temporary HP), this helps offset the downgrade from d12 HD to d8 when we become a Rogue.
As a Rogue, we get all of the usual benefits. Being in Rogue for 13 levels gives us access to 7d6 Sneak Attack on top of the 4 minutes of Rage from the Barbarian with the +2 Rage Damage bonus. We also have, when in Rage, the resistance to B/P/S damage.
As for the Roguish Archetype, we want Phantom. We are selecting Phantom for the flavor of being a relentless and vicious undead being hellbent on consuming the flesh and souls of others.
Whispers of the Dead might not be very useful, but I am sure once in a while it'll crop up somewhere.
Wails from the Grave, however, will be super useful in dishing out the pain.
Tokens of the Departed is a wonderful flavor mechanic for our build.
And finally Ghost Walk at 13th level (Character Level 20) gives us a Fly Speed of 10'. Recall that Fast Movement gives us +10', so really this is a Fly Speed of 20'. Forcing disadvantage against us for attack rolls for 10 minutes while we are under the effects of Rage so we can use Sneak Attack more is also really awesome.
This is 100% a Vorthos / Flavor build, and in no way a honed Min-Maxed build. This is designed for telling a story first and "winning" the game second.
If you enjoy flavorful lore, role playing, acting and crafting then this might be for you.
You are designed as a blood-thirsty skirmisher who lands lethal blows and eats people alive.
August 8, 2021 1:27 a.m. Edited.
Daveslab2022 says... #40
TypicalTimmy that sounds sick. A buddy of mine has been bugging me to join his DND campaign and I’ve never played. I have an idea for a character but it’s definitely not this in depth, but I’d like for it to be. Would you be willing to post on my profile or vice versa and help me out?
August 8, 2021 6:38 p.m.
TypicalTimmy - Seems like a fun build! The character I am currently working on a Damphir Path of the Beast Barbarian--the "rage" is going to be entering a vampiric state of bloodlust, growing claws, and eviscerating folks with my bare hands. I already got the DM's permission to use natural weapons as light weapons for the point of two-weapon fighting--it is kind of dumb that path of the beast barbarian is forced to using a shield based on the official game rules, even though that does not quite work from a flavor perspective.
I will probably multiclass fighter so I can take two-weapon fighting for that extra bit of bonus damage.
It will not be the most complex character from a mechanical stance (the backstory is--I tend to write a few pages for my character's backstories), but should be fun and fit the Castlvania inspiration the DM is going for.
Daveslab2022 - I know I would be happy to help as well! I think TypicalTimmy's goal was to also include build discussions here, so I am sure he would be fine with trying to flesh out your character here.
August 8, 2021 8:38 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #43
Caerwyn, my most complex build was a female Human Paladin who was able to add her Charisma to all saving throws, attack rolls, damage rolls and AC. She would have been so powerful by 20th level that not even a Lich could harm her. All 100% SRD and took weeks of theory crafting, sourcing, lore and even using established maps to explain her origins and studies to make it all work.
Unfortunately after building, our DM bailed and I never got to play her. Probably for the best. When a character gets that specialized, all it takes is to NOT fight undead and she's basically halfway useless.
I've found that having a plan and a goal is fine and all, but nailing down every single step and reigning in the loose ends to be as tightly knit as possible is, often times, worse than going in blind and having zero direction.
Take a Bloodline Sorcerer for example. I've seen builds where you land 500+ damage per turn. That's cool. The Beholder says hi as s/he fixates on you with the 30' Antimagic Cone.
August 8, 2021 9:06 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #44
Sweet! The only idea I’ve got so far (have literally never play D&D so no idea what to do to get starter other than race and class and stuff), is a charismatic half-elf Druid who specializes in flowers, lmao
August 8, 2021 10:23 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #45
Daveslab2022, I'm not sure you can "specialize" in flowers, per se.
You can do Circle of Spores and ask your DM to rework it into deadly flowers instead of spores. I'd definitely allow it.
Playing as a Firblog may be a bit more on theme.
August 8, 2021 10:31 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #46
I don't mean to tread on your idea though. Half-Elves are nice. I was just trying to offer other suggestions :)
August 8, 2021 10:54 p.m.
Daveslab2022 - Any Dungeon Master who does not allow you to reflavor spells to fit your character's flavor is doing a bad job. Plus, you can always point out that Tasha's Cauldron of Everything specifically says that DMs should allow you to reskin abilities. As such, you can always take other spells and reskin them to have a flower theme. Most of the druid subtypes seem like they would reskin fairly easily--fortunately flowers have lots of different significances in different cultures, so they are pretty easy to adjust flavor-wise.
You probably will want to go Wood Half-Elf or High Half-Elf as your half-elf variant. Those are pretty self-explanatory as to their lineage; one is elves of the woods, the other are more your more civilized, Rivendell-style elves.
Wisdom will be your primary stat, but Charisma is always a good secondary skill to have--Cha and wisdom work well together. Wisdom gives you Insight--the skill used to read others' body language--and Cha gives you either Persuasion, Intimidate, or Deception, the three skills used to talk with others.
Massacar says... #2
I started playing in Junior High during 3.5e but I've mostly played 5e (so around 15 years now). I actually run a Dungeons and Dragons program at my work (I'm a public librarian) and am currently DM'ing 2 different campaigns.
When I actually get to play I typically play a Tiefling Warlock named Urzuul who's personal goal is to overthrow hierarchies and depose monarchies.
August 4, 2021 9:55 a.m.