The General D&D thread

Wait, you're planning a blind draw for the templates? That's more of a problem, then, because there are some combination that would suck. Like the Ghost and anything that's not Dex focused.

The plan is to do a shorter adventure based on the first game (so my players are familiar with stuff like Tristram, Cain, or Blood Raven) then a full campaign based on D2. May or may not do D3 depending on if we get that far. If the restrictive nature of D1's taking place entirely in one dungeon gets too tedious I may need to speed it up a little.

I'm planning a few one-off encounters for variety; the Butcher, the Skeleton King, Lazarus, and possibly Lachdanan's quest and the anvil quest as well. Also, if I can wrangle it, an encounter with one of the Hidden which is permanently invisible except when it attacks, and at the start Aidan (the warrior) is going to be attacked by a quill rat hidden in a bush, to encourage him to visit Pepin (assuming he takes damage). The plan is for Moreina and Jazreth (rogue and sorceror) to first meet Aidan when he's fighting the rat, and hopefully assist him, players willing.

I'm probably going to allow them to trade with each other when they draw them, so it won't be quite as punishing, but still won't be a matter of designing their characters from the start to exploit the racial traits.

Good point about the druid forms. Maybe I'll change it to immunity to involuntary shapechanging.

If they can trade, they can still plan ahead. Unless you got way more races than players, or fill the hat with copies of each templates and are willing to end with a party of identical monsters. I mean, first thing I'd do is build a ghost PC and then trade everyone for the ghost.

Also if you're making a random draw, make them more interesting then? Coz the vampire, mummy and golem are REALLY underwhelming (The former, by your own admission, is based on weaknesses that will never see play, so he's essentially just getting a fancy healing attack he can use between resting, the mummy is just bunch of stat resistances and saves without much in term of unique abilities, the golem basically the same only his abilities are even less useful). Compare to the other two who open entirely new avenues (Changing form, dungeon bypass and trap and terrain immunity).

Also. besides the "Can werewolves talk", can a Vampire blood drain things without blood? Also, how does ghost AC act with monk AC? 10 + dex + wis? 13 + dex? 13 + dex + wis? What happens to a werewolf's gear when he changes form? Is the gear absorbed? Destroyed? Can a Werewolf in full plate change form?

Forcing Ghost to not wear armor seems admittedly odd when there's no other limitation on worn equipment (rings, amulets, weapons, clothing etc...)

edited 5th Sep '17 7:35:40 AM by Ghilz

That's a good point about ghosts not having other equipment limitations. I mean, practically it is the same deal that some classes like Wizards get with proficiencies, but there's an intradiegetic reason to the lack of armour proficiency. The ghost in its current form lacks that reasoning.

Again, they are not going to know about this until after they create their characters. They can trade each other for a more preferable template, but they don't get to create their character with knowledge of it.

That's exactly why I was asking for feedback on them from you guys, explicitly with attention to their relative power levels to one another.

FWIW my party's golem is just a reskinned Dragonborn with the breath weapon replaced with a ground pound.

It's not so much power level as it is, for lack of a better word, flavor, I guess?

Like, even though the wolf form is statistically awful, it's got flavor. (Can a werewolf in wolf form speak to other wolves?) It's a limited version of wild shape. Turning into a wolfman is also something that's cool. flavorful, and interesting (And the fact it makes any monster's natural attack a joke is a nice bonus too).

Ghosts basically change the entire paradigm. They can fly. They can go through walls to open doors for the party. It's a cool unique ability. You feel like a ghost and you do ghost things.

The mummy is just a pile of stats. It doesn't get cool or unique powers. There's nothing about it that makes the player really go "I feel like I am playing a mummy and using my intrinsic mummy powers". It's a pile of numbers labelled "Mummy". You could take the same set of stats, rename it to any other thing, and it'd equally apply. Call the White Walker, give em the exact same state block. Bam. Flesh Golems are similar. Vampires are marginally better, but by making the vampire weaknesses a non-issue, you weaken the concept. "I have all these things that make me a vampire, but they never come up." they get the healing attack which is certainly nice, but lacking in flavor (And potentially useless depending on one's class).

For the vampire, I'd make use the weaknesses are relevant, add radiant vulnerability (And update the running water one to cannot willingly cross it - including flying over - the acid damage is if he's forcefully moved into). Add a bat form (Can't talk, equipment absorbed when transformed). Maybe auto-stabilize at 0 hitpoint, but dies if coup-de-grace'd / staked while helpless? Maybe give em a single use of charm person?

For the mummy, something sand based? The ability to inflict Mummy rot? A fear effect?

edited 5th Sep '17 7:58:20 AM by Ghilz

Sorry to bring up a topic that was discussed a few pages ago, but I went on vacation and didn't follow-up.

Would good-aligned deities support hereditary rule, in a traditional monarchy sort of way?

An argument against was "Being just (and capable) isn't hereditary. This means the gods would pick people on their merit."

This is a real-world observation. In a D&D world with obviously active deities, what is and isn't hereditary may be very different. And deities may have control over not only what traits are hereditary, but which specific traits are inherited by any specific individual. Even if they don't have absolute control over heredity and the free choice of individuals often throws a wrench in their plans, being able to support a royal house that carries traits that forward agenda more often than not could very well be more attractive to a deity than a republican or other form of government. Monarchs have enormous power to forward an agenda they favor.

Being just is a genetic trait now?

If the gods make it a genetic trait then it is.

Changing what is hereditary is a completely different thing and has nothing to do with gods. If you have to change biological functions to justify monarchy supported by deities, your argument is pretty weak.

You could "defend" anything by changing how biology works. And has nothing to do with deities.

• "See, aristocracy is totes legit in my world because they're actually superhumans."
• "See, racism is completely legit, because whites are actually a superior breed in my world."
• "See, women being subordinate is totally legit because in my world their biologically inferior."
• "See, rape isn't bad because everyone loves it in my world."

I'm not saying you support these statements, of course. But the logic is the same. And kinda raises the question, why someone wants to have those elements in their world to work that way.

Then why don't the gods make everyone genetically good rather than one family line? Make goodness a dominant gene.

I'm gonna go with . That's a really weak argument.

Personally I'd just go with "D&D gods are not omniscient so they just don't know any better system of government. Or alternatively don't care to impose one. They just back whichever one mortals chose for themselves."

Of course, I tend to hate settings where the gods are just that involved and present in people's life. Like superheroes instead of gods.

#EberronIsStillBestSetting

edited 5th Sep '17 8:31:29 AM by Ghilz

It's because Medieval Stasis requires medieval forms of government, which is what players of a fantasy RPG tend to expect. D&D was modeled after LotR, after all.

Why, we change what is hereditary so that good-aligned deities will support a traditional monarchy with hereditary kings, of course. If you want a game world with hereditary monarchies supported by good-aligned deities but don't want to change what is and isn't hereditary you'll have to use some other work-around. It's "here's the game world I want, how do I plausibly get there?" If you have a world with active gods ostensibly designed by the gods in the first place then this is one plausible way.

It's already a world where lots and lots of races are almost all "born evil", so giving certain family lines of player races essentially the trait "born good" doesn't seem much of a stretch to me.

edited 5th Sep '17 8:35:56 AM by Bense

I really don't see what you're getting at, Bense. There's nothing about hereditary monarchies that is inherently "good" or "evil", besides what their rulers and people make of them, and as far as I know, no canonical D&D god has endorsed specific forms of government. They don't seem to involve themselves directly in such things, being more concerned with counting their worshipers and granting power to their clerics.

How you structure the politics of your campaign setting is entirely up to you, but there's no rule saying it has anything to do with the setting's cosmology.

edited 5th Sep '17 8:39:02 AM by Fighteer

Wouldn't the evil gods then also undo the king's family's genetic goodness, making the entire point moot (Good gods can't guarantee the king stays good, so why do they back him?)

Of course, sort of misses the point of LOTR where despite the book's romanticism towards monarchy A) the kings are not backed by god. Eru doesn't care who is king of what. And B) Plenty of kings are giant fuck ups.

Really, if you just want a reason for a good god to back a monarchy, there's plenty without getting into the free will issue

A) God doesn't know better than monarchies. Depending on Pantheon, gods are themselves in a monarchy under a King of Gods or Overgod. There's never been a republic or democracy for them to compare with. D&D gods aren't Omniscient. Or even omnibeneficient).

B) That royal family has a history of worshipping/serving the god's interest.

C) The god don't back entire regime but individual rulers. good one get their favors, bad ones don't. God doesn't care how mortal decide who is in charge. That's a mortal thing.

edited 5th Sep '17 9:00:29 AM by Ghilz

Yep, plenty of kings in LOTR were fuckups. There's a reason Gondor didn't have a king for a long time until a good man returned to reclaim it.

The idea is that each of the gods have influence over areas of the world by mutual agreement - presumably the areas where they have the most worshipers. So the evil gods can't undo all of the good gods' influence on particular families and areas over time.

God in LotR is much more "hands-off" and subtle than the deities in most D&D settings. LotR is also clearly not polytheistic. Eru Iluvatar can't really be challenged by Morgoth, Sauron, or any of the Valar.

When the designers of the D&D worlds made their worlds polytheistic and their deities more active they raised these kinds of questions about the limits of their power and influence. If your world has more "hands-off" deities, like Eberron, then you don't have these issues.

edited 5th Sep '17 8:58:33 AM by Bense

The argument that good gods would never tolerate hereditary monarchy seems odd to me. Pretty much any major religion in real life at least tolerates the concept, at least to my knowledge.

I wouldn't justify it with 'genetic morality', though I can see how to justify that if they're the descendants of a god or something (and therefore, Made of Good). I'd go with that a lack of the printing press and easy travel for most of the population makes democracy not particularly workable. Also, even if genetics don't effect morality much, upbringing might.

The idea is that each of the gods have influence over areas of the world by mutual agreement - presumably the areas where they have the most worshipers. So the evil gods can't undo all of the good gods' influence on particular families and areas over time.

Except that flies in the face of most settings (And by your own words, you're talking of generic most D&D settings) where evil gods DON'T have gentlemen's agreements with the good gods on who's influence is where. Influence is hard won and fought over and everyone's trying to get one up on everyone else. There's no reason an evil god wouldn't undo a "genetic goodness" trait when you got settings like FR where gods were willing to fuck with the Overgod for grabs at power. Never minds that with royalty being prone to having affairs and bastards, having a genetic "Goodness" gene is a losing proposition to any evil god coz that gene will spread like wildfire.

Note that, like LotR, the Forgotten Realms isn't really polytheistic either - Ao the Overgod is the one really running the show.