The General D&D thread

Sounds like the Shannara books.

Edited by Ulysses21 on Feb 11th 2019 at 11:00:44 AM

Just watching them play and the detail Mercer puts into everything, it all seems so much better thought-out than anything I've ever done. Any single character in their game feels like it's better fleshed out and more interesting than everyone character I've made combined.

It's like my game can be subbed up with "You're in a place, there's a guy, he says 'exposition'." The end.

You don't spend decades doing something without learning to do it better. All he's got on you is experience.

Actually, I do. I don't improve at things, I get worse. And I've been playing for twenty years.

Well, first thing you have to realize about Mercer is that 1) he doesn't actually plan out everything, he improvises a shit ton. You can't really catch him on that unless you watch Q&A segments. 2) he is actor, they do improv

Also, seriously, if you continue to negatively compare yourself to other G Ms and Players on internet, I will get angry

Also also aaalso, you seriously can't assume you should run the game way other people do. Heck, Mercer has lot of people on Internet hating his style because he dares to not remember all rules on top of his head (or for describing too many things)

(like seriously, lot of people find it obnoxious that they do whole episode on shopping. I don't find it obnoxious, but I admit I would never have session that is purely roleplaying your shopping in the city)

Edited by SpookyMask on Feb 13th 2019 at 9:32:36 PM

Meanwhile, my D Ming is, I feel, most impeded by my hesitance to throw big encounters at the party. My players have liked the world I've built for them, but thus far I haven't thrown big things at them and they come out pretty much totally unscathed.

My actual weakness as GM is roleplaying normal people

Sure I can do improvisation fine enough, even whipping out improvised fast statblock(half finished sure, but hey at least the finished half is the important part! As long as attack bonus, damage, saves, iniative and HP is right, its fair for the P Cs even if I haven't filled their skills, class features or all the spells they don't ever live to use anyway) because I realized my original prepped idea sucked and I got better one in middle of game(without players really noticing the GM loading on the background), but I absolutely dislike roleplaying "normal mundane people reacting to adventuring party" Its much more easier to have quirky npcs react to quirky party than figuring out why writer of the module wrote ex adventured retired to tavern owner to be so normal as if all adventures weren't just series of wacky shenanigans

Edited by SpookyMask on Feb 13th 2019 at 9:46:56 PM

@MCE: I've played with this concept

From the surface, in my setting, you are told the humans are the result of a hybridization of all the other humanoids races. In fact, the term "human" is just an almost slur-ish shortening of humanoid given to the earliest humans, denoting them as creatures who have no heritage but that.

But there are hints that a common ancestor race to all humanoids may have resembled modern humans. This doesn't sit well with anybody, including human supremacists who have based a lot of their rhetoric on being the new and improved model of humanoid-kind and would find it would certainly muddy the water if they were just the old model making a comeback.

So soon I'm going to be in a proper D&D session again, after so long - since I think it's been, like, half a year since I last posted here? Well, anyway. As per usual, I'm having trouble settling on what kind of character to play - I had this idea for a more tanky, power-focused Monk, whose highest stats are Constitution, Strength and Wisdom, in that order. On top of this, she has a Dexterity penalty.

I'm aware that conventional Monks are heavily Dex-focused so I'm wondering if like... I already know I'm going against the grain, but will this vastly increase my chances of death even when I'm not doing something stupid? I don't especially care if I'm playing some weird build that puts me at a disadvantage compared to something that's been minmaxed out the wazoo (besides, weaknesses are good for roleplaying), but I'd be more concerned if 'this build will definitely bite you in the arse'. :V

Incidentally, I just remembered that I asked this question before, but I'm asking it again because now my priorities are a little different, so it's worded differently to reflect that. :V

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Feb 15th 2019 at 3:52:09 PM

A monk's Unarmored Defense is based on their Wisdom and Dexterity, and their unarmored strikes are based on dexterity as well. Deflect Missiles, which protects you from ranged attacks, also pings off Dex as well.

In short, Dexterity is to Monk what Int is to Wizards.

Edited by ultimatepheer on Feb 15th 2019 at 8:24:55 AM

Actually, using dex for unarmed strikes is optional. You can still use strength.

& I know both of these things, I'm just asking if this decision of mine will merely result in some minor inconvenience or if it will totally and irrevocably ruin my chances of making it past Level 1. I'm mostly in it for the roleplaying but you can hardly develop a character if they die at the first hurdle. :V

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Feb 15th 2019 at 5:30:51 PM

The thing is that you're not actually making a Tankier Monk here- dumping Dex means you'll have bad AC and can't deflect missiles, which are the two of the main tools Monks have for avoiding hits. You're turning a class that's a pretty decent tank by default into a sitting duck by doing this.

And, like, dumping your class's primary ability score is an absolutely classic way of creating a character that won't live past level 1. Honesly, I really don't see why you want to make this character a Monk- what you seem to want is a Fighter or Barbarian who happened to grow up in a monastery. With the Tavern Brawler feat, if being able to make unarmed attacks is important to your concept. Or maybe a Monk multiclass if you really want something from the Monk chassis that's not covered by what I said.

Edited by Gilphon on Feb 15th 2019 at 12:55:13 PM

Well, I wanted to make them a Monk because I like the idea of a slow Monk that hits like a pile of bricks, but they're still serene and philosophical because of their Monk skillset and upbringing, while a Barbarian or Fighter would probably be a bit rougher around the edges.

Of course, I have also considered making a Barbarian too (this would be a completely different character in roleplay terms); I generally like the idea of a character that can kick ass primarily by punching people (and kicking and strangling and so on) - it's my love of Fighting Games creeping in. :V It's just that Monks can do it well right from the start, while Barbarians have to wait until they can get that extra feat... at least I think so? It's possible I'm wrong about that.

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Feb 15th 2019 at 6:29:38 PM

The thing is that a Fighter or Barbarian doesn't have to be rough around the edges- if you're a Barbarian, maybe what the book calls a 'rage' is, for you, a serene combat trance that let you transcend pain and lets you treat injuries that would be grevious for most people as a mere inconvenience. You'd probably lose out on some skill proficiencies, but you can partially account for that by choosing a proper background, and if you're willing to play a low-Dex Monk, I'm guessing that being not able to apply your proficiency bonus to some skill checks isn't a deal breaker for you.

As for the unarmed strike: If you play a human, you can get a feat right at level one and solve that problem. If you don't want to be a human, then yeah, you'd have to wait until level 4.

Although. What you could do is start as a Monk, hope you manage to survive level 1, and then multiclass into Barbarian or Fighter at level 2 and never look back. Which is a risky plan, but if you pull it off, I think you'd end up with exactly what you're looking for.

Edited by Gilphon on Feb 15th 2019 at 1:50:58 PM

No Monk is going to hit like a pile of bricks. They just don't have that capability among martial classes, because they don't have access to weapons in the Heavy category.

If this is 5th edition, this wouldn't really work, as you can't use the Fighter's armour with martial arts and you don't gain the Barbarian's Unarmoured Defense if you already have it as a Monk. The Fighter/Barb levels would give you higher HP but your AC will still be really low.

If you start Barb, you'll get their Unarmoured Defense, but your AC will still be too low with a negative Dex mod.

If you're not picky about race, play a Tortle. They get a set 17 AC that isn't influenced by ability scores or armour, so you can dump Dex and do just fine. Their racial bonuses are in Strength and Wisdom, perfect for your monk.

If you don't like Tortle as flavour, you could ask your DM to reflavour it another race. The only ability they have that is Tortle-y is the ability to retreat into their shell, which you can just flavour as the 'duck and cover' position (which is humorously compared to turtles).

That's what I do when I want to play Strength-based "human" monks.

Depends on edition though. I've seen monks that are basically one punch man

Monkbarian does sound like a good plan... but I can't add another class at Level 2 unless I have 13 DEX. :V

On second thoughts, I'll probably just re-roll my stats so I can have 13 DEX, I only had a DEX penalty in the first place because I wanted to use an 18 I got and it saddled me with a 7 elsewhere (and I didn't want a roll that seemed too generous), but I can always just improve that with ability score improvements from leveling up anyways.

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Feb 15th 2019 at 7:32:41 PM

Not a fan of the Tortle then? That'd be your most effective option

I always like reflavoring classes to something else entirely; my personal favorite so far is a Barbarian samurai who "rages" by going into a hyperfocused zen trance that allows her to strike with terrifying precision (the extra damage from raging) while cleanly reading incoming strikes to minimize impact (the damage resistance).

I like Tortles, but I don't want to play as one this time, and also that seems to be a fairly 'standard' combo for that particular race. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't want to be too predictable.

In any event, now I'm thinking going back to my original idea of playing a Rogue, which would render the whole issue moot. :V

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Feb 16th 2019 at 8:03:46 PM

Lizardfolk+Any class has been a fun combination for almost any class both for terms of rp and game elements for me and my friends.

Lizardy peoples are always nice. Speaking of monstery races, does anyone know what kind of names Bugbears have? For some reason, they don't get any example names when most other races do. :V

I think they use the same names as goblins. The only named Bugbear I know of is Klarg, from the Lost Mines of Phandelver starter set.

That, and the other named bugbear in Lost Mine is Grol. Additionally, there's a bunch of bugbears in Dungeon of the Mad Mage, but the few ones actually named in the text are Bolgus, Bulkar and Blarg.