Idea for mercenary NPC's that can either be hired or fought against that I find hilarious.

The name of their merry little band is Grower and Shower. A band of two opposites

Show is a very large and battle scared Oath of Vengeance Goliath Paladin in rough armor. Show is the face of the group and even though he is terrifying looking. Is the one most people are gonna notice first hence the name

Grow is Runic Knight Duegar. Small and quiet but quick to get angry especially about height. Show is always trying to stop him from making a scene. The gimmick for him is that he doubles up the Enlarge spell that the Duegar gives him and the Giant's might ability to become HUGE before every fight.

Strat would be Grow gets big and grapples and then Show nukes with smite. Gimmick of the group works as long as level 3

The name came to me for a group I had to create something around it lol

Selfish but willing to go the extra mile to save face, ok with saving people but for personal gain, willing to appear "good" as it is less hassle than appearing "evil" and carries greater value in the eyes of the PC, ready to break the law to gain something but only if it doesn't break the PC's facade, ready to enforce the law if it is somehow advantageous, prefer order as it is easier to exploit but in chaos the PC manages to be more easily their true self.

I have a disagreement with a friend of mine. I'd say lawful evil with emphasis on lawful, he says chaotic neutral leaning on evil. What do you think it is?

Hey everyone! Me and like 5 friends wants to try a campaign, for the first time without an experienced player. I volunteered as DM, but I have no idea what campaign to play. Never been a DM before, so all help would be greatly appreciated, not only how to structure sessions, but also what campaign and everything else. Thanks🫶🏼

So the new Monster Manual is out and about, and one of the big talking points is how orcs have been removed from it completely. I'm in two minds on the whole thing.

First and foremost, its a good thing that orcs are being treated less like brutal savages that are just predisposed to evil and more like a culture with its own practices, social norms, and economic factors. People much smarter than me have done extensive writing on the biological essentialism that underpinned a lot of DND's early monster design, so I won't poorly rehash all that, but what's important here is that now, a DM (and WOTC's adventure writers) have to think a little bit more when they drop a green skin brigade into their hex crawl. You can't handwave an orc raid on a mining camp by going "They're evil, its what they do." You gotta think a little more, think about motivations, social pressures, ECONOMICS! Horrific, I know. It will be more challenging for newer DM's, but it will make them better in the process.

With that in mind, I am still negative on the deletion as a whole because I am usually against the removal of rules to solve a problem when the addition of rules would have solved it just as much, if not more. The problem is that the removal of orcs solves none of the problems it set out to do, reinforces the bad stereotypes it sought to combat, and along the way, limits new DMs on the types of monsters they can throw out. If orcs are being removed because they aren't monsters anymore, then why are goblins, githyanki, all these creatures who are clearly just as sapient as orcs, still considered monsters and are seen as acceptable fodder for a party of adventurers? I understand that Orcs have achieved full PC ancestry status, but in the fiction of the game, that doesn't really exist.

Now, imagine this alternative; a new monster manual that has stat blocks for orcs, yes, but also stat blocks for fighting humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, etc. If its a player race, there are stats for fighting them. Not only does this combat the idea that orcs and goblins are monsters that are okay to kill, but it also gives the DM more tools to use, not less.

Now, I'm not (horribly) stupid, I understand these books have a limited page count and WOTC doesn't have infinite money to expend on creature design. They gotta save some funds for designing their AI Dungeon Masters. So, here's an idea straight from one of my favorite games, Lancer. Instead of dedicating multiple pages to every single sapient race, you have NPC monsters (bandits, druids, archmages, etc.) that you then modify with ancestry templates. Want to run a group of goblin bandits. They all can disengage as a bonus action. Want to take those same low level bandits but use them in a campaign set on the astral sea? They're now all Gith and they have limited Psionics. Want to then start a campaign where the main enemy is a group of wood-elf eco-terrorists? Same bandits, but with limited druidic spellcasting and some magical resistances. I can't think of a way this system wouldn't solve anyone's problems.

And to get ahead of people saying, "If you like orcs, just use the old books," WOTC has already shown a willingness to gate off old material, especially in their new digitally focused landscape. They've already removed material from DND Beyond, and there is no indication they will stop this behavior. It is okay to complain about the things you like, especially when the company that makes the stuff keeps making dumb decisions.

Hey so disappointed by this imagining of the Purple Dragon Knight subclass for a few reasons. I did fill in the survey but it was limited in what feedback I could give so just wanted a place to put my thoughts. Also just want to express that there should be no hate on devs for making changes. They aren't bad guys they're just trying to innovate. I have my issues with that innovation and just wanted a place to express them.

I am disappointed by the fact it didn't follow through with the concept presented by the SCAG Purple Dragon Knight. I was looking for a player fantasy of a tactician, commander or leader that could enable or support other players. I understand that the Purple Dragon Knight was underpowered but they enjoyed the concept behind it. When I heard it was back I was really excited but then found out it deviated drastically from the previous versions. I would rather have the dragon riding elements set aside for another subclass and have the Purple Dragon Knight be a updated and buffed version of the SCAG one.

Looking at the new UA Purple Dragon Knight mechanically I think it is alright but I think it fails still for player. I don't think they should do away with the subclass but rather change it. my main gripe would be the fact it is tied to only amethyst dragons. One common themes found in dragon player options is types of the dragons, often represented by resistances and damage types. I think giving players choices on what type of dragon they ride should be important for a dragon rider subclass. It lets players play into any themes they have in their character and lets characters have more choice on there background or backstory. There is a greater range of stories to be told by decupling the dragon Riders concept from the Purple Dragon Knight. Did you like Baldur's Gate 3 and want to play a githyanki on top a red dragon chasing Ghaiks' Nautiloid? Well this subclass doesn't work for you. Do you want to be new generation of Evermeet dragon riders riding noble metallic dragons into battle? Well this subclass doesn't work for you. Heck this subclass doesn't even work for the setting with the most dragon riding, Dragonlance. Gem dragons aren't in there until Wotc makes the changes, the main dragons rode are silver and blue dragons (as far as I understand). The point is it is better to have a variety for players expression and pinning the dragon riding concept down to one dragon type is a bad idea.

Now coming to the lore of the Purple Dragon Knight. What makes good or bad lore is a bit subjective, everyone is going to have their own view on it. What I am giving here is my opinion and even then it is subject to change (since we barely have anything to go off on atm). I don't think changes to lore, whether that retcon, new lore or reimaging old lore are bad. For me the three things I think would make changes to lore that I good are;

• The changes complement or improve what people appreciate about the existing themes present in the lore.
• The changes can fit in the logic of the world.
• The changes make something cools or interesting.

so how does the new Purple Dragon Knight do in this regard?

I don't think that the new Amethyst Dragon pet complement or improves the Purple Dragon Knight theme. For me themes in Amethyst Dragon are psionics, the far realm, and cosmic balance, while Purple Dragon Knights relate to Cormyr's themes Arthurian legends, having valorous knights, and back-stabbing nobles. these are things that are large different and unrelated. While I think the combination of the two themes could be cool, I also want people to love Cormyr for preexisting themes.

Does this fit into the logic of the world, well no. the Purple Dragon Knights are part of the army of Cormyr. There's Hundreds of Purple Dragon Knights and gem dragons are rare creatures, you probably won't be able to get 25 let alone 100. if you wanted to have dragon riders in Cormyr am not opposed to having "dragon riders" in Cormyr but I would rather they gave them special purple Wyvern, Dragonnels or new dragon-like mount that help support the themes of Cormyr.

I find knights that ride dragon is cool, personally just made uncool for me because it is only amethyst dragons. Gem dragons just don't peak my interest.

Ultimately I would prefer at making a new Purple Dragon Knight based on the original concept, Disconnecting the a dragon riding subclass to reuse elsewhere. I think they should stop using "Purple Dragon Knight" as a name if it cause player expectation issues and pursue a generic name with a bit in the description saying "Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr are often this subclass".

The party share a Luck Die. They start every day with none, as they reset at Long/Full Rest. The GM may give the party a Luck Die upon finishing a Full Rest. The GM may also give the party a Luck Die in place of Inspiration.

NONE < d4 < d6 < d8 < d10 < d12

Whenever a player rolls a Nat 20 on a d20, the Luck Die upgrades.

Rolling Luck Die

Luck Die are used on "Flashbacks". A flashback is something a player wishes they had done earlier.

Examples:

• set a trap ahead of time
• asked someone for some vital information
• bought an item from a shop

When a player decides to have a Flashback, they describe it to the GM. The GM decides whether the Flashback is plausible and acceptable to the fiction of the game. The player rolls the Luck Die to determine if the Flashback happens.

The DC is 4, regardless of the size of Luck Die.

Critical Success: Upgrades the Luck Die.

Critical Failure: Downgrades the Luck Die.

If the roll is successful, the Flashback happens. The GM may ask for any further rolls they would usually ask for, if appropriate.

Examples:

• how hidden is the trap?
• how much information do they gain?
• did they barter with the shopkeeper?

Remember that on a Critical Success of the Luck Die, it upgrades!

And on a Critical Failure it downgrades...

Also, Flashbacks won't change what just happened. If the enemy has already killed someone, you CAN NOT say the enemy stepped into a trap before they got to them, but you CAN say there is a trap they haven't stepped into yet.

My birthday is coming up and I convinced my group of friends to play a one-shot with me. Some of them had sillier character concepts that they allowed me to create for them, and others went with more standard characters (like a elf Druid and tiefling rogue). One of these sillier characters is a human who only makes decisions by flipping a coin. I made them into a Trickery Cleric who's patron is Tymora. Easy. Another PC, however, wanted to play as a wizard... a wizard who is a horse.

I don't run a lot of homebrew in my games, so I started thinking about ways to go about this. Start the party at level 3 and give him 2 levels in Druid for wildshape? Early game polymorph item?

I eventually settled on making him a centaur using the Legacy/Expanded Rules race. His backstory is that both of his parents were centaurs, and he got the horse half of both. I thought this was a good way to make this character, but for those who are more educated than I am: Is there anything in the centaur stat block that may not fit a horse character?

I'm creating a homebrew rule for my campaign, the idea is to make it cinematic in the sense of being able to use Heroic Reanimation at a critical moment in combat. What do you think?

"When a player is at 0 hit points, they can decide to use the Heroic Reanimation action, which consists of returning to 1 hit point. However, taking this action will give them a constant failed death save (even when stabilized/conscious) for 1 hour. And they will receive a permanent serious wound related to their wounds.

This action can only be performed on their turn unless they have some external stimulus that prompts them to use Heroic Reanimation, in which case they can use this action at any time. These stimuli can be: Hearing their allies or NPCs being defeated or asking for help, enemies mocking, some event that can be related to the character's motives and objectives, or any other reason that the player can interpret and discuss with their DM.

|| || |Wound|Effect|Disadvantage| |Stomach|Constant discomfort|-1 to all rolls they make| |Lung|Pain when breathing and coughing sudden|Disadvantage on all Constitution checks for spell concentration| |Arms|Immobilization or amputation|Disadvantage on Strength checks and associated skills. Avoid using two-handed weapons| |Legs|Immobilization or amputation|Disadvantage on Dexterity checks and associated skills. Movement reduced to 10ft.|

These wounds can be healed using Greater Restoration or prosthetics."

It is to my understanding that it is possible to enchant items such as a bone sword, or a leather whip, both of which are made of genetic material/tissue. In your opinion, with the enchantment be limited to dead tissue used to craft those weapons/tools or would you be able to enchant still living tissue? I like this idea because I think I want to make a character that has enchanted their own body with enchantments to make them more durable, magical, or even give them special abilities. What do you think?

Ok, so maybe should is the wrong verb here, but it would have been interesting.

The point of warlocks (or so it seems to me) was to have a magic user that can also use weapons. That was a good idea, but then they made their magic scale with charisma, which means you have to choose between having it be good at magic but bad with weapons or the opposite. Which means you will be mostly using them as a magic user or as a weapon user.

Of course you can wait until lv 3, get Pact of the Blade and use CHA for your weapon, but if you're going to make a magic/martial class, why do you make players wait until lv 3 to be effective at both? And why add two other options (Tome and Chain) that do not contribute to the magicmartial character idea? Then they made Hexblade to fix these problems, but that seems just like a hacky way to fix a bad design.

I think it would have been easier and more interesting if warlocks used their DEX or STR to power their magic. If you need an in-world explanation say the pact takes a toll on the body, and the more you train it the more magic you can allow to flow through you. Then you could focus on one stat to make a magic user that's also good at melee/ranged weapons. If it's too powerful to have a character than can do both you nerf it by reducing their spell list or their weapons/armor proficiency (as it already is).

Don't get me wrong: I LIKE warlocks. I've played them and I have enjoyed them. But it's always been as a more durable magic user. And if I wanted them to go martial I would make a Hexblade, no problem. My point is that Hexblades are what warlocks should have been from the beginning, and that a more interesting way to fix it would have been to make it scale with STR or DEX, since we already had a CHA spellcaster class.

Thoughts?

I’m about it to summarize the madness which was yesterday’s session 2 in a campaign I GM for.

So, the party left off at this random old man’s house on a small farm in Scotland. What the party decided to do for HALF of the session was bully this old man!! They beat him to 7/11 hp while two players were down to 4/9 and the other player was at 10/14. They broke the old guys arm and dropped him on the ground, on his broken arm.

The party then just ransacked this old dudes house, saw that the old guys(a halfling) and his wife (a Dragonborn) slept in completely different beds, found some like little sketch artist, pictures of the two of them being cute and stuff. They ate the Potatoe stew he was making before they showed up to his house and when looking for some treasure, they found a dark jade green ring.

One of the players said “OH! HES UNFAITHFUL! THATS HIS WEDDING RING!” And when I said “No! It’s just a family heirloom” that player then went on to go check the old guys hand and the player rolled Investigation (idk) a nat 20 while I rolled a 4. It was in fact the old guy’s wedding ring, he hid it under his bed. The party were going insane because now they had a reason to justify them beating up the old man.

They then FINALLY, left the old guys house and walked about 15 miles when they reached a lake, they had the option of like going around it or going through it. They wanted to try going through it but they all couldn’t swim and they couldn’t figure out how to build a raft or boat, when the Elf player tried to build a shitty raft, they got on it and sunk, they began to drown and the half-orc threw a rock beside the player while the Dragonborn grabbed a massive like branch and helped the Elf out of the lake. They saved the Elf and then decided to just go around the lake.

Now, while they were walking around the lake and stuff, I decided to roll a random encounters table and I’ve created something horrible. The roll was “a bunch of rangers show up to warn the party of a strong beast that’s nearby” or something like that. I saw the word rangers and immediately thought of the Merry Men in Robin Hood! So I created a bunch of Tabaxi Merry Men who then called themselves “Mewry Men” and They were all in a weird like kind of in a relationship but it was like a “it’s not gay to kiss the homies good night” type of deal here. Anyways, the Leader, Maine Coon Hood! Told them that they had a nearby camp and they’d be welcomed to invite the players to their Mewry Men crew. The party then just followed the Cat Boys to their camp because they had food, shelter and there camp was near where they needed to be.

The session ended there. This all was in the span of 2 hours and I’m honestly amazed by this, I genuinely thought we would’ve made actual progress to the story but I’m kinda glad we didn’t just because I didn’t plan that far ahead so this was fine! Also, the Half-Ofc character was a new player that joined that exact same day while one of the other players wasn’t here cause she was sick!

What’s a fair level for a character to have a whole armor set on? I wanna know because armor is cool but I don’t want a character of mine to be too good too early

Or at least it is for me, on the US east coast.

I used to DM 4th ed about 11 years ago so I have the gist of dming but this time Im doing it for my family. I have 2 kiddos and 2 step kiddos and my wife is joining. Age ranges are 8-16. I am the only one that has played any version of dnd before. If everyone loves it, we will upgrade to the phb, dm guide, monster manual, and go all in with some additional adventures. (pre made because im not creative enough)

Any advice on running the game out of the kit?

Hello everyone! First post!

I recently thought of a cool concept for my next character for the module Curse of Strahd; a 7 ft. tall warforged glory paladin reflavoured as a former morninglord devotee brought back by an angel and posessing two family relics; a suit of legendary armor (chainmail reflavoured lol) and a saddle (just a reflavoured find steed, a saddle that conjures a mighty steed). I just wanted some thoughts and feedback (especially cool story elements to add), as well as maybe a name that would fit the character. (thought curse of strahd subreddit would be more suited for this, but apparently players shouldnt post on there?)

"Brightstones hail from a known line of blacksmiths devoted to the worship of the Morninglord. While many blow incense, sacrifice riches or liberate lands, Brightstones show their devotion through the perfection of their craft, and the glorious artifact they have chosen to devote lifetimes to. Since the days of their fathers and their forefathers before them, the Brightstones have been tasked with forging an armor for a prophesied great paladin of the morninglord, one who will undertake a great journey and perform many glorious deeds in the name of the Almighty. However, with the generations coming and going, and the paladin never appearing to take claim of the armour, it was made continuously larger and more grandiose to keep up while their ever-growing expectations of the family for paladin hero to come, growing to fit an ever-more unattainable paladin ideal. So it was until one year ago.

Ser spent his life forging just the same as his father, brothers, and all males of the family. As was expected of a Brightstone, he died an old man, his body exhausted after a lifetime of backbreaking labour. Having trained his sons in the trade, it seems that the cycle was ready to start anew, and the armour to grow ever larger.

However, fate and gods always have a way to twist expectations; at the funeral ceremony, when every body of the recently deceased Brightstone is fit inside of the armor – to both humbly show their inadequacy to wear it and the fact that this did not impede their life’s purpose, Ser was resurrected  by the angel Morningglory. After saying goodbye to his sons and paying homage to his long-deceased wife, he left their family’s humble keep among the faithful, never to return. Now possessing the armor he spent his entire life perfecting, he seeks the glory his family and fellow faithful expected of the wearer of this holy artefact. Armed with another family’s relic, a saddle prophesied only to obey the armour’s true wearer, he will not stop or rest until his quest to glory is complete, or perhaps ever – for there is always more glory to be sought out in the name of the Almighty."

Ty so much for yall's thoughts, and have a nice rest of the day : )

Hey everyone!

I’m currently working on my bachelor’s thesis, which focuses on playing TTRPGs. As part of my research, I’ve created a survey that I need filled out by TTRPG players.

If you have a moment, I would really appreciate it if you could fill it out. The data will be completely anonymous. 😊

Here’s the link to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc5i8jz7EudK5AlUub4IA6aZdOvBQvD9svap-MbyeH4svX9fw/viewform?usp=dialog

Thank you in advance for your help and time! 💪

Here's the Dice just before I gave it to him.

Made a huge D20 for my DM's Birthday, we had talked about using a huge dice for some game-deciding rolls.

I had him choose the colors too without telling him what for.

Each side of the triangle are 15cm wide, or maybe three football stadium's or something (5.9 inches).

I made a detailed post about how I made it if anyone is curious, i'll share the link here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDIY/comments/1ihirs6/huge_d20_for_my_dms_birthday/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

So, the other day at my teen DND group dm had a black leather book with a silver inlayed beholder on it. Im pretty sure you are online a lot, so if you were the DM at the teen group where you did the one shot with the 50 level 0 characters, then u know who you are lol. Ofc if u aren't on here, then could anybody helpe identify it? It was shorter in every dimension than the players handbook EXCEPT for depth. It was at least double the thickness. Oh, and I believe it was a handbook, but I'm not 100% sure.

Hi everyone Couple weeks ago i made a post about starting a new campaign as the DM.

We start the session everyone introduces theyr character and start roleplaying(the party has 6 player rogue barbarian wizard artificier clerinc and fighter)

Just for context the barbarian has made a mountain dwarf and is happy playing it but the fighter hate everything that he does calling him one dimentional and all sorts of other name. We are used to this since all of us are childhood friends and dont take anything personal.

The problem startet in combat when barbarian raged and i hit him with a poison attack from a giant scorpion so he halfed the piercing dmg and the poison since its a dwarf.

The fighter started to get frustrated why his character was doing all that how is that fun why are you allowing this.

I just told him that he was welcome to do so if he wished when you were creating the character.

After an hour or so the party is cursed by a wizard
And must find a cure. I told them they can choose a body part so they mark of the curse can appear

The barb asked to have it on is schlong and if it was okay, i said ok go for it.

This is the moment where the fighter started arguing again that this is inappropriate and i dont want to talk about dwarf dicks in fantasy.

After the argument the party was still having fun roleplaying and fighting.

They arrived in a camp which had a mage who could identify the curse.

And the barbarian jokingly while roleplaying said i hope she doesn't look at mine and we all started laughing

Shortly after we ended the session and almost all the party told that thay had fun and was looking forward for the next session.

The fighter told me how you dont know how to make the table follow the rules and why you let him play this zesty character that only thinks about being and idiot and make dick jokes.

And if he still makes jokes he would quit the campaign.

So the question is what should i do, stop the barbarian making jokes(he only made them 2 times in moments where they were not a ploblem to the story) or tell the fighter that he is wrong.

Sorry for the long post and my english

A quick edit since i have seen some comments suggesting him to run a campaign, he did and went horribly so as a group we talked things out and put me in charge of the next campaign

Sorry for any english mistakes, not my first language.

• I'm the DM for one of the groups I play with. We've been playing for over a year now, with one big session every month.

One of the players is becoming really annoying, and the only reason he's still in the group is that we're all friends at university. No one wants to deal with the awkwardness of kicking him out.

The problem is that he's the worst player I've ever seen. His first character was a druid, but he died at level 3. Back then, he was always lost and didn't know what the druid could do. I was patient at first because he had never played D&D before. Most of our group had the same issue when they started, but they adapted and learned the system.

I suggested he pick a simpler class, instead he made a bard, and things only got worse. It's been over six months, and he still doesn’t know what Bardic Inspiration is. We have two copies of the 2014 PHB, along with other books and PDFs he could read, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he relies on me to recite spell descriptions and explain what skills he has from memory.

In our last session, we had two big battles. I had to make the first one easier just so we could continue playing. In the second battle, the villain had a monologue and was meant to interact with the players, but this guy kept interrupting. He kept saying he wanted to seduce the villain or that he was singing something, preventing any tension from building and not allowing the other players to ask questions. Even another player got annoyed.

I sent him a message politely asking him to please read the books a little, but I doubt he will. As the group levels up, I don’t want to keep making fights easier or let the stakes become meaningless because of his actions.

So, I’m thinking of letting his character die if it comes to that in the next session (which might not be too hard). It might be the only way to make him realize he needs to read the material or just stop playing. I've almost lost interest in DMing this campaign, and I’m considering ending it in the next few months and starting a new one—without him.

Has anyone faced a similar problem? How did you solve it?

I WANNA MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR: I'm not saying i'm going to actively kill his character, i'm just saying he IS going to die, another character, and if he keeps it this way, it will continue to happen. I was trying to avoid it but i'm not sure i want to anymore.

I'm currently running a 60/40 homebrew game of Dragon of Icespire Peak, using the setpieces and levelling up the dungeons accordingly.

One of my players is running a Wild Magic Sorcerer, and hit the wild magic table at 4th level earlier last year. He rolled a moron, and I decided to summon a rogue quadrone to interfere in the fight.

A year later during a random encounter with a backstory character with a bone to pick, he rolls it again, as a 9th level character. I have the player roll a d12 to determine the CR of the moron they summon. 12. They end up summoning the Septon Modron.

For reference, the Septon has only 46 of its kind across the Multiverse. It is a CR 12 construct and has some innate spellcasting. But what broke my game was it's Lightning ability.

The reason? It is a DEX save to avoid being stunned, and when stunned you auto fail, meaning you continue being stunned until it ends. This one oversight meant that my boss and half my party ended up being stunned for a whole minute, from a single failed save.

Suffice to say, that particular Modron is now on the random encounter list.