Tabletop RPG Catch All

There's some truth in that. However that's no reason to keep using them. You can update the genre to keep the style you want without the baggage of the past.

My D&D Group has a discord with several channels, one of which is just a buttload of D&D memes. This was posted in it, and it's both kinda funny but also, IMO, a fab idea for keeping the story going:

IMAGE(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/685596197087740072/873017923705385020/image0.png)

That is brilliant.

Question: Does anyone have an archive of, or know of one online, of all the maps and artwork that Wizards put out for Dungeon Magazine back in the days of 4E? Back when I was playing it, I was a D&D Insider subscriber and would download them all religiously. I could have sworn I'd saved it all to an external HD or burned it to a DVD, but I've been looking for it for weeks now and I can't find anything. Nor can I find an online archive either

Here's an archive of all the Dungeon Mags.

pyxistyx wrote:

Here's an archive of all the Dungeon Mags.

Oh I've already downloaded an archive of the magazines But Wizards was great at making all the maps and art in the digital mags downloadable to DDI subscribers.

On the pass/fail subject, I'd say a nice outlier is the Genesys narrative dice system. Last weekend my group had the perfect roll to show it off. On an attack, the attack failed (no successes, so no damage), left the target extremely vulnerable (lots of advantages), gave the whole group an incredibly important insight to the situation (a triumph) and introduced a significant new danger to the combat (a despair).
We ended up with a great narrative of a fight where everyone participated (even the completely incompetent fighters).

Trachalio wrote:

Question: Does anyone have an archive of, or know of one online, of all the maps and artwork that Wizards put out for Dungeon Magazine back in the days of 4E? Back when I was playing it, I was a D&D Insider subscriber and would download them all religiously. I could have sworn I'd saved it all to an external HD or burned it to a DVD, but I've been looking for it for weeks now and I can't find anything. Nor can I find an online archive either :(

This probably isn't what you're looking for, but here is an archive of WOTC's Map a Week series of maps. There is some good stuff in here.

EriktheRed wrote:
Trachalio wrote:

Question: Does anyone have an archive of, or know of one online, of all the maps and artwork that Wizards put out for Dungeon Magazine back in the days of 4E? Back when I was playing it, I was a D&D Insider subscriber and would download them all religiously. I could have sworn I'd saved it all to an external HD or burned it to a DVD, but I've been looking for it for weeks now and I can't find anything. Nor can I find an online archive either :(

This probably isn't what you're looking for, but here is an archive of WOTC's Map a Week series of maps. There is some good stuff in here.

Not quite, but this is great too! I love that their 3.5 archive still exists. Too bad they didn't make one for their 4E content

But maybe there's one in the works? I mean, they regularly mine old D&D content and releases for articles in Dragon+, so they've obviously still got everything saved somewhere!

The lance rules for 5e are so anemic that it really makes me want to modify them. Currently all it does is 1d12 and ha s reach. It also has disadvantage up close which I get., but it doesn’t at all consider why it was such a dominant weapon in the age of mounted combat.

I propose that if you use at least 20 ft of movement in a straight line toward your target and score a hit, you should be able to add your mount’s strength modifier to your own to damage and a subsequent strength contest to determine if the creature hit is knocked back and prone.

Paleocon wrote:

The lance rules for 5e are so anemic that it really makes me want to modify them. Currently all it does is 1d12 and ha s reach. It also has disadvantage up close which I get., but it doesn’t at all consider why it was such a dominant weapon in the age of mounted combat.

I propose that if you use at least 20 ft of movement in a straight line toward your target and score a hit, you should be able to add your mount’s strength modifier to your own to damage and a subsequent strength contest to determine if the creature hit is knocked back and prone.

Makes sense, but something like mounted combat proficiency is needed in the attack roll or attack at disadvantage. Horseback vs on foot is very different in battle and the lance is one of the things that would have the most difference in use between the 2.

Paleocon wrote:

The lance rules for 5e are so anemic that it really makes me want to modify them. Currently all it does is 1d12 and ha s reach. It also has disadvantage up close which I get., but it doesn’t at all consider why it was such a dominant weapon in the age of mounted combat.

I propose that if you use at least 20 ft of movement in a straight line toward your target and score a hit, you should be able to add your mount’s strength modifier to your own to damage and a subsequent strength contest to determine if the creature hit is knocked back and prone.

Don't forget rules for setting spears & pikes to counter the charge. Although in 5E they made spears really short (lighter than a quarterstaff) so maybe just pikes.

Yesterday was our second session of Worlds Without Number. Like our first one, it went long. We’d only had a couple of combats, but thy have been short (because WWN is an OSR-adjacent system). It’s been a while since time just disappeared like that, so I’m very happy with how things are going.

Edit: typo

MANWUT? I only just learned that D&D 5E caps all magic items at +3. No more +5 Holy Avenger!

And only 3 attuned items (which is most magic items) at a time!

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? Did they think characters depended too much on magic items??

Quintin_Stone wrote:

MANWUT? I only just learned that D&D 5E caps all magic items at +3. No more +5 Holy Avenger!

And only 3 attuned items (which is most magic items) at a time!

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? Did they think characters depended too much on magic items??

One of the core principles of 5e is "Bounded Accuracy"; basically, it means keeping AC comparably much lower, and essentially means you can no longer build the ridiculous, unhittable tanks of earlier editions. Likewise, all your bonuses tend to be lower; I've got a level 17 Monk with a +2 staff, and that gives him a +13 hit, which is a lot lower than you had in the numeric insanity that 3.5 became. Most ACs for martials cap out in the low-mid 20s, so it means ye ole Monk can still regularly hit, and be hit. It makes combat far more interesting because there's always elements of both success and risk for characters, because (A) you're probably hitting them and (B) they're probably hitting you.

A big part of 5e's philosophy was ramping back the general power level, and, importantly, cutting heavily back on the kinds of insane hyper-optimization that really plagued 3.5, and limiting magic items is definitely part of that. You can't stack bonus on top of bonus and have a series of magic sticks to fix all your problems; what you do is really coming out of your class/subclass kit, and magic's just an add-on to that. I typically don't even give out magic items until level 4-5, because you don't need them anymore to overcome the monster's AC of 45.

Really think it's a combo of the desire to move to a more streamlined game where there's a lot less math; having huge pluses or loads of magic items kind of runs counter to that, so they just limited them heavily. Have played a lot of 5e, and it works really well within the bounds of that system. You absolutely needed X number of magic items to stay viable in 3.5; you don't in 5e.

Due to a new outbreak here, we're back playing online for the time being. As our The One Ring game is a bit heavy for conversion to roll20 the group decided to do something different.

The first thing was playtesting some new material I've been writing. It went well, which for playtests mainly means "I have a lot of revisions to make after each session." But also people seemed to enjoy it, so yay.

Next week we possibly continue that or try out another new thing.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

MANWUT? I only just learned that D&D 5E caps all magic items at +3. No more +5 Holy Avenger!

And only 3 attuned items (which is most magic items) at a time!

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? Did they think characters depended too much on magic items??

The Christmas tree effect was considered a problem in 3e. Also note that there is no (by default) way to purchase or make magic items. They’re meant to be rare and special (i.e., found by adventuring). WotC wants characters to have a different relationship with magic items than they did in 3e and 4e.

I'm trying to adjust.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/yrjEZoA.jpg)

I did try 5th edition with a group of friends a while back and the whole "only 3 attuned items", while it stops the game turning Monty Haul, really curbs a lot of the fun. The thing is, the DM doesn't HAVE to give out magic items like sweets at Halloween.

Actually, as a whole I was very underwhelmed by 5th edition. I have around 35 ish 3.5edition books and have also played Dungeons and Dragons Online (which is based very loosely around 3.5, but with about a billion different mechanisms and crafting systems attached. You have less than 2k HP at endgame? Going to make raiding much tougher... and that includes casters!) and so I may just be too attached to this version now.

that said, I made the transition from 2nd edition to 3.5 with no issues and had a somewhat decent collection then (around 15ish books).

I guess I just like the excess of rules, the insane number of options out there. You just need a DM with their head screwed on straight who has the intention of running a balanced game.

Or not if that's not how you want to play!

I was a little surprised they tossed Feats almost completely (relegating it to a distasteful variant rule). But the feats in 3.0/3.5 were wildly out of control.

I don't like the way 5e makes you choose between the flavorful-and-fun feats and the boring but nearly always objectively more powerful stat increases. That's the sort of thing that can be fixed with houserules, though, and I like that the fact that feats are so few and far between means that every one you choose feels impactful.

I played a Pathfinder campaign right before 5e came out, and man, I really disliked its elaborate feat trees where every feat worth getting had three levels of prerequisites that just gave you the same circumstantial bonuses to die rolls in progressively higher implements. It made character creation convoluted and contributed to making combat into third-grade arithmetic homework.

From what I've seen of Pathfinder 2.0 and Starfinder, those are problems they show no interest in addressing.

Pathfinder 2e has its issues, but Paizo did address the worst aspects of feats from Pathfinder 1e. You can take pretty much whatever seems cool and not have to plan for it significantly or worry about having accidentally just picked a trap option. There seems like a ton of options, but you usually only have a couple of choices to consider at any given time.

I loathe 3.5 (and thus pathfinder) so 5e suits me just fine

Well ok loathe is probably strong. PF earns some cred for putting an openly trans woman on the cover of one of their new books. But you absolutely would not catch me playing it. The more dice to roll and the less maths involved In a game the better imo. (Which is why I love free leagues stuff!)

* * *

And it's worth noting there *are* plenty of magic items that don't require attunement. A lot of the cool RP friendly ones don't.

The absolute best magic item of all time does not require attunement in 5e.
All hail the immovable rod! portable door lock, ladder (especially in pairs), feather fall replacement, Dragon slayer and good for making sure a thing does not fall over. When combined with tape, string or glue (or especially magical fixatives) what can't it do!

My party has been getting a TON of use out of the portable hole!

also an excellent choice. bag of devouring has some great hijinks as well.

The group I am in currently like to make our own magic items for RP purposes. For instance right now I am playing a Warforged Hexblade, his whole schtick is he likes to collect souls as he wants one so he can be a real boy. One of the ways he does that is through the Shadowfell Sword that grants his powers, Thrash.

You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls

Contains 1 charge.

As a sentient weapon from the Shadowfell, Thrash will link itself to a creature it finds worthy and capable of great violence. It offers strength and power in exchange for being able to experience adventures through the memories of those it slays.

Once per long rest Thrash can take the soul of a humanoid it slays. While holding the soul Thrash torments it with its own memories twisted in such ways to drive the soul mad. The soul may be released by the attuned warlock and may be used as the soul for Accursed Specter. If Thrash does not contain a soul it will torment the wielder till it gets one. On rare occasions Thrash releases the soul it contains to sow chaos.

Proficiency with a longsword allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with it.

I took a basic +1 weapon, and added some flare to it. GM approves and we move on. If it turns out to be OP just adjust as needed.

I love making fun magic items that are really just generic magic items with a bit of flavor tossed in. Going to give this to an angry Barbarian, because I think it's funny:

Axe of Sunshine

You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.

Additionally, when the weapon is swung in combat, brightly-colored rainbows trail behind it. On a hit, a small puff of magical, rainbow-colored glitter is summoned, and the faint sound of a chorus of happy fairies yelling, "YAAAAAAAY!!!" can be heard from some far-off plane to anyone within 15 feet of the target of the attack. Obviously, players should be encouraged to do this with every attack.

The glitter is not of a sufficient quantity to cover an area or highlight the presence of an invisible or otherwise concealed enemy.

Proficiency with a greataxe allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with it.

Anyone in the SF Bay Area that has a group that needs another for 5e DnD?
I have been itching to try out a new character I was inspired to create watching Will Wheaton's Titan's Grave.

I mulled over what the base class was for months and this morning I found the Artificer with the Armorer sub class. Aside from the fact that I want it to be lich/necromancer based, that sub class fits the bill closely.

So I'd love to find some like minded RPG nuts!