Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

The pants-shitter argument against all this is that an ancient dragon's fear aura has a range of 120 feet, which is within longbow range of 150 ft. Typically, the breath weapon has a range of 90 ft. Thus all the peasants will coordinate with the Ready action to ensure they all volley when the dragon gets within 120 feet to try anything. One might go with a shortbow, but it has disadvantage on attacks beyond 80 feet. With the dragon's AC of 20+, peasants need to crit to hit, giving them just a 1/400 chance of hittting.

All of these theorycraft exercises take place in infinite planes with empty skies, of course.
Since he needs to roll to confirm I would assume this is 3.x and the dragon has damage reduction and flies at a base speed of 200. So assuming one of them lands a crit with a long bow its going to do 3d8 points of damage, which might take a couple of hp off before it lands and kills all of them.
 
Since he needs to roll to confirm I would assume this is 3.x and the dragon has damage reduction and flies at a base speed of 200. So assuming one of them lands a crit with a long bow its going to do 3d8 points of damage, which might take a couple of hp off before it lands and kills all of them.
No he meant that since you'd have to crit with disadvantage you have to roll 2 20s. Also only applies to 5e 2014 version and not the 2025 MM version (which doesn't have frightful presence).

And many of the 3.5 ancients cast spells from cleric list so lots of luck with the peasant army in that case.
 
Math Kiwis, I request your help once again.

Basic situation is this. My next campaign has many players but some are going to inconsistent. I wanted a progression system so that someone who is away for a while doesn't suddenly have 4 levels and doesn't know how their character works. At the same time, I'd like a way for them to catch up so they aren't completely useless. My plan was to just use xp based on rough adventure level.

Problem. Exp in DMGs is based on monster level and requires a bunch of maths. Other xp systems don't scale and don't allow flagging players to catch up.

One possible solution is to take the xp required to reach next level, and divide it by sessions. So lets say 2 sessions a level. A level 6 adventure, that's 14000/2 (7000). That's enough to from lvl 3 to 5, but not enough to go from 6 to 7.

Not sure if I'm overthinking this. I could just use a flat xp rate and anyone under level gains a level for free. This allows catch up without skipping a bunch of levels.
 
Math Kiwis, I request your help once again.

Basic situation is this. My next campaign has many players but some are going to inconsistent. I wanted a progression system so that someone who is away for a while doesn't suddenly have 4 levels and doesn't know how their character works. At the same time, I'd like a way for them to catch up so they aren't completely useless. My plan was to just use xp based on rough adventure level.

Problem. Exp in DMGs is based on monster level and requires a bunch of maths. Other xp systems don't scale and don't allow flagging players to catch up.

One possible solution is to take the xp required to reach next level, and divide it by sessions. So lets say 2 sessions a level. A level 6 adventure, that's 14000/2 (7000). That's enough to from lvl 3 to 5, but not enough to go from 6 to 7.

Not sure if I'm overthinking this. I could just use a flat xp rate and anyone under level gains a level for free. This allows catch up without skipping a bunch of levels.
Just have them at party level, but class features lag behind so you never "gain" more that one level per session. Steve comes back, he left at lv 3, party is lv6. He comes back at level 4 features wise but he has HP/Proficiency as if he was 6. At the end of the session he catches up to level 5.
 
It was an offhand hypothetical in a blog post that the community chimped out about until they were shitting blood, not the centerpiece of design, as it was never featured in a single module.
Nope, it was not an offhand hypothetical it was by a designer who started working on 5e talking about bounded accuracy which they implemented somewhat true to what was written there. Even if the blog post did not said oh we are going to do this directly, you can see they were thinking about it for 5e. And that concept was shown in the hoard of the dragon queen module. In it the guardman manages to hurt and manage to deflect the dragon attack to the village. They do not kill it but they hurt it enough so the dragon escapes. It was utter bullshit, but they tried it.
The point of bounded accuracy though still stands. they wanted bounded accuracy this is why all fights are just hp bloats. there is a reason why 5e players claim they can fight against Tarrasques as level 1 flying race archer...
As long as there is a limit to Ac, limit to modifiers for saves etc, most of the fights are just going to be unimaginative i hit, and i take hit rounds. You claiming that oh the peasant shit is just a silly blog post does not change the fact that bounded accuracy lead to the hp bloat.
Me: Okay, we'll use the tool proficiency rules. It takes 250 days and 250 gp per peasant to train them how to use longbows. Do you have 500,000 gp?
Skilled hirelings are just 2gp per day in 5e. unskilled hirelings (peasants) are 2 sp. if i was in your game, i would have just hired skilled ones. you might have tried this there as well but meh. 2000 mercs are only 4000 gp per day. with 100,000 gp i can take more than 2k soldiers (cr1 max), with enough cook and medic to provide logistical services. 250 days and 250 gp per peasant is meh. 2000 mercs (cr1) without any magical items, with longbow, +3 to attacks has a chance of hitting the enemy 1 time per 20 attacks. those attacks will also crit, means 1000 dmg from a 2000 mercs with longbows. Let the dragon come and attack, let is fire a breath weapon, let it use its aura, in the end with legendary actions and other stuff, mathematically an ancient dragon falls to this, and this is what they envisioned for a starting point, therefore the edition fell into hp bloating and unimaginative machanics...
It is not that the system advises this to be doable, it is that the system envisions a reality that a peasant, with no magical weapons, or good training, could still have some valuable contribution to the combat and exploration. They wanted a fighter to be able to pick lock even if they are not proficient in it and not dexterious. so you need to not gave creatures immunities, spells and abilities that players need to strategise for or tactics to overcome the enemies, not when doing more than one thing will not help you with combat as advantage system prevents that. If you want to point out oh peasant army is stupid, ok well done that is what i am saying.
 
The solution is slow and methodical. You keep in touch with the people you like, you ignore the ones you don't. I've found that you don't so much find a new group and settle in, you build one over time by making friends with the people you like and quietly getting the fuck away from the one's you don't. Offering to GM helps a lot.
Thanks for all replies, people. I think really the above is the only one that works for me. And it will be a slow process indeed. Going to hang up the GM hat for the time being. Maybe in a year or two I'll have a mental shortlist of people I know who might be up for a game without being freaks about it.
 
No he meant that since you'd have to crit with disadvantage you have to roll 2 20s. Also only applies to 5e 2014 version and not the 2025 MM version (which doesn't have frightful presence).

And many of the 3.5 ancients cast spells from cleric list so lots of luck with the peasant army in that case.
Jesus 5e is 11 years old...

Anyway, I seem to remember there being a little side panel in the monster manual that said as a DM I can give the dragon sorcerer spells if I wanted, which of course I'm giving it fucking spells.

As an aside I think metallic dragons got cleric spells, chromatic got sorcerer. That being said it's a dragon and gets whatever I say it gets.
 
Basic situation is this. My next campaign has many players but some are going to inconsistent. I wanted a progression system so that someone who is away for a while doesn't suddenly have 4 levels and doesn't know how their character works. At the same time, I'd like a way for them to catch up so they aren't completely useless. My plan was to just use xp based on rough adventure level.
That's very easy to fix just use progression points if you get to a certain level of of the campaign your X level plain and simple once you get past X story arc you gain 11 that's what I use
 
Jesus 5e is 11 years old...

Anyway, I seem to remember there being a little side panel in the monster manual that said as a DM I can give the dragon sorcerer spells if I wanted, which of course I'm giving it fucking spells.

As an aside I think metallic dragons got cleric spells, chromatic got sorcerer. That being said it's a dragon and gets whatever I say it gets.
Oh you're like me with Mimics. They're intelligent and hoard magic items. If their life is seriously threatened, then I think it's reasonable for even the miserly and gluttonous aberration to reluctantly bust them out to save its skin.
 
That's very easy to fix just use progression points if you get to a certain level of of the campaign your X level plain and simple once you get past X story arc you gain 11 that's what I use
I also use this system. It can lead to some weird situations, like the party being stuck at level 10 for months. But I prefer it to the book keeping of exp. I add on a tracker for potentially leveling up from side quests though. Starts at 3 side quests, then doubles each time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghostse
Oh you're like me with Mimics. They're intelligent and hoard magic items. If their life is seriously threatened, then I think it's reasonable for even the miserly and gluttonous aberration to reluctantly bust them out to save its skin.
Doppleganger/mimic tag team when?
 
Oh you're like me with Mimics. They're intelligent and hoard magic items. If their life is seriously threatened, then I think it's reasonable for even the miserly and gluttonous aberration to reluctantly bust them out to save its skin.
It's incredible how much more interesting you can make encounters if you just have the enemies behave interestingly and semi-intelligently versus using the AI of Doom monster.
 
It's incredible how much more interesting you can make encounters if you just have the enemies behave interestingly and semi-intelligently versus using the AI of Doom monster.
Well yeah.
It tends to design encounters differently depending on who they are and give them some goals, making it more fun for me and my players.

Sometimes, it is a dumb/mindless animal. One fight they had in my last session was when these blind creatures ambushed the party. They are almost mindless, so they attack in a blind rage with little regard for themselves. As they are blind, they can not pick out weak targets. Later, they will run into a leader of them, and this will change the fight. It will command them and allow for smarter tactics.

Another group they fought in another session was a scouting party for goblins; they would not fight. They are going in, throwing a ton of fire and bombs, and then running the fuck away to get more friends. They managed to hunt and end them, but the fight changed as the goblins scattered in different directions. It was fun watching them try and stop the goblins and devise ways to stop them.

I also tend to add effects to the area they fight in that makes sense. An encounter I really liked was the Lamia snake woman boss. In her lair, she had tunnels she could get in and out of all over the place and attack from. So she would cast some spells/attack, move into her tunnels, and then attack from some blind spot. This dynamic fight created a battle where the players had to figure out a way to stop it as the tunnels were not that big, meaning if a normal-sized player went into it, they could not move quickly. So things were tried, and in the end they did get her, but it forced them to think deeper than "I roll to attack."
 
1742515172678.png1742515216853.png1742515256706.png1742515332361.png1742515378537.png
I have been re-reading the first edition of the furry RPG Iron Claw rule books. I never noticed how triggering Iron Claw would be to the woke crowd. They would accuse Iron Claw of being alt-right pro-racial realism propaganda. People joke about Warhammer 40K being a pro-racism game. Iron Claw: Some animals are more likely to steal, kill and rape than other animals. Its approach to religion alone would trigger Reddit. Animal religions are not cartoony demonized, but they try to accurately how medieval churches operated despite them going after the obvious Jewish stand-ins.. It is the church feeding the poor and taking care of most poorer citizens' healthcare. At the same time, Islamic metaphors are portrayed as villainess slavers.
 
Why is this hobby, which has so much to recommend it, overwhelmed with furries and social outcasts? RPGs bring in language skills, mathematics, tactical planning, social activity and imagination. They're a great hobby. Why can I not run a game without men with anime backpacks and women who clearly hate themselves appearing, thinking I am their people?

How to solve this problem? I've all but quit the hobby due to the sorts of people who show up.
The easiest way to avoid such people is to not play in public/pick-up games at your LFGS or online, and instead only play with close friends (and their friends, and so on.) If none of your current friends are interested in or have any experience with TTRPGs, it is likely that you do share some interests that are adjacent to the hobby (whether it be video games, history, fantasy novels, comic books, metal music, etc.) You can leverage these interests to try and convince them to try out the hobby itself...though this assumes you're willing to GM and that your friends are actually your friends, and are willing to enjoy your company for 4+ hours every two weeks.

If you don't actually have any friends (like many users of this website) and are unwilling to make new ones, then I can only advise you on how to avoid the sorts of individuals you speak of, when playing with strangers online or IRL.

To preface, the majority of these individuals belong to one of two types:

A) Degenerates that have managed to find or form a like-minded group of fellow degenerates with which to indulge in ERP and/or other assorted masturbatory OC donut steel wankery behind closed doors, who go on to have infinitely more fun than either you or I will ever have in this hobby. These types are very easily avoided and often go unnoticed unless they openly discuss exploits that occur within their games, often shared in the form of fan-fiction or DeviantArt-tier illustrations involving their group's gallery of fetish-laden Mary Sues. They tend to have groups that stay together for years, only to split apart due to social drama (often involving polyamorous relationships or political sperging.) These groups often play a wide variety of systems, and can sometimes form when several individuals of the second type come together and realize they share similar tastes. Every FLGS or local community I've been involved in has one or more of these groups, with some becoming infamous amongst the local scene, and most going largely unnoticed (aside from their stench, or obvious online red flags like profile pictures.) Your only chance of crossing paths with these people is if you join random games online without vetting any of the people involved (as these people are fairly easy to suss out IRL), and most memorable horror stories about TTRPGs come from somebody inadvertently joining one of these groups.

B) This type consists entirely of spergs who either haven't made the proper connections to join the first type in their games, or that are so irredeemable as to be shunned from even those circles. Everybody in this hobby who has played with strangers for any significant length of time has encountered this type, once referred to as "That Guy." Every FLGS or online community has one or more of these people, and they are either actively shunned or at worst placated in the interest of keeping things civil (or because they pay money to whoever is in charge, typically the owner of a FLGS.) Avoiding this type is difficult but not impossible when playing games with strangers, and basically requires that you (or the GM) extensively vet every possible player. If playing online, use a shit test that involves basic reading comprehension on the part of players when submitting applications to join your game (such as "to confirm you read this in its entirety, please say X in your application") as this will filter out a surprising number of undesirables. From there, check the individual's profile for any obvious warning signs, then see if their username can be linked to anything online that might indicate if they may be a problem or not. For IRL games, it becomes a bit trickier, as most FLGS will frown upon groups that reject players from their games for what may be perceived as petty or non-inclusive grounds. To make matters worse, these people are often kicked out of groups at alarming frequency, and are constantly on the lookout for new ones to worm their way into. Note that this applies to any hobby at your FLGS, not just RPGs. It is for this reason I do not advise attempting to play with strangers IRL at your FLGS or other communal space if you want to absolutely guarantee avoidance of these people, and instead only advertise at these places, while planning to actually play at your or another players house (which has its own associated risks.)

I should also touch upon the boilerplate advice of "have you tried not playing D&D?" as well, because it is commonly believed that most of these people only play popular systems. In my personal experience, this is no longer the case. During the days of 3.5/PF1e this may have held somewhat true, but ironically the corporate-sponsored messages of tolerance and inclusivity attached to 5e D&D and neighboring spheres has somehow had the opposite effect when it comes to actual degenerate players. Sure, you're extremely likely to find them in 5e games, as it is the most popular system by a wide margin, but you're practically guaranteed to run into them if you try to play something more "niche." I think this is partially thanks to niche systems being much more accessible to the average person than they used to be, due to digital distribution and the ease of .pdf piracy. This means people can more easily find systems that conform to their tastes (degenerate or otherwise), rather than homebrewing D&D to do it for them (which was rampant in 3.5, but still popular with 5e.)

When it comes to choosing a system expressly to avoid these people, I've found that the more grounded in reality or "simulationist" a system is (whether it be in rules or setting), the less of them you're going to find. Games like Delta Green, (most) OSR-adjacent games, early editions of D&D, FFG 40k RPGs, WHFRP, Call of Cthulhu, Twilight: 2000, any historical-bsaed system, etc. will all attract different types of autists on their own, but very rarely are they furries, weebs, or (blatant) fetishists. There is an exception for simulationist universal or generic systems like GURPS, however, as the ability to play anything you want will obviously attract people who will take that as an invitation to play a 10 foot tall nonbinary cow person with 6 dicks that shits from their nipples.

Lastly, as to why exactly these people seem to be so prominent within TTRPGs and related hobbies? Tabletop RPGs, Miniature Wargames, TCGs, Board Games, etc. are all intrinsically "nerdy" hobbies, but unlike most other "nerdy" hobbies they actually involve sitting in a room with other people for hours at a time and sharing each others company. Statistically speaking, your chances of encountering these people at your FLGS are the same as encountering them on a forum like this one, when playing an MMORPG, or when playing a game on Roll20. The main difference is that by seeing them IRL, you are alerted to their existence, but they have always been in these spaces and will continue to proliferate here unless properly shamed for their behaviors or instructed to behave otherwise. The problem is that the community has since stopped doing this, due to the hobby having been co-opted by various movements and ideologies as an inclusive safe-space where your imagination can run wild, so long as nobody gets triggered and has to pull out their X card. The popular narrative that this hobby has always accepted social exiles and degenerates of various stripes is only true to a certain extent, as the worst of them have always eventually been excluded or outright shamed and ridiculed, and this has been true since the hobby's inception.

TL;DR: Much like masturbating, you're better off not doing it with or around strangers. You can always try and convince friends to do it with you, and if that doesn't work just try doing things solo. And don't forget the lube!
 
Back