SHP Forums

I like that. I hope he also has also have the Parry feat for parrying bad people - on both sides of the divide.

Just wondering: I know that bad things happen if you try to do something and roll a nat-1. Well ... if you roll for INIT, and you roll a nat-1 ... does that mean you forfeit your turn? Or just that you go last?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:10 am Just wondering: I know that bad things happen if you try to do something and roll a nat-1. Well ... if you roll for INIT, and you roll a nat-1 ... does that mean you forfeit your turn? Or just that you go last?

Different DMs handle it differently.

Because most (not all) characters have an "Initiative" bonus - even a "Nat 1" can end up being a 2 or 3.

So there's a chance you could still, technically go before someone.

For example, my level 1 bard, Lady Silverbeard of the Golden Halls has a +2 to her Initiative.

So even if I rolled a "1" I'd go on 3. And if someone rolled a 2 and had not Initiative bonus, I'd then go before them. Or if someone else also had a total of "3" whoever has the higher Dexterity goes first.
But for me, I have a House Rule.

If you roll a Natural 20 on Initiative, I give your character two actions. But it has to be a Natural 20. So for example, if Lady Silverbeard rolled an 18 and added +2 from her Init bonus, that's not a Natural 20. So no benefit. A Natural 20, will also go before anyone else. So for example, if Lady Silverbeard rolled a 19, with her +2, it's technically 21. But Joe the Fighter, with no Init Bonus rolls a Natural 20 - Joe gets to go (twice) before Lady Silverbeard.

However, on the flip side - if you roll a Natural 1, no matter what your Init bonus is (could be +5, for example) - you critically fail. Which means, as you drew your weapon for combat (for example), it slipped out of your hands, you're spending this first turn picking it up. Then you'd go on 1 (no Init bonus due to Critical fail).

Fair enough. *nods* What happens, then, if you roll a nat-1 on firing a bow/crossbow? Does that mean you fire it into your own foot, or into a party member, or something like that?

Do you allow gunpowder weapons in D&D? If you were to roll a nat-1 on a gunpowder weapon, what would happen then - would they explode?

What happens if someone tries to block a blow, but rolls a nat-1? Does that mean they drop the shield on their own foot?

I don't mean to be nosy. I'm just curious.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:23 am Fair enough. *nods* What happens, then, if you roll a nat-1 on firing a bow/crossbow? Does that mean you fire it into your own foot, or into a party member, or something like that?
Do you allow gunpowder weapons in D&D? If you were to roll a nat-1 on a gunpowder weapon, what would happen then - would they explode?
What happens if someone tries to block a blow, but rolls a nat-1? Does that mean they drop the shield on their own foot?
I don't mean to be nosy. I'm just curious.

So, D&D 5e does have guns. In my campaign, I don't however. I have Minotaurs who have mastered gun power in the form of canons, but no one has made a gun yet. (Nor will they as I never cared for that idea in a fantasy setting).

As for a Critical Fail (Natural 1) during an attack roll, it varies on what's happening. It can be from a bow string snapping, to losing your grip on your sword and throwing it 1d10 away from you, and it could also be hitting another party member.

As for blocking, there's technically no blocking in D&D - except as bonus actions (like depending on the path you take for a Paladin, if you're within 5' of someone, you can 'block' to disadvantage an enemy's attack, but doesn't require the Paladin for example to roll).

Had a hilarious session. I put some of the humor in the notes. But a lot of it was having to "be there" (well, in discord).
But there was a lot of Critical Fails... and then there was "King Battletoad" of the Bullywugs (humanoids frogs) who tried to sexually seduce one of the players (because something they'd done)... and then the teleporter... and doing that one at a time (I make my notes clear as to what I was doing)...
http://tawmis.com/kneurth/adventure-not ... nturers-22

Oh, and here's "wallpaper" (I don't expect any of my players to actual use, but sent it to them in my recap email)...

I ended up enjoying - what was supposed to be a random encounter (the bullywugs) with King Battletoad - that I've changed the location of one of the objectives - to give King Battletoad another appearance in the next session (they don't know that though)

Love the bullywug king. But he should really have done this.

Love the rest of the adventure, too. The basilisk fight sounds tough. Glad to hear everyone survived, though. The nat-ones and nat-twenties sound painful.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:43 am Love the bullywug king. But he should really have done this.
Love the rest of the adventure, too. The basilisk fight sounds tough. Glad to hear everyone survived, though. The nat-ones and nat-twenties sound painful.

Wonder what the AC is for wearing a top hat?

I ended up naming him (since it was all spur of the moment, random encounter) after this:


The Basilisk fight is one of the tougher ones (which is why, I purposely put it further away, so that the party would gather the other components first, and work together)
The Basilisk fight could have gone very, very, very, poorly had someone got close enough (30 feet) to it, to meet it's gaze.
You make a DC 12 Con save. And what that means - your character sheet has "Savings Throws" which will have a bonus, none or a negative.

So for example, just grabbing my Level 4 Cleric from a different game: You can see my Con save has a -1 next to it (and that's because my Con bonus has a -1) and I am not proficient (class based) in CON, but I am - as a Cleric - in WIS, which is why my normal stat is +4, but my save is +6.

So in this case - I'd need to roll a D20, subtract -1 (due to the -1 Con Save) and have to meet or beat 12 (the DC required).

Otherwise...
On a failed save, the creature magically begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.

Which means, I get one more chance to save - on my turn. If I fail again, turned to stone.

So how does one undo it?

Not easily. Especially at Level 4, because Greater Restoration and those kinds of spells are not available.

But the goblin (mentioned before) Nor'Orn, could have crafted a potion to undo it (if it happened). But they would have had to leave the player, turned to stone there - the player would then take over one of the Dwarf NPCs (now you see why I had them there!) - so that way they're still in the game. Get the potion, make their way back, avoid basilisks, use the potion to sprinkle it on whoever got turned to stone, and flee.

And had they failed on cutting out the basilisk heart, they would have had to fight another one.

! Those basilisks sound tough. But aren't medusae (I'm pretty sure that's the plural of medusa ) tougher?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:33 am ! Those basilisks sound tough. But aren't medusae (I'm pretty sure that's the plural of medusa ) tougher?

In D&D - Medusa (Medusi?) are indeed together.
Not only better armor class, more hit points, she also has other methods of attacking (if she gets close and people are averting their gaze, her snake hair can try to hit), she also has access to a sword and/or bow, allowing her to easily make far larger distance attacks than her gaze.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/medusa

So we're about to do another session for the work group tonight - made me think of this thread, and saw I didn't post the previous session.
So in this one - the whole thing with King Battletoad and how much my players enjoyed that encounter - made me come up with an entire session dedicated to him - and despite being made up after everyone's reaction to a random NPC monster being so favorable - I think I managed to make it pretty seemless.
The "artifact" he sends the party after was actually located somewhere else - but I thought I wanted to do more with King Battletoad because the party loved that encounter - and figured this was the perfect way to do it.
Side note, the photo of the "artifact" is actually my own (the photo is was taken that night, before the game, in my driveway)
Enticing? Read on.

http://tawmis.com/kneurth/adventure-not ... nturers-23

Wasn't Medusa a gorgon? Wouldn't calling all gorgons by the name of one of them be like calling every vampire a "Dracula"?

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:36 pm Wasn't Medusa a gorgon? Wouldn't calling all gorgons by the name of one of them be like calling every vampire a "Dracula"?

In lore, yes, Medusa was indeed a Gorgon.

However, in D&D - Gorgons are a different beast than Mesudas.

The Gorgon in D&D - which has been since AD&D versions.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/gorgon

So why is it a bull? I could write it up - but Reddit does it for me:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions ... 274#111274

Reddit User wrote: Alright, well, let me wade into this.

Oddly enough, I'm going to start by pointing to The Inhumans, the Marvel Comics property, whose character Gorgon debuted in 1965. Gorgon was described as having phenomenal strength and bull-like hooves, a combination that allowed him to stomp the ground and produce destructive seismic waves. Coincidentally, another Inhuman debuting earlier that year is Medusa. So the idea of "gorgon" referring to a bull-like creature and being distinct from Medusa was already in place before D&D launched.

This is of course not the first time this question has been raised, and while I have never found anything conclusive - which would pretty much have to be Gygax saying "so then I did this, and this is why" in an interview or column - I have followed the trail to the most likely culprit.

...which is this, The Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes:
https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/de ... =5&trs=136



The Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes is a book from 1607 detailing mythical and legendary beings as described by one Edward Topsell, who appears to have believed he was writing about real animals he'd simply never seen before. Here he speaks of the "Lybian Beast" or "Gorgon," a dreadful bull-like creature which feasts on poisonous herbs and so possesses a lethal breath.

Did Gygax read this book? We have no proof, though we have corroboration from another entry in The Historie which treats the lamia as a species of creature, half woman and half lion. Considering the mythological Lamia is an individual and a child-eating demoness by trade, the similarity of The Historie's version to the D&D interpretation cannot be overlooked. There's also the "Wilde Beast in the New found World called SU," a monkey-like critter reminiscent of another oddball and unique D&D creature.

Further corroboration comes from Jon Peterson's history Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People and Fantastic Adventures from Chess to Role-Playing Games, which also attributes the development of D&D's Gorgon to Topsell's work:

From Topsell, for example, Dungeons & Dragons inherits a gorgon that looks like a bull and petrifies with its breath, rather than the gorgons of the story of Perseus, of whom Medusa is the most famous. (Chapter 2.6, at p.154)

I've seen other references that use "African gorgon" to describe the catoblepas, which Topsell's book was referencing. Of course, the catoblepas is a separate creature in D&D — but then, it's more known for a lethal gaze than deadly breath. Thus, despite similar mythology informing both Topsell's "gorgon" and the D&D catoblepas, two distinctive monsters are produced.

What about the metallic hide? Well, for that, let's look at another mythical creature with which Gygax was likely familiar. The Colchis Bulls, or khalkotauroi, were mighty and terrible bronze bulls that could breathe fire. Overcoming them was a task with which Jason, of Argonauts fame, was charged. It may be that Gygax liked the myth but wanted to find a more accessible name than "khalkotauroi" and one less real-world-referencing than "Colchis Bulls," and inadvertently determined from various readings that Topsell's bull-monster with the killer breath and the other dangerous legendary bulls with ultra halitosis were references to the same creature. Thus was produced a thing with the best of both worlds - metallic hide, poisonous breath, and no unfortunate neck deficiency.

Needless to say this is all speculation, though it does look to sources that refer to the "gorgon" as a bovine creature.

So last night we had a fun session - that included Mimics, Hook Horrors ("Hookers?") and Lizard people!
http://tawmis.com/kneurth/adventure-not ... nturers-24

The majority of last night's adventure was improv - because I hadn't prepared for it - but everyone had a pretty good time and no one was any the wiser!

http://tawmis.com/kneurth/adventure-not ... nturers-25

So a game I am a player in... something interesting happened. And not interesting as in cool, but something I - as a Dungeon Master myself - found interesting.

So Person_01, who currently normally DMs our Sunday group is on hold - until her new house is built.

Until then, one of the other players (DM_01) is DMing a filler adventure (all of us rolling new characters).

Person_01 is playing a LG religious fighter.
Person_02 is playing a LN religious cleric.
Person_03 is playing a socially awkward druid.
Person_03's brother is playing a Paladin (not sure of alignment).
I am play a True Neutral Tiefling pirate Rogue.

So the adventure involves some mystery - and also the Watch (the guards) potentially being corrupt.
This is almost painfully obvious, as The Watch in this town includes a Half-Orc, and several goblins as a part of the Watch.
Now that's not to pigeon hole those races by alignment (especially Half-Orcs).
But when we arrived in the town with medication their leader (a Ranger) demanded the medicine from us and that "he would deliver it."
I had to use my pirate background to essentially enforce the idea that we were to deliver it.
Said Ranger finally agreed, showed us around town, and introduced us to members of the Watch (again, most hobgoblins and goblins).
We discover that there's a curse on children, who randomly wake up and go out to a field and dig until their fingers are bloody. They call it a disease.
So as we - as a party go to investigate - a few things happen.
One, where a witch was supposedly found and hung - it's gated off with a "Do Not Enter."
This naturally appeals to my Rogue - but Person_01 and Person_02 don't want to go (Person_01, because her character obeys the law).
We pass another area - which also says do not enter - rinse and repeat.
So there's areas, clearly, we should be exploring for clues.
But because of the alignment (and the druid, who at the time had gone to a party with the Paladin to gather clues, isn't talking to NPCs that much, because of the socially awkward nature of her character).

After tonight's session, a thread on texts starts between Person_01, Person_03, Person_02 and myself.

And Person_02 complains that it's going too slow. (Mind you, her character is getting the most out of this because of some business with a Koa-Tua, so she's actually the most engaged!)
Person_01 agrees.
Person_03 agrees, but says she doesn't mind.

Now I don't mind how "slow" it is - because it's not a "go into this cave, kill the goblins and rescue the princess."
There's a mystery to this witch, also a woman accused of murdering three of her husbands, the corrupt Watch - like there's elements to find and unfold. Not just stab and kill.

And I get everyone wants something different.

But when you play a LG character, and play it to the degree that they won't break a law - so you're not exploring places intentionally there to be explored... or your religion to your CE goddess, says you wouldn't... or you're playing a socially awkward character who went to a PARTY but not talking to any of the NPCs...

It's difficult for me to swallow. The complications of your character is what is making this slow. Not the DM or the adventure.

I dunno. Was weird that they're playing characters, with quirks that are clearly impacting what they would do as characters - and complaining about the adventure/DM.

I get that staying in character IS what really matters - but what's the DM to do? Force you to go somewhere? Railroad the characters? Then the DM is overstepping their grounds.

It's up to us as players, to find out why the Watch is corrupt. Then those characters might "break the law" since they'd see it as lawless. But how do you get there, when they're not willing to break any laws to begin with?

Heh. I see what you mean, and I agree.

Alignments should not be straitjackets, to tie up the PCs and force them to behave in certain ways. Rather, they should be guidelines; you can behave in other ways, but be aware that your alignment might change. And if you're hoping to become a certain prestige class (e.g. assassin, or blackguard ... for which you need to be CE ...), then don't pet the puppy, rescue the princess or give alms to that beggar.

That doesn't mean that if you play a LG fighter, you must always obey the law and do good things, like a good widdle boy. But on the whole, do lawful and good things. Just not all the time.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about!