|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Honestly I legit believe that a "normal", recognizably-inspired fantasy setting is actually a good thing for new players, who account for a huge number of the people playing D&D. When you're trying to learn something like roleplaying games, it helps to not also have to learn some kind of hosed up goofy immersive vocabulary. It speeds up character creation to not have to constantly have it explained in detail what a Goobersneetch is. And people new to the hobby are gonna have fun with any adventure in any setting, as long as they feel like they have some sense of agency and ownership of their character; they won't even notice that it's bland. Honestly I think 4e's Nentir Vale made a far better generic fantasy setting than pretty much any of the other "generic fantasy" setting options specifically because it handwaved the majority of the worldbuilding. For a default setting to introduce new players to I think a less is more approach is much better than Forgotten Realms' pages upon pages upon pages of needless lore about everything that has ever happened in every square inch of the rules. The majority of new players coming fresh into D&D are probably not going to have that much investment into any of the existing settings beyond their familiarity with fantasy fiction as a whole, so I think using a loosely defined default setting that mostly consists of what's necessary to run a basic adventure is the preferable method over one that has actual, established lore to it. I'm fine with Forgotten Realms existing as an option (Regardless of it being the single most boring RPG setting in existence) but having it forced into the role of default setting is both not using it to its best extent and irritating to players like myself who don't like a large number of the integral features of the setting.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Gaius Julius Caesar! Our friend G. Jiddy had almost nothing to do with it. I can post a whole infodump on the subject if you want, because a) the history of the modern calendar is dumb as hell and b) it will make you feel better about every single one of your worldbuilding decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Our friend G. Jiddy had almost nothing to do with it. I can post a whole infodump on the subject if you want, because a) the history of the modern calendar is dumb as hell and b) it will make you feel better about every single one of your worldbuilding decisions. Do it.................................. Anything that makes me feel better about my worldbuilding choices......my party is too busy murderhoboing most of the time to notice whether or not the world is built well or not. (Not that I mind, I like running combats generally speaking.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Okay! A brief divergence on calendars, which I originally wrote to answer the question: “Why isn’t the new year on the winter solstice?” The answer, honestly, is that the Romans had no loving idea how to run a calendar. Like, seriously, people notice "OCTOber" and "DECEMber" and say, "hey, those mean 'eight' and 'ten', but they're the 10th and 12th months, what's up with that?". If you've got a little more history, you'll know that July and August are named after Julius and Augustus Caesar, and think, "oh, they added those two months and bumped the rest of the months back." Nope. The Romans were way, way worse at calendars than that. July and August were actually originally Quintilis and Sextilis - the fifth month and the sixth month. They were called this because the year traditionally started in March. So they had Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, December. Martius was named for Mars; Junius was named for Juno. We have no idea what Aprilis and Maius were named after. (No, really. We have some clues but beyond that it's just guesswork.) Then they got lazy and just numbered the months. "But wait," you ask, "what about January and February?" Hold onto your butts, because calling the months by their numbers? Not even close to the laziest the Roman calendar got. Between the end of December and the beginning of Martius were 50-odd intercalary days. They didn't have months associated with them. They were just sort of there. I swear I am not making this up. In addition, each month had either 30 or 31 days. I was going to say "alternated between" but I looked it up and nope, the Romans decided that was too easy, so it actually went: * Martius 31 * Aprilis 30 * Maius 31 * Junius 30 * Quintilis 31 * Sextilis 30 * September 30 * October 31 * November 30 * December 30 * intercalary 51 Okay. This is where we are at the beginning of the Roman Republic. Look at that. Remember it. You will look back on this and say "actually, that makes sense" after what comes next. At the beginning of the Roman Republic, the Senate decided to fix the calendar. This was for two reasons: 1) The Romans thought the Greeks kicked rear end, and wanted to emulate their calendar. 2) Count those days. You will notice that they add up to 355, which means that each year is actually ten (and change) days shorter than an actual solar year - which meant that by the time of the Republic, March was somewhere in the autumn. So the Senate decided to do some reforming. They added two brand-new months to the calendar, Januarius and Februarius. Januarius was named after Janus, because his holiday fell about a week into the new month. (Janus was the god of doorways. We'll come back to him.) February was named after the Februa, a feast that fell in the middle of the new month and that had, in fact, long since been replaced by Lupercalia, an identical feast on the same date with a different name For Reasons. The Senate also added an intercalary month, Mercedonius, the Month of Wages. Yes, an intercalary month. I want to make sure that's clear. They also changed the lengths of the months to better fit the Greek system. The Greeks had largely lunar months, so they alternated between 29-day and 30-day months. Once again, the Romans said, "you know, we like this, but it's too easy". Look, the next part is going to go into "what the hell was wrong with them?" territory, just warning you. This is the calendar the Roman Senate ended up with: * Januarius 29 * Februarius 23 * Mercedonius 23 * THE REST OF FEBRUARIUS NO I AM NOT KIDDING 5 * Martius 31 * Aprilis 29 * Maius 31 * Junius 29 * Quintilis 31 * Sextilis 29 * September 29 * October 31 * November 29 * December 29 See what I meant about Mercedonius being an intercalary month? It's literally in the middle of February. Like, they got 3/4 of the way through February, got bored, and decided to do something else for a month and come back later. Also, the Romans had caught on to leap years by this point, so every fourth year, Februarius had an extra day on the end, bringing its total to 29. I want to be clear, though, that while they'd caught on to leap days, they still had not caught on to the length of the drat year. Count those days again: it's 378. By the time of poor Gaius Julius Caesar in 46 BC, the calendar was so hosed up that he needed three intercalary months to right it again. Bonus: the priesthood - who until not long before Julius controlled the release of the calendar, meaning that people paid attention to them to know when the months started - would extend or contract years to keep politicians (who were on yearly terms) they liked in power or force politicians they didn't like out early. The Julian reform - which was ordered by our friend G.Jiddy but not, as far as we know, actually created by him - did three important things. First, it added those three intercalary months to put the year back where it was supposed to be (March had slid around to the dead of winter). Second, it got rid of Mercedonius, putting the year back at 355 days. Third, it scattered ten new days throughout the year, which gave us the calendar we know today. Julius's reforms still weren't quite right - the length of a year is just a fraction shorter than 365.25 days, which forced the Gregorian reform of 1582. But it was good enough for government work, as they say. (Incidentally, the Senate voted after Gaius Julius Caesar's death to rename Quintilis after him because he was born then, and likewise Sextilis after Augustus Caesar. The Caesars themselves had little to do with it. I mean, obviously G. Jiddy couldn't possibly have; he was dead at the time.) So remember how we were talking about why the year doesn't start on the winter solstice? A couple reasons. First, it never did (in the Roman tradition, anyway). It originally started in March, which contained the spring equinox but didn't start on it. The start of the year was moved back to January for political reasons. Remember Janus, the god of doorways? It was considered auspicious for consuls to change out near his festival. His festival was nearest the kalends of January (that is, the first day of the month). So consuls wanted to start on the kalends of Januarius so they could start their term with an offering to the god of doorways, who would then grant an auspicious transition between consuls. So why didn't the kalends of Januarius get moved back to the winter solstice? Because of Yule. Not because the Romans celebrated Yule - it was a pagan holiday. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia. Saturnalia was originally on the 18th of December (or, as the Romans would have measured it, the 13th/12th/14th day before the kalends of Januarius), but it expanded, becoming a week-long event. This was partly because, well, people liked a party at the end of the calendar year (not to be confused with the end of the actual year pre-Republic) and partly because it was, consciously or not, taking over Yule. Moving the kalends of Januarius back to the winter solstice would have necessarily moved Saturnalia away from the winter solstice - and the people who'd been celebrating Yule and were now celebrating Saturnalia didn't want that. So Saturnalia stayed where it was, and Januarius stayed where it was. And that's why the new year doesn't start on the winter solstice. And now you can feel good about literally every worldbuilding decision you've ever made. (For the sake of clarity: I use "pagan" as the Romans would have; "paganus" meant someone who lived outside the city and practiced a non-Roman religion.) SneezeOfTheDecade fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Aug 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
That was a great read, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:And now you can feel good about literally every worldbuilding decision you've ever made. No kidding! I knew it was dumb, but I didn't realize how dumb. Thank you for typing that up for us!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 05:12
|
|
cowboy
|
Besesoth posted:And now you can feel good about literally every worldbuilding decision you've ever made. Jesus, it's like the Romans were presented with a locked stone door with a key hidden under the mat and decided to bash their way through with their faces. A very informative read, though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
The real sin of most world building is trying to make everything too neat and reasonable, when reality is a hastily assembled mess of contradictions
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
1stlvldnd.txtquote:Oh boy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
A sorcerer AND a wizard in a party of three? I foresee a grim future for this group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
I'm getting to play in a one shot here soon, and it'll be my first time in 5e as a player since I've mostly just been the DM. The party I'm DMing for is Fighter, Paladin, Druid, and Warlock so I'm pretty familiar with those classes, and wanted to try something new to me. I'd to try and recreate a Pathfinder Witch-good debuffer and utility/control caster, but not much on straight damage. They had hexes that worked not unlike warlock invocations or even cantrips ie. save or take -2 to either AC/to hit/or saves. It could turn into a bookkeeping nightmare like so much of PF, but it was a fun class to play with great flavor. There doesn't seem to be anything comparable in 5e, likely because the mechanics are different. Warlock definitely has the right flavor, but the wrong mechanics-it's all pew pew eldritch blast. Is there anything comparable? Some sort of bad touch Cleric or something? Bard has some fun debuff stuff but not quite the right flavor, though I could reskin it to feel more like what I want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
What level is the one shot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:What level is the one shot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Sorcerer and Bard both work. Sorcerer is an excellent buffer because it can use Twinned Metamagic on Haste/Polymorph/Greater Invisibility, or on enemies for some of the good single-target disables. Divine Soul further opens your options with stealing Guidance, Bless, and Shield of Faith (the latter which can also be twinned), but it comes at the cost of Draconic's built-in Mage Armor and HP buff and your Known Spells are pretty limited as is. That might preferable for a one shot, though. Lore Bard has Bardic Inspiration/Cutting Words recharging on a short rest, more spells, and Magical Secrets so you get to steal a couple off other lists. The chassis is solid, so you just pick spells that do what you want - an eye towards control/debuff would be good in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Okay! A brief divergence on calendars, which I originally wrote to answer the question: And now this Awkward Zombie strip is even more hilarious to me than it used to be. Seriously, though, thanks for this, I read this out to part of one of my D&D groups I play with last night, and they were in stitches. W.T. Fits fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Baller Ina posted:A sorcerer AND a wizard in a party of three? I foresee a grim future for this group. And the ranger is probably using a bow. Run and gun all day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
If one of our players got afflicted with the disease from a giant diseased rat and we don't have access to lesser restoration or a paladin, they just die eventually right? There's no other way to get rid of this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Pussy Quipped posted:If one of our players got afflicted with the disease from a giant diseased rat and we don't have access to lesser restoration or a paladin, they just die eventually right? There's no other way to get rid of this? Go find a temple which has a cleric and pay them to do it. Or make up some stuff relevant to the skills you have, take a session or so to quest for it, then do it yourselves. And talk to your DM about not being an rear end in a top hat, giving a party a condition it's impossible for them to deal with that kills a player is kind of a dick move unless they are open to something of the above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Go find a temple which has a cleric and pay them to do it. Or make up some stuff relevant to the skills you have, take a session or so to quest for it, then do it yourselves. That makes sense. We are towards the end of Sunless Citadel and our bard got infected like 2 days ago. She is down 6 max hp, sitting at 11 right now, and it will take at least a full day of travel to get back out of the dungeon and get all the way to town. The DM isn't a huge rear end in a top hat so I'm sure he will work with us, but RAW its pretty unforgiving for level 2 characters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Also don't even play the game til level 3, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Remember, TYP is just a string of poorly-ported ill-designed scenarios which oscillate being trivialized and ultra-lethal at random.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Remember, TYP is just a string of poorly-ported ill-designed scenarios which oscillate being trivialized and ultra-lethal at random. In D&D terms, that translates to "classic."
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
With it being a non-magical disease, it seems like a Medicine check would be appropriate to get rid of the rat rot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
The problem is forming an adventuring party without a source of magical recovery and pretending the system supports it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The problem is forming an adventuring party without a source of magical recovery and pretending the system supports it. It's a level 1 module. Literally nobody except Paladins can fix this. It's a poo poo book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:It's a level 1 module. Literally nobody except Paladins can fix this. It's a poo poo book. I don't see how this contradicts what I said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
evenworse username posted:With it being a non-magical disease, it seems like a Medicine check would be appropriate to get rid of the rat rot. I'd be fine with that but quote:A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness. RAW says no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:It's a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:I'd be fine with that but RAW also says what the DM says goes so
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:RAW also says what the DM says goes so Well... sure? That's what my first line addresses? You can say that about anything. I'm just pointing out that RAW doesn't handle disease at low levels very well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Well... sure? That's what my first line addresses? You can say that about anything. I'm just pointing out that RAW doesn't handle disease at low levels very well. I mean, you literally said you'd be fine with breaking RAW but RAW says not to, so you might see my confusion? Either way, it's a very bad thing for a DM to be giving characters with no way to fix it, unless they want to kill a character or house rule a way to fix it, so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Sunless Citadel does has a town described, It has a priest at the local shrine who knows lesser restoration. And it's only 7 miles away.
MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Sunless Citadel does has a town described, It has a priest at the local shrine who knows lesser restoration. And it's only 7 miles away. maybe they'll get lucky and find a magical herb or plant at the end of the dungeon that can help restore life
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:maybe they'll get lucky and find a magical herb or plant at the end of the dungeon that can help restore life a golden apple perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Sunless Citadel does has a town described, It has a priest at the local shrine who knows lesser restoration. And it's only 7 miles away. Show me this quote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Show me this quote. Sunless Citadel posted:Shrine. Advice, information, and healing are among the services dispensed at the village’s shrine. It is maintained by Dem “Corkie” Nackle, a female gnome priest of Pelor." The Priest statblock has Lesser Restoration on it by default.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Show me this quote.  Okay not to be the one jumping to MonsterEnvy's defense, this is listed for Oakhurst's NPC collection and I feel like "healing" could probably encompass "curing disease."
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Malpais Legate posted:
That and you can see Lesser restoration right on the stat block. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That and you can see Lesser restoration right on the stat block. As a bonus after receiving services, you can slay the monster for XP
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:As a bonus after receiving services, you can slay the monster for XP Just like GTA!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 00:14
|
|
