D&D 5E Tasha’s cauldron character thread

[clearstream]

No, you do not know instantly. It's when you sit up and your head hurts that you realise you have flu. It's when you are doing your last rep when you feel your muscles ache. It's when you try to do something that you notice a problem.

Chances are, an intelligent person will notice something is up within a few minutes, but a few minutes is usually plenty of time for the party to do what they wanted. And an unintelligent target - e.g. a guard dog - is never going to wonder why they don't feel 100%.

I think what we can say for certain is that some feel you would know, and others feel you would not know. Which way you land on that might inform how you ultimately rule it in your game and what situational problems you might have to subsequently deal with.

Beyond the question of how one pictures hex, a DM might want to consider what problems arise from ruling one way or another, and whether the spell in question should be played under the stronger or weaker interpretation? For example, I saw hex in play across many game sessions and in the early and mid-tiers it seemed really solid. My players used it constantly and seemed satisfied with the impact. So for me, I wouldn't be looking for a stronger interpretation. Additionally, I would question why I'd want the problems an invisible cast seems to lead to? But if I felt hex was too weak, and if I either didn't mind those problems or saw other problems - or indeed, opportunities - I might go for the other interpretation.

 

[clearstream]

Yep. Do exactly this - it makes the game much simpler and easier for everyone and nothing at all is lost. I thought it was just me, but quite a lot of people seem to be doing this.


The time doesn't matter. What matters is the conditions. The first thing to decide when messing with long rests is what are the circumstances under which you don't want the party to be able to take a long rest?

For narrative rests - by which I mean rests regulated by calendar time rather than a system mechanic - I find that the duration does turn out to matter. On the other hand, yes, that isn't crucial to the general structure being looked at.

My motive for silence on the circumstances is that from participating in these forums I have learned that views vary widely on those circumstances: deciding on them was not apposite to the general solution i.e. for whatever set of conditioning on long rests that you think is right, this sort of structure could work. So on the same grounds you might feel duration doesn't matter, here I feel the conditioning doesn't matter.

The intended take away is the observation that your must limit the count of shorts per long, if reducing the cost of shorts radically.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think what we can say for certain is that some feel you would know, and others feel you would not know. Which way you land on that might inform how you ultimately rule it in your game and what situational problems you might have to subsequently deal with.

Beyond the question of how one pictures hex, a DM might want to consider what problems arise from ruling one way or another, and whether the spell in question should be played under the stronger or weaker interpretation? For example, I saw hex in play across many game sessions and in the early and mid-tiers it seemed really solid. My players used it constantly and seemed satisfied with the impact. So for me, I wouldn't be looking for a stronger interpretation. Additionally, I would question why I'd want the problems an invisible cast seems to lead to? But if I felt hex was too weak, and if I either didn't mind those problems or saw other problems - or indeed, opportunities - I might go for the other interpretation.

I think you look at it as what happens if this ability was used against the PCs. Personally, I would tell them they where rolling with disadvantage, but I wouldn't tell them why - they would have to figure that out for themselves.

I also think the role-playing opportunities are good - surreptitiously Hex the charisma of the opposing counsel just before they sum up the case against you. And the "problems" are non-existent - it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't succeed at anyway with good rolls.

 

[Don Durito]

For narrative rests - by which I mean rests regulated by calendar time rather than a system mechanic - I find that the duration does turn out to matter. On the other hand, yes, that isn't crucial to the general structure being looked at.

My motive for silence on the circumstances is that from participating in these forums I have learned that views vary widely on those circumstances: deciding on them was not apposite to the general solution i.e. for whatever set of conditioning on long rests that you think is right, this sort of structure could work. So on the same grounds you might feel duration doesn't matter, here I feel the conditioning doesn't matter.

It's not an either/or. Duration can only matter when circumstances are taken into account, precisely because those circumstances can change.

Playing a Dungeon bash? It may be enought to say the dungeon is simply not safe enough to take a long rest - seems reasonable. Lots of Wilderness? It might be enough to say that a wilderness environment where you have to set watches is not safe enough. Or you could push it out to 36 hours and that may be enough - you probably don't want to linger for that long in any environemt that is remotely dangerous.

What about urban adventures? An 8 hour long rest becomes unworkable.

The intended take away is the observation that your must limit the count of shorts per long, if reducing the cost of shorts radically.

Yes. But I think it's important to realise that the biggest benefit of this is flexibility. It puts the strategic power in the players hands. That's why changing long rests is so particular to the style of game you're running. I tend to think it works better (at least in terms of keeping the strategic power in the players hands) to keep the long rest as short as you can while enabling the particular type of game you want to run (which may still be much longer than the default 8 hours.)

I also think it's worth considering how to keep a certain kind of power in the players hands and maintain flexibility.

Like for example keep the long rest at 8 hours but only once a week.

 

[Azzy]

While I'm not one for basing characters on anime (or any other media, really), I'm thinking of create one (very) loosely based on Shinobu Kochō from Demon Slayer. A fem VHuman Swarmkeeper ranger whose swarm is composed of butterflies. not sure about background or starting feat, though. Not like I'd be able to play her anytime soon as Ive currently got DM duties.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

hmmmm

See, I see Hex as a curse that affects your luck and this impact your performance at a critical point (when a roll is required). Trying to lift something? On noes your back seizes up! Dex check needed? Your shoe laces are untied! Intelligence check? what the heck is that itch! Wisdom check? Man I can't stop thinking about that curse!!

Yeah, if you fluff it that way (Scarlet Witch "jinx"-style hex, back before she became "all powerful") then I can see it. I suppose mechanically it doesn't give you a -2 to your Ability Score, it gives you "disadvantage on Ability Checks" with the given ability. So yeah, I could see it as something that only triggers when you're trying to do something hard and then messes you up. Heck, it might not even be directly effecting you, but instead the environment in which you find yourself doing the task, like you describe. Bad Luck Jinx. Sure.

 

[Oofta]

Maybe I'll write up a high elf runesmith that uses a maul. In part to be contrarian, but mostly to see if I can play an elf that survives past third level*. After all, 6th time is the charm right?

*Most die at level 1, the one that made it to third was a half-elf so that was kind of cheating.

 

[Kurotowa]

Here's a more mechanically focused idea for someone who enjoys battlefield control.

A Warlock with a Genie Patron of the Dao variety can add their proficiency bonus in bludgeoning damage to one attack per turn. Which isn't a lot, but it's enough to trigger the new Crusher feat that lets you move a target 5ft in any direction. If you combine that with Repelling Blast and Grasp of Hadar you can pinball your targets all over the place. Then throw in Spike Growth (another benefit of a Dao patron) or Cloud of Daggers to create terrain hazards, or just use the ones that already exist if your DM likes to be creative that way, and you can get really nasty.

 

[JPL]

Thought it through, did some research . . . blink dog warrior, all the way. Speaks Blink Dog, understands Sylvan. 10 Intelligence, but will still play fetch because the people seem to enjoy it. Take the defensive combat option --- blink and bite, blink and bite. Probably needs to invest in some breastplate barding ASAP, and you might need to go back to the Feywild to buy that. Not just a good dog . . . a Lawful Good dog.

 

[clearstream]

I think you look at it as what happens if this ability was used against the PCs. Personally, I would tell them they where rolling with disadvantage, but I wouldn't tell them why - they would have to figure that out for themselves.

I also think the role-playing opportunities are good - surreptitiously Hex the charisma of the opposing counsel just before they sum up the case against you. And the "problems" are non-existent - it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't succeed at anyway with good rolls.

So for you the NPC would know they have disadvantage, but not be sure of the source?

RP opportunities seems like a hard case to argue for being better either way. A world whose courts are magic-aware might offer opportunities that wouldn't exist in a world that has magic spells, but in which counsels don't guess from their disadvantage Charisma that they're being sabotaged. I'm drawn to saying magic-aware courts will be a more interesting point of difference, but it wouldn't shock me if some DM found a nice way to make magic-ignorant courts play out well.