D&D 5E Free 60+ page Guide to Sword & Sorcery for 5E D&D

[S'mon]

Yeah for me the pc’s are still powerful and are likely to win the day. It’s hard to die in 5e.

It has not been my experience that it's hard to die in standard 5e. For that to be the case:

1. You have to be running at level 5+, certainly at 3+. But there are plenty of low-CR critters that can down a full hp level 3 PC in one blow. Or crit and insta-kill a PC at low hp.
2. The GM is sticking to the DMG encounter building rules, and not using much over minimal-Deadly
3. Monsters don't finish off fallen/0 hp PCs
4. The players are fairly skilled at running their PCs.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

It has not been my experience that it's hard to die in standard 5e. For that to be the case:

1. You have to be running at level 5+, certainly at 3+. But there are plenty of low-CR critters that can down a full hp level 3 PC in one blow. Or crit and insta-kill a PC at low hp.
2. The GM is sticking to the DMG encounter building rules, and not using much over minimal-Deadly
3. Monsters don't finish off fallen/0 hp PCs
4. The players are fairly skilled at running their PCs.

Yeah agreed. it’s not all a bed of roses. I certainly enjoy the lower levels when there is a greater risk of failure. The risk is more exciting.
Regardless, 5e death saves have kept all my characters alive. Which some old school die hards deplore, but I think it’s a pretty good mechanic. You can use it to allow more risk, but with a sturdy safety net. Perfect for conanesque games.

 

[CapnZapp]

Maybe it's because I mostly run long term campaigns over dozens to hundreds of sessions, but I have to disagree with this. In anything other than a one-shot, you are going to see a 1 in 400 chance come up pretty frequently. Over the long term it will guarantee a revolving door of replacement characters.

Exactly.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah cool. Don’t use it, it’s optional.

No, the argument is: don't include rules that risk biting DMs in the behind.

Nothing suggests Xoth is a setting more geared towards one-offs than regular campaigns, and so it is a bad decision to suggest such a rule.

In other words: don't hide behind "it's optional". The idea the quality of rules can go down when presented as a variant is not a good idea.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

No, the argument is: don't include rules that risk biting DMs in the behind.

Nothing suggests Xoth is a setting more geared towards one-offs than regular campaigns, and so it is a bad decision to suggest such a rule.

In other words: don't hide behind "it's optional". The idea the quality of rules can go down when presented as a variant is not a good idea.

Well that’s subjective. Remember there are other opinions out there which are just as valid as yours

No one is forcing you to use optional rules. But thanks very much Xoth for providing them, I appreciate them. This obviously is just going rumble on. Think I’ve said everything i need to about why I like the rules. Totally cool that you don’t. Your game is yours, and your reasons for playing are naturally going to be different from the next person.

 

[xoth.publishing]

Maybe it's because I mostly run long term campaigns over dozens to hundreds of sessions, but I have to disagree with this. In anything other than a one-shot, you are going to see a 1 in 400 chance come up pretty frequently. Over the long term it will guarantee a revolving door of replacement characters.

Exactly.

OK, so what you're presenting as a fact here is that it will "guarantee" lots of dead player characters.

Care to calculate the actual probability of someone dying after:

1. Getting hit with a crit
2. Choosing NOT to use the other (optional) rule to sacrifice your weapon or shield to block the critical in the first place
3. Getting hit with a second crit
4. Failing the first death save
5. Failing the second death save
6. Failing the third death save
7. During all of this, not getting any healing from an ally, and no allies able to make a DC 10 check to stabilize you
8. Boom, you're "suddenly" dead!

Presenting the above as a "guarantee" of "a revolving door of replacement characters" is clearly overblown.

 

[xoth.publishing]

The other point is that while "In sword and sorcery stories, the protagonists regularly kill their foes with a single well-placed hit" might well be true, but the reverse isn't.

I think you are forgetting the difference between a book and a game.

Of course the protagonists in books don't die from "a single well-placed hit" from a random mook. They generally don't die at all. Because if they did, the book would end there. Unless you have a large gallery of protagonists, Game of Thrones-style, so the author can kill off some protagonists because there are more left to continue the story.

A game is different. There is no "story" (other than that which emerges through play) and hence no guarantee that just because you are a Player Character, you can't die. (Well, in some games and settings/adventures there is, more or less, such a guarantee, but those games and settings/adventures are pretty lame and probably quite railroady.)

There has to be a risk of dying to keep the game interesting. At least for me; you may have a different opinion. Just compare the first seasons of Game of Thrones, when protagonists could die, against the last seasons, when most of the main characters suddenly developed "plot armor" regardless of the situation they ended up in. Watch how the show ratings dropped like a stone when this happened.

Playing a game of adventure and combat without any risk of dying is a snoozefest.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you are forgetting the difference between a book and a game.

I thought I was discussing the different needs of different (sub-)genres.

Playing a game of adventure and combat without any risk of dying is a snoozefest.

I fully understand you personally like massive/insta/random death (I'll call it MIRD from now on ) in your campaigns. But that has (should have?) nothing to do with the publication of a S&S-themed sourcebook. As an author, I would save such a rule for a genre actually benefiting from it.

The basis of this argument is this: MARD is appropriate for any game where combat is not a desired state, where combat is interpreted to mean a failure on some level (whether of intrigue, subterfuge, or just planning). WFRP and Game of Thrones are good examples of this "gritty" fantasy.

Sword & Sorcery is nothing like that. Solving challenges with your sword is expected. Sure Conan & Co may avoid combat when it would be stupid or suicidal, but just as often he's forced into exactly stupid and suicidal combats - and he still prevails.

In this regard, it shares the DNA with regular D&D. Sure intrigue, subterfuge and planning can play a large role in regular D&D too, and for many gamers play a huge role. But the core assumption in D&D is that heroes will have many combats and that they will like it.

Put otherwise, in D&D combat is not a punishment, it is a reward (if not for the characters, definitely the players). The whole game is focused on providing exciting fun combat, and rewarding its participants (fun and challenge for the players; experience and loot for the characters).

If your outlook on S&S is different here (and more in line with WFRP or GoT) then, and only then, is the inclusion of MIRD rules appropriate. But the pushback you are experiencing (from me and others) should be interpreted as you not communicating this (and I don't mean here on the forums, but in the Player's Guide itself), at least not so clearly that I have gotten the message.

The pushback is because currently you come across as offering your favorite generic D&D houserules in a supplement with different needs.

I hope you see my point. I'm not dead set against you adding various rules; I just don't see the genre-specific justification, and I feel a supplement like your is better off when kept lean, slim and to the point

Best Regards,
Zapp

 

[turnip_farmer]

Lots of nipples. Probably a genre-appropriate quantity.

Today I learned that there are no nipples in the PHB.

I discovered this after reading the content rules for DM's Guild, which forbid any depiction of nipples, regardless of gender. I was somewhat taken aback by this excessive puritanism, thinking that WotC's own publications must violate it. But I checked, and no. There are no nipples. The depictions of barbarians, male and female, are all dressed for arctic conditions.

 

[S'mon]

Today I learned that there are no nipples in the PHB.

I discovered this after reading the content rules for DM's Guild, which forbid any depiction of nipples, regardless of gender. I was somewhat taken aback by this excessive puritanism, thinking that WotC's own publications must violate it. But I checked, and no. There are no nipples. The depictions of barbarians, male and female, are all dressed for arctic conditions.

I was recently told no nipples in my Dragonsfoot PBP game - not even Frazetta art nipples! O Tempora O Mores! :-O