D&D (2024) What variant rules do you want to see?

[CreamCloud0]

View attachment 295297
something like this?

yeah like that, i think it was from me in a previous thread mentioning the same half-caster progression issue that prompted you to rework that table.

 

[Horwath]

This has always made me feel icky, since most D&D monsters are sentient. There are already moral concerns about eating meat (a debate I don't feel is appropriate here, sufficient to say I can see both sides of the argument) but when your meal is capable of speech, abstract thought and complex moral behavior, I feel it crosses into something closer to cannibalism. And while it may be interesting to debate if eating a dragon is any different than eating an elf, I can absolutely see WotC NOT wanting to dip their toes into it. No need to cause unforced errors.

we can limit it to INT 5 or lower monsters.

 

[Remathilis]

we can limit it to INT 5 or lower monsters.

For me to feel comfortable, it had better be Int 5 (or 3) or less, not capable of speech, and Unaligned. And even then I question if I'd want to eat a shambling mound...

 

[Osgood]

Slow Natural Healing. It's my standard because I can't stand the default rules.
Crit variants, including some we saw in the earlier packets (I'm a fan of granting inspiration on a natural 1), as well as things like the initial damage roll being maximized.

 

[CreamCloud0]

For me to feel comfortable, it had better be Int 5 (or 3) or less, not capable of speech, and Unaligned. And even then I question if I'd want to eat a shambling mound...

Not to dismiss your feelings but if general rules for eating monsters exist then you can make the choice at your own table not to eat anything other than < INT 5 unaligned creatures incapable of speech, but just because it's your preference doesn't mean that everyone else shares your particular moral position in this particular matter and and should be restricted by it, i'm sure some people would be quite eagre at the idea of their adventurers feasting on the body of that inteligent dragon they just bested in combat.

 

[Remathilis]

Not to dismiss your feelings but if general rules for eating monsters exist then you can make the choice at your own table not to eat anything other than < INT 5 unaligned creatures incapable of speech, but just because it's your preference doesn't mean that everyone else shares your particular moral position in this particular matter and and should be restricted by them, i'm sure some people would be quite eagre at the idea of their adventurers feasting on the body of that inteligent dragon they just bested in combat.

I don't want the rules rewarding it either with bonuses. I feel it's something that is best handled at the per table level. If you want to eat a baby dragon to grant resistance to its element, make that your house rule. I just don't want the game to make that an expectation.

 

[Horwath]

I don't want the rules rewarding it either with bonuses. I feel it's something that is best handled at the per table level. If you want to eat a baby dragon to grant resistance to its element, make that your house rule. I just don't want the game to make that an expectation.

Blood of a dragon to make +xd6 elemental weapons or elemental resistance potions.
scales are for armor as normal,
bones, teeth for weapons,
meat for general sustenance,
maybe heart for advantage vs fear,
brain for spell slots,

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't want the rules rewarding it either with bonuses. I feel it's something that is best handled at the per table level. If you want to eat a baby dragon to grant resistance to its element, make that your house rule. I just don't want the game to make that an expectation.

that's fair, though i'm sure you understand that some people would take the position that if there aren't explicit official rules for it then the idea is meaningless fluff, as they can't guarantee anything about how any particular GM will or even if they'll implement it in their game, and can't reliably build to be mechanically effective in the area (or if they do build into it that there'll be any worth for doing so).

 

[Laurefindel]

I’d love a plug-and-play alternate spell book. Like, throw away all the spells from PHB and replace them with those, which can then be specifically tailored for low(er) magic setting or one with a different, narrower magical flavour. Keep some of the same spell names so that this class can still cast fireball because it’s on their subclass additional spells or something. Just make it a different fireball tailored for that setting.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I’d love a plug-and-play alternate spell book. Like, throw away all the spells from PHB and replace them with those, which can then be specifically tailored for low(er) magic setting or one with a different, narrower magical flavour. Keep some of the same spell names so that this class can still cast fireball because it’s on their subclass additional spells or something. Just make it a different fireball tailored for that setting.

Oooh, yes, even if the spells themselves wouldn't be rewritten (i think that would be a little too much of a revision writing new descriptions for practically the entire spell catalogue) but 'lowmagic spell lists' for the classes would be very interesting, removing some of the very explicitly 'magical' spells or shifting up the level of others like maybe fireball's mechanics themselves wouldn't be changed but now it's classified as a 5th level spell instead of 3rd.