Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's Talk About Chapter 9 of the DMG
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7951293" data-attributes="member: 93670"><p>I'm jumping into this thread a bit late, this is both spot on & missing the mark. Most of the rules in that section do read & play out much like a poorly spitballed forum post. The analogy misses the mark though because those spitball posts will often include discussion on why it's a poor & incomplete spitball along with ways to improve it. All of the criticisms about interclass balance, durations, & ability over/undervaluing are spot on... One not mentioned is that gritty realism turns magic items that mostly recover 1d6+1 charges<em> per day</em> into what are basically at will cantrips & whomever wrote the rule couldn't even be bothered to footnote it with a suggestion like changing them to per long rest or something. If spells, class abilities, monster powers/abilities, etc were written with time periods based on short or long rests rather than rounds minutes hours days & specific times (ie dawn/dusk/midnight/etc) then it would mitigate some of those problems while simultaneously still not achieving gritty anything. </p><p></p><p>[USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] is spot on with his <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/lets-talk-about-chapter-9-of-the-dmg.671123/post-7950519" target="_blank">post about cascading effects</a> to removing various systems & subsystems present in prior editions, sadly 5e ignored those cascading effects & whoever wrote many of the rules in dmg ch9 does not appear to be aware of how those missing systems & subsystems impact the rules being poffered or wrote them before they were removed. As an example... it does no good to implement things like facing & flanking for tactical play if you strip out all of the other tactical rules like AoOs for things other than ranged attacks in melee & running away without disengage Sure you can add those things, but the foundation required for them to result in tactical play is missing & you wind up with something that is very much not tactical gameplay</p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally i've used a lot of the variant rules across several campaigns so can give notes on many of them. Starting at dmg pg 263</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Proficiency dice</strong> This is actually a pretty good rule that works well to put value on the ability mod portion of a skill check while bringing back the ability to use magic items that add+N to a skill, we settled on working them akin to how the<a href="https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Brutal" target="_blank"> brutal weapon property</a> worked in 4e Personally we found the best way to handle expertise with these is to allow the proficiency die<em>(not the d20)</em> to be rolled with advantage rather than doubling it. The usual (dis)advantage on a d20 falls outside this rule & is unmodified in how it applies to the d20.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Ability check proficiency</strong>: While I've not used it in d&d, it's effectively a less developed version of the same as the skill system used in fate freeport & similar to the overly stripped down fate accelerated(FAE is designed more for storyboarding than fate type ttrpg). I did use that for one or two games before the group asked to go back to fate's normal skills. It's a disaster & results in everyone acting in bizzare MrBean/inspector Clouseau-like ways trying to to weirdly apply skills in situations they have no place in. In short, it's a mess & huge headache for the GM.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Background Proficiency</strong>: This is one that could be a great rule, but in some ways suffers from the fact that backgrounds are all over the map ranging from orphan to noble or various types of mercenaries/soldiers & more. It's a rule that I've considered using, but 5e's skill system is too lacking to support it IMO.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Personality trait proficiency</strong>: Ugh, this reeks of the old school trait/flaw tables where you pick some defects that will never nder any circumstances affect your character & gain cool stuff except without the possability of the gm ever using it against you.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Hero Points</strong>: I've used these in multiple games & find that they work much better than inspiration or lucky. The biggest hurdle with them is thatdndbeyond does not support them so players using that abomination lose track & massively overspend their allotment of hero points. These are one of the many reasons why I mercilessly ban dndbeond at my table <em>even </em>for new players or players who forget their sheet but have it on ddb <span style="font-size: 9px"><em>(sorry guys, bob got lost back there between sessions>but we were in the middle of this fight?><u><strong>hard no</strong></u>)</em></span>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Honor & Sanity</strong>: I wanted to use honor as a standin for charisma with social skills that ould take a hit or be improved by player actions/who they are dealing with. Sanity I wanted to repurpose as sort of a hail mary <em>"You can succeed at cost on that or for X points of sanity you could succeed with ptsd(or whatever)"</em> type thing, but once again dndbeyond caused all of the same problems it caused for hero points & I've not tried it again since banning ddb at all of my tables and have not tried it since because 5e really works poorly with the fate style consequences I wanted to use with that sanity</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Fear</strong> "ok guys you are scared of the bbeg & run away" I'm a skilled enough GM & storyteller to impart upon the party that they are crunchy & taste good with ketchup when facing things like tuckers kobolds, The Dragons of eberron, or whatever without needing to mechanically represent it. For a gm who needs that tool in their toolbox the results are just absurd though because "and half/the party bravely ran away" is a special type of boring that such an inexperienced gm will have trouble recovering from. If the old <a href="https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Shaken" target="_blank">shaken condition</a> were not carelessly removed from 5e <em>entirely</em> then it could be used to spruce this up into something capable of making any monster that should be scary into something a bit more scary similar to how trogs used to do the same. The 4e <a href="https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Dazed" target="_blank">dazed</a> condition could probably have been reworked for this too but the action economy is too different & 5e has nothing similar to either in conditions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Horror</strong> In general the madness tables are a mess. players who are going to ignore it are going to continue treating their character like a mechanical set if numbers while players who are going use it & to be hurt by it are going to cause severe problems in the game. Few if any of the things on the madness table have any <em><u>mechanical</u></em> bearing on play. When used to any significant degree, all this does is annoy & frustrate the table in my experience with it as both player & gm</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Healer's kit dependency & low natural healing</strong> Back with prepared vancian spell casting/slots this would be pretty significant... in 5e though it means that I've literally seen one player scold a second player for "wasting healers kit charges & hit dice" rather than letting her burn some of the spell slots her & the paladin are about to recover. This is an attempt to bring back some thought & gravity to recovering hp & hp attrition , but at 3 pounds for 10 charges & the simultaneously overly gracious/overly tightencumberance limits it's just kinda pointless once you factor in the impact of spontaneous casting heal spells/slot recovery ease.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Healing Surges</strong>: I've never used it & it <em>could</em> work, but it's already so absurdly easy to shrug off attrition by hp damage that it would need additional rules like bleeding out or death at zero/-N to counterbalance it unless you massively reduce player hp. Once again the spitball of a rule does not mention anything of the sort & I've not been willing to dive into fixing it for wotc by completing the rule.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Epic Heroism</strong> People didn't like 5 minute rests in 4e & 5e recovery is <em>already</em> too easy. WThis munchkin fantasy should have been left on the cutting room floor where it blongs.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Gritty Realism</strong>: I talked about this earlier as did many others through this thread. Not only is it a spitball of a rule, It was never developed beyond the wet cocktail napkin happy hour scribbles. It certainly doesn't help that they called it gritty realism seemingly without understanding what that is when they made this variant rule to mimic the power scale of the upper tier greek gods.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Firearms & alien tech</strong>: Well meaning rules that might work for some gamesm but as usual they try to make gunpowder into modern day weapons (or close to) or just like magic but better. Unfortnately they painted themselves into a corner with that one by removing all the subjective weapon properties that were present back in prior editions like crit range/threat/brutal# & many more. The failure here is an example of the cascading ripples that were ignored when things were torn out of 5e.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Plot points</strong>: These are a poorly developed analog to fate's compels & declaration/invoke rules but 5e is very much not designed to support that kind of play. I've seen players try to treat fate like d&d where it's a disaster that often results in hurt feelings when the gm uses those same tools to push back at the world & the very characters themselves... but d&d lacks those tools so even a group who wants to use them like fate will run into huge trouble</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Initiative score: </strong>Really? You need a variant rule to say that you could have passive initiatives too but despite having a feat that gives a bonus to passive investigate they couldn't mention either in <em>that</em> section instead of this waste of pagespace?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Side Initiative</strong>: I'd wager that a lot of GMs use this for monsters without the players ever noticing by just throwing monsters somewhere interesting in the initiative order but it doesn't really change anything about or add anything to the combat like with</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">[spoiler="Dynamic Rounds& active initiative"][ATTACH=full]120259[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]120260[/ATTACH][/spoiler]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Speed Factor</strong>: Someone at wotc realized that after taking out virutally all of the tactical elements from combat that it left a big hole so they tried to add tactical elements somewhere else... Unfortunately like with their second bite at that apple known as greyhawk initiative it puts a huge load on the GM unless they change how they run initiative to the very slow jarring & disruptive method of calling out numbers/number ranges one by one until players metaphorically raise their hand. A proper solution to this problem aiming to be a replacement would have been to just not remove the tactical combat elements to begin with. It's probably fine if you run initiative like that & your group likes that, but greyhawk initiative's lead balloon-like reaction shows that those groups are just as much of a minority as I've seen them to be.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Climb onto a larger creature</strong>... This is a massive number of words to reprint the first table <a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Disarm</strong>: That's great & all... but once again they forgot they removed provoking an AoO for picking up the disarmed weapon</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Mark</strong>: It doesn't use your reaction but you can only do one. Ok sure whatever. Someone was hurt that too much of the tacticalgameplay was removed I seemingly rescued this from the PHB's cutting room floor to include, unfortunately on its own it only serves to show how glaring the loss is.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Overrun shove aside & tumble</strong>: Much like mark, disarm, & climb onto a larger creature these really just draw attention to the black hole left in 5e were they cut tactical combat rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Hitting Cover</strong>: This is a bad spitball of an idea that tries to reproduce things like firing into melee in past editions, but whoever wrote it didn't notice or got forced to accept that it was written so that it only matters if the attacker rolls too low to hit the target but high enough to hit someone there in melee that is probably in melee <em><u>because </u></em>they have good ac.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Cleaving through creatures</strong>: It;'s not a bad rule & can be useful, but there is no reason for intelligent creatures to cluster up like that without tactical combat rules so it too highlights the loss despite being functional.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Injuries</strong>: meh Unlike the insanity tables this at least imposes mechanical penalties. Plus crit tables tend to not work too well n practice & more importantly there is really only 1-2 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> settings (eberron & sigil) with the technology to replace those things. If you wanted to call something gritty anything it would be this</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Massive damage</strong>: This is pretty much a more in depth & fleshed out version of phb197's instant death, but it's hampered by not having the needed status effects so needs to make up unique penalties with no names.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Morale</strong>: as GM advice it's not bad </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The rest of chaper 9 is about creating/modifying monsters, races, classes, spells, & items so really falls into some other category as all this</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7951293, member: 93670"] I'm jumping into this thread a bit late, this is both spot on & missing the mark. Most of the rules in that section do read & play out much like a poorly spitballed forum post. The analogy misses the mark though because those spitball posts will often include discussion on why it's a poor & incomplete spitball along with ways to improve it. All of the criticisms about interclass balance, durations, & ability over/undervaluing are spot on... One not mentioned is that gritty realism turns magic items that mostly recover 1d6+1 charges[I] per day[/I] into what are basically at will cantrips & whomever wrote the rule couldn't even be bothered to footnote it with a suggestion like changing them to per long rest or something. If spells, class abilities, monster powers/abilities, etc were written with time periods based on short or long rests rather than rounds minutes hours days & specific times (ie dawn/dusk/midnight/etc) then it would mitigate some of those problems while simultaneously still not achieving gritty anything. [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] is spot on with his [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/lets-talk-about-chapter-9-of-the-dmg.671123/post-7950519']post about cascading effects[/URL] to removing various systems & subsystems present in prior editions, sadly 5e ignored those cascading effects & whoever wrote many of the rules in dmg ch9 does not appear to be aware of how those missing systems & subsystems impact the rules being poffered or wrote them before they were removed. As an example... it does no good to implement things like facing & flanking for tactical play if you strip out all of the other tactical rules like AoOs for things other than ranged attacks in melee & running away without disengage Sure you can add those things, but the foundation required for them to result in tactical play is missing & you wind up with something that is very much not tactical gameplay Personally i've used a lot of the variant rules across several campaigns so can give notes on many of them. Starting at dmg pg 263 [LIST] [*][B]Proficiency dice[/B] This is actually a pretty good rule that works well to put value on the ability mod portion of a skill check while bringing back the ability to use magic items that add+N to a skill, we settled on working them akin to how the[URL='https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Brutal'] brutal weapon property[/URL] worked in 4e Personally we found the best way to handle expertise with these is to allow the proficiency die[I](not the d20)[/I] to be rolled with advantage rather than doubling it. The usual (dis)advantage on a d20 falls outside this rule & is unmodified in how it applies to the d20. [*][B]Ability check proficiency[/B]: While I've not used it in d&d, it's effectively a less developed version of the same as the skill system used in fate freeport & similar to the overly stripped down fate accelerated(FAE is designed more for storyboarding than fate type ttrpg). I did use that for one or two games before the group asked to go back to fate's normal skills. It's a disaster & results in everyone acting in bizzare MrBean/inspector Clouseau-like ways trying to to weirdly apply skills in situations they have no place in. In short, it's a mess & huge headache for the GM. [*][B]Background Proficiency[/B]: This is one that could be a great rule, but in some ways suffers from the fact that backgrounds are all over the map ranging from orphan to noble or various types of mercenaries/soldiers & more. It's a rule that I've considered using, but 5e's skill system is too lacking to support it IMO. [*][B]Personality trait proficiency[/B]: Ugh, this reeks of the old school trait/flaw tables where you pick some defects that will never nder any circumstances affect your character & gain cool stuff except without the possability of the gm ever using it against you. [*][B]Hero Points[/B]: I've used these in multiple games & find that they work much better than inspiration or lucky. The biggest hurdle with them is thatdndbeyond does not support them so players using that abomination lose track & massively overspend their allotment of hero points. These are one of the many reasons why I mercilessly ban dndbeond at my table [I]even [/I]for new players or players who forget their sheet but have it on ddb [SIZE=1][I](sorry guys, bob got lost back there between sessions>but we were in the middle of this fight?>[U][B]hard no[/B][/U])[/I][/SIZE]. [*][B]Honor & Sanity[/B]: I wanted to use honor as a standin for charisma with social skills that ould take a hit or be improved by player actions/who they are dealing with. Sanity I wanted to repurpose as sort of a hail mary [I]"You can succeed at cost on that or for X points of sanity you could succeed with ptsd(or whatever)"[/I] type thing, but once again dndbeyond caused all of the same problems it caused for hero points & I've not tried it again since banning ddb at all of my tables and have not tried it since because 5e really works poorly with the fate style consequences I wanted to use with that sanity [*][B]Fear[/B] "ok guys you are scared of the bbeg & run away" I'm a skilled enough GM & storyteller to impart upon the party that they are crunchy & taste good with ketchup when facing things like tuckers kobolds, The Dragons of eberron, or whatever without needing to mechanically represent it. For a gm who needs that tool in their toolbox the results are just absurd though because "and half/the party bravely ran away" is a special type of boring that such an inexperienced gm will have trouble recovering from. If the old [URL='https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Shaken']shaken condition[/URL] were not carelessly removed from 5e [I]entirely[/I] then it could be used to spruce this up into something capable of making any monster that should be scary into something a bit more scary similar to how trogs used to do the same. The 4e [URL='https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Dazed']dazed[/URL] condition could probably have been reworked for this too but the action economy is too different & 5e has nothing similar to either in conditions. [*][B]Horror[/B] In general the madness tables are a mess. players who are going to ignore it are going to continue treating their character like a mechanical set if numbers while players who are going use it & to be hurt by it are going to cause severe problems in the game. Few if any of the things on the madness table have any [I][U]mechanical[/U][/I] bearing on play. When used to any significant degree, all this does is annoy & frustrate the table in my experience with it as both player & gm [*][B]Healer's kit dependency & low natural healing[/B] Back with prepared vancian spell casting/slots this would be pretty significant... in 5e though it means that I've literally seen one player scold a second player for "wasting healers kit charges & hit dice" rather than letting her burn some of the spell slots her & the paladin are about to recover. This is an attempt to bring back some thought & gravity to recovering hp & hp attrition , but at 3 pounds for 10 charges & the simultaneously overly gracious/overly tightencumberance limits it's just kinda pointless once you factor in the impact of spontaneous casting heal spells/slot recovery ease. [*][B]Healing Surges[/B]: I've never used it & it [I]could[/I] work, but it's already so absurdly easy to shrug off attrition by hp damage that it would need additional rules like bleeding out or death at zero/-N to counterbalance it unless you massively reduce player hp. Once again the spitball of a rule does not mention anything of the sort & I've not been willing to dive into fixing it for wotc by completing the rule. [*][B]Epic Heroism[/B] People didn't like 5 minute rests in 4e & 5e recovery is [I]already[/I] too easy. WThis munchkin fantasy should have been left on the cutting room floor where it blongs. [*][B]Gritty Realism[/B]: I talked about this earlier as did many others through this thread. Not only is it a spitball of a rule, It was never developed beyond the wet cocktail napkin happy hour scribbles. It certainly doesn't help that they called it gritty realism seemingly without understanding what that is when they made this variant rule to mimic the power scale of the upper tier greek gods. [*][B]Firearms & alien tech[/B]: Well meaning rules that might work for some gamesm but as usual they try to make gunpowder into modern day weapons (or close to) or just like magic but better. Unfortnately they painted themselves into a corner with that one by removing all the subjective weapon properties that were present back in prior editions like crit range/threat/brutal# & many more. The failure here is an example of the cascading ripples that were ignored when things were torn out of 5e. [*][B]Plot points[/B]: These are a poorly developed analog to fate's compels & declaration/invoke rules but 5e is very much not designed to support that kind of play. I've seen players try to treat fate like d&d where it's a disaster that often results in hurt feelings when the gm uses those same tools to push back at the world & the very characters themselves... but d&d lacks those tools so even a group who wants to use them like fate will run into huge trouble [*][B]Initiative score: [/B]Really? You need a variant rule to say that you could have passive initiatives too but despite having a feat that gives a bonus to passive investigate they couldn't mention either in [I]that[/I] section instead of this waste of pagespace? [*][B]Side Initiative[/B]: I'd wager that a lot of GMs use this for monsters without the players ever noticing by just throwing monsters somewhere interesting in the initiative order but it doesn't really change anything about or add anything to the combat like with [*][spoiler="Dynamic Rounds& active initiative"][ATTACH type="full"]120259[/ATTACH][ATTACH type="full"]120260[/ATTACH][/spoiler] [*][B]Speed Factor[/B]: Someone at wotc realized that after taking out virutally all of the tactical elements from combat that it left a big hole so they tried to add tactical elements somewhere else... Unfortunately like with their second bite at that apple known as greyhawk initiative it puts a huge load on the GM unless they change how they run initiative to the very slow jarring & disruptive method of calling out numbers/number ranges one by one until players metaphorically raise their hand. A proper solution to this problem aiming to be a replacement would have been to just not remove the tactical combat elements to begin with. It's probably fine if you run initiative like that & your group likes that, but greyhawk initiative's lead balloon-like reaction shows that those groups are just as much of a minority as I've seen them to be. [*][B]Climb onto a larger creature[/B]... This is a massive number of words to reprint the first table [URL='https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm']here[/URL]. [*][B]Disarm[/B]: That's great & all... but once again they forgot they removed provoking an AoO for picking up the disarmed weapon [*][B]Mark[/B]: It doesn't use your reaction but you can only do one. Ok sure whatever. Someone was hurt that too much of the tacticalgameplay was removed I seemingly rescued this from the PHB's cutting room floor to include, unfortunately on its own it only serves to show how glaring the loss is. [*][B]Overrun shove aside & tumble[/B]: Much like mark, disarm, & climb onto a larger creature these really just draw attention to the black hole left in 5e were they cut tactical combat rules. [*][B]Hitting Cover[/B]: This is a bad spitball of an idea that tries to reproduce things like firing into melee in past editions, but whoever wrote it didn't notice or got forced to accept that it was written so that it only matters if the attacker rolls too low to hit the target but high enough to hit someone there in melee that is probably in melee [I][U]because [/U][/I]they have good ac. [*][B]Cleaving through creatures[/B]: It;'s not a bad rule & can be useful, but there is no reason for intelligent creatures to cluster up like that without tactical combat rules so it too highlights the loss despite being functional. [*][B]Injuries[/B]: meh Unlike the insanity tables this at least imposes mechanical penalties. Plus crit tables tend to not work too well n practice & more importantly there is really only 1-2 [*] settings (eberron & sigil) with the technology to replace those things. If you wanted to call something gritty anything it would be this [*][B]Massive damage[/B]: This is pretty much a more in depth & fleshed out version of phb197's instant death, but it's hampered by not having the needed status effects so needs to make up unique penalties with no names. [*][B]Morale[/B]: as GM advice it's not bad [*]The rest of chaper 9 is about creating/modifying monsters, races, classes, spells, & items so really falls into some other category as all this [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's Talk About Chapter 9 of the DMG
Top