D&D 5E Tome of Undeath

[loverdrive]

5e doesn't try to control "big attack" vs "multiple small attacks" as an important balance difference. (most, but not all, damage boosts are "per turn")

Making it matter seems risky.

Magic Missile, for example, makes force vulnerability crazy dangerous.

It also impacts melee/caster balance. Melee characters are more likely to rely on multiple taps, while a caster is more likely to have a big attack; the caster often also has some multiple tap options.

This is a very valid concern, though I've taken steps to address it.

There are pretty few monsters that are resistant to physical damage (well, there aren't many monsters that have resistances at all) in my book. For the reasons you've outlined and also because dealing more damage with, say, Bludgeoning has pretty much the same effect as dealing less damage with Slashing and Piercing, but just feels more satisfying.

By making having that choice -- single vs multiple -- important, you weaken weapon users. The "consequence" of an attack roll landing is bounded in 5e, which also effectively bounds damage (rogues and paladins are the exception to that rule) per tap, while the "consequence" of a save failing is unbounded (up to and including "lose the fight").

That's mostly for spellcasters, as they actually have an option to make one powerful attack vs several weak ones -- like Scorching Ray or Flaming Sphere vs. Fireball.

If I were redoing everything from scratch (which I won't, I already have two systems I'm working on and not much energy and free time), I'd want to have things like All-Out attacks or somethin available for martial classes, but, again, I won't.

Consider using half-vulnerability: weakness; +50% damage instead of x2.

x2 runs into the problem of being too big. 50% is big enough to track without dominating, and is pretty fast math.

That something that sounds cool, but still, one of the main reasons I want to ditch x2 vulnerabilites is because I suck ass at numbers. Maybe I'm retarded, but even multiplying by 2 is a hard time for me, multiplying thing by 1.5 is gonna just fry my brain.

 

[loverdrive]

If you're going to stick with a black cover, perhaps "Le Livre Noir Du Mort-Vivant."

That's cool (and maybe I'm gonna make it as an in-universe name for the book by some aging magician), but I really want a title that is easily searchable.

 

[loverdrive]

I've said that list was finalized? I lied. Have been replaying Dark Souls and now I can't just make a undead supplement without these guys.

 

[Imaculata]

Wheel skeletons are the best, and the worst. I love what you're doing here. Having multiple versions of the same monster is something I've always missed in any edition.

 

[loverdrive]

Ok this is probably the last sneakpeek. I'm very proud of how this thing worked out after a couple of playtests, so I'm gonna share it.

(damn, I need to restrain myself more, or I'll leak the whole supplement before release)

 

[Istbor]

I notice above that your greatsword does piecing damage. Is that intended? Not the typical damage type associated with that weapon.

Otherwise, looks good!

 

[loverdrive]

I notice above that your greatsword does piecing damage. Is that intended? Not the typical damage type associated with that weapon.

No, that's just a screw up that no one of betas ever noticed. Thanks.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There's also a small typo in the severed hand consequence ''he may can't....''

This does look fantastic, though. I'll be sure to buy it! Any plans for print on demand?

 

[loverdrive]

There's also a small typo in the severed hand consequence ''he may can't....''

This does look fantastic, though. I'll be sure to buy it! Any plans for print on demand?

I'm looking into print on demand right now, but I can't wrap my head around the exact way OneBookShelf works, so I'll not promise anything.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

You really need some hard editing on this before releasing it. The Cleave maneuver for example really requires one reads it more than once because "his", "it's" etc. is obscuring, who is being referred to. I think you should stick closer to the "traditional" wordings of 5e, where the monster name is used repeatedly, to avoid confusion.
Additionally, lines like "may make greatsword attack" and "makes two greatsword attack" shows the need for an editing pass.
Oh, and medium creatures in 5e do not have d12 HD!

Fix these kind of issues, and it looks like you have a great product