D&D V6 - Edition jokes don't really make sense anymore - Games

When I GM games, if there's ever a moment where someone would reasonably kill someone else for whatever reason (snuck up behind them and stabbed from behind, poisoned their drink, etc), I tend to just let it happen, otherwise you end up with situations where you Hitman your way past all the target's guards and defenses, only to fail in your mission because you're stabbing him with a dagger than does 1d4 damage. To be honest, the only time I use the in-game damage/combat rules is a full on fight, because in the heat of combat it makes sense that a flailing enemy in armor would be hard to get a single good throat stab in, but for "narrative" time, just let it happen.

that's my biggest problem with shadowrun, sneaking up behind a dude and slitting his neck with a knife is basically impossible because he's wearing an armor jacket and a helmet :ohno:

[QUOTE=Crimor;51592070]that's my biggest problem with shadowrun, sneaking up behind a dude and slitting his neck with a knife is basically impossible because he's wearing an armor jacket and a helmet :ohno:[/QUOTE] For shit like that, I always rule that if you managed to sneak up behind him, and he's not a major character, it instantly kills. Makes stealthy infiltrations a little more fun.

[QUOTE=Archimedes;51591980]I feel like ignoring hp values and instead having moments where the backwards firing arrow kills the corrupt noble or the rogue instantly garrotes a lone Orc guard helps create memorable moments and rewards the players for thinking creatively or playing to their class strengths. Removing moments like that kinda discourages creative thinking in my experience and in turn the campaign becomes a bit of a slog as players lose interest in trying thing as nothing ever seems to work out in their favor.[/QUOTE] In my experience if you let the rogue instantly garrote a lone orc Guard then he will try to do it again every chance he gets. It's not really a memorable moment, just a basic strategy at that point.

I don't really see why a GM would fully apply combat rules in a non-combat scenario. If a character has unrestricted access to a target of choice, he should be able to deal maximum damage to that target should his weapon actually be capable of inflicting damage to it in the first place.

My characters snuck into an orc camp and tried to stealth kill a bunch of high level orcs all at once Ringwraith style from LOTR, bringing their swords/daggers down while they slept. They only rolled to determine if the nearby orcs heard the noise of them murdering their friends Stuff like that is an instant kill, as is too, interesting ways to kill like using the environment. As the druid and barbarian did when they drop kicked an orc into sentient thorn brambles which quickly overwhelmed it.

[QUOTE=Crimor;51592070]that's my biggest problem with shadowrun, sneaking up behind a dude and slitting his neck with a knife is basically impossible because he's wearing an armor jacket and a helmet :ohno:[/QUOTE] If you're a melee build, making a called shot on someone who can't dodge is a death sentence. But if you're bad at melee/low strength then yeah, body armour is going to make it hard to kill someone in one hit. [editline]28th December 2016[/editline] Called shot to the neck is -8 on your roll (but if the other guy can't dodge it doesn't matter much), and as long as you get any damage at all through their armour, they take an unresistable 1P for every action they make, and they have to roll body+will and get 3 hits or lose 10 init.

Had the second session in my new campaign yesterday. 8 players, 3 new players and 5 five returning from my last session. Breaking the record for amount of players in one session. I was very intimidated at first as I'm a fairly fresh DM (Anyone has tips introducing new player characters to campaign? How to get them joining the group without it feeling forced?) After the rough start I got the hang of it, it ended up being one of my favorite sessions. The group spotted a campfire in the distance, everyone checked it out while one of the new players (a halfling) remained to protect the caravan. Turns out the campfire belonged to bandits which ended with a huge battle. Meanwhile the halfling at the caravan heard the fight and decided to run away with the caravan. After the battle the remaining party found out the caravan is gone, and this is when the party split up. One player escaped with the caravan, another ran after him with two more players right behind him again. The remaining players was more interested in looting the bandits than running after the caravan, and thus gets left far behind. Those who chased the halfling found the caravan in a cabin which ends with a small showdown between the halfling and the tiefling player (The tiefling was the first to get to the halfling) It almost breaks out in battle but the halfling asked for forgiveness as he admitted he believed the party was dead and he could sell their stuff in the city. The tiefling spared him and thus no one died. Good game, despite everyone got separated.

[QUOTE=Hikkotch;51592954]Had the second session in my new campaign yesterday. 8 players, 3 new players and 5 five returning from my last session. Breaking the record for amount of players in one session. I was very intimidated at first as I'm a fairly fresh DM (Anyone has tips introducing new player characters to campaign? How to get them joining the group without it feeling forced?) After the rough start I got the hang of it, it ended up being one of my favorite sessions. The group spotted a campfire in the distance, everyone checked it out while one of the new players (a halfling) remained to protect the caravan. Turns out the campfire belonged to bandits which ended with a huge battle. Meanwhile the halfling at the caravan heard the fight and decided to run away with the caravan. After the battle the remaining party found out the caravan is gone, and this is when the party split up. One player escaped with the caravan, another ran after him with two more players right behind him again. The remaining players was more interested in looting the bandits than running after the caravan, and thus gets left far behind. Those who chased the halfling found the caravan in a cabin which ends with a small showdown between the halfling and the tiefling player (The tiefling was the first to get to the halfling) It almost breaks out in battle but the halfling asked for forgiveness as he admitted he believed the party was dead and he could sell their stuff in the city. The tiefling spared him and thus no one died. Good game, despite everyone got separated.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you guys had good fun. Personally, I will not go over 6 players. I find it is hard to manage and combat starts to get super slow. If you can manage it though, and everyone is having fun, go for it! For introducing new people to the game you could just force them into the storyline as like "they were already adventuring with you just roll with it) and being only the second session that works fairly well. Otherwise, you can just have them meet up somehow, but have them roleplay it. It helps flesh out their character. I don't let new characters who are either joining new/ replacing old characters just be like "hey can I join?". I let them flesh out how the characters would act in this situation. If you need to throw a bone, have the new joining characters have the same goal as the current party. "Hey you are trying to kill [thing]? me too!". You could have them find/rescue the new player (in a closet, in a dungeon, in a prison, captured ... ). Then the new player has to help the current party escape somewhere and then ends up just joining the party in the end. A lot of joining the group can be based on what is currently going on in the campaign. What reasons would the party require more bodies? What reasons would new players want to join the party? That is all up to you Mr GM!

[QUOTE=Archimedes;51591980]I feel like ignoring hp values and instead having moments where the backwards firing arrow kills the corrupt noble or the rogue instantly garrotes a lone Orc guard helps create memorable moments and rewards the players for thinking creatively or playing to their class strengths. Removing moments like that kinda discourages creative thinking in my experience and in turn the campaign becomes a bit of a slog as players lose interest in trying thing as nothing ever seems to work out in their favor.[/QUOTE] I always kind like having the players roll anyway just so its not so obvious as a fiat. That even though they roll so low it kind of makes them feel a little more accomplished because it has the implication that they stacked up so many sick bonuses with their efforts and planning that even the shittiest roll is a pass

[QUOTE=Nerts;51592908]If you're a melee build, making a called shot on someone who can't dodge is a death sentence. But if you're bad at melee/low strength then yeah, body armour is going to make it hard to kill someone in one hit. [editline]28th December 2016[/editline] Called shot to the neck is -8 on your roll (but if the other guy can't dodge it doesn't matter much), and as long as you get any damage at all through their armour, they take an unresistable 1P for every action they make, and they have to roll body+will and get 3 hits or lose 10 init.[/QUOTE] That's the problem I have though, that armor affects slitting a dudes throat.

I feel like having AC against a throat-slitting attack represents the chance of accidentally hitting an oversized pauldron on the way to the neck.

[QUOTE=Archimedes;51591980]I feel like ignoring hp values and instead having moments where the backwards firing arrow kills the corrupt noble or the rogue instantly garrotes a lone Orc guard helps create memorable moments and rewards the players for thinking creatively or playing to their class strengths. Removing moments like that kinda discourages creative thinking in my experience and in turn the campaign becomes a bit of a slog as players lose interest in trying thing as nothing ever seems to work out in their favor.[/QUOTE] Blame it on a setting that has instant magical healing readily available, man. Like I've said multiple times, it doesn't even make sense for a backwards firing arrow to kill someone instantly. D&D games are (generally) in a world that has super duper magical instant cure-alls. So anything that doesn't actually kill someone is basically a wasted effort as far as assassinations go. Unless they're poor dirt farmers. The rogue garroting the lone orc guard will instantly kill them. Unless that lone orc guard is a level 10 legendary super-orc or something dumb like that. Because at that point characters are like mythical superheroes ala Heracles or something, you try to garrote them they'll just pull it out of their throat and headbutt you into the ground.

[QUOTE=elowin;51593710]Blame it on a setting that has instant magical healing readily available, man. Like I've said multiple times, it doesn't even make sense for a backwards firing arrow to kill someone instantly. D&D games are (generally) in a world that has super duper magical instant cure-alls. So anything that doesn't actually kill someone is basically a wasted effort as far as assassinations go. Unless they're poor dirt farmers.[/QUOTE] I dunno if I'd call it [I]readily[/I] available. I'm pretty sure there's an assumption of, like, 5% or less of the people in any world having levels in any kind of adventuring class, and most of those are within the first few levels, and probably not divine casters. [editline]28th December 2016[/editline] I say that, but then I look at the Monster Manual for 5e, and the stat block for a Priest is a 5th-level divine caster.

[QUOTE=Rats808;51593736]I dunno if I'd call it [I]readily[/I] available. I'm pretty sure there's an assumption of, like, 5% or less of the people in any world having levels in any kind of adventuring class, and most of those are within the first few levels, and probably not divine casters. [editline]28th December 2016[/editline] I say that, but then I look at the Monster Manual for 5e, and the stat block for a Priest is a 5th-level divine caster.[/QUOTE] The assumption in most D&D settings is that it's so readily available that you could go to a sufficiently large city, visit their largest temple and chances are there's someone there who can bring the fucking dead back to life for a price. D&D is kind of ridiculous

[QUOTE=elowin;51593775]The assumption in most D&D settings is that it's so readily available that you could go to a sufficiently large city, visit their largest temple and chances are there's someone there who can bring the fucking dead back to life for a price. D&D is kind of ridiculous[/QUOTE] It's kind of outweighed by how dangerous the world is. The worst thing that could happen in the real world if you went outside the city was poorly trained highwaymen. In D&D, you can have many, [i]many[/i] races of intelligent creatures who are evil and want to see you die. Not to mention some people are near immortal and can kill you without even thinking about it. Oh, and bears on steroids. Most D&D settings are seriously brutal, it's just that adventurers are [i]equally[/i] brutal, so it evens out.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;51594418]It's kind of outweighed by how dangerous the world is. The worst thing that could happen in the real world if you went outside the city was poorly trained highwaymen. In D&D, you can have many, [i]many[/i] races of intelligent creatures who are evil and want to see you die. Not to mention some people are near immortal and can kill you without even thinking about it. Oh, and bears on steroids. Most D&D settings are seriously brutal, it's just that adventurers are [i]equally[/i] brutal, so it evens out.[/QUOTE] Which is exactly why a backwards firing bow isn't really a logical way to kill someone in D&D, because most people who are an actual serious threat to a group of adventurers can probably beat up like, a giant, easily.

[QUOTE=elowin;51594840]Which is exactly why a backwards firing bow isn't really a logical way to kill someone in D&D, because most people who are an actual serious threat to a group of adventurers can probably beat up like, a giant, easily.[/QUOTE] First off: "a backwards firing bow isn't really a logical way to kill someone." Is an amazing sentence, I laughed. When I asked for unique abilities and effects this was the kind of stuff I hoped people would give me, because OF COURSE a BFB isn't logical, it's [B]FUN[/B] I'm not running some strict as fuck campaign I want stand out moments of silliness because who knows WHAT you could do with the BFB, I gave three examples off the top of my head in an earlier post. And really the only justification for it existing, especially in a high fantasy campaign like mine could have hundreds of reasons from spells going wrong or a sorcerer just seeing if he COULD. Your posts (to me) make it sound like you favour really ground in reality games But like you said, DnD is ridiculous, so why WOULDN'T it have something like a backwards firing bow. Embrace the silly.

I can't believe how much we're arguing over a magical bow that fires backwards.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;51595058]First off: "a backwards firing bow isn't really a logical way to kill someone." Is an amazing sentence, I laughed. When I asked for unique abilities and effects this was the kind of stuff I hoped people would give me, because OF COURSE a BFB isn't logical, it's [B]FUN[/B] I'm not running some strict as fuck campaign I want stand out moments of silliness because who knows WHAT you could do with the BFB, I gave three examples off the top of my head in an earlier post. And really the only justification for it existing, especially in a high fantasy campaign like mine could have hundreds of reasons from spells going wrong or a sorcerer just seeing if he COULD. Your posts (to me) make it sound like you favour really ground in reality games But like you said, DnD is ridiculous, so why WOULDN'T it have something like a backwards firing bow. Embrace the silly.[/QUOTE] I don't dislike silly games at all, but my general assumption is that any game that isn't explicitly stated to be a joke game isn't a joke game.

[QUOTE=elowin;51595175]I don't dislike silly games at all, but my general assumption is that any game that isn't explicitly stated to be a joke game isn't a joke game.[/QUOTE] But even dark stories have lightheaded moments. A game doesn't have to be explicitly a comedy to make you laugh. And just because it has a few funny moments doesn't mean it's a comedy. Even the most grimdark story you'll find will have comedy of a sort.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;51595205]But even dark stories have lightheaded moments. A game doesn't have to be explicitly a comedy to make you laugh. And just because it has a few funny moments doesn't mean it's a comedy. Even the most grimdark story you'll find will have comedy of a sort.[/QUOTE] Of course they do, but that's not quite what I'm talking about. Rather, something like the backwards firing bow is the kind of thing that breaks the internal logic of the setting, but a joke game doesn't have internal logic thus it's fine.

Hey all - I've been getting more and more into tabletops in general over the last year because of my girlfriend and her family. I just picked up Mansions of Madness for us all over Christmas and we're interested in painting the figures. Does anyone happen to know how well Citadel paints (WHF/WH40K) would work on the models? I assume they'd be just fine considering how similar the models [i]seem[/i] to be, but I don't know if they're the same plastic and all.

[QUOTE=biodude94566;51595271]Hey all - I've been getting more and more into tabletops in general over the last year because of my girlfriend and her family. I just picked up Mansions of Madness for us all over Christmas and we're interested in painting the figures. Does anyone happen to know how well Citadel paints (WHF/WH40K) would work on the models? I assume they'd be just fine considering how similar the models [i]seem[/i] to be, but I don't know if they're the same plastic and all.[/QUOTE] One of my friends played MoM and painted the minis Should be fine.

Having had those paints, so long as you use a primer (does not have to be brand specific I find), you're good.

[QUOTE=Glent;51592855]In my experience if you let the rogue instantly garrote a lone orc Guard then he will try to do it again every chance he gets. It's not really a memorable moment, just a basic strategy at that point.[/QUOTE] I subscribe to two schools of thought on this personally. First: I agree with what you're saying and in my own sessions I typically make the player make a few skill checks to add an element of failure as suggested by cdr248. Second: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having it turn into a common strat. If a player becomes complacent and comfortable doing one thing then it becomes a great chance to add elements of variance to it. More guards arriving, a magical countermeasure, etc. I don't think having a player just pick off a wandering Guard with a high roll is too heavy since you're free to just add in another guard for when the party gets ambushed, but letting the player get caught up in feeling like a badass to the point where they got cocky can be a great way of humbling them when two Orcs walk in on them murdering their friend. [QUOTE=elowin;51593710]Blame it on a setting that has instant magical healing readily available, man. Like I've said multiple times, it doesn't even make sense for a backwards firing arrow to kill someone instantly. D&D games are (generally) in a world that has super duper magical instant cure-alls. So anything that doesn't actually kill someone is basically a wasted effort as far as assassinations go. Unless they're poor dirt farmers. The rogue garroting the lone orc guard will instantly kill them. Unless that lone orc guard is a level 10 legendary super-orc or something dumb like that. Because at that point characters are like mythical superheroes ala Heracles or something, you try to garrote them they'll just pull it out of their throat and headbutt you into the ground.[/QUOTE] This is really just a preference or setting thing so I can't disagree with you. I tried to subvert this slightly in my own sessions by having Churches request considerable donations to preform miracles such as Greater Restorations and Ressurections. Even the mightiest lord is victim to the will of the gods in some cases. It also made straight Necromancy sort of a sought after commodity despite being taboo obviously. Also the arrow thing doesn't always have to just result in death. The noble might be badly wounded and as he's clearly dragged off to a nearby medical tent to be healed the party can ambush him there, or perhaps upon surviving the deathblow the Noble becomes paranoid and unhinged. He begins to trust outsiders more than his local cabinet and decides to take in the party of adventurers he met at the competition. Basically you're free to not have the arrow kill him and that's fine because it can be used as tinder for a more dynamic experience.

Did not expect the backwards firing bow to get that much attention.

[QUOTE=elowin;51595175]I don't dislike silly games at all, but my general assumption is that any game that isn't explicitly stated to be a joke game isn't a joke game.[/QUOTE] But I thought Shadowrun isnt a joke game?

[QUOTE=TrannyAlert;51596522]But I thought Shadowrun isnt a joke game?[/QUOTE] Any game can be a joke game if the GM wills it.

[QUOTE=Amakir;51596823]Any game can be a joke game if the GM wills it.[/QUOTE] Absolutely right.