Hmm, I don’t mind your idea at all but it is hard to implement so I see your trouble. Some folks have given good options but I’ll offer a different way to do it. I’d have one attack per player since it is a god, let him wreck house. Maybe increase the number of enemies to accommodate the attacks. Since this is a god regaining their power and their trying to control it I’d have two DCs for their check each round. First DC is if they listen and should be passed most of the time maybe 10 or 15. If they don’t then it might be bad for the party but otherwise they attack the target as intended. The second DC should be failed most of the time, maybe 20 or 25. If they fail this DC the the god still acts as ordered but releases a chaos burst as it does. I personally always use the d10000 list of chaos burst, its fun.
Yeah. I have that problem a lot. Combat in D&D turns into a grind, so I’ve been trying stuff to spice it up. The whole godling subplot came from wanting to give each PC a boon/curse pairing that would give them more options in combat. It’s mostly different ways to grant advantage or disadvantage, so it worked within the existing rules.
I’d have one attack per player since it is a god, let him wreck house. Maybe increase the number of enemies to accommodate the attacks.
That makes a lot of sense.
The chaos burst is a good idea. It’s a well understood way to add some randomness.
Make them submit their choice to you in private, don’t let them communicate with each other.
Otherwise you’re breaking immersion, almost like its asking their characters or something, which would be silly. Almost impossible to avoid meta gaming, you’d just change your pick to the majority pick, even for a disciplined and experienced player trying to role play well.
Instead, pretend its pulling the information from their subconscious or something. So you can’t ask the players publicly, they can’t know what the other players said. Or just roll for it.
Definitely! We play through Roll20, so I’ll get them to whisper the attack to me. Or tell everyone to hit “enter” in the chat message at once, so they can see each others’ results and second guess themselves at the next round.
DnD doesn’t really have rules where you can’t coordinate with your other players, and requires a hive mind consensus. My worry is that it will be too far afield from what the players are used to.
If you wanted to keep it more similar to 5e rules, you could give the players a free action to order the godling to do something, but require a DC roll to make the check (whatever makes sense, Arcana, persuasion, wisdom, religion). If the DC is failed, or multiple characters do the order action, then some random combination of target/ability is executed. If no order is given, do some random stuff.
I like the idea of the DC. It feels more likely to produce a desired outcome than relying on consensus. At the same time, I want a bit of chaos, so maybe something like:
The godling has two attacks.
On the godling’s turn, each party member can command it. Requires a DC 15 religion check.
Assign the attacks in the order of successes.
I want some chaos, so any tie (with differing targets) results in a random attack.
I’m really into this. I recently dropped out of a campaign and have been thinking about trying my hand at DMing. Reading through your post, it suddenly doesn’t feel so overwhelming lol.
Soo… for us that are huge fans of Mr Mulligan. But have everything facebook so hard blocked on eveything, it would take a week to dig out all the rules… are there alternative sources?
There’s nothing about their description that really seems to link into Baldur’s Gate at all. Unless they’re saying that if you love Baldur’s Gate 3, you’ll love DnD. That’s not groundbreaking information.
It more sounds like “If you liked Baldur’s Gate 3, you should read this article… very very please” to me. 😂
I’m glad the title is not true, though. I do love Baldur’s Gate 3, but Lost Mine of Phandelver was the first campaign I DM’d, it would have been a bit heartbreaking to me if The Shattered Obelisk was just a remake capitalizing on BG3 with a few references here and there. Phandalin deserves a full campaign, properly crafted. :)
It’s no concidence shattered obelisk releases shortly after BG3. Same way descent into Avernus was supposed to release shortly before BG3 was announced.
Both of them have some minor lore ties into BG3. Descent into Avernus is the introduction to Etruiel and Archduke Ravengard, both are major lore parts of BG3.
Shattered obelisk has netherese artifacts and mindflayers. Both big parts of BG3.
It’s the context. There has always been the stereotype of the starving artist which is quite prolific in our society. As a result it is already thought that as an artist you are not marketable or that you are not valuable enough to pay. As a result a lot of companies coughcouthwotccoughcough are already in hot water for refusing to pay artists. And now they’re using tools based on those artists actual work to generate art in the style of those artists for profit and the artists still won’t be getting paid for their work? Doesn’t seem fair. I don’t want to see it with writing or publishing of any kind. I don’t want to see AI generated art at the cost of the people who make real art. And further I don’t want people to use AI that’s been trained on the hard work of others (without recompense to those people who’s work the AI is being trained on) without their consent. That’s what’s happening.
What WOTC for caught out on was an artist using the generative AI system to enhance artwork they created. I don’t necessarily see a problem with that, except when you consider the other artwork the AI has been trained on.
I have used nothing but AI art in many of the adventures I've run for my players and it's working great. Perhaps you're using AI art generators in too superficial a manner, the best generations require a fair bit of attention to detail.
I’ve used gummy bears as tokens and maps thrown together in 30 seconds with Sharpie on wrapping paper and it works fine too. Players generally are pretty happy with whatever you throw at them.
I’d still expect better than that from a product that a major company is expecting you to trade money for.
You’ve got a few options here, as I should think that ultimately the solution will be found by the not-sphynx’s behaviours and mannerisms (though the questions themselves do help bring those behaviours out).
You could go for something everyone knows, like “What’s lighter: a tonne of bricks or a tonne of feathers?” When the players get it right by saying they both weigh a tonne, have the not-sphynx insist on the obvious wrong answer instead (the feathers, as a single feather is lighter than a single brick). Then when the players explain why that’s wrong and their answer is right, the not-sphynx pretends he knew that and was just testing them. Stuff like that.
If the campaign isn’t super serious in tone, you could work-in famous pop-culture examples. Ask the questions for crossing the bridge from Monty Python “What’s your name/quest/favourite colour?” With the not-sphynx not getting that the difficulty came from Tim alternating to a super hard third question for every other person he asked. You can even use the question about the African Swallow, with the not-sphynx not knowing if it should be laden or unladen, and just handwaving that one away when the players ask.
Ask the “What have I got in my pocket” question from the Hobbit. The players might try and answer “The One Ring” or something clever. When they exhaust their ideas and give up, the not-sphynx gets embarrassed and plays it down, admitting he forgot he doesn’t have any pockets…
Cool idea overall though - I think your group will have a lot of fun.
I’m imagining a player asking, “laden or unladen?” The not-Sphinx immediately replying, “I don’t remember, but I wrote it down one sec- fuck I can’t read in the dark.”
Really wishing I could do this in my next game lmao.
dnd
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.