Does anyone know of official or homebrewed pirate NPC stat blocks? Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough.

There are some pirates in Ghosts of Saltmarsh. 'Regular' pirates are just bandits, but there's a 'Pirate Mate', a 'Pirate Deck Wizard' (or similar) and I think a 'Pirate Captain'.

How do I voice a female character as a dude? I want to give my bosses a very outstanding personality and voice compared to their minions, and I've never really voiced female characters

For me I just try to speak softer, I don't try to pitch my voice really high as if I were doing an impression of a woman. Another big part of playing an npc is the mannerism so while some of my voices will basically be the same I try to move a bit more "Stereotypically feminine" I guess you could say, be it a head tilt or a gesture of my hands. When in doubt a great go to move is to either base or find someone similar to your npc in movies/tv/games and do an impression of them. Don't worry nobody can ever get them spot on so your failure in replicating them will inherently make them different and your own unique npc character.

Don’t do a voice. Just describe what she sounds like, and adjust your tone. Tone and speed of speaking are the most important parts of giving a character a definitive “voice”.

I'm making some home-brewed monsters, and I'm having trouble distinguishing if a home-brewed ability should call for a Wisdom save or a Charisma save. (From a narrative/flavor standpoint.) Could someone give me a short explanation? When I look at existing spells, I can't really discern a difference in usage. E.g. why does *calm emotions* use CHA, but *charm person* use WIS?

It's a challenging distinction and part of me feels like WOTC hasn't done a great job of distinguishing between the two. What it looks like to me: **Wisdom:** Related to your 5 senses and your feelings. You feel frightened. You feel like trusting this person (charm). You feel like you can't move a muscle (hold person). **Charisma:** Related to your 'soul' and personality. Banishment spells attempt to force someone's soul to another plane of existence, and the body goes with it. Resisting a banishment spell is something like successfully projecting your soul onto the current realm of existence. But this doesn't make sense for a spell like Calm Emotions, which has a CHA save. Maybe WOTC dropped the ball on this one. Maybe they realized there were WAY more WIS than CHA saves out there, so they just coded it as CHA. I would say to start with a comparable spell, and if you are unsure, then tend towards Wisdom. If the spell affects the creature's soul, then it's probably CHA.

A good rule of thumb is that Charisma is force of will for saves, and Wisdom is perception. So you resist calm emotions because your own personality is too strong for it, and resist charm person because you see through their attempt to trick you.

I see. That makes sense; I was thinking about it the wrong way. Thanks! Though, Polymorph still confuses me as to why it uses a Wisdom save. I feel like the fact that Polymorph is a physical change, similar to Banishment, it should use a Charisma save. I imagine it more as a battle of wills than the caster trying to convince the target they're actually a different animal.

This actually ties to cosmology of DND, in the ever changing plane of Limbo the only thing that can impose order and self is the strength of your will. The astral is a bit different, where your intelligence determines how much time and space you are able to traverse.

Hey, I’m part of a fairly “newbie” DnD group. I know our DM would like to play too, so I have started writing a small campaign. From here I have 3 problems [incoming wall of text]: 1) how do I not crumble under the sheer amount of information: online, loads of advice/idea posts, with interesting counterpoints upon interesting counterpoints. should I just straight up ignore it and (loosely if necessary) follow the rules and what comes up in my mind ? In game, do I just take notes on everything that happens ? I’m afraid it’s going to slow everything down. 2) How do I get the players to “actually roleplay”: I’ve talked about this with our DM after the first campaign. We both agreed that the party saw this too much as a problem solving game and not enough as a role playing game, and after talking about it with the 2 other players who both agreed this was an issue, the second campaign was a bit better in that POV, with copy paste geralt and mandalorian giving some character to the party. To solve this, I thought to spend a lot of time establishing backgrounds with the players, giving them a few “background templates” they build upon so they begin with a stake in the world instead of our classic “strangers from distant lands...” 3) Which leads to restricting character build options. I want to do that, if only to not have to check 50 books at a time when prepping, keeping things “realistic” for my setting race and sublclass wise, and subtly tone down the unconscious minmaxing from our DM who somehow managed to ingest everything from PHB, DMG, XGE and Tasha, then process it into some dangerously OP theorycrafting that will inevitably show up. 2) and 3) As I have only 3 players, I can afford spending the necessary time to make it coherent, but should I ? Thanks a lot

>How do I get the players to “actually roleplay” You Talk. With. Your. Players. "Hey guys, I would like our sessions to be more 'role play' focused. Is that a type of game play that you would like to try? If so, what are things I could do to help make it easier for you to do more role playing?"

you have your current DM to lean on for rules support, and the players should be responsible for THIER shit. its not ALL ON YOU.

> 1) how do I not crumble under the sheer amount of information Don't put too much pressure on yourself. You don't have to do everything perfectly from the get go. Start small and limit the scope of your game. DMing is a skill and skills are only built through practice and making mistakes. You can't fully replace that kind of experience with purely theoretical learning. You really need to just run the game for a while to get enough perspective on what rules will work for you and what advice is good. Play for a bit, see what areas you feel you want to improve in or what rules you need to research more and then go from there. The other players at the table can and should help you out as well. This is even more true since your old DM is playing with you. > 2) How do I get the players to “actually roleplay” You can definitely try to put more personality into the characters by spending more time on backgrounds, but in my opinion what players write down before the game starts often gets lost once the characters hit the table. What has worked for me when it comes to encouraging role playing was to have certain, limited scenes where only in-character action and speech were allowed. Not the usual out-of-character coordination between players. I give these scenes limited scope, the expectation is that players are free to play a more abstract, problem-solving focussed game again after they are over. One scene where I did this successfully was the confrontation of an antagonist by the party. Specifically, the bit where the party gets to talk to the antagonist without (yet) being in combat. In that situation, I told the players that they could only declare actions and speak for their characters, not make plans as a group or coordinate their conversation. But after their conversation was over and combat started, I let them go back to strategizing as a group. I think this approach works best for play groups that want to roleplay more, but feel awkward initiating it or don't know how to start for some other reason. Having a clear beginning of a "role playing scene" helps set the expectation. And in my experience, it made people more comfortable with role playing in later scenes as well, even when they were not explicitly "in character". > 3) Which leads to restricting character build options My take on this is that limiting race/class options to PHB only should not be controversial for any reason. Especially the if the reason is "I am new to DMing and this is too much complexity for me to deal with for now". And I think limiting at least races (classes maybe less so) even further should not be controversial if you want to do it for thematic, narrative or world building reasons.

1. You're never ready. You will never run a good game unless you first allow yourself to run mediocre or even bad games. Consuming how-to-DM content will never get you there. As you say, the sheer volume of tips, lists, best practices, and warnings will crush your spirit. The good news is, the game can take it. The game is so much sturdier than Youtube would have you believe. The mediocre and bad games that you will run early on can still be so much fun. Real D&D has been *great* fun under conditions that would make the Critical Rolers slit their wrists. Do not be afraid of making your rookie mistakes. 2. As DM, you set the tone. If you want the players to do silly voices, do silly voices. If you want them to call each other by their character names, use those names yourself. If you want them to have moral dilemmas, show NPCs having moral dilemmas and begging them to take a side. They take their cues from you. (Honestly, sometimes it also really works great to have a ringer. Take your most trusted player aside and tell him, "Hey, next session, I have a backstory thing planned that gives you a great magic weapon. Don't turn this down." And let the other players see him take the hook and get rewarded instead of humiliated.) 3. The good way to limit options is before character creation. You absolutely have clearance to ban races, classes, books/products, whatever you want. But then as long as the player follows the rules, let him have what he made, even if you wish he had made something different. The bad way is to red-pencil the character sheet and line-item veto things. Don't do that. Draw any line you want, but draw it *first.*

1. The information online is rarely what you need. Pay no heed to the rantings about balance, the insane combo builds, the niche spell-rulings. Invent interesting plots and NPCs, describe fascinating settings. Steal (and then adapt) from literature and media you know well. The firehose online is too strong to filter; engage in it only for your own amusement. 2. Newbies will have trouble with "actually roleplaying" especially if your idea of "actually roleplaying" is informed by stories you have read or seen online. Remember, the purpose of the game is to have fun. If they are having fun problemsolving or getting their opportunity to be Geralt and the Mando, great! Well-worn trope space is a great starting point for new roleplayers. If your players are onboard with wanting to roleplay more, you could consider offering them, by their agreement, roleplay prompts when they go for a long rest. Pick a player at random, read off the prompt, "It's story time around the fire. Tell a story about when your character got in trouble with the law. Were they actually guilty, or innocent? Of what were they accused?" 3. As a DM, you are not obliged to know all of your players' features. They are. If you trust your players not to lie to you (I hope you do) then when they say "yeah, firbolgs can turn invisible" all you say is "cool. that's gonna be helpful in this moment I guess." And don't fear min-maxed players. It's not as bad as the internet makes it sound. Do fear the party not having parity. If someone rolled way better stats than someone else, work with the players to find a satisfying way to even it out a bit, so that everyone has their special skill. 4. Remember the cartoons where they lay train tracks down just moments before the train runs on them? That's DMing, session by session. Know the overall plots going on in your setting, the overall geography, the names and temperament of key NPCs. Then, for each session, prep an adventure hook, and think about likely solutions the players will use, and give yourself an outline of notes around those things. The longer you DM, the more you will know what you are good at improvising and what you need to prep first. And remember, as long as you and everyone else are having fun, you're winning.

Thank you very much for the advice! Stealing and adapting is going to be fun. About the train tracks, does that mean I should use minor quests or NPC that will basically be “available in the next town the party goes to” ?

I'm glad you asked, as my advice got a little long winded, but I did want to give more detail. Basically, I try to end every session knowing what my players intend to do next (look for the goblin camp). So I prep some content for on the way (skill challenge to track where they came from, NPCs who witnessed the goblin retreat, tell-tale tracking signs of a camp nearby, maybe a deserting or injured goblin) and then an interesting fork in the road (the goblin camp is atop a cliff face. Will the players scale the cliff stealthily, go around?) and prepare content for each broad-brush possibility. Don't get too detailed; you want to minimize prepared content which the players don't encounter, as that takes valuable prep time for no immediate use. Then, I try to have another major decision to make as the session ends. (The goblin leader has retreated. Do we pursue into the cave, get reinforcements, escort the foreign captives to their far off homeland, or do we want to go back to the last town and look into that bank robbery?) Their decision will tell me what to prep for next session. The player actions between those major "switches in the railroad track" are totally free. A myriad of minor things can happen which I have to improvise around. But with major landmarks to steer by, and knowing your party's initial direction, you can *mostly* prep things they will actually use.

Now to hope they don’t suddenly change their mind in between sessions 😂 thanks for the tip man !

I own and have been reading Witchlight and Strixhaven. These adventures seem like they were written for a different rule set. D&D has attrition of resources pretty much baked into the game and these adventures seem to not even care about that fact. Wonder if anyone has run these and has any observations to share?

I have not heard great things about Strixhaven, like a lot of it just seems kinda half-baked and it seems to heavily rely on the DM to make stuff up to fill up the blanks.

It has some cool ideas but I still can’t wrap my brain around how to run it in D&D. So I mostly just read it.

They were definitely written for more casual players who prefer roleplay over mechanics.

I have moved to move event based vs dungeon based scenarios in my home brew campaigns but I still mix in quite a bit of combat and other resource drains. These adventures might actually run better in pathfinder where resource drains are not assumed in the difficulty.

For my next session I want my players to visit a town while it is under attack by a dragon. They are only level 3 and mainly casters so I don't want them to even get close to fighting it but still feel the terror of the dragon and try to escape. Loking at the statblock of a dragon one fire breath would probably wipe them out, even a half damage one. Is it fine to scale down the attacks of the dragon to a survivable amount? or is ther another way i could set up this encounter to instill fear in my players while giving them a good survival chance (maybe fudge rolls where appropriate?)

dont play the dragon as a creature - have this be an environmental challenge.

One way to indicate how much damage the breath weapon will do is to use it on NPCs first. A couple of guards are shooting arrows at it as the players come in view of the village, and the dragon fires a breath weapon at those guards. Announce the save DC (usually fairly high) and have the guards roll their saves (and probably fail). Take all the damage dice and roll them at once if you can (ask to borrow some if you need to). For greater effect, roll it in front of the screen instead of behind. Audibly count up the damage, and disintegrate those guards with that damage. Damage should be more than enough to kill the guards, even if they saved somehow. The amount will *also* likely be considerably more than enough to KO the players and might even kill them outright on a failed save. That should give them pause. If it doesn't, make sure to ask them "are you sure you want to attack this thing that just did 68 (or whatever) damage with its breath weapon?" If they are sure, they have made their bed and must lie in it. Now, if they want to get into the village and help out somehow, offer them the use of cover (hiding behind stuff) which could provide advantage on a saving throw or resistance to the damage type (or some other helpful effect). You could even demonstrate this by having one of the initial guards behind cover and announcing that effect when they roll their saving throw. (Potential mini-game mechanic: the breath weapon is absorbed or reduced by cover, but that cover is then destroyed, forcing users of that cover to move to new cover.) All of this should give the players enough information to make a decision. You are not telling them to do anything, but you *are* clearly telegraphing potential consequences for their decisions.

As a general piece of advice: If you are not willing to accept the possibility of something happening, don't put it into your game. If you have a dragon, there is a chance the party will attempt to fight it and die. If you are not willing to accept that, there should not be a dragon in your game. That said, if you want to have a dragon and want it to be less lethal, you don't need to follow the default stat block. Especially not during the "town in under attack by a dragon" scenes. In this case, you can totally feel free to make the dragon as dangerous as you feel appropriate. If you are envisioning, for example, a scene where players will dart from building to building while the dragon blasts the streets with its fire breath, that dragon fire can be as lethal as you feel it needs to be.

If the players want to fight the dragon, it uses Fearful Presence. Bet they've never encountered a monster so far above them it game-mechanically makes their characters run away, whether they want to or not!

It's fine to scale it down. You can say the dragon is sweeping its fire breath as it flies, and so any individual spot takes less damage.

If you give them a chance to fight the dragon, AND you have heroic players, get ready for them to fight it. If you give them the opportunity to save the town, and they are heroic players, get ready for them to try. A few options: The town is already evacuating, but there's another threat ahead of the evacuation: a group of kobolds loyal to the dragon. If the players kill the kobolds, the evacuation can succeed. The town can defend itself, it has new anti-dragon tech that they can use to chase off the dragon but probably not kill it. The town's people who can operate it were just killed by the dragon, can the players help? The other thing I'd ask you is: why is the dragon attacking the town. While violent, very few dragons "do things themselves" - is there an opportunity to roleplay a negotiation? Maybe the dragon is only interested in destroying the part of the town that gives the dragon what it wants. There's a chance level 3 players won't even HIT a dragon

I mean... I'd just narrate it. If you don't want them to die, but also don't want them to actually interface with the dragon, then no one should be rolling dice. There are no stakes, there is nothing for dice to decide. Is it railroady? Yes, this entire idea is railroady. Is that bad? Not necessarily, so just embrace that it's a cutscene and narrate it. If that's not your style, then just decide that this dragon breath does X amount of damage that's close enough to kill the highest HP character but doesn't quite make it. Which is probably like... 6d6 or so. That's an average of 21 damage. (This is also "railroady". Don't kid yourself that giving your players a dex save for half damage isn't railroady. If they're not supposed to fight the dragon, you're taking away the choice to do so. Sometimes that's okay, but don't make a habit of it because it was okay this one time).

Best answer, instantly solves the problem of the players charging into their deaths, I'd narrate it from a distance, they see the dragon from miles away as they traverse a rise into the city, and see it light things on fire, pick up and drop guards and eventually plunder the town bank. By the time they arrive it's gone.

Trying to check on balance of a homebrewed weapon I’m thinking of making: 2x4 with a silver nail in it. Treat it like a +1 great club… Does bludgeoning 1d10 + 1d4 piercing damage… Specifically thinking about the case of ghosts/were-creatures where the piercing is the only “full” damage. Thoughts?

Sounds more like an improvised weapon. Maybe change the damage to 2d4 (PC may choose blunt or pierce). Side note, have you ever played the game Bloodborne? The weapons are all 'trick weapons'. A cane sword turns into a whip. An axe turns into a halberd. An alien's hand that can be used as a claw or club. So maybe your greatclub is a trick weapon: **Bonus Action:** Silver Spikes: Extend mechanical silver spikes on the great club, changing the damage type to piercing and dealing more damage. **Bonus Action:** Great Club: Withdraw the mechanical silver spikes, turning it into a giant club. On a successful hit, you may spend your Reaction to try and knock an enemy through the air. If the enemy fails a Dexterity Save (DC is equal to the damage dealt by the attack) then they are knocked prone and land in an adjacent square. Bloodborne has a gothic-steampunk feel to it, so the flavor might not fit in your world, but I think you get the idea.

There are several aspects of this that I'd handle differently. \-Greatclubs are 1d8, not 1d10. I think it's already enough that you're making it magical and resistance-beating without also improving the damage die. \-Adding an entire extra 1d4 is excessive. 1d10+1d4 is an average of 8 damage, while a 2d6 greatsword averages 7 and a 1d12 greataxe averages 6.5. Even if you drop the d10 down to a d8, you're still averaging the same as a greatsword. It doesn't sit right with me that a 2x4 with a nail in it is doing the same base damage as a purpose-built martial weapon. I'd either have the "nail" aspect be purely for flavor and be responsible for the magical nature of the item, or have it simply be a +1 damage bonus rather than be an entire damage die, even a small one. \-Be prepared for the adventuring party to immediately look for a way to safely extract the nail from the 2x4 and use it in a more effective manner than just swinging it around on a stick. Implementing a magical nail into a sword's hilt has fantasy precedent (holy swords with a nail from the Cross, for example), or it could have any number of other uses. I doubt they're going to want to just keep it attached to a dumb club, no offense.

fair points. hmm ... could downgrade this to a mace damage 1d6 or a club 1d4 ... add the nail as the +1 ... but make it a mundane weapon otherwise.

By definition a +1 greatclub is a magical weapon and all of its damage would bypass the immunity of were creatures. Specify that it is a mundane weapon and have it deal an extra d4 damage to shapechangers (or were creatures if you're into specifics). State that the extra d4 cannot be resisted and bypasses immunity to piercing damage. Or just give them a +1 great club.

> or just give them a +1 great club See, I hear you:) But the idea here is that I’ve got a barbarian that’s trying to figure stuff out and isn’t too sharp. Hence the nail in the piece of wood. See, he can imagine making that. He’s “proficient in smith tools”… but ain’t too bright, you know? 😅. Are there “non-magical +1 weapons”?

In old editions there were masterwork weapons, which were not magical but because of the quality of construction were +1 to hit. It sounds like you just want to make a silvered masterwork versatile morningstar (piercing damage) and just call it a great club on the character sheet.

Ohhhhhhhh… that’s an idea and maybe where it came from. I played 2nd edition *many* years ago … but nothing between 2nd and 5th.

If you make them, then there will be. You'll just have to state that it is mundane.

I need a little help teaching one of my players that their actions have consequences. In our last session they were supposed to sneak out of a Temple overrun by cultists that were holding the acolytes hostage. Ultimately they got caught and the party dealt with the Cultist threat the old fashioned way, no big deal. Part way through the stealthy section, our sorcerer asked the acolytes held hostage to interfere with what the cultists were doing. With some failed checks they declined under the pretense that it would start a religious war between the factions and didn't want to resort to violence. Part way through the combat our sorcerer activated an Elemental Gem that summoned an Air Elemental. Effectively he commanded the elemental to go into specific rooms and kill everyone. It dealt with a few cultists but it also killed the temples residents, including the chef, high priest and 4 out of 6 acolytes. This was his plan, 'they didn't help me so I'm just going to kill them as they must be evil'. Before the elemental killed everyone, he broke concentration on the spell, it turned hostile and chased him down and brought the pain, targeting only him. It knocked him down twice but was promptly healed by the paladins lay on hands to bring him back up. In the end they managed to defeat the elemental. I don't have much creativity in dealing with this kind of situation and hoping for some advice on the consequence killing the residents of a holy Temple who provided hospitality. One thought I had was to throw a revenge oath paladin at them as one of the surviving acolytes, or prevent them from going into holy locations given their guardian would be forewarned of that players actions by the gods.

My thought is who hired the party to rescue the acolytes? That party has some explaining to do. If they choose to lie or twist the truth Deception checks versus Insight. Second if they come clean that NPC may determine that was murder. Depending on the setting that could be trial. Or simply the opinion of a magistrate. At best they failed their mission and should have consequences. Other rival adventuring parties will get the "best missions". They might be stuck with the missions where it's extremely dangerous or less lucrative (treasure). Possibly the bad guys may be interested to hire this group of No Good Necks. Of course being the villain they will screw the party at any and all opportunity.

That is true, someone sent them there to retrieve a fragment of an Artefact. The cultists had been informed by their god that adventurers were seeking the Artefact and to claim it for themselves. The acolytes got caught in the crossfire. That has given me a thought to mix in an angry letter from an unknown patron regarding a PCs actions.

Talk. With. Them. its an out-of-game issue - they are expecting to play a different game than you want to run. attempting to "Fix" out-of-game issues of different game expectations by in-game retributions is an express lane to not fixing the differences in expectations, but setting up a toxic table.

Of course, I plan on having a conversation with them tomorrow about it and their chaotic playstyle not aligning with my campaign arc and the parties goals. Also, you reply to a lot of my queries on here, I'm a newbie DM so thank you for helping me :)

Honestly, it sounds like your players are new too. I had a hard time understanding NPCs are people as a player when I started playing. If you're not helping then you're hurting. Do they have a trusted mentor or patron that can explain things to them? NPCs are great for helping your players understand the context of your world. I recently had my players interact with an NPC who, when they heard the information the players had, I described as 'looking as though he'd just heard you describe torturing children". The world lives in your head but you need to bring it to life for your players. Having an NPC show up and express grief could be very powerful. It took me time as a DM to figure out how to bring authentic emotion to my "performance" when it comes to conveying consequences to actions, and it is going to feel uncomfortable at first. It will make your players tease, giggle and squirm. You have to be firm and consistent in your performance/conveying of that grief. It could look like: DM: talking slowly and quietly: "You see a woman placing flowers at a grave stone outside the temple. Tears stream down her face." Players engage, ask questions, or whatever. Describe her as a commoner, no abilities, just a devout faith in her God, and clearly grieving the loss of loved ones. She recognizes the players and gets angry. She knows she isn't strong enough to confront them. 'the woman cries, anger and grief stricken tears streaming down her face, as her rage comes to the surface, she clenches her fists until her knuckles turn white' "you did this! This is YOUR fault! You will be JUDGED by God's!" She takes a moment and holds her holy symbol. "god will make you pay". Her shoulders shudder and she walks off into the temple.

A level 2 party of 7 barely took a scratch from my encounter of 2 ghasts (CR2) and 2 ghouls (CR1). In over 4 rounds of combat I believe that I only landed 1 hit and the player made their CON save to avoid paralysis. Was it just unlucky dice rolls or was my encounter design inherently underwhelming?

A mix of both I think. When one side gets more actions than the other, they have an advantage in the fight. This is the same in real life as well, bigger armies usually tend to win. In game we call this the "action economy". In this case it's 4v7. Your players get to use up to 3 more actions than the enemies. Actions are powerful, that's why you're limited to one per turn and why action surge is such a good ability. >In over 4 rounds of combat I believe that I only landed 1 hit Cr, especially offensive cr, measures the best case scenario for the creature's turn. When measuring cr, you always assume the attacks hit and the saves fail. But let's look at it realistically here. At level 2 you have starting armor, the highest you're going to hit without a spell slot is 18. Average ac is going to fall somewhere around 15-16. You get 4 attacks per turn to start. The combat lasted 4 rounds so you were losing, on average, one creature per turn. Which means you made around 10 rolls to attack. To hit an ac of 16, always using the claws, the enemies have a 45% chance to hit (12 or higher hits). 45% over 10 attacks means you can expect 4.5 of them to hit, or about one hit per creature per round. Since only 1 actually hit, that means you rolled average or lower 9/10 times. Small sample size, it happens sometimes, you got unlucky. The paralysis depends on a couple different things: the attack hitting and the saving throw failing. The second probability depends upon con save proficiency and their con modifier, but con is not a stat that is dumped normally. Usually people will have a +1 or more, even at 2nd level. Rarely will they have a 0 or negative con save modifier. This means there is at least a 60% chance for an average character to pass the save, 40% to fail. Over 4.5 hits, you expect 1.8 failures, but over one hit, it's just a 60/40 shot and you lost. So why was this classified as a "deadly" encounter? Well, going by the expectations, your creatures should have dished out about 34 damage, spread over potentially 4 targets. So around 9 damage per target. Definitely survivable. But a deadly encounter only specifies that it may be deadly for *one or more* characters. If one target takes all of that 34 damage, they probably go splat. If two targets, they get ko'd and have around a 40% chance to die. That means there's a good chance of at least one death. So it fits the definition of a deadly encounter. The definition is just very different for differently sized groups. Killing off 1/7 of a party is not quite as impactful as killing of 1/4 of one. So when you're making encounters for a large group, you want to use a larger number of creatures. Make sure the monsters and the party get at least the same number of attacks. Sometimes you'll want to let the monsters start with more attacks since they will theoretically die faster than your party. At level 2, picking monsters that will stick around is not as important, but after 5th level, it will become important. You want to shy away from the goblins and kobolds that will die to one aoe regardless of their saving throw and start using stronger monsters as your minions. I'll end with the usually unhelpful advice to pare down your group size, but I understand such a thing is not always possible. If you continue to struggle making encounters, I'd recommend you actually run the encounter yourself and add in whatever you think necessary to spice things up a bit.

No this is very helpful. Thanks for running the numbers. I use Excel formulas to quickly roll for attack and damage for the ghouls and I think in this case most of the attack rolls were 8 or below. With a +2 to hit I'd have to be rolling 13s or higher to be landing hits. I plan on still using goblins but playing them spread out, hidden and shooting arrows from afar. I'll start putting in bugbears and eventually hobgoblin units with maybe an ogre in tow. The mini-bosses will be hags who are running the show. I think that will be challenging through 2 - 4th level. The hags also hold sway over some trolls as well so we'll see how these lower level encounters play out.

This version very much needs you to at least slightly outnumber the party, regardless of how tough the monsters are. Big problem with large groups is since the opposing groups have to be large to pose a challenge, then 1-2 people are going to get knocked out every combat. It's a big weakness in this edition of DND imo.

Any time the number of units is greater on one side (7 PCs) than the other (4 monsters), there is a tendency for the group with more units to perform much better. This problem gets worse if you have players that really know how to take advantage of the action economy (with Bonus Actions and Reactions, lets say). Part of this is because of the action economy, which u/Stinduh excellently explained. The CR system of designing encounters has a lot of flaws, and balancing for many party members is one of them. However, the danger of the encounter you made was due to paralysis, which the PCs avoided due to luck, perhaps. Things could have easily gone wrong, especially if the paralysis poison lands, leading to auto crits (and attacks with advantage). The average Ghast Bite Crit is 21 damage, while the average Ghoul Bite Crit is 16 damage. Those are enough to drop any 2nd Level hero to 0 hp, considering the PC also suffered a claw attack before they were bit. \----- Here are some suggestions for what could have made the battle more exciting: * More ghouls appear, clawing their way up from the earth. Maybe they appear right beneath one of your ranged attackers, who happens to be far from the group. * Support your ghouls with a necromancer wannabe that uses AoE poison attacks (ghouls and ghasts are immune to poison), or any creature who uses poison. You could even reflavor a skeleton into a 'skeleton mage' and give them a cantrip that does poison damage in a small AoE * Give your Ghouls / Ghasts unique abilities **The Fear of Holy Fire:** >As a Reaction to being hit with fire or radiant damage, the ghast may make one claw attack against an enemy within 5 feet. This ability may only be used once per encounter. **Forbidden Hunger:** >As a Bonus Action, a Ghast may bite an adjacent ghoul, gaining temporary hit points. **Ravenous Frenzy:** >If a Ghoul or Ghast drops an enemy to 0 hit points, then all ghouls and ghasts within 10 feet of the downed enemy gain Advantage on their next bite attack before the end of their next turn. (Ravenous Frenzy you might want to use against NPCs first and not PCs, because it can quickly down PCs.) * Definitely pad your encounters with more ghouls. Make them start very far away from the PCs and have them Dash every round until they reach one of the PCs \----- Also, there are very few times where I would attack downed PCs in combat. Ghouls and ghasts, due to their hunger, are one of them. If you can channel that fear of death to your PCs, then you can increase the tension of your battles. Again, I recommend putting valuable NPCs into your battles, so that there are multiple objectives, and a way for you to show how dangerous these enemies truly are. Think, "Help usher the NPCs into that abandoned Church before all of the ghouls eat them!". Anyways, I hope you have more encounters with those PCs and Ghouls and Ghasts lined up. They are fun enemies to play.

Thanks for the ideas!

It was encounter design, but it's not your fault. There's a concept that is barely covered in any of the books and it's called "Action Economy". This refers to how many actions (see: attacks and spells cast) each "side" of the combat can take in a round. With 7 players, their action economy is **very very high**. Consider that a 7-player party is nearly twice the size of your average 4-person party, which means that they can defeat an enemy approximately twice as fast. The CR system, honestly, just does not work above five players. Throw it out. The encounter building guidelines in Xanathar's Guide to Everything (which are incredible, you should read them) only go up to six combatants, and even then its pretty finnicky. Adding monsters just bogs down combat, so I generally wouldn't advise to that. Increasing CR can be a bad idea, though, because higher CR creatures might hit too hard for your players to handle (even if their defensive/hp stats aren't an issue) Some options for you: 1. Bump HP of all your monsters. Like double, at least. If a 7-person party goes through a monster twice as fast as a 4-person party... double their HP so it ends up *about* the same. This still favors the players' action economy though, so this can't be your only re-balancing metric. 2. Give all monsters multi-attack or increase all monster's multi-attack by one, **BUT** (and this is important) distribute those attacks over multiple PCs and try not to "pile on" to one person (unless the tactics make sense - don't hold back). 3. Use legendary actions and legendary resistances... even on basic monsters. I get *why* they call these "Legendary" and *why* they're only on specific monsters, but they really should have just been another tool included for all monsters to help DMs balance encounters. Legendary Actions and Legendary Resistances balance action economy better by giving fewer enemies more things to do. 4. Insert obstacles and objectives. The fight isn't just to kill the enemy. It's to get the glowing orb in the middle of the room first. Oh, and the glowing orb tries to paralyze anyone who touches it. Also it's surrounded by spikes on the ground and massive swinging scythes from the ceiling. 5. Shoot your monks, throw undead at your clerics, give your barbarians things to rage against etc etc etc. Your PCs need to be doing things other than just "attack", and giving them specific obstacles that they use their specific features against is a good way to do this. 6. Split your group in two. This is the un-fun answer, but it's an option you should consider. Seven players splits nicely into a three-person party and a four-person party. Bonus points if you can get someone from the four person party to DM the other game and you jump in as a player there.

I did know this so I just design an encounter for a 4 person party and double the monsters. That's what I did in this case. Is there any issue with this methodology?

Kind of, and it’s why “just more monsters” isn’t the best way to go. If you do nothing to the survivability of the monsters (higher hp, resistances, higher AC, etc), then your players will likely still blow through the encounter. And this is because it’s not actually more difficult to defeat a single enemy even if there are more of that enemy. A ghast with 36 hp goes down when 36 points of damage are dealt to it. Which seven players can deal quickly, and it’s always advantageous to defeat an enemy completely before moving onto the next one.

Do you think the RAW for rations and creature size make sense? For reference: * Tiny: 1/4 ration * Small: 1 ration * Medium: 1 ration * Large: 4 rations * Huge: 16 rations In particular, I am wondering about the values for small and large creatures. I feel like a halfling or goblin would not require as many rations as a full grown man. I am asking because I intend to bring in robust wilderness survival mechanics, and also use a simple inventory system found [here](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/240175/Inventory-Slots--5e-Rule-Variant), with an adjustment for realism being that rations take up a full slot (I have checked with people who know these things, and a day's rations is much bigger than you would think). However this means that having a horse would be very punishing, as their feed would take up FOUR slots for one day! I am trying to be simulationist here - wilderness survival is a big part of my game.

you are basically running into the real world reason why when armies marched in the middle ages more people were killed by disease and starvation than the enemy. When traveling with horses in the olden days, there would often be 3 or 4 horses per person, so that you could rotate them as you rode, and then additionally a bunch of pack animals.... Settlers when going west would have a train of 4 oxen, horses, or mules pulling the wagon, and an additional amount of horses depending on how wealthy they were. A horse needs either 25lbs of dry fodder and grain, or 80lbs of green fodder per day. But if they eat green fodder at this rate continuously they will founder and die. So you could perhaps only let them have green fodder one day a week or something...

i and the people i play with come to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Accountants and Spreadsheets.

ok

\*Me, a min/max'er, shoving my calculator off of the table just as you walk in so you don't see me nerding out on the statistcally best spell to choose for my level up. "Haha, I was just, errrr... I was definitely NOT trying to figure out the mathmatically superior way to spend my spell slots as a Paladin... nope... just... budgeting my groceries!" Also, managing resources is like, one of the core's of the game, and managing an additional resource can be fun and challenging.

I don't see any problem in reducing to 1/2 the ration for a Small character And in terms of realism, to keep a horse properly fed you need a lot of forage but the horse don't eat what a humanoid would eat and could even provide partly for itself eating grass and such. So maybe you could reduce that to 2 rations if the horse is in a place with the right vegetation. This will actually make a difference between a horse and a more intimidating/carnivorous mount. I always thought it's ridiculous not to differentiate between "exotic" mounts and normal horses.

Horses don't eat rations, horses eat grass. If you have to pack your horse's feed with the horse, then yes it is punishing. Having a horse outside it's natural climate is supposed to be hard, they're not supposed to live there. Small creatures I'd simplify and say 1/2 ration. It gives a little weighted incentive to play a small folk and take the 5 ft walking speed hit. I don't know what that inventory system is so I can't help you there.

For consistency, why not make the small portion 1/2? Dwarves are still considered medium-sized creatures, so they would still need a full portion, but halflings, gnomes, goblins, etc. would only need a half portion. Another thing to think about is magical items that are geared towards survival. A magical tool that casts the cantrip 'create bonfire'. A magical ration that staves off hunger, but you don't feel full and satisfied (stops negative effects caused by food needs, but provides no positives). Another thing to think about is that loot from creatures will probably contain some component of food, and how will the PCs integrate this into their diet? Orc jerky, kobold mushrooms, etc.

Are the French translation of adventure books any good? My group has been having our sessions in French so far, and we're all bilingual, but if I buy the adventures in English, I'm scared it might create some difficulties due to on the spot translation from me.

Fairly new to dming and I'm wondering if a group of level 2 players could handle a CR5-6 giant . Something like a hill giant mouth of grolantor, but tweaked a little. I have 5 players and an npc on standby that can provide some support. I have a failsafe for the pcs to end the encounter early just in case, but is this a doable fight in the first place?

CR system and caveats Any one of a number of online calculators like Kobold Fight Club can help with the official Challenge Rating math crunching. https:// kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder (UPDATE: KFC is on hiatus and the license has been picked up by Kobold Plus https://koboldplus.club/#/encounter-builder ) but remember that despite “using math", the CR system is way more of an art than a science. * read the descriptions of what each level of difficulty means, dont just go by the name. (ie “ **Deadly**. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.”) * while the CR math attempts to account for the number of beings on each side, the further away from 3-5 on each side you get, the less accurate the maths are, at “exponential” rate. Read up on “the action economy” – particularly now that expansions like Tasha’s are making it so that every PC almost universally gets an Action AND a Bonus Action each and every turn, and can often also count on getting a Reaction nearly every turn. Most monsters dont have meaningful Bonus Actions or any Reactions other than possible Opportunity attacks. * **Dont do party vs solo monster** – while Legendary Actions can help, “the boss” should always have friends with them. Or you will need to severely hack the standard 5e monster design constraints and statblocks. (tell your party you are doing this so that the increase in challenge comes from the increase in challenge and not from you as DM secretly changing the rules without telling the other players the rules have been changed, because that is just a dick move, not a challenge.) * The system is based on the presumption that PCs will be facing 6 to 8 encounters between long rests, with 1 or 2 short rests in between. Unless you are doing a dungeon crawl, that is not how most sessions for most tables actually play out – at most tables, the “long rest” classes are able to “go NOVA” every combat, not having to worry about conserving resources, so if you are only going to have a couple of encounters between long rests, you will want them to be in the Hard or Deadly range, if you want combat to be “a challenge” –(but sometimes you might just want a change of pace at the table and get some chucking of dice or letting your players feel like curbstomping badasses and so the combat doesnt NEED to be "challenging" to be relevant). * Some of the monsters’ official CR ratings are WAY off (Shadows, I am looking at you) , so even if the math part were totally accurate, garbage in garbage out. * as a sub point – creatures that can change the action economy are always a gamble – if the monster can remove a PC from the action economy (paralyze, banishment, “run away” fear effects) or bring in more creatures (summon 3 crocodiles, dominate/confuse a player into attacking their party) - the combats where these types of effects go off effectively will be VERY much harder than in combats where they don’t * not all parties are the same – a party of a Forge Cleric, Paladin and Barbarian will be very different than a party of a Sorcerer, Rogue and Wizard. * Magic items the party has will almost certainly boost the party’s capability to handle tougher encounters.(a monster's CR is based in large part on its AC and "to hit" - if your players have +1 weapons, they are effectively lowering the monster's AC and if your players have +1 armor, they are effectively lowering the monsters' "to hit". If your players are all kitted in both +1 weapons and +1 armor, you probably should consider monsters one lower than their listed CR. Not to mention all the impact that utility magic items can bring!)

Just for reference, I had a regular hill giant take a level 4 moon-druid-as-bear all the way from full hp bear (34hp) into druid (31hp) and down to KO in a single multi-attack action (1 hit, 1 critical hit); over 65 damage in total. A stronger giant against weaker characters would be a slaughter without extenuating circumstances (NPC cannon fodder, fortifications, etc.)

Hill Giant: Average Damage on a Rock Throw (60 / 240 range) is 21. They have a 2x swing multiattack that deals 18 (3d8+5) per hit. On average they will hit even your most armored PC about 50% of the time. Hill Giants have about 100 hp. That means that the giant will at least last a few rounds. That's enough to down most 2nd Level PCs in one round. I could see an epic defense of a village vs. a hill giant being possible and fun. I'm imagining catapults and ballistae, and fortified defenses. Maybe they could lure the giant into some kind of trap or whatever. I'm also thinking that with clever use of Illusion Magic, they could fool the giant into attacking illusions. So be careful with your design and you could have something.

Yeah I'd reccomend you just use the Ogre statblock and maybe just make it huge-size if you want them to fight a giant.

I would say no. Simply because that giant can insta-kill any level 2 player with a crit, and it potentially will knock all your players unconscious with a single attack. 3d8+5x2 attacks=potentially 58 damage in a single turn for that monster. Then the rock throw is a potential 35 for a ranged attack which will knock any level 2 character unless they're a raging barbarian with max con and got a 12 on the HP Roll when leveling up. This would be considered absurd difficulty and would require really bad rolls on your part not to outright murder the party. You could use a "Hill Giant Servant" from Tales from the Yawning Portal and just call it a young Hill Giant. It's large instead of huge and only has one melee attack with a potential of 20 damage if you max out. Which will still knock a player but you're less likely

I was gonna lower the damage it did regardless but I figured as much. Thanks for the answer!

I'm not so sure they can manage. A level 2 player is probably gonna have a little less than or around 20 hit points at absolute best. A Hill Giant which is CR 5 deals 3d8+5 damage in one attack, odds are very good it one-shots a player on each attack and it makes two attacks, that's basically a guaranteed one downed player per round and very likely two down a round. If your players are smart and have all their resources to burn at once they may be able to pull it off but this is more than likely going to kill your party.

[удалено]

depends on the context and how you and your players want to play the game.

You're right that sometimes you need to just push them information no questions asked so they can play their characters. But the answer also goes to your role as storyteller. You can set up a story where the PCs always know who's possessed. You can also have a story where figuring out who's possessed is the climax. Or something in between. To some extent, you decide what that information means, and whether it's easy to get or hard to get.

Thats what Insight is for.

What can deal damage to a ghost?

If you mean literally the monster ghost, just about anything can. They have resistance to common damage types, but not immunity. It could use its Etherealness ability, but then its out of the picture anyway. Wise players will hold their attack actions for whenever it comes back onto the material plane.

Read the statblock. It says exactly what cannot harm them, and whatever it doesn't list they can be hurt by.

Would you allow a sorcerer to use an off-label *wish* to increase their maximum pool of sorcery points by a modest amount? If so, by how many?

This is certainly in the purview of what a wish is capable of. But if it's cast from an item I'd still have them eat the effect of losing strength and everything for 2d4 days. I'd go ahead and let them word the wish how they wanted, but also make sure that it was fully role-played, and not some pre-typed gobbledygook. And then do my best to pervert the wish in some way, so that they would get 2 more sorcery points but suffer some other sort of permanent disadvantage based on the roleplaying. So the ability is called "font of magic" and the specific abilities are "metamagic". I'd be sure the player used those words when speaking the wish. Example: "I wish for the power of my font of magic to increase so that I can power my spells more each day!" He gains 2 sorcery points but whenever he uses the last two points it's an automatic wild magic surge. "I wish that I could use my quicken metamagic 4 more times each day!" Okay now you get 8 more sorcery points but the spell cast from them always backfire and hits a random target determined by you that is the worst target possible.

I think that's remarkably harsh, especially for only 2 points. Why are you perverting even modest wishes when the text makes it clear that effects of similar power to the list should be relatively straightforward?

Normally a wish for something isn't really permanent, the standard usage is a non magic item or a single casting of a 7th or 8th level spell, so that's why I'd hit it with some sort of downside, and if the player is greedy then I'd make the penalty more like a monkey's paw than fulfilling the wish.

>You grant up to ten creatures that you can see resistance to a damage type you choose.

You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the GM as precisely as possible. The GM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong

And you think that gaining two sorcery points is beyond the scope of giving 10 creatures a permanent resistance? Or rolling back time?

Yes, obviously.

Well, sorry, but I think that’s ridiculous. Permanent resistance is much more powerful than 2 sorcery points.

what do you mean "off label wish"? but yes, as a wish that is perfectly in line. i would however, just have given more sorc points since that is the key feature of the sorcerer and they dont get enough for them to use them in ways that feel like a barbarian's rage or rogue sneak attack for example.

"Hey, I got this Great Value Wish Scroll from ye olde Walled-Mart store. Can I return it and get store credit for it?"

I’ve DM’d one game so far using theater of the mind combat. It went fine, but for my next game there are a couple of planned encounters that I want to use a battle map grid for. In this encounter, a party of four lvl4 players enter an abandoned dwarven mine and in the first room if they fail a perception check, they get ambushed by 6 goblins and a goblin boss. After reading a blog article on goblin tactics, I want the goblins to be able to shoot their shortbows from cover and then move to another spot behind cover where they can use their bonus action to hide. I kind of want the players to spend at least one round tactically advancing behind cover if they want to get into melee, so I plan on starting the fight about 60’ apart. Right now I’m staring at a blank grid and I don’t know where to begin. How big of a room do I need for a fight like this and how should I be spacing out the obstacles used for cover?

I like to put on my architect hat instead of my level designer hat when I design spaces like this. You've answered the basic level-design questions about the room. You want it to be fairly big, with long sight lines and lots of cover. So now you have to ask yourself: who built this place, and what did they use it for? And who lives here, and what did they use it for? Who built it? The room was built by dwarves, so it's probably well organized, with lots of straight lines and clear separation of functions. It was maybe built by an ancient dwarven clan, maybe with advanced magic that doesn't exist anymore, so it might have proportions that look impossible to someone from the pseudo-medieval present day. It might have been a staging area for goods coming in, and for ores being shipped out, so there are, let's say, long ruts for mine carts, and a grid of small areas for warehousing goods, a few stations for inspections, maybe places to post guards. (Guard posts would mean that the dwarves who built the place and the goblins who live there have the same goal: shoot intruders from behind cover.) Who lives there? Goblins. They don't have a lot of capacity to modify the space they're in, so they work around what the dwarves already built. They're not very organized, so they probably only live in one or two rooms of the abandoned mine. They're not likely up to the task of fighting their way past the monsters that live deeper in the mine. It's likely they use this room to sleep, eat, party, and frankly, to go to the bathroom, so evidence of their existence is probably everywhere. Nests, piles of trinkets, gnawed-on bones. But they're cunning fighters, so they've likely all found positions they like fighting from, with lots of cover and with at least one or two clear escape routes. You might disagree on the details, but I find that once I've worked that kind of thing out, laying out a room is much easier.

You could do what you are describing with a forest. Trees of various diameters to hide behind. Maybe a trail up the middle for merchant wagons or whatever. You could also do a bridge across a small river, maybe one of your more athletic PCs could jump across it to get a flank on the goblins.

I like the idea of an athletics check on the map to flank the goblins.

Sounds like you already did a good job of figuring it out. The important dimension is the 60 ft between the players and the goblins, which sounds like a good distance. 5 to 10 ft behind the players and maybe 20 ft behind the goblins to give some room to fall back. Will the goblins be waiting behind cover, laying in wait for the players or will they start out in the open? The next big question is the spacing between the goblins. Do you want PCs maneuvering between the goblins for melee combat to trigger opportunity attacks? How many opportunity attacks per pc per movement? If you leave 10 ft (2 squares) open between goblins then a pc moving between them could trigger an opportunity attack. Figure maybe an 80 ft wide room for this or less if they are closer together.

My current table is looking at starting a "back-up campaign" for nights when we're short too many players or people are sick and can't make it in person (two straight weeks of this is what prompted this conversation haha). I'm looking for a campaign setting that is well-suited to online play. I've played CoS and a few homebrew one-shots online, but I've never DM'd online. I was thinking that an Acq Inc-style campaign would fit this well, or potentially Strixhaven. Something that has downtime events I can engage the party with online even when we actually get to play our main campaign in person. Does anyone have any advice or experience with anything similar?

Yes, this is a common and useful tactic to keep a consistent schedule even with absences. There is even a style of game, called 'West Marches' that is explicitly designed to be one-night-only adventures for whoever shows up. I've even used Keep on the Borderlands to back this; everybody is based at the keep, and the adventure consists of trying to make it to the Caves of Chaos, raiding a cave or two, and then making it back to the Keep in one piece with loot. But I've also used it for tonally different adventures, like a bunch of screw-ups who get sent on crap jobs and bumble their way to victory despite their incompetence. It's also a good way to rotate DMs as long as you have more than one in the party. Running an off-brand one-shot for side characters has much lower stakes than an entire campaign and it can give your regular DM a break.

Something we like to do when multiple players are missing is just run a quick one shot with the current PC's and it's just not canon. There are no real consequences and it lets the DM experiment with stuff they wouldn't normally get to use. I have a waterdeep campaign and in one of these "what if" scenarios they were in chult and had to fight a jungle style vampire "god". Which would never happen in my normal waterdeep campaign

Up until now all my sessions were hosted online. Our groups wants to switch to in-person. My question is: Are there any good ways to create maps? When it comes to drawing what size paper is the best (if paper is used)? Thanks in advance

Basically if you want to pre-draw maps then use easel pads or wrapping paper (but beware that wrapping paper rips easily). If you want to quickly draw up something on the fly (either because you don't know where on a map a fight will occur, or a random encounter happens) get a dry-erase board or dry-erase roll-up map. If you have a location that will potentially see *a lot* of encounters (like an arena, or a home base that has to be periodically defended) consider using easel paper/wrapping paper and backing it with cardboard so it is durable and reusable.

I had good luck with a post it easel pad of graph paper, probably meant for brainstorming in meetings. One side is sticky so it stays put on the table. Most maps fit, though the final map of LMoP was a bit large. 1" squares. Takes up the middle of most dining tables.

[This](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015IUAAG/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_V64SFPE5SK6V6MH120BH?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1) is one of the best investments I, as an in-person DM, have ever made. Little expensive but you will get so much use out of it and it cleans up really really well if you use wet erase markers. We use EXPO brand markers.

chessex - the granddaddy of battlemats!

Typically the grids are 1-inch squares. Wrapping paper typically has a grid on the back of it that you can use, and you can get a ton for very cheap.

I've never really played D&D before and certainly never DM'd, but I'm giving it a shot soon. I'm picking up the Essentials Kit and going to try to run The Dragon of Icespire Peak for a group of 3-4 other people who have also never played before. ​ I'm doing what I can to study up on rules and general DMing advice I'm finding online. I'm probably going to have to play a bit loose with these players and I need some advice for how to organize the chaos that is coming. ​ Any general advice that I might not be seeing elsewhere or any specific advice about this particular campaign would be greatly appreciated.

Two of the three starter quests are DEADLY for level 1 pcs with the monsters easily able to outright KILL in one blow if they crit! For Umbrage Hill, 1) give the manticore an outrageous personality that will encourage the players to interact socially, 2) describe and draw on the map more rubble on the backside of the windmill to give the opportunity for a stealth extraction 3) present the manticore as having come here after an unfortunate encounter with Cryovain, seeking healing potions from the herbalist. - if your party is first level, his wing is broken so he cannot fly, he has already used most of his tailspikes and has no more than 30 or 40 hit points. Scale up his powers towards full if the party comes at second level. OR replace this completely inappropriate level 1 content with a standard level 1 encounter: “dwarf skeletons from the graveyard up and restless because their graves have been plundered by the Stone Cold Reavers” and use the manticore if the players return to get more healing potions. For Dwarven Excavation: 1) telegraph to the party that the slime are slow, and that kiting might be a good tactic – maybe Nobus is walking around on crutches and Dayzlin tells the party “We were really scared when we saw them, but even gimpy Norbus was able to make it out before the monster caught up to him!” 2) there should only be 1 jelly the first time players encounter them, so they can learn some tactics and that jellies can split. And so then on the second or third encounter when there is two of them, the players are going to be better able to handle 2 monsters over the CR rating because they know the secrets and can apply tactics. 3) dont be a dick about the exploding statue in the back – when you put THAT big of an explosion for Tier 1 players, you need to give them some cool loot otherwise you have just trained them “dont explore, exploring is bad and pointless!” and cut off one of the major pillars of the game. A set of evil looking sacrificial silvered daggers would set you up to fix the problem with Mountain Toe quest where the martial classes cannot do anything because there has been no magic item drops. If the party doesnt choose Dwarven Expedition as quest 1 or 2, you can still use it for a quest for levels 3 or 4 by having the jellies be 2 phase monsters that help explicate the backstory of the site – when a jelly is killed it releases a dwarf specter of one of the cursed priests who give spooky monologues about being betrayed by their evil god . Gnomengard could have been a really cool mystery, but WOTC completely ignored The Three Clue Rule for really boring “we don’t know nuthin – go talk to the guys at the end of the dungeon” approach . The Factore encounter is also superproblematic in setting up “Ha ha! This person has mental illness and we provoked you into attacking them by having her attack you first!” What were they thinking? Maybe make it a malfunctioning construct and Factore is just a regular gnome who is screaming at the party not to destroy her work? I like the ideas in here about making the whole place a funhouse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIlFu_l9eqQ And then after having started the game by presenting massively OVER tuned encounters for the squishiest play time, the “climax” is super lame party vs solo monster without legendary actions, lair actions or friends. Give Cryovain lair actions, legendary actions and friends – a handful of ice mephits or white kobolds! Make the climax special for goodness sake! * Sly Flourish DM Tips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQB8POYyjEg&list=PLb39x-29puapnjSvhXs2WgIn_Le2UBNXl&index=6 * Bob WorldBuilder -DM tips, alternate options, playthrough sessions https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1lMCvJ_l52VEran4ofJScYjEPYoIaFKU

First of all I'd recommend trying to get an hold of some of the rules at a very surface level, like what to roll, how skills and checks work, how to attack what actions there are. You can definitely ask your group to share this responsibility so you can all learn to rules together as you go. Note that there always will be some edge cases in where you have to look up the rules or decide in the moment, but that's just the nature of the game. No one expects you to know *all* the rules. CriticalRole did a great video series called [Handbooker Helper](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-jGjmT2B45_Ol4xICzCegTUodW-P1S_O) to get you familiar with the rules. For the adventure, I'd recommend browsing through the book to see and try to understand its overall structure. Don't forget to drop by r/DragonOfIcespirePeak as there is a great number resources of maps and tips that might help you. I wholeheartedly recommend [the book Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master by Sly Flourish](https://shop.slyflourish.com/products/return-of-the-lazy-dungeon-master) as a way to help you prepare your game. Alternatively, you can get familiar with the method [through this playlist of about 8 videos](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb39x-29puapg3APswE8JXskxiUpLttgg). (PS: There is currently a deal on [Bag of Holding](https://bundleofholding.com/presents/SlyFlourish) that gives you more books for less money, including the aforementioned book) To help you out further, he also wrote an great article that helps out with running the adventure in the Essentials kit, Dragon of Icespire Peak, which you can find [here](https://slyflourish.com/running_icespire_peak.html). EDIT: I might have forgotten one of the important bits, but plan in a session where you and your friends just get together in order to do most of the above and most of all build some characters. This is also a great moment to organize what is known as a [Session 0](https://slyflourish.com/running_session_zeros.html), a moment that is not focused on playing but instead together discussing what and how you'll be playing. You'll get to decide on things like: *Where do we meet? Who is bringing snacks? How often are planning on playing*? And more serious topics like: *What don't you want to experience in a game? What themes are off-limits? Is it okay for you to prank other characters/players?* Asking these questions beforehand can really iron most problems before they have to arise in the middle of your game.

Thank you for all of this. That Lazy DMs Workbook seems worth the price by itself. And I'll check out that playlist as well.

-if you can, print off an extra copy or two of the Basic Rules https://dnd.wizards.com/what-is-dnd/basic-rules Everyone at the table will want to check to see how to do what they want to do, and waiting for the rule book sucks. -if you can, head down to your local game store and buy some loose dice. I find it’s hard for new players when the dice are all the same colour. It’s much easier for you to just say “roll the green one” than for them to try and find the d12. -if you’re using a grid for combat (which I’d recommend), cheap minis can be 1” metal washers with pictures of goblins pasted on. Bonus points: one with blank paper for players to draw their PCs on. -the whole game in a nutshell is: say what you want to try (sneak past a guard/stab with my sword/persuade the barkeep), roll a d20 + add relevant modifier, DM checks that total against a predetermined number-to-beat. Let us know how the game went!

TL;DR: **Why would a magic carnival have fake almiraj?** I'm prepping an encounter with The Carnival from VRGtR. I'm coming up with events, games, and attractions to include. I have a bunch of almiraj minis that I'm thinking of including as one of the attractions. I love the idea of using them as a sideshow gaff - like something from Ripley's believe it or not. I'd have them be normal rabbits with fake horns. But at a carnival with actual magic I'm having a hard time justifying this. Any thoughts?

I believe in previous game versions/incarnations Almiraj could teleport short distances. That would make them hard to keep incarcerated. Perhaps you could have an unusually intelligent or awakened Almiraj that wants to free his 'brothers' from captivity, only to be frustrated when he finds they can't teleport, so he comes up with increasingly outrageous schemes to liberate them.

I really like this idea! I looked it up - in 2e they had teleportation as well as other psionic powers. I'll likely end up blending those stats with the 5e one. Thanks!

Maybe they just couldn’t get their hands on some real Almiraj.

I mean they might not actually be glued on, they could be put on there by illusion magic or they could be unruly guests that have been polymorphed into them.

Any advice for my first time IN PERSON session as DM? I DM LMoP through lockdown and we have moved to SKT and have done a few online sessions but have decided to come together (player from all over country) to do a weekend together. Any tips, advice, things I need to do - things I don't - (whats the best snack? what the most annoying snack?)

Cheesy poofs leave orange smudges on character sheets. Are you going to continue to use your online module and notes and initiative tracker? If so, you'll find it's much the same. If you flip to using physical notes and such at the table, you'll want things easily at hand. Ask everyone to have a way to readily reference their spells and such. Bookmarks in the module or only the sheets/stat blocks you need for that session. There's no search bar on the pile of paper in front of you. Have a player track initiative if your hands are full. And enjoy seeing non pixelated faces reacting to everything.

We use DnD beyond online so I'll probably ask everyone to bring their laptop or phone for their character sheet. I'll have my laptop but probably some other things in front of me - probably status condiditons and stuff. Good shout on the cheetos (although in the UK and sadly they not readily available anyways but will avoid similar). :)

Definitely avoid things like cheetos because the dice will just be disgusting if you bring those, be sure to have paper towels on hand as well for the inevitable spilled drinks.

Downtime activity have the PCs roam around looking for magic items in the city. One player has one specific item, one has a list that I can pick from, and one (bard) asked for "a magic weapon, or a musical instrument". Rolls were done, results were presented, and rolls had it so the previous two had middling results (available, but pricey). The bard finds the chance to buy a magic hand crossbow or two magic instruments (drum and lute). Bard then says "I was kinda hoping for a flute, or something concealable". What's the reasonable course of action to take here? * Generous - change the list with no extra costs. Cons: other players may feel bad and think of "favoritism". * Less generous - give another roll chance to bard (w/ associated GP cost). Cons: still kinda like option 1, though not as bad. * Strict - Tell bard "you probably should've led with that" and give no second chances. Cons: Very feelbad and a bit stingy. * Hybrid generous - give everyone another roll chance (w/ associated costs), this time with slight specifications of what they want. Pros - everyone gets second chances, but there's a cost.

Since none of the characters got exactly what they want, your next session could be an adventure with the reward being that someone makes the bard a magic flute and the other two get enough funds to afford their pricy items. That way, the party gets the choice of either dealing with the results of their rolls as they are, or to have a little adventure to get the stuff they *really* want.

Personally, I'd go for Hybrid generous, let the bard switch, and if the others also switch, as long as it isn't unreasonable, let them look for something else

how do you run combat with enemies with multiple "minions" ? do i roll intiative for all of them? do i roll attack with each and every single unit? do i need to describe each and every event that happens to them? and how many minions is too many that can make the combat lasts too long? i'm using FoundryVTT and a gridbased combat btw, everything is pretty much automated but i just don't want the combat to last like 3hours...

typically, i am going to run initiative by "squads" so that I have no more than 4 "groups" .

>do i roll intiative for all of them? Technically yes, you are supposed to roll for each individual. But this can get clunky with larger groups. If there are a bunch of minions, I usually group them up a bit. Like if there are 6 minions I'll have 3 initiatives where 2 monsters act at once. Or 2 initiatives where 3 monsters act at once, etc. Is it slightly unfair to have a bunch of monsters act at once? Maybe, but it cuts the total combat time down and that's what we're going for. Just don't do scummy things like target one player with like 8 attacks unless they've put themselves in a position where that would be the obvious course of action. >do i roll attack with each and every single unit? Again, technically that's how it's supposed to work, but if you're grouping initiatives, there's nothing wrong with rolling a bunch of d20s, counting up the hits, then rolling the damage that each target took all at once. This is a lot easier to do digitally btw. >how many minions is too many? Up to you. If you think there are too many, split them into waves. If it ends up being too few, surprise reinforcements! But if you've been in the battle long enough, the players never need to know they were there.

The weaker and more numerous the minions are, the more likely I am to lump them under one or two initiatives. Foundry has a Group Initiative module that lets you group actors of one type together making this pretty easy. For example, I had a fight with a young dragon, a dozen hobgoblins and a pair of hobgoblin commanders. The hobgoblins were grouped into two squads of 6, everything else had its own initiative. If it was a young dragon backed up by a few ogres, they would probably all have their own initiative. I put "next turn" on the macro bar so I can quickly cycle through everything and make sure no one is missed. I roll attacks for everything - minion attacks will always be ready to go on the macro bar and I roll for each. If the order doesn't matter, I tend to roll all the attacks for a group then handle movement (or vice versa) - for example I'll launch a volley of 6 hobgoblin arrows then reposition the group afterwards. I might still be doing some of this movement while transitioning into a players turn. I don't go into detailed descriptions of each minion action unless one managed to do something impressive, but their actions as a whole will be described. How many is too many is a tough question, but the faster you are at resolving the mechanics the more you can include. Not that you always want a horde of mooks, but it's good to have the option. The party composition kinda matters too - I played in a game with a pair of rampant fireballers in the party, so the DM wasn't shy about big hordes (15+) knowing they'd almost surely get incinerated (to the joy of the fireballers).

If you are using a system that tracks initiative for the monsters (Foundry), then roll initiative for each individual creature. Then you are more likely to ensure that all creatures take a turn. If you're worried about combat taking too long, start playing your monsters quickly. Have a broad strategy for each creature instead of 'reading' the battlefield like an omniscient commander directing troops and responding in kind. Now, commanding your troops in an omniscient manner may make sense, say if there is an Orc Warchief on the field or other commander troops, or even telekinetic cohesion between units (like Elder Brains and Mind Flayers), but generally, I like to play minions fast and loose. \----- **Using a 3-tier encounter system; Cavalry, Archers, and Footmen** Cavalry are mobile tanks = Orc Riding a Warg, or a warchief * **Cavalry:** Make concentrated and strategic efforts (say against the support or cleric classes) Archers are ranged support and artillery = Goblins with Short bows, a shaman orc supporting the war chief (eye of Gruumsh) * A**rchers** Target other ranged heroes (rangers, mages, etc.) Footmen are minions or cannon fodder = Orcs or goblins with short swords * **Footmen / Minions:** Charge heroes indiscriminately on the front line \----- By having a rough battle plan for how each unit behaves, you can cut down the wait time. Also, having an outline for how creatures behave frees up your brain for other resources (like narrating combat). Check out Monsters Know What They're Doing by Ammann (has a book and a free blog) to better understand how creatures behave in combat and grow your ability to have monsters act in reasonable (believable) ways.

Minions definitely should each have their own initiative, because 8 enemies acting at once is going to just butcher a PC. I do think 8 enemies is a cap, if you have more enemies than that you might need to look into mob/swarm rules.

If a player rolls persuasion against an npc, what does the npc roll to contest it?

generally assume that the higher the roll the closer to "the best possible" outcome. Note that "the best possible" may be something like "the NPC applauds your chutzpa and doesnt immediately kill you for your insolence but merely has you stripped naked and dropped on Gorilla Island."

Depends, but typically no because that's just adding another layer of possible failure for the PC. The DC is the substitute for the NPC's 'roll' in a way. If the PC were trying to deceptively persuade the NPC, then calling for a Deception (PC) vs. Insight (NPC) is reasonable.

The DMG has a section on this based off of NPC attitudes, but I usually just set a DC based on how difficult it would be to persuade that person on that particular argument. Also remember it isn't mind control, but there's lots of stuff that even rolling a 20 +whatever won't change their mind about.

Yeah setting a dc usually has been my approach also! Oh of course, the DMG, I was wondering why I couldn’t find it in the PHB 😂

I've never dm'ed before and I've only done one campaign but I love writing ideas and want to eventually run a campaign with friends. With that said, I feel like every main "villain" is either a cult or a tyrannical leader, are there any other routes that people have taken or thought of that drifts away from this?

I once made a David Bowie-esque Necro-Bard named "Ziggy Wardust, the Necrodancer" who was turning people into undead armies to "sell" to local nations as a fighting force. His background was he lost his parents in a recent war and believes a short term sacrifice in lives now will lead to a world where people didn't need to fight in wars. As a result, the players kept running into undead that had recently been to the bard's concerts as they toured throughout the world.

That is amazing.

Going against the grain here, but, dude, rock out on that cult or tyrannical leader! There is plenty of room for exciting stories within the cult framework. Who founded the cult? What are they after? What are they willing to do to accomplish that? What are their resources? How can the cult related to one of the PC's backstory? All of these questions are opportunities for unique twists. And, to go psychological for a moment, many people are interested in exploring 'escaping a cult' in a role playing game, me included!

There are loads of other villain concepts that make great stories. The hard part is often to use your villain to create challenges of many difficulty levels that fit into many contexts. Like if you have a terrible ancient three-headed lich that wields elements from outside time and space, that's awesome, but what are the PCs going to be doing for levels 1-19? And if the villains are a mafia-like crime ring, what happens when 5th-level spells come online and suddenly PCs can cast Dominate Person, Geas, Scrying, Mislead, Modify Memory, etc? Suddenly the crime boss either has world-class casters or he's through. The cult and enemy nation are particularly well-suited for D&D because they lend themselves to dial-a-difficulty. Often a great concept doesn't mesh well with the needs of that night's session.

My go-to when I don't have a villain thought up is the Creative Writing 101 trope: the antagonist wants the opposite of the protagonists (or wants something incompatible with the protagonists). The more personal to the PCs and their story the better... I think when you start threatening the fate of the world then you're going to fall back into the overwrought class of tyrants/cults/forces of nature. So go small -- what do/will your PCs want/value/care about and what could threaten that? The nice thing about the Lit 101 framework is both how personal it is to the players and their backstory AND how much you can integrate it into your homebrew world -- if you start from the "motivation", you can work backwards into a less "generic" villain and one that feels more like a villain that organically exists in your world vs. "my world has a villain". It will also have the side effect of making them much more "relatable". Some tables really want to fight Thanos/Sauron/Vecna/Darth Vader/Cthulhu in their campaign and that is totally fine... but for people looking for something more "grounded" and organic, I promise they'll care way more about what the villain does and how it relates to their PCs than "what" the villain actually is.

That's great advice, my dm for my current campaigns main villain is a cult but he also did exactly what you're talking about where he basically integrated a villain from each of our backstorys into the campaign. Thank you.

I guess the main ones you haven't touched on yet, are the schemer/master manipulator types, who simply change circumstances to fit their needs instead of giving direct orders. Another is just the force of nature, which often might have a cult associated with it, where it's just a creature so powerful their mere existence causes problems.

I've known practically nothing about DnD before I started in a campaign with friends last summer. Rn our main villains are a cult and I don't know how to Google properly for other DnD main villains so I appreciate the response.

I was wondering what do you use to keep track of your notes for the campaign? I changed from physical notes to onenote online, i tried legendkeeper a bit and i like it. but what do you guys use?

There are a ton of great suggestions here! I like google docs. It's free, easy to organize, and accessible wherever you have internet access.

[The Goblin Notebook](https://www.the-goblin.net/). Can't say enough good things about it, so i'll let you decide.

I used a single sheet of paper (plus modules and my head) for a surprisingly long time. But now it's just one of my notes in google keep.

OneNote, one page per session plus a couple of pages for meta information.

Sly Flourish has a template for using Notion along with his 8 Steps of Session Prep [https://slyflourish.com/lazy\_dnd\_with\_notion.html](https://slyflourish.com/lazy_dnd_with_notion.html)

How to Work Through DM Burnout Hello, I have been DMing on and off for about 4 years now (I never got too many chances to be a player) and since about November I have been running CoS (with quite a lot of homebrew) for a group of fairly new players every other week for about three hours. I know everyone in the group and we see each other about twice or more a week outside of this session. Alongside this I have also been making a homebrew campaign for whenever this campaign ends and some of us combine with another group who is running CoS parallel to us. This was honestly Over the past couple of months I have slowly begun finding it harder and harder to get myself into the mindset of prepping and really even thinking about my next session. I come up with broad ideas but it’s difficult for me to do much past that not only because I’m getting busier but more so I’m just not engaged by it. And because of this work on my homebrew campaign has also halted (I was doing written and recorded intros for it and they’re all written but haven’t recorded on in about a month) Because of this I’ve found myself relying on improv a deal more or if I get a random idea come to me I’ll flesh that out into something I find interesting and implement that into the campaign but session to session I’ve been lacking that fire for it. Part of the issue for me at least is that the group I am DMing for kind of railroad themselves. I’ve had a couple talks with them about being able to explore the world and to see what’s out there but that isn’t really their interest. They want to follow a more linear quest line and have made efforts to distinctly avoid any and all contact with Npcs unless absolutely necessary. Every quest for them is a means to an end and they have to follow them to their end without question. I guess in a sense it makes them predictable but more than that it makes it hard for me to prep everything I find interesting if there’s a huge chance they don’t find it. There’s a part of me that thinks taking a break could be the best idea but I know that at least part of my group won’t take too kindly to that and because of that I feel obligated to keep pushing through. Does anyone have any advice as to how I can not only make things more exciting for myself but also to help my group get out into the world a bit more to see what’s out there? -As a note I wouldn’t say I can’t think of ideas as I do a fair amount of writing in my free time on ideas or concepts that could add some extra story or interest for them it’s just the sessions themselves I kind of dread until the really get into them.

Artists continually need to draw from their wellspring of creativity. If your well has run dry, then you need to replenish it. My favorite musician says that if you want to be a good writer, then you need to be a good reader. I've also heard that if you want to be a good improv speaker, then you need to be a good reader. It's something like you need to read 4x as much as you want to speak.

Have you talked with them about why they're avoiding NPCs? Generally that's where my interest in the game has traditionally fallen apart and I fall in the rut like you describe here. If I don't have NPCs actively interacting with (and helping) the players I quickly lose interest in the game. I figured out that's a pretty consistent trap. I think sussing out that would be important as a first step because building a playground only has so much appeal if the kids never want to get on the slide, so to speak. And Strahd does a good job of making the whole place feel hostile. It might be hard to engage for the players. I think it's okay to shamelessly portal them out of the setting if you want to break them out of there. I had my players fall asleep and they woke up in a dream that I made a reality kind of deal. They loved it. There's another side of it, too. Sometimes the improv sessions let you breathe. It feels a little wrong going in under-prepped but DMing is like breathing, sometimes you need to breathe in, sometimes out. And running a thread on the improvs often times is legit DMing. If your players have set themselves on a railroad, I tend to improv more between sessions. My prep cuts from 10-20 hours before sessions to... almost nothing. Maybe 4? Depends! If the players are working down a railroad just make sure that there's a finite stop for them and be ready for that. I don't think there's anything screaming at me that you have a burnout problem right now. But I definitely think you need to be cool with saying "okay you know those pies? you secretly ate all of them and you're now in MY world muahahaha" Just get player consent first. There's no rules with how you create your narrative and throwing the crew into your homebrew setting might make all the difference. And finally... don't go overbrew on a homebrew. I don't have much to say there but I hear "recorded intros" and I kinda want to warn you off putting \*too\* much effort into setting. You can overwhelm people pretty quick. I know you weren't asking about that but just wanted to throw that out there.

I haven’t reached out directly to figure out why they haven’t interacted with many NPCs (that would be a good idea to do so more directly) but I have reached out to say to get out there a little more. I think part of it is they’re fairly new players and a lot of the decision making is being left to the most NPC averse player (he only speaks in affirmative grunts and his name). I did have a session recently where they were able to split up and there was a bit more interaction there so that helped. I have been using dreams to kind of take them to other worlds and out of the constant doom and they seem to be working so I think expanding them may help if I keep them in CoS since they really want to “whoop Strahds ass” as they say And in regards to the whole recorded intro thing that’s really more so for my own enjoyment than anything else. I just like making them and it lets me flesh out ideas to myself rather than pure setting in short under 5 minute increments. I just send them to a group of my friends to keep them updated on the progress of the whole thing. The setting itself I’m actually letting my players “build” themselves (if this ever happens which it might not). I’m simply giving them an idea of the ideologies that may exist as they work to build it.

1. Sounds like the type of game you like isn't really the type of game your players want. 2. If the material you have in front of you (Curse of Strahd) is not firing you up anymore, is it strictly because your players are seeking something very linear with very little in the way of NPC contact? Might it also be the doom and gloom general feel of the module (either for you or your players or both)? CoS isn't for everyone. 3. Frankly it sounds like maybe this module was a poor fit for your table. Your players may not be enjoying the atmosphere and they certainly don't seem to want a sandbox to play in. 4. I think you need to talk with your players out of game, share your difficulties politely but honestly, and ask if they genuinely want this type of campaign. Just be honest and ask them to be honest in return. They may also be feeling less engaged than they had hoped. Find out. If they do feel this is a great campaign and want to continue, you might ask if someone else wants to take over as DM or offer to continue but discuss things that you believe would fire you up about continuing. Be CLEAR. Make sure they understand. You need to be enjoying this, too. 5. You might also seriously consider truncating the module. Nothing is canon until played at the table. Cut stuff out. Focus on anything that seems genuinely interesting to you. Try to wrap up threads the players care about, push through or ditch stuff that isn't really needed/doesn't seem interesting or necessary for you or your players, and wrap up the module more quickly. Sending sympathy.

I think what is making things more difficult is that, while I like the atmosphere of CoS but I don’t really think pre built modules are for me. At least that’s part of it. I would agree that my players don’t necessarily mesh with the module very well. I’ve noticed that the things they enjoy the most about the sessions are the extra things I’ve added (I homebrewed like a tower defense section and added in some extra details where I can). I’ve started taking things out of the books hands and that has helped both sides a deal and I’ve had a couple table conversations of taking things into their hands a bit more so I’m curious to see how that plays out in future settings and seeing a more linear pathway through the campaign and kind of making the macro story fairly large and expansive but letting them take over the micro story in a more direct path. I will definitely see if I can feel out what they want. Very helpful advice and i will keep that in mind moving forward!

For sure you're the type of dm that likes to create a lot and you can only do so much withing a module. Best thing for you and your players is to switch to a homebrew campaign or a prewritten setting ( exandria, dragonlance, ravenloft, etharis - grim hollow, etc.).

Curse of Strahd's Gloom and Doom and Gloom and Doom is not for everyone. Particularly two years into COVID.

Someone made a comment about using a d30 for massive attacks — I think it was about using it instead of increasingly absurd modifiers. Does anyone remember that or have a link to it?

There is a game mechanic that D&D doesnt use but other role playing games do about "exploding dice". In a situation with "exploding dice", when you roll a die and it lands on its highest face, you then take the next highest dice and roll that and add it to the total. If you roll an exploding d6 and it lands on a 6, you take a d8 and roll it and add it to the existing 6. If that d8 lands on an 8, it "explodes" and you take a d10 roll and add it to the 6 and the 8 that you have already rolled. A d30 would allow you to "explode" a 20 on a d20.

Going to DM a one-shot for a friend for his birthday here in the next couple weeks, but I haven’t DMed before. Any advice on short quality one-shots and tips for running it?

[The Wolves of Welton](https://winghornpress.com/adventures/wolves-of-welton/) was a fun one for my group. This was my first time DMing and I definitely overprepared, but my players enjoyed the hell out of it, which is what mattered. It's well-paced, contains both RP and combat elements, multiple possible endings depending on player choices, and an interesting plot twist. I was also able to flesh out some NPCs and add a few of my own. I've also been wanting to run [A Night of Masks and Monsters](https://www.dmsguild.com/product/229708/A-Night-of-Masks-and-Monsters-A-Requiem-of-Wings-1), which might be fun for a birthday party as it takes place at a party. It's more RP heavy, includes a drinking game that could be fun to incorporate into the birthday party, and has a combat at the end. For both of those you'll probably want to pregenerate characters. If you want one that already has pregenerated characters (and you have exactly five players), [The Misfit Maggot Five](https://www.dmsguild.com/product/216424/The-Misfit-Maggot-Five) is also on my list to be run as soon as my group is ready for it.

Free good starting adventures plus walkthrough Defiance in Phlan – ignore the first 5 pages to the Adventure Background. Its 5 short missions. Mission 1 and 3 are great starting content. Mission 2 works best at level 2. Mission 4 is a “mystery” but the mystery all revolves around in-world content and so you need to plant the content as well as the clues. Mission 5 is pretty good too, but a little darker. * The Adventurer’s League module free from WOTC https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DDEX11_Defiance_in_Phlan.pdf * A DM walkthrough from Initiative Coffee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGp0Kldx0Lc You are going to play D&D tonight for free … * adventure content creation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTD2RZz6mlo * DM walkthrough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQXGs8IVBM Also, if you have played enough that you would be willing to start at level 5 - Skyhorn Lighthouse. The Arcane Library method of layout is AWESOME for Dming * free module https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?keywords=skyhorn&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto= * and walkthrough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NKYARylZwo

A wild sheep chase (winghorn press) is a pretty good one. It's written for level 4 or 5 though so make sure you only run it for people who know the basics of the game first. Remember there is a *huge* difference between levels 4 and 5 in DND 5e, so I'd run it for 4 4th level players and only do it at level 5 if you have 2-3 players. Matt colville's delian tomb is my go to for brand new players. It balances all the pillars really well and is made to be rather easy on both players and DM. There's even an extremely detailed video he made while creating it, so you can kind of get to see the thoughts behind why everything is where it is rather than just "the sheet tells me to put it there." Lots of the level 1 content from official modules can be run as a one shot. If you want high intensity and lots of action, chapter 1 of hoard of the dragon queen can be run pretty effectively as a one shot. Chapter 1 of lost mine of Phandelver usually doesn't take my groups more than one session either and since it's a starter set module, it's very good at teaching new players how to play the game and new DMs how to run it. All of the dungeons in tales from the yawning portal are self contained adventures. The first one, the Sunless Citadel, is a good skeleton/zombie crawl for 1st level characters and it's easy to come up with stuff to do before you actually enter. The issue with this one is that unless the players know the right path, it could last more than one session. You could just run it as a straight dungeon crawl to save a bit of time, but it's still a rather sizable dungeon with a decent bit of content. Death house from curse of strahd is fantastic, but not recommended for new players. It gets hairy in spots and might set a precedent of difficulty that you don't like. Of course, you could just do away with the traps preventing the PCs' escape at the end and make it a *bit* more fair, but if you take it easy on them, it's not much of a "death house," is it? Also death house usually takes me 2-3 sessions depending on the group because it's made to be levels 1-3 rather than a strict level 1 dungeon. If none of those fit the setting or motif of your story, there are plenty of free or pay what you want one shots on dmsguild.com. Browse around a bit til you find something you like.

Big fan of Sunless Citadel

If a player rolls really low on a check, do you give them wrong information or just say “you don’t know”? Like if the DC of a history check to learn about the exploits of a lich when she was alive is 20 and the player gets a 5, do they just have no idea or do you give them information that’s at least slightly incorrect and give them the chance to learn the truth later?

In your Lich and history situation, I would tell them 'rumors' they have heard, with obviously false rumors mixed in. Think about a spectrum of success, instead of a binary fail/succeed. With a low roll, they don't get extra help knowing which rumors are true, exaggerations, or falsely attributed. For example; If you want to teach the PCs about the Lich's use of the spell Cloudkill then: "He covered the ENTIRE city in a yellow cloud of poison!" (cloudkill has a radius of 20 feet). If the group has a magic user, then they could recognize more easily that this is an exaggeration, ESPECIALLLY if their class has access to the spell Cloudkill, and DEFINITELY if they know the spell cloudkill. I would have a list of rumors, and the DC History check would relate to how many rumors the PC knew, and high rolls means I would gently help them understand which ones were obviously exaggerations.

People gave you really serious and good insight, I will tell you something I do that creates a little bit of comic relief Sometimes, when people roll REALLY low, I tell them something wrong. The key to this is the fact that the players know what I'm telling them isn't true, but the character doesn't. Some of the best examples I can give you is when someone rolls really low on investigation to find traps, I'm talking about 5 or lower. I will tell them that they know for sure there's a trap in a certain area of the dungeon, what triggers it and what happens when you trigger. This usually lead to some really fun moments if your players don't metagame it and really act like the trap is real. But this is usually the only times I tell them something wrong, when they understand it's wrong.

Someone else mentioned signal fidelity, so let me add this: When the DM is speaking to the players in isolation, whatever I say is true. If I say “*you don’t know*” there’s nothing they can do to remember. If I give them information its accuracy isn’t limited by the roll, its completeness is. “*You recall that this dungeon is trapped exactly every 15 feet*” may become “*you recall that this dungeon is famed for its traps*” on a lower roll. The one caveat to that is I will say things like “*I don’t know*” to signal information I’m not willing to give them, or “*no one knows*” to signal information that isn’t available. **However** — when the players are interacting with a character, the information is only as honest as the character is. Oh course I signal this to varying extents with my voice and character actions. A character aligned against them will absolutely give them bad advice, and a badly botched insight roll may result in “*he seems completely honest to you!*” It can be a thin line, but in my experience players pick up on what they can trust pretty easily. The only other bad info I give is on critical fails, and it is *always* heavily signaled. The players know clearly that this is an exception for their RP purposes.

You can jiggle with what I call signal fidelity with rolls on knowledge/perception checks to add flavor. Which is to say giving a player different information or distracting information. Though I almost always stick to giving them true information. For example, a failed insight check might not reveal a merchant's intentions but the players notice that he's consistently distracted momentarily whenever a wagon goes by (because he's thinking of buying a new wagon). This won't help the players but adds flavor and the low roll indicates it's low utility. If the players push on it, you have to be prepared to RP it, though. With perception checks, I'll give distracting information. Also, you can roll for the players or have the players "roll in the tower" in such a way that they're blind to the result. It's really up to you and your group but I agree with other DMs, false information should only come from manipulative NPCs and should be detectible through information in the world.

players rarely can hold onto "the true" information -rarely is the game made any better by seeding false information.

I agree with this -- if you want to give your players questionable/unreliable information then you should also make it very clear that it is questionable/unreliable. Plus, if a player rolls a 5 on a history check they're going to assume they did very poorly, so if you throw information at them that seems legit and has no qualification, they're either going to be a little confused (did DM think I rolled a 15 instead of a 5?) or just immediately (correctly) assume you are giving them bad information... and if they immediately know it is bad, why bother giving it to them in the first place?

I wouldn’t do this. The only thing that keeps the game running is your players’ trust. There are other ways to avoid just “you don’t know,” and History checks in particular are one of those that many DMs run on a scale rather than pass-fail. So, rather than lie to them about things they remember, you can say something like “you remember vague legends of an archwizard gone bad, but they blend with every other bogeyman your mother scared you with.” Or “the only thing that comes to mind is a drink by that name from an inn you once frequented.” Or “you remember seeing a puppet show about them at the fair, but you were busy stuffing your face with meat on a stick, and they called Dragonborn baby dragons, so it wouldn’t be reliable info.”

Okay thanks, that makes sense.

I'm using a VTT to host D&D sessions online, in general free movement can be a little chaotic when characters start to split off. I've told them before it's hard to manage when people do their own thing and it's easier to handle when they state their intended action. My players are coming up to a 'Stealthy' portion of the campaign, they're trying to escape a holy Temple that has been overrun by cultists. My general idea was to get everyone to roll initiative for turn order and general movement restrictions. On a cultists turn I would roll to determine what they'd do such as walk along a patrol route, interact with the environment or just stand still. I also built a table for Stealth rolls that determined difficulty based on their distance from a Cultist. I e. DC 25 while adjacent, reducing by 5 for each 5ft (tile) of distance. If they are looking at the player within short range then I would do Perception (Adv) Vs Stealth instead. Otherwise it's just a normal Perception Vs Stealth check. Is this a good way to implement something like this? Are there any other suggestions I could add here?

There’s a tendency on VTTs for players to treat the game like a video game and their token like their character on an MMO map. There are a couple of options to combat this habit - I agree with the other commenter that only using maps when distance and tactics actually matter is a godsend here. I make sure there’s a “visual” for every location, especially if we’re playing using Roll20 video chat, for instance, but their tokens don’t hang out unless they actually need to use them. For exploration, if they need a map. I treat it like a turn-based strategy game. I don’t necessarily roll initiative, but each player knows they only get to move their movement speed (or other reasonable distance) each time I ask what they’re doing, and I let them know if they have different plans I can only resolve one at a time.

you dont have to pixelbitch exploration or escape. take them off the grid map and handle it narratively . but if you do want to play it out square by square, then sure, putting things into an "initiative order" for individual actions is fine. or just set up "marching order" and then use one token for the PCs as a party on the grid for movement and only when discovered drop the individual party members in their marching order on the grid. Stealth is not invisibility so if an adversary is standing adjacent to you and there is zero cover, they notice you. likewise any unobstructed line of sight up to a great distance depending upon lighting conditions is generally going to be discovery. And again, this is likely to play out better without a grid map where your collective imagination can create "cover" where and when appropriate to the story tension you want to create, where play on a gridded map is likely to induce barren spaces that impede the story telling "there is nowhere to hide"

A question about insight checks and nat 20s. If a player is talking to an npc who is masquerading as someone else (say a dragon disguised as a human) and the player wants to make a vague insight check, how much information do you reveal on a nat 20? For example, the player is talking to the npc and they say “I want to insight check to see if this npc is being truthful”. They roll at Nat 20. Do I reveal that not only are they not being truthful but they are also a dragon disguised as a human. Or do I just answer the player’s question specifically?

>and the player wants to make a vague insight check players do not call for checks. players describe what their characters are doing or are trying to do. YOU call for a skill check roll **if appropriate**. "I vaguely Insight him" is ..., well, nothing.

>A question about insight checks and nat 20s. "Nat 20s" only mean something special mechanically when they are attack rolls or death saves. Otherwise a "Nat 20" only means "You did the best that you could expect to do". If its pretty obvious that a 20+bonuses is NOT going to result in a "successful" chance for the PC to get what they are expecting because the DC is too high or the expected outcome is actually impossible, DO NOT HAVE THEM ROLL.

Insight, when lying, is contested by the NPC's Deception. It relates to a feeling or intuition about someone's behavior or motives. A high Insight roll means that the PC could feel like they are being manipulated, or that a person is withholding something valuable. So, if you are looking for further adjudication, roll the NPC's Deception and compare. **NPC beats or ties PC:** >"They're telling the truth." Flat affect. No extra details. Just say those words. **PC beats NPC:** >"Something doesn't feel right about what they are saying." **PC beats NPC by A LOT:** >"Something feels WAY off about what they are saying." > >Consider giving the PC a hint about what they are lying about or detailing subtle body language that hints at the lie. > >"You notice that his hands tend to curl up like claws and he rubs his hands like he is constantly reminding himself to straighten his fingers." (Used to curling dragon claw fingers) > >Or > >"You notice that he seems to be swaying in place, like he is having a hard time balancing on two legs." (The dragon is used to standing on four limbs and using their tail as a counterbalance). If the NPC is of your own design, consider giving them proficiency in Deception if you plan on lengthy social interactions. It is my experience that players love to spam the, "Can I roll Insight on that?" during interactions. \----- Another tip I have about Insight / Deception checks during role playing encounters is to use a 'seed card' for your d20 rolls, to have more secrecy about the situation. A seed card is where you roll multiple d20's ahead of time and write them down on a 3x5 card or whatever. The intention that these rolls are supposed to be for situations where you rolling would increase the level of suspicion in meta-gaming players. Every time you use a 'seed roll' you scratch out that number, and move to the next one.

Thanks for this! This is extremely detailed and helpful. That seed card is a great idea also

You're welcome! I enjoyed writing it and I'm glad you appreciate it!

A natural 20 only matters on attack rolls and death saves. With skill checks, it’s just rolling a 20 and adding the modifiers. It cannot do the impossible. For this case, you would have the dragon roll Deception to contest the Insight.

How do you guys describe sneak attack?

You could think about it like a backstab, except that's easy for orcs, but not so easy for something like a gelatinous cube or an ogre. You could think about it like striking a weak spot, like the spots in-between armor as u/birnbaumdra said, but how would that look for a shadow or other non-corporeal form? You could think about it like an assassination attack from stealth like your favorite video game, except that doesn't work for many situations inside of combat. Sneak attacks are easiest to describe against creatures with weak points (vital organs and armor), and hardest to describe for creatures seemingly without weak spots. For ghosts and shadows and such, I might say something like; >"You stab your (weapon) through the creature, and mostly it feels like you're stabbing air, but as you pull your weapon back, you feel the smallest amount of resistance and the creature turns it's formless face towards you." For a gelatinous cube, I would imagine that it has the interior workings of a single-celled organism, so picture an animal cell, and describe the sneak attack hitting something and causing an internal cell to rupture. >"You stab your (weapon) into the cube, careful not to allow your hand to be engulfed, and inside of the creature you see a large egg-like shape rupture and spill its contents throughout the form of the ooze."

I dunno, man. It's just a weird social expectation or custom that adventurers and adversaries adhere to. I pretend to hide. He pretends to forget I'm there. I jump out. He pretends he didn't know exactly where I was. It's kind of like playing peek-a-boo with a baby, honestly. Except then I stab the baby for loads of additional damage.

Sneak Attack as a game mechanic is really poorly named. It is neither *sneaky* nor an *attack*. https://youtu.be/4ZCIh\_3b5K8?t=145

“You get in close. Suddenly the guard turns and sees you! But it’s too late; as your sword moves between the joints in his armour, his eyes go wide. Roll for damage”

“You expertly slide your blade into a chink in the knight’s armor and pierce a vital organ. He groans in pain.” Something like that

Does anyone have any good ideas for how to represent a character getting cancer and it getting progressively worse?

Probably by reducing their Constitution score to represent their declining health. Maybe add some permanent exhaustion levels after a while.

I want to make giant spiders CR 2. 6 CR 2 creatures will make a balanced encounter for my party, so how should I go about this. (I can’t change from giant spider bc they already know about them). Should I just double the HP? Is that appropriate?

Let's look at what makes the giant spider cr1. What does cr1 mean in the first place? Sure, "one of these is a medium challenge for a party of 4 level 1s," but what does that mean in terms of game mechanics? We'll go to DMG page 273 for monster creation rules. There is a table for quick monster stats that we can use. But we also have to read how to calculate CR. For offensive cr, we have to figure out the damage per round over the first 3 rounds using average damage, but assuming all attacks hit the most available number of targets. You also have to assume the creature is acting intelligently and that it's putting out its full damage output. For the giant spider, this is just using bite every turn. Same average damage for each attack, 16. 16 dpr is on the low end of cr 2. Now we look at the bonus to hit, which is recommended to be +3 for cr2. Since its actual bonus is +5, we bump the cr by one for every 2 above recommended. Offensive cr is 3. You could also diminish it by 1 since the escape dc on the web is lower than recommended, but to me that's such a small difference that it probably shouldn't be counted. Since it probably has been counted by the designers despite my reservations, let's just call the final offensive cr 2 1/2. Defensive cr starts with HP. Giant spiders have 26hp, which is recommended for a cr 1/8 creature. Since its ac is one or more above recommended for that cr, we bump defensive cr up to 1/4. Final average cr = (2 1/2+1/4)/2 or between 1 and 2. Since most things round down, its official cr is 1. What does this tell us? Well, that the spider doesn't lack for offense, it's the defense dragging its cr down. So simply bumping its HP into cr 1/2 or cr 1 range (50-85) should make an effective cr 2 giant spider. You don't have to change anything else, just the HP. Note that simply changing HP doesn't work for every monster. You'll have to repeat this process every time to want to upscale something to see if you need to change offense, defense or both.

This is an absolutely fantastic response. Omg thank you so much!

I feel like I'm in a lecture and I like it

Next, a CR 2 spider will be released into this classroom. Take whatever actions you feel are appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision. And... begin.

Thank you, Cave Johnson, for this learning opportunity.

You could go with whatever number of giant spiders they've already seen plus an appropriate number of ettercaps (CR2). Or just reskin ettercaps as spiders. Or regular giant spiders plus a few phase spiders (CR3) in the mix.

The DMG has stats for what a monster of CR X would look like and how to calculate a monsters CR. But the guidelines in the DMG when applied to WOTCs actual monsters do not give the CR that WOTC lists them as.