General Discussion

[Beoric]

I mean, that's basically what I was suggesting...

Right, but in order to do that, I needed to know that a 1e hobgoblin was equivalent to a 4e level 5 standard. Which, in 5e, I can determine up to CR13 or so using 5e's own rules. But what is a 5e CR 17 monster equivalent to? I dunno, because 5e doesn't even tell me how tough that is in 5e. At least in the DMG. Which is why I am looking for an extended table.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Which, in 5e, I can determine up to CR13 or so using 5e's own rules. But what is a 5e CR 17 monster equivalent to? I dunno, because 5e doesn't even tell me how tough that is in 5e.

There are four CR17 monsters in the Monster Manual - Adult Gold Dragons, Adult Red Dragons, Androsphinx, and Dragon Turtles. A CR17 monster is meant to be equivalent in strength to a party of four 17th-level player characters.

Hit points for all four are 256/256/199/341
Armor clases are 19/19/17/20
Assuming 1 out of every 3 attacks misses, damage average per turn are (roughly) 34/34/34/42 dmg (the hit modifiers are +14/+14/+12/+13)

So a CR17 5e monster has anywhere from 199 to 341hp, from AC17 to AC20, and does between 34 to 42 damage per round on average.

For reference, a control Bugbear of CR1 has 27hp, 16AC, and does roughly 11 damage on an average hit (at +4 to-hit).

So you can compare the average monster stats to the average player stats (by level), find an equivalent value in 4e terms, and you can adjust accordingly.

FYI, the table on page 274 of the 5e DMG might be extremely handy for you right now - average stats for monsters up to CR30. Same with the "Experience Points by Challenge Rating" table on the next page that also goes up to CR30.

 

[Beoric]

I finally got around to putting my thoughts on hex travel to paper, and I thought I would share. It, uh, got a bit more involved than I originally intended and is kind of rambly, but I think once somebody groks it they can get along with the last two pages as a reference sheet.

EDIT: Note I cooked the visibility modifiers to make the chances of getting lost fall within the ranges established by 0e, 1e, B/X and BECMI, so the results would be comparable. I will probably depart from those as I test the system and think about my own assumptions/experience regarding overland travel on foot and by horse.

I also note I didn't include anything on encounter distance. I will look at that when I get a chance.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'm impressed, but fucking hell, 8 pages of instructions just for walking around? You homebrew guys really like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

 

[Beoric]

These aren't playtested, so critiques are welcome.

 

[Beoric]

I'm impressed, but fucking hell, 8 pages of instructions just for walking around? You homebrew guys really like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

You try writing out procedures in a comprehensible way! Plus, there are a lot of examples, and I use variations on the same table over and over as I worked though my process. I could probably cut a lot of that out and just leave the final table.

 

[squeen]

Thanks for sharing this @Beoric!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

You try writing out procedures in a comprehensible way!

I don't really write out my homebrew rules because they are inherent/intuitive to me the DM (and also because they are so straightforward there wouldn't be much point), but you do you. It's a cool, worthwhile endeavor - I'm not saying it isn't.

I just find it a bit amusing how people will decry modern editions out one side of their mouth for being too codified with not enough "ruling flexibility" to allow for certain styles of play, and then out the other side of their mouth they create endless streams of "rules for duelists" or "how to arbitrate town social factions" or "lite-hacks" or what have you, often far longer than anything written as RAW. I'm just firmly in the K.I.S.S. camp on this.

 

[Beoric]

I ran across a good article on monsters not having to stay in their rooms in the dungeon. I would add to this the possibility that a monster might not be in the room when the party gets there - and will then be interested in tracking down the thieves who stole their stash.

I use the 1e "% in lair" stats to figure this out. Sometimes, if there are enough monsters in a room, I will break them into squads and roll for each squad separately, so some fraction of the monsters will be at home, with another faction out patrolling, or whatever.

 

[The1True]

That goes back to the concept of replacing the Encounters Table with a Dungeon Roster, so most or all of the Encounters are linked to a room #. Makes the dungeon dynamic. Doesn't work in gauntlet or funhouse dungeons where the monsters are fixed to rooms due to setpiece or summoning situations, though. Also get's messy in larger dungeons where there are zillions of monsters.

 

[Beoric]

Also get's messy in larger dungeons where there are zillions of monsters.

This is why I like VTTs with the whole dungeon in them, it lets you see exactly who is close to what, so you can improvise without having to draw up an order of battle for every conceivable situation. I don't like the late 3e and all of 4e tendency to abstract the spaces between battle maps, usually in a linear fashion. To me, the whole dungeon level is a battle map.

 

[Beoric]

So, this is one of the effects from the Ceremony spell in 5e Xanatar's Guide to Everything:

Wedding. You touch adult humanoids willing to be bonded together in marriage. For the next 7 days, each target gains a +2 bonus to AC while they are within 30 feet of each other. A creature can benefit from this rite again only if widowed. [Emphasis mine.]

Imma just leave this here and see what happens.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Imma just leave this here and see what happens.

Wedding Ceremony is famously stupid. It's basically a meme at this point. I have yet to encounter a player that abuses it though.

 

[squeen]

It begs to be abused.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It begs to be abused.

...by shitty people, yes. My solution is to not play with shitty people.

 

[Beoric]

I think @squeen means the existence of the spell begs to be abused, not that it begs for players/DMs to make abusive use of it.

Its just so much the opposite of what I hear grogs complaining about when they complain about WotC's perceived politics.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think @squeen means the existence of the spell begs to be abused, not that it begs for players/DMs to make abusive use of it.

I am not quite sure I grasp the distinction. Do you mean the existence of the spell, solely by its existence, demands that changes be made to it? Or do you mean "wedding ceremony", being wedding-themed, is inherently susceptible to shenanigans and hijinks?

 

[Beoric]

I am not quite sure I grasp the distinction. Do you mean the existence of the spell, solely by its existence, demands that changes be made to it? Or do you mean "wedding ceremony", being wedding-themed, is inherently susceptible to shenanigans and hijinks?

Speaking for myself, I think the design of the spell deserves to be mocked; that is, the design of the spell begs to be abused. I don't think the design of the spell should be used in a way to abuse the players. My sense is that squeen would agree with me on that.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think the design of the spell deserves to be mocked; that is, the design of the spell begs to be abused.

I see what you're saying now. It's not a way of phrasing that I encounter often - to me, the term "abused" is synonymous with "exploited" in terms of game mechanics, whereas your usage is to mean "abused" as made an object of ridicule.

The spell is dumb. We can just all say it. It's a dumb spell... they happen.

 

[Beoric]

True dat. I believe this "orison" is the prototype for the 5e Ceremony spell, from "Cantrips for Clerics" in Dragon 108:

Ceremony: Oath (Conj./Summoning; clerical only)
R: Touch
D: Special
AE: 1 person of the casters religion
C: V,S,M
CT: 3 segments
ST: None

A person taking an oath in the presence of a cleric pledges his honor to do some minor task. The cleric proffers his holy symbol for both parties involved in the oath to touch, and ratifies the oath with his ritual sign and some formula such as so be it. The oath stands until the pledge is fulfilled or broken. If broken, the oathtaker (whether the cleric himself or some other person of the clerics religion) will lose 5% on his loyalty base until satisfactory reparations are made (if ever). Note that a third party of the casters religion can pledge his honor for the oath of a nonbeliever. In this case, both join in touching the clerics holy symbol while the orison is cast. The cleric can pledge his own honor for a non-believer, but this is an extremely rare circumstance. The penalty to loyalty base simulates the loss of honor to the oathbreaker.

Which I think is much more elegant. At the very least, it doesn't take a moral stance on divorce.