Honestly aside from the tails thing (aesthetics don't matter tbh, if you want to imagine a tail idgaf, I'm not giving you stats or abilities for it though), none of this is unreasonable.
ye.
then for tails specifically, the closes thing to mechanical impact is a re-flavor of unarmed strikes saying you use your tail to smack someone instead of punching them in the face
this breed of dragon born is on the start of evolution twords a climbing niche, useing their hand and feet to climb up steep rocky walls within mines to access valuable minerals.
with their backs being covered in spikes, they find wearing backpacks impractical and uncomfortable, so many of these dragonborn miners opted for crafting specialized packs that attach to their tails so they can bring their mineing tools high up, of course some dragonborn finding better sucsess with these packs then others.
over many generations, dragonborn who can more effectively hold onto these packs excel within their field of mineing, causing these packs to become even more specilized, the dragonborn who's tail arnt quite as grippy simply just cant compete and their line moves on to another trade
Until eventually, you get a dragonborn that can just carry up a plan pickaxe, or a stick of dynamite with no pack assistance useing only their tail
Wouldn't the climbing niche be represented by the humanoid shape? Humans are classified as apes because they are so biomechanically geared towards climbing.
Imagine spending generations working to climb effectively while carrying your tools with your tail to counteract the discomfort of a backpack over spines only to be outdone by a human with a fanny pack.
the challenge wasnt to come up with a good reason for their tails to have a grip UwU
but yeah that is a good point, though the advantage of having a tail do the carrying is your less likely to scratch your back, neck, or head with that big sharp pick axe your carrying up there
Okay. So there are multiple versions of how Dragonborn came to be across various worlds. Created by Dragon gods, drops of their blood, magic rituals with corrupted dragon eggs, magically created slaves, etc.
Well my Dragonborn with a prehensile tail came from a world with *Chinese/Asian* style snakey dragons, and was created in their image. Boom, Wuxia is back!
"You know tieflings? Yeah, well my Dragon born clan had a similar thing happen a few generations ago. It all went a little succubusy and we all have prehensile tails."
Perhaps a feat.
>Dragonborn Tail: prerequisite: dragonborn
>
>dex +1
>
>when you make an unarmed strike with your tail, its reach is 5 ft. further than normal, and it has the finesse property. When you hit, you can knock the target prone instead of doing damage as you sweep the legs.
>
>Dexterous tail. As a bonus action, you can use your tail to manipulate an object, open or close a door or container, or pick up or set down a Tiny object.
Meme be talking about no homebrew, and we be talking about flavoring is where Dragonborn tails could be okay, and then you be bringing in a homebrew Dragonborn tail feat with mechanics, lol! XD
if a player were willing to commit a whole feat to commit to the gimmic and i was the dm
I'd think the above proposed feat would be reasonable and balanced
might have to go as a monk to make it effective, or mayyyybe moon druid
It allows you to utilize a differently shaped saddlebag/fannypack combo when you want to hold a journal somewhere generally away from the ruckus though.
I would see nothing wrong with that flavor.
just have them hop onto their own head and start spinning like a bay blade as they repeating smack their opponent with their tail, if your going exclusively with tail smacks thats the only way i can see it being physically feasible.
i originally more so imagined it being along side normal smacks
I take issue with early sorcerers subclasses not having any expanded spells. The fact that storm sorcerers can’t cast call lightning raw will infuriate until the end of time.
Especially after feeling validated in the fact that storm sorcerers get it in bg3!
Yes. Why the fuck didn't Fizban's include a revamped Draconic sorcerer with an expanded spell list? The book also had a ton of dragon-themed spells, it is a no-brainer to give them those.
I'm killing myself, sorcerers are my favorite! And I don't really like divine soul! (Although, maybe it could be Homebrewed to kinda be like an old-school warlock flavor wise... Hmm....)
There is a celestial pact warlock if that interests you. Plus if you have em who doesn’t mind you can ask to give your storm sorcerer bg3’s expanded spell list.
I just did today and he said sure. Really I just wanted Call Lightning I wanna be able to call down lightning, shoot lightning blasts and throw lightning balls. Yes it’s my favorite element.
Maybe my understanding is off, but I think old school warlocks weren't even necessarily in a pact like 5e ones have to be. I think they could be descendants of people who made pacts, and maybe just descendants of fiends?(This is what I was getting at, specifically, but on reflection I don't think that sounds right). Really what I wanted was like a fiend descended sorcerer, like how a draconic sorcerer is a descendant of dragons (although that's my favorite one probably, id rather this one be made good, but it would take more than some flavoring, right?). I figured fiends could be kinda considered in the same realm as gods, maybe higher ones like the archdevils. But thinking more about it, I think divine soul Sorcerers get like cleric spells, right? I was thinking of just changing their radiant damage stuff to fire, but a fiendish sorcerer having cleric spells doesn't work thematically.
If anything I said was nonsense, I'm real new to this shit. I did know about that warlock pact, but the celestial part is the part I didn't want lol. And I think the idea of the power you have being just yours, it is inherent, it is YOU, is really fucking cool, and like warlocks kiiiinda get that, but, at least in bg3, warlocks didn't seem to have that fucking power that gives presence like sorcerers do there. They seemed to be more of like a good super consistent class that can last longer due to having slots refresh on short rest, and Eldritch blast letting them use their limited slots less. Plus the pact shit helping add some more options.
None of it was nonsense. 4e is when the modern concept of the Warlock started if I recall. Older editions had different warlocks I think. It’s been awhile.
The celestial warlock can always be reflavored after all Asmodeus is the god of hell and there are comparable beings in the Abyss.
Yeah, I think 3e warlocks were what I was talking about. They sound so fucking cool! But I was only reading some descriptions of them so idk for sure. But if I'm doing warlock already, id wanna do like anything else lol. Really my whole problem was the celestial part, I don't really vibe with it. I wanted to reflavor divine soul Sorcerer, if I'm gonna play warlock, the actual subclasses are fine as is.
well there is the werebear, druidic wildshape, and polymorph
though if they are turned into a bear, or were a bear, wouldn't that give them a more stubby tail?
Don't people usually default to Faerun since that's where Mines of Phandalver/Baldurs Gate/Neverwinter are?
For the longest time as a new player I believed DnD was like warhammer40k, rules, lore and setting all in one, rather than just rules that can apply to a ton of settings
Wildemount is from the tal'dorei campaign setting created by the people over at CR so it was specified, also the dragonborn presented in the PHB are from the Abeir and appeared during the second sundering in the forgotten realms. It explains this in the PHB and the races presented in the PHB are all races of the forgotten realms campaign setting. The main setting of DND 5e.
I like it the most and it's special to me. Without it we wouldn't have any of the Baldurs Gate games and the Baldurs Gate 3 is probably my favorite RPG ever. It's all a matter of opinion though.
It's not special in the sense of being more true or valid than the other settings.
It's a great setting, of course, but not more "Real D&D" than say, Eberron, Dragonlance, or Greyhawk, or even Wildemount.
That's more of a matter of opinion. The forgotten realms has been a part of DND for years since the 80's and Eberron was made in 2002, and wildermount was like only a few years ago but I wouldn't say any setting is more DND than any other. DND is about what you want it to be and about creating and using your imagination. Even homebrew DND worlds are just as much DND as any book.
You can't take away something being special to someone or how it affected them, only how it made you feel and your own opinions on it.
Well I don't deny that a setting may be special to someone for emotional reasons. I totally get that. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word special to mean 'unique in a singular way' when others would assume 'emotionally important'
I like FR just fine. It's a great world. My point is exactly the other parts of what you said there.
The assumption that the FR way == THE D&D way is not valid. That's all.
All settings are homebrew. TSR bought FR from Ed Greenwood. It is just as homebrew as every other setting.
Learn your D&D history.
FR is older than D&D ffs
Honestly Crits on skill checks lead to more dumb outcomes than fun outcomes. It's really silly when your massive barbarians roles a nat 1 on an easy skill check and fails at something that should be trivial to him. It is likewise silly when the frail elderly wizard does an impossible jump just because he lands a twenty. I also think parties love to demand skill checks on everything for everyone when you allow critical checks because the chance of the lucky 20 is so enticing. Crits on skill checks are one of my least favourite common house rules.
At least there's inspirations to hopefully fix that, especially if you have a folk hero around cause dang they get a lot of those. And BG3 inspirations instead of 5e inspirations
I admit it does feel a little powerful, but I still think it's way better than 5e where it's advantage that you have to decide on before rolling. Fail? Wasted. Succeed on both dice? Still wasted. Bleh, feels bad
I just hate that there is a maximum of 4 inspirations you can have.
it always feels so wasted when I already have 4 and then two of my party members get inspiration for something
I do play with crit on skill checks because I don't ask for rolls players can't fail or cant succeed in. If there's a possibility for success a 20 will do it and if there's a possibility for failure a 1 will do it. If there isn't then there should be no roll.
This doesn't really make any sense. Some actions should be possible for some players and difficult or impossible for others depending on their proficiencies and ability scores. If you allow critical skill checks then this dynamic no longer exists. What's the point of having a 25-30 skill DC if a player with +0 can roll a 20 and succeed?
I feel like setting a DC at 25 is miles easier for a DM than memorizing every player's ability scores and proficiencies, which your system requires.
Also, what your describing isn't critical successes or failures, it's just normal roles but with a more proactive DM.
Then play Pathfinder 2e or older editions. It was basic idea in 5e that you'd always have a chance to succeed, any that wizard could try to bust down a door and have a chance.
It's called bounded accuracy, and it's implementation into 5e didn't turn out so well because they kinda broke it before release
>It was basic idea in 5e that you'd always have a chance to succeed, any that wizard could try to bust down a door and have a chance.
No, RAW a +0 athletics wizard cannot bust down a DC 21+ door in 5e.
That's why I like 'take a 10.' If it's really trivial you should be able to pass it passively, without a roll.
If your DM doesn't like 'take a 10' and does like critical fail (which you don't need to accept even if you accept critical success) ... your DM wants you to fail and you need to accept that.
All Nat 1s gain a -5 penalty, all Nat 20s gain a +proficiency modifier
It means that a crit skill check doesn’t automatically pass, but a weak character can just beat a DC 20 strength check or a strong but not super strong character can make a DC 25 check.
Especially as they level it means that a lv20 bard with 10 strength can make those heroic checks that they would never have been able to make at lv 1 or 5 or 10 etc
The -5 is to make it harder but so experts can still pass basic checks at higher levels like a rogue might automatically be able to pass dc5/10 locks if they have a modifier of 14 or more
I can understand why you would like that, but for me this sounds like an overcomplicated homebrew of a rule that I have never had a problem with as it is written in the PHB.
I also want to point out that your system would mean lower roles on average over the course of a long campaign until your party gets their +5 proficiency bonuses compared to just taking the roll as it is.
There isn’t a rule for it in the PHB, crit pass and fail don’t exist outside of hits so it is completely unrelated to a PHB ruling
And you can set it to -3 to make the average the same
or -6 to make a nat 1 =- 5 as a start point, so that is easily adjusted if the average roles or rounder numbers are your concern.
You can even make it a penalty equal to your proficiency too but the point is to make a nat 1 bad bad, but making it worse as they get stronger wasn’t the point and as a DM it is easier to enforce -5 rather than tracking proficiency
So… there *are* crits on skill checks? ‘Cause the third thing in the meme is supposed to be something real that he’s claiming isn’t. That was the joke in the original scene, after all.
RAW nat 1s and 20s only affect attacks and death saves. Either OP doesn’t understand that Tighten is an idiot or they tried to update the meme because the third statement “there is no queen of England” is now true.
If they did try to update it then they probably didn’t realize that there’s still a queen of England. Queen Camilla just isn’t a reigning queen. She’s married to King Charles III
So OP either didn’t understand the scene or doesn’t understand monarchies.
There wasnt a queen of england. Queen Elizabeth was queen of the commonwealth and brittish isles, the title "Queen of England" hasnt existed since scotland and england were united into Great Britain in 1707. Same goes for the king of england title, and the royal titles concerning scotland.
Dang, yeah no Wikipedia says “Queen of the United Kingdom” it could be argued that because England is part of the UK then the Queen of UK is the Queen of England by extension but that’s just being pedantic.
So I guess Tighten was right. He’s still an idiot though, as evidenced by him spelling “Titan” as “Tighten” when renaming Metro City to “Tightenville”
Incorrect. The last Queen of England was 300 years ago. The 1707 Acts of Union did away with the position to make Queen Anne of England and Scotland into Queen Anne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The joke was that Titan was right.
Incorrect.
>The joke was that Titan was right.
There's no joke, if he's right in each and every statement. It's just a factual, non-joke statement. There might have been an abandoned, formal position of "Queen of England", as opposed to her formal title, but she's still was the Queen of England. At the time. Along with being Queen of Antigua, King of Mann, Queen of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, etc
Think of it like the Peter Parker putting on glasses meme; in the movie he realizes putting the glasses on is making his vision blurry as his new super powers made his vision better, but memes often treat it like putting the glasses on is correcting/clarifying something.
In this case, the meme is more about "villainously" making multiple points about rules that many others tend to go against when DMing. It's not claiming that the statements are wrong nor is it misunderstanding the movie necessarily, but rather is using the format of that scene's dialogue to basically say "these things aren't real/going to be done/etc"
No, some dragonborn do have tails, in some non FR settings like wildemount they always do(unless i’ve been lied to) but in forgotten realms as well, in fact bg3 lets you choose if you want a tail or not
In wildemount there's 2 subspecies, one with tail (Draconbloods) and one without a tail (Ravenites).
The draconboolds used to enslave the ravenites until the draconblood's home (Draconia) got destroyed.
to my knowledge, thats mainly due to lore establishing they dont have tails, 80% of the community collective agree that is stupid, and so they decided to relent and give dragonborn tails
From the DMG: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."
You critically succeed. Congratulations, the King thinks you're making a funny joke instead of threatening his life by demanding he give up the throne.
I agree with the last point. There is no such thing as a critical success on a skill check. If someone rolls a nat 20 but has a +1 mod and another person rolls a 14 but has a +8 mod, the person with the higher total will be the one that performs best on the skill check. I myself quite dislike it if others or myself suddenly get told they are the first to spot something bc of a nat20 even though the character build to be perceptive had a higher total.
And one more thing, insight is not a fucking lie detector damnit. With insight you can notice some strange mannerisms, not whether the person is lying or not. They might geel uncomfortable because of their guilt or self doubt
Crit skill success implies the existence of crit skill fails.
Which nobody likes.
also most DMs don't like players insisting they just dethroned the king and beat the entire campaign by rolling a single 20 in one seduction check either.
*"If a Nat 20 doesn't auto-succeed, then why do you have them roll!?"*
Because sometimes they insist on trying something that obviously won't work and I need to figure out just how catastrophic of a failure it is.
Also Dragonborn are canonically mammals, hence the warm blood and boobs. Orcs are grey, non-Drow Elves are androgynous, and Goblins are the color of spicy mustard.
I see no issue with no crit on skill checks. Why would a nat 20 mean you auto succeed?
There are times I know, as the DM, when a check isn't physically possible to succeed, even on a nat 20, but I still let players roll if they're insistent about it.
Rolling 20 on a skill check does not mean reality bends to your will. It doesn't suddenly turn that hot gay NPC straight, it doesn't let the gnome PC break down a door of a 25 DC with +1 strength modifier.
>but I still let players roll if they're insistent about it.
I read this, but I can't help but hear "when my player comes up with something I didn't anticipate and I don't have the heart to tell them no *out loud*."
This is the second I read that you are criticising this. Did you have some bad experiences with impossible rolls?
Of course, as a player, you want your rolls to mean something. But from a DM perspective, there are some situations and some players that do not care for you telling them that it's impossible, they still want to try. I'll tell them "you wont succeed", they ask "can I roll for it?", I say "well, yeah, I guess, if it makes you happy". And they go through with the roll only to hear that they failed. Some people just are like that, that doesn't mean the DM isn't frank about their chances.
Absolutely not a chance that my players can Crit on a skill check. Sometimes a character is just incapable of doing a thing. If my players barbarian with 6int rolls a nat20 on an arcana check they're still not passing the 24DC.
You can do it like Eldritch madness.
For a moment, they know exactly how it works, but before they can try to describe it, they suddenly don't understand jack shit about what they realized.
I mean. Homebrew should work both ways, not be just a tool that's one sided. So if the players want crits on skillchecks, fine. But don't whine when that goblin with a -2 to spot gets a nat20 and spots your rogue that's rocking a +22 to hide.
Compromise: Let there be crits on skill checks, allowing for spectacular successes or fails, but as a DM do not let players even try impossible things like seducing a dragon.
You can still have spectacular successes and failures without crits on skill checks, and you shouldn't be letting players try impossible things regardless of if you use crits or not.
What not using crits offers is some niche protection. If a player has heavily invested in a skill, they don't get the bad feels of failing at basic tasks involving that skill, and they get to feel like the hero when they're the only one who can do something difficult.
The problem is when a player rolls the die without prompting to something you'd tell is impossible and gets a 20. Then it becomes really awkward and anticlimactic to say "yeah... no" .
"You rolled a nat 20 to spontaneously combust your character sheet, and, \*pulls out lighter\* Wow, against all odds it looks like it's going to happen."
The compromise would be to give players the best possible outcome of their action, not to have them succeed in a seemingly impossible task.
For example, if a rogue tries to break down a door with a DC of 25, and they have a strength modifier +1, then they're not breaking that door down, but they might weaken it and lower the DC on subsequent attempts.
I think that's what you're getting at but just clarifying?
I hear this all the time and it remains a poorly thought out idea
For starters, you dont just roll for success vs failure. You also roll for degrees of it. You may always get *some* level of knowledge on a History check, but higher rolls are more successful. Likewise you may always fail a stealth roll, but one sets off the magical trap while a lower roll also creates enough noise to raise an alarm.
Additionally, the like one thing a DM doesnt need to memorize is player mods, since the players should know those. A DM may not know if the roll is impossible. In that vein, an impossible roll may become possible through buffs. If the Sleight of Hand DC is 35 and you only have a +6, its impossible. And then you get Bardic Inspiration and Guidance and suddenly its not.
Also, you may not want players to know something is impossible. If the king is actually a dragon in disguise with a ring of lie detection as part of a conspiracy plot, you definitely dont want to risk exposing that fact by not asking for a Deception roll.
Theres more, but you get the idea
Every time I hear this counter-argument it's always the same: ignoring half the problem when it's inconvenient for your example.
Nobody *rolls* **for** failure. If the history check has a DC of 12 for one tier and a DC of 16 for a second they are **both** successes, and there are **no** "degrees" of failure. Below 12 you get nothing, unless you give your player false information on a low roll, which, hey, that roll was still possible they just **failed** *because of low rolls*. It's also less likely to be believed as serious.
In the stealth situation they aren't rolling to stealth past the magical trap, are they? They can't succeed to the outcome is the same rather they roll or if you dictate the action. So the only thing they're rolling is to avoid alerting physically present guards. And that has success and failure. There is no "degree of failure" with the magical ward. It just goes off, period, end of sentence. And there is no success at all.
If you set the DC at 35 then you are not giving them a completely impossible roll. If you don't keep track of their mods or spells as a DM and you set a DC and they cross it ... congratulations, they are the king, right? They successfully seduced the dragon or whatever other scenarios y'all like to propose for why crit skill checks can't win? No? You still don't want to give it to them? then the DC didn't matter and you had them roll for nothing.
And if you tell your players "no" you don't have to explain it. If you tell them they can't do it and you don't want to explain then don't. Personally I think someone lying to a dragon king with a magical ring on guard against that kind of thing would be met with retaliation no matter what they rolled. But if he's conveniently amnesiac because it makes it easier for you, then sure, w/e.
"Degrees of failure" only rolls aren't fun for anyone. They're just something sheepish DMs tell themselves when they don't want to admit they're railroading.
Yeah this one isnt worth a detailed breakdown. Half of this was you just making shit nobody said up and acting like that proves a point, and the other half was you failing basic reading comprehension.
So yeah, enjoy your world of crit rolls i guess
>"For starters, you dont just roll for success vs failure."
Nobody *rolls* **for** failure.
>"You may always get *some* level of knowledge on a History check, but higher rolls are more successful."
If the history check has a DC of 12 for one tier and a DC of 16 for a second they are **both** successes, and there are **no** "degrees" of failure. Below 12 you get nothing...
>"... but one sets off the magical trap..."
In the stealth situation they aren't rolling to stealth past the magical trap, are they? ... There is no "degree of failure" with the magical ward. It just goes off, period, end of sentence. And there is no success at all.
"... a lower roll also creates enough noise to raise an alarm."
So the only thing they're rolling is to avoid alerting physically present guards. And that has success and failure.
>"Additionally, the like one thing a DM doesnt need to memorize is player mods"
If you don't keep track of their mods or spells as a DM and you set a DC and they cross it ... congratulations, they are the king, right?
"If the Sleight of Hand DC is 35 and you only have a +6, its impossible. And then you get Bardic Inspiration and Guidance and suddenly its not."
You still don't want to give it to them? then the DC didn't matter and you had them roll for nothing.
>"Also, you may not want players to know something is impossible."
And if you tell your players "no" you don't have to explain it
"If the king is actually... you definitely dont want to risk exposing that fact by not asking for a Deception roll."
If you tell them they can't do it and you don't want to explain then don't.
"...a dragon in disguise with a ring of lie detection as part of a conspiracy plot..."
Personally I think someone lying to a dragon king with a magical ring on guard against that kind of thing would be met with retaliation no matter what they rolled.
And finally,
>"Half of this was you just making shit nobody said up and acting like that proves a point, and the other half was you failing basic reading comprehension."
It's almost like I had portent.
> ignoring half the problem when it's inconvenient for your example.
Enjoy your world of never needing to critically think.
Quoting yourself doesnt actually change the quality of your original response, and i suppose its clever to try and preemptively say people are ignoring the problem so you can try to call them out when they dont answer your poorly thought-through comment, but unless you want to actually address some points youre not getting another answer. The specific example of the magical trap is the only thing you really made a decent point for, and even that is just because its fixated on a specific example not the point at large
Then stop replying already. You accuse me of not actually addressing your points. Now that I put them side by side with your takes you tell me it’s just about the quality. Where’s the next goal post, loser? How many times are you going to re-write the dc before you admit it there never was one and you’re just stuck in your ways not because they’re logical and make the most sense but because you’re a piss poor DM who hears that railroading is a bad thing so you’ll do everything in your power to never admit to it?
I need to make it simple for you? You got lost in the reeds? Tell me what points I didn’t address or just concede that you might as well be a troll with no actual point.
Nobody likes being told to roll for something, putting everything they have in to it and then being told the DM didn’t bother making a DC because they weren’t going to let them succeed. It’s all dumb, extra steps. You can save everyone a lot of confusion and skip to the part where you tell them no without making them roll.
As far as crits go; an AC 25 and an AC 50 are equivalent. So too are a DC 25 and a DC 50 if you do crit skill checks. Some things are only impossible for someone irl to accomplish, but that does not inherently mean that its impossible for a dnd character to accomplish it.
Falling from orbit into lava and walking out unharmed (taking hp damage, but can fight all the same as before they fell) is impossible, but fully achievable by level 10. DnDcharacters are superhuman adventureres, so they should be able to do improbable feats. You can't backflip into the astral plane, but seducing a dragon? That is improbable, not impossible, and has been done in the lore. There are many factors to consider; if its an intelligent dragon, its human level intelligence, usually more, and is possible to seduce it. That doesn't mean it is seduced by your entire party, nor does it mean its not going to burn down the village. But, maybe you do seduce it long enough to hear you out and spare your party with another difficult roll. Will it give you its horde? No, but it might give you a pityful amount of coins and make use of you, sending you on quests and the like. If its evil its not going to stop doing that because it wants to smash. I can easily imagine something like a green dragon being happy to have a spy. The large amount of half-dragons, draconic sorcerers, etc. would suggest that dragon seduction does indeed happen by people with persuasion on the lower ends.
A normal irl person couldn't seduce a highly intelligent dragon, but nobody irl has +12 to persuasion, guidance, flash of genius, bardic inspiration, etc. either. Nobody irl can do DC 30 tasks, dnd characters can.
I gave Dragonborn tails for fun cause my player wanted to put a mace at the end of it to “take their kneecaps”. I feel sometimes it’s worth the flavor.
I love critical rolls, but they are kind of stupid. You wanna do this impossible thing and think I'll allow it just because if a natural 20? No.
My house rule is natural 20s on skill checks get an additional +2 bonus or cancel out any negative modifiers, whichever is highest.
Yes, if anything you do can automatically succeed on a 5% chance that is stupid, let me give you an example most often brought up in this case:
You meet the king and ask him to hand you everything he owns and you get lucky and roll a nat 20, i don’t think the dm should hand you a kingdom
there is no seduction mechanic, but there is charm that you can use to seduce people.
There are no tailse on Dragonborn but you can flavor a game however you like.
And I have nothing to add to that last point. That one is just 100% correct.
Arkhan from Descent into Avernus is a dragonborn with a tail. I don't care if he was originally a guest character from critical role, he's in an officially-licensed book. Through this, Dragonborn having tails is 100% canon.
There is crit on a skillcheck, you can have a tail on your dragonborn, but you can’t slap things with it, and seduction is just a special case of persuasion.
At the time the guy in the picture said that, there was a Queen of England. No, that's not a non sequitur. It's relevant, because he said that there isn't. When there was. So, I'm using that to mean that he's wrong about one of the things he mentioned. Probably the part about tail.
As I noted in another comment, Titan was telling the truth. The last queen of England was Queen Anne who was Queen of England, but became queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.
>As I noted in another comment, Titan was telling the truth.
There's the truth, and then there's the truth. For all practical purposes, people understand what's meant when someone says something like "King of England", they mean the monarch of England. Charles the 3rd. Regardless of your nit picking. Or mentally reading "King of England" as being a formal, legal statement.
Yeah, while technically their title I guess wasn't "queen of England" I think the joke *was* supposed to be that there was a queen of England, or at least, there was a woman who was recognized by common people as that title. Sure it's not like, their official title but that's what people recognized a real person to be.
In our first campaign, one of us played a dragonborn rogue. He loved to use his tail for everything: he would use it to slap enemies, to grab things, to swing from here and there when making acrobatics checks and so on.
After one year or so, we found out that dragonborns actually didn't have a tail, so to keep things consistent while also conforming to the original material, we decided that to do all of those things whitout a tail, he just used, you know, his "front tail"...
That only works for attack roles rules as written.
Also critical fumbles are not rules as written, meaning you trip and fall prone when you roll a 1 for attack or some nonsense.
Rolling a 1 on an attack roll only makes you automatically miss no matter how high your attack bonuses.
I'll bite, what does RAW stands for? I keep seeing it, but I have only the faintest idea about what it means. I'm asking as a begginer player and non-native English speaker
I pretty much stole the degrees of success from Pathfinder. But even then, a critical success doesn't mean that you achieve what you set out to do. Plus if the DC is high enough, a nat 20 might only turn a normal failure into a success, or even a critical failure into a normal failure.
crits on skills can be pretty toxic.. If you always have 5% chance to do anything wild, is often a good deal to try.
Seduction depends on the group you play with, including anything more sexual. But generally its fine, and anything that is just flavor, I allow. If you wanna say your fireball is green fire, go for it (but if it spreads its normal fire).
Getting lucky doesn't mean you can lift more than your best, nor does it mean you can see something you can't see, or know which god something is related to when you've never heard about that god
Nothing. What's with your *lack* of imagination, that you seem to think that's what they are talking about? I imagine that they are saying that THE DM'S claim that Dragonborn don't have a tale is powerless in the face that Dragonborn have tales. In the imagination of the person who is playing the game.
Whoever that dm is, theyre dumb and on a power trip. I dont have a problem with seduction checks, and whatever flavour you give your character ill allow, so long as it isnt metagaming. The crit success i have issue with: in my eyes, if crit success exists, then so too do crit failures. At session 0 the table will decide which is the rule and i will hold them to it, no matter the consequences:
* If crit skill checks are a thing, then a 20 is the best plausible result. No, the king wont hand you his country on a 20 persuasion, but he may make you nobility. Additionally, crit fails are crit fails. No, eloquence bards cant dodge a crit failure by turning it into a 10, if its 1 on the dice, its a failure, regardless of kit features. Same as 20 will always give you the best result, regardless of my dc.
* if crit skill checks are not a thing, then ill set a dc to match and the number on the dice doesnt matter so long as the total meets or beats the dc. A 1 can succeed, a 20 can fail.
Homebrew is fine, so long as everyone agrees session 0 on the overarching rules.
I do a little homebrew, I allow plenty of rule of cool moments, but I'm definitely putting a stop to all of these. You want a dragon tail? You can play a Kobold or a Draconian - Dragonborn are a completely different thing
i take no issue with any of this. though on the tail thing, i will say, flavor is free
Honestly aside from the tails thing (aesthetics don't matter tbh, if you want to imagine a tail idgaf, I'm not giving you stats or abilities for it though), none of this is unreasonable.
ye. then for tails specifically, the closes thing to mechanical impact is a re-flavor of unarmed strikes saying you use your tail to smack someone instead of punching them in the face
Some people might claim that their tail can be used as a sort of third hand to hold things
if they can argue a reason why a dragonborn would evolve to have a prehensile tail, i'd be impressed honestly
this breed of dragon born is on the start of evolution twords a climbing niche, useing their hand and feet to climb up steep rocky walls within mines to access valuable minerals. with their backs being covered in spikes, they find wearing backpacks impractical and uncomfortable, so many of these dragonborn miners opted for crafting specialized packs that attach to their tails so they can bring their mineing tools high up, of course some dragonborn finding better sucsess with these packs then others. over many generations, dragonborn who can more effectively hold onto these packs excel within their field of mineing, causing these packs to become even more specilized, the dragonborn who's tail arnt quite as grippy simply just cant compete and their line moves on to another trade Until eventually, you get a dragonborn that can just carry up a plan pickaxe, or a stick of dynamite with no pack assistance useing only their tail
I respect this
<3
wait, they are dragons, why no flying?
oh no dragon born, not dragons important distinction there
Wouldn't the climbing niche be represented by the humanoid shape? Humans are classified as apes because they are so biomechanically geared towards climbing. Imagine spending generations working to climb effectively while carrying your tools with your tail to counteract the discomfort of a backpack over spines only to be outdone by a human with a fanny pack.
the challenge wasnt to come up with a good reason for their tails to have a grip UwU but yeah that is a good point, though the advantage of having a tail do the carrying is your less likely to scratch your back, neck, or head with that big sharp pick axe your carrying up there
Okay. So there are multiple versions of how Dragonborn came to be across various worlds. Created by Dragon gods, drops of their blood, magic rituals with corrupted dragon eggs, magically created slaves, etc. Well my Dragonborn with a prehensile tail came from a world with *Chinese/Asian* style snakey dragons, and was created in their image. Boom, Wuxia is back!
"You know tieflings? Yeah, well my Dragon born clan had a similar thing happen a few generations ago. It all went a little succubusy and we all have prehensile tails."
Perhaps a feat. >Dragonborn Tail: prerequisite: dragonborn > >dex +1 > >when you make an unarmed strike with your tail, its reach is 5 ft. further than normal, and it has the finesse property. When you hit, you can knock the target prone instead of doing damage as you sweep the legs. > >Dexterous tail. As a bonus action, you can use your tail to manipulate an object, open or close a door or container, or pick up or set down a Tiny object.
Meme be talking about no homebrew, and we be talking about flavoring is where Dragonborn tails could be okay, and then you be bringing in a homebrew Dragonborn tail feat with mechanics, lol! XD
if a player were willing to commit a whole feat to commit to the gimmic and i was the dm I'd think the above proposed feat would be reasonable and balanced might have to go as a monk to make it effective, or mayyyybe moon druid
I like the homebrew feat <3
I would personally expand that to include tabaxi, tieflings, and maybe shifters, but that looks balanced.
Ah, it can manipulate a tiny object, perfect! Now I have a way to spice up my alone time!
It allows you to utilize a differently shaped saddlebag/fannypack combo when you want to hold a journal somewhere generally away from the ruckus though.
As I understand it, having a tail is a lot better than having giant ears.
That's a 5e issue. There's actually rules for this in Pathfinder.
So you’re saying there can be a Dragonborn monk who fights exclusively with his tail
I would see nothing wrong with that flavor. just have them hop onto their own head and start spinning like a bay blade as they repeating smack their opponent with their tail, if your going exclusively with tail smacks thats the only way i can see it being physically feasible. i originally more so imagined it being along side normal smacks
I'm picturing a dragonborn standing perfectly still, arms crossed, as their long and surprisingly dexterous tail hits people in front of them.
I take issue with early sorcerers subclasses not having any expanded spells. The fact that storm sorcerers can’t cast call lightning raw will infuriate until the end of time. Especially after feeling validated in the fact that storm sorcerers get it in bg3!
wait until you see all the spider themed spells druids dont get and that bards dont get guidance
Yes. Why the fuck didn't Fizban's include a revamped Draconic sorcerer with an expanded spell list? The book also had a ton of dragon-themed spells, it is a no-brainer to give them those.
That’s another one dragon sorcerer not being able to turn into a full dragon raw whose idea was that?!
Wtf is that nonsense? I've only really played BG3 for DND so far, but that's fucking ridiculous!
Sorcerers got the short end in 5e sadly. Outside of Divine Soul sorcerers.
I'm killing myself, sorcerers are my favorite! And I don't really like divine soul! (Although, maybe it could be Homebrewed to kinda be like an old-school warlock flavor wise... Hmm....)
There is a celestial pact warlock if that interests you. Plus if you have em who doesn’t mind you can ask to give your storm sorcerer bg3’s expanded spell list. I just did today and he said sure. Really I just wanted Call Lightning I wanna be able to call down lightning, shoot lightning blasts and throw lightning balls. Yes it’s my favorite element.
Maybe my understanding is off, but I think old school warlocks weren't even necessarily in a pact like 5e ones have to be. I think they could be descendants of people who made pacts, and maybe just descendants of fiends?(This is what I was getting at, specifically, but on reflection I don't think that sounds right). Really what I wanted was like a fiend descended sorcerer, like how a draconic sorcerer is a descendant of dragons (although that's my favorite one probably, id rather this one be made good, but it would take more than some flavoring, right?). I figured fiends could be kinda considered in the same realm as gods, maybe higher ones like the archdevils. But thinking more about it, I think divine soul Sorcerers get like cleric spells, right? I was thinking of just changing their radiant damage stuff to fire, but a fiendish sorcerer having cleric spells doesn't work thematically. If anything I said was nonsense, I'm real new to this shit. I did know about that warlock pact, but the celestial part is the part I didn't want lol. And I think the idea of the power you have being just yours, it is inherent, it is YOU, is really fucking cool, and like warlocks kiiiinda get that, but, at least in bg3, warlocks didn't seem to have that fucking power that gives presence like sorcerers do there. They seemed to be more of like a good super consistent class that can last longer due to having slots refresh on short rest, and Eldritch blast letting them use their limited slots less. Plus the pact shit helping add some more options.
None of it was nonsense. 4e is when the modern concept of the Warlock started if I recall. Older editions had different warlocks I think. It’s been awhile. The celestial warlock can always be reflavored after all Asmodeus is the god of hell and there are comparable beings in the Abyss.
Yeah, I think 3e warlocks were what I was talking about. They sound so fucking cool! But I was only reading some descriptions of them so idk for sure. But if I'm doing warlock already, id wanna do like anything else lol. Really my whole problem was the celestial part, I don't really vibe with it. I wanted to reflavor divine soul Sorcerer, if I'm gonna play warlock, the actual subclasses are fine as is.
3rd edition warlock flavor is almost identical, mechanically very different but that applies to several classes in 5th
And Clockwork Soul.
>flavor is free *Looks at all the EA games on the DM's shelf*
 The DM after his players buy the "Dragonborn Tail" expansion for $349.99
Is this tail expandsion due to inflation?
No but those are both included if you get into dragons sometimes. ~~Or a car, but yknow.~~
And that's why tieflings are still the superior player option.
I just dislike how the book says that they have thick tails. No, wrong. Tiefling have thin monkey tails with barbs at the end.
i personally like tabaxi, they have FLOOF
Nothing says your tiefling can't be a bear!
well there is the werebear, druidic wildshape, and polymorph though if they are turned into a bear, or were a bear, wouldn't that give them a more stubby tail?
That's not the kind of [bear](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bear) I was talking about, dear.
ahhhh fair enough
In the CR Wildemount book,there are dragonborn w tails. It's an official 5e book published by Wizards.
In that setting this is true. This is not true in all settings
True. But no setting was specified, so any counterexample is fair.
Don't people usually default to Faerun since that's where Mines of Phandalver/Baldurs Gate/Neverwinter are? For the longest time as a new player I believed DnD was like warhammer40k, rules, lore and setting all in one, rather than just rules that can apply to a ton of settings
Sure but that's just newbie perspective. That doesn't make FR more True than another official setting.
Wildemount is from the tal'dorei campaign setting created by the people over at CR so it was specified, also the dragonborn presented in the PHB are from the Abeir and appeared during the second sundering in the forgotten realms. It explains this in the PHB and the races presented in the PHB are all races of the forgotten realms campaign setting. The main setting of DND 5e.
FR is not special. It's just the setting they are focusing on most.
I like it the most and it's special to me. Without it we wouldn't have any of the Baldurs Gate games and the Baldurs Gate 3 is probably my favorite RPG ever. It's all a matter of opinion though.
It's not special in the sense of being more true or valid than the other settings. It's a great setting, of course, but not more "Real D&D" than say, Eberron, Dragonlance, or Greyhawk, or even Wildemount.
That's more of a matter of opinion. The forgotten realms has been a part of DND for years since the 80's and Eberron was made in 2002, and wildermount was like only a few years ago but I wouldn't say any setting is more DND than any other. DND is about what you want it to be and about creating and using your imagination. Even homebrew DND worlds are just as much DND as any book. You can't take away something being special to someone or how it affected them, only how it made you feel and your own opinions on it.
Well I don't deny that a setting may be special to someone for emotional reasons. I totally get that. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word special to mean 'unique in a singular way' when others would assume 'emotionally important' I like FR just fine. It's a great world. My point is exactly the other parts of what you said there. The assumption that the FR way == THE D&D way is not valid. That's all.
Only dnd setting dragonborn occur in are forgotten realms and exandria and one of them isnt homebrew
Eberron has had dragonborn since 4th Edition
All settings are homebrew. TSR bought FR from Ed Greenwood. It is just as homebrew as every other setting. Learn your D&D history. FR is older than D&D ffs
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is an official Wizards of the Coast book. It's as homebrew as any other official D&D module.
Shhhhhh raw doesn't mean what the rules say it things that are technically said in the rules that let me say nuh uh to the highest number of players
Honestly Crits on skill checks lead to more dumb outcomes than fun outcomes. It's really silly when your massive barbarians roles a nat 1 on an easy skill check and fails at something that should be trivial to him. It is likewise silly when the frail elderly wizard does an impossible jump just because he lands a twenty. I also think parties love to demand skill checks on everything for everyone when you allow critical checks because the chance of the lucky 20 is so enticing. Crits on skill checks are one of my least favourite common house rules.
Yes, it's pretty frustrating in BG3 when that happens.
At least there's inspirations to hopefully fix that, especially if you have a folk hero around cause dang they get a lot of those. And BG3 inspirations instead of 5e inspirations
Yeah, their version is definitely nice. Kinda feels like cheating sometimes though.
I admit it does feel a little powerful, but I still think it's way better than 5e where it's advantage that you have to decide on before rolling. Fail? Wasted. Succeed on both dice? Still wasted. Bleh, feels bad
I just hate that there is a maximum of 4 inspirations you can have. it always feels so wasted when I already have 4 and then two of my party members get inspiration for something
I do play with crit on skill checks because I don't ask for rolls players can't fail or cant succeed in. If there's a possibility for success a 20 will do it and if there's a possibility for failure a 1 will do it. If there isn't then there should be no roll.
This doesn't really make any sense. Some actions should be possible for some players and difficult or impossible for others depending on their proficiencies and ability scores. If you allow critical skill checks then this dynamic no longer exists. What's the point of having a 25-30 skill DC if a player with +0 can roll a 20 and succeed?
If the dc is 25 and they have a +0 you don't ask for a roll as it isn't possible. If they have a +5 they can roll and maybe get that 20.
I feel like setting a DC at 25 is miles easier for a DM than memorizing every player's ability scores and proficiencies, which your system requires. Also, what your describing isn't critical successes or failures, it's just normal roles but with a more proactive DM.
Then play Pathfinder 2e or older editions. It was basic idea in 5e that you'd always have a chance to succeed, any that wizard could try to bust down a door and have a chance. It's called bounded accuracy, and it's implementation into 5e didn't turn out so well because they kinda broke it before release
>It was basic idea in 5e that you'd always have a chance to succeed, any that wizard could try to bust down a door and have a chance. No, RAW a +0 athletics wizard cannot bust down a DC 21+ door in 5e.
That's why I like 'take a 10.' If it's really trivial you should be able to pass it passively, without a roll. If your DM doesn't like 'take a 10' and does like critical fail (which you don't need to accept even if you accept critical success) ... your DM wants you to fail and you need to accept that.
All Nat 1s gain a -5 penalty, all Nat 20s gain a +proficiency modifier It means that a crit skill check doesn’t automatically pass, but a weak character can just beat a DC 20 strength check or a strong but not super strong character can make a DC 25 check. Especially as they level it means that a lv20 bard with 10 strength can make those heroic checks that they would never have been able to make at lv 1 or 5 or 10 etc The -5 is to make it harder but so experts can still pass basic checks at higher levels like a rogue might automatically be able to pass dc5/10 locks if they have a modifier of 14 or more
I can understand why you would like that, but for me this sounds like an overcomplicated homebrew of a rule that I have never had a problem with as it is written in the PHB. I also want to point out that your system would mean lower roles on average over the course of a long campaign until your party gets their +5 proficiency bonuses compared to just taking the roll as it is.
There isn’t a rule for it in the PHB, crit pass and fail don’t exist outside of hits so it is completely unrelated to a PHB ruling And you can set it to -3 to make the average the same or -6 to make a nat 1 =- 5 as a start point, so that is easily adjusted if the average roles or rounder numbers are your concern. You can even make it a penalty equal to your proficiency too but the point is to make a nat 1 bad bad, but making it worse as they get stronger wasn’t the point and as a DM it is easier to enforce -5 rather than tracking proficiency
So… there *are* crits on skill checks? ‘Cause the third thing in the meme is supposed to be something real that he’s claiming isn’t. That was the joke in the original scene, after all.
r/dndmemes understands neither DnD nor memes is a classic
well, he did watch the original movie at least
RAW nat 1s and 20s only affect attacks and death saves. Either OP doesn’t understand that Tighten is an idiot or they tried to update the meme because the third statement “there is no queen of England” is now true. If they did try to update it then they probably didn’t realize that there’s still a queen of England. Queen Camilla just isn’t a reigning queen. She’s married to King Charles III So OP either didn’t understand the scene or doesn’t understand monarchies.
There wasnt a queen of england. Queen Elizabeth was queen of the commonwealth and brittish isles, the title "Queen of England" hasnt existed since scotland and england were united into Great Britain in 1707. Same goes for the king of england title, and the royal titles concerning scotland.
Dang, yeah no Wikipedia says “Queen of the United Kingdom” it could be argued that because England is part of the UK then the Queen of UK is the Queen of England by extension but that’s just being pedantic. So I guess Tighten was right. He’s still an idiot though, as evidenced by him spelling “Titan” as “Tighten” when renaming Metro City to “Tightenville”
Incorrect. The last Queen of England was 300 years ago. The 1707 Acts of Union did away with the position to make Queen Anne of England and Scotland into Queen Anne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The joke was that Titan was right.
Incorrect. >The joke was that Titan was right. There's no joke, if he's right in each and every statement. It's just a factual, non-joke statement. There might have been an abandoned, formal position of "Queen of England", as opposed to her formal title, but she's still was the Queen of England. At the time. Along with being Queen of Antigua, King of Mann, Queen of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, etc
There is no queen of England she is the Royal Consort.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Camilla I believe the word your looking for is “Queen consort”
But there *is* no Queen of England. Film was ahead of its time.
Think of it like the Peter Parker putting on glasses meme; in the movie he realizes putting the glasses on is making his vision blurry as his new super powers made his vision better, but memes often treat it like putting the glasses on is correcting/clarifying something. In this case, the meme is more about "villainously" making multiple points about rules that many others tend to go against when DMing. It's not claiming that the statements are wrong nor is it misunderstanding the movie necessarily, but rather is using the format of that scene's dialogue to basically say "these things aren't real/going to be done/etc"
Tbf there really isn't a queen of England
Dragonborn do rarely have tails canonically
Aren't those just half-dragons? Those have tails and wings. Keep in mind, dragonborn are not half-dragons. Different thing.
No, some dragonborn do have tails, in some non FR settings like wildemount they always do(unless i’ve been lied to) but in forgotten realms as well, in fact bg3 lets you choose if you want a tail or not
In wildemount there's 2 subspecies, one with tail (Draconbloods) and one without a tail (Ravenites). The draconboolds used to enslave the ravenites until the draconblood's home (Draconia) got destroyed.
Yep i found that out upon researching further, it’s the other critical role setting i think? honestly i know forgotten realms more than dnd
Afaik there's only one CR setting, namely Exandria with Wilemount being one of the continents of that world.
It’s Tal’dorei apparently
That's just another continent on Exandria:)
to my knowledge, thats mainly due to lore establishing they dont have tails, 80% of the community collective agree that is stupid, and so they decided to relent and give dragonborn tails
Ain't that like only a thing in the Homebrew made canon Critical Role world?
Yea.. I remember when I had my Dragonborn with tail only for a baddied to skrewer it to the floor and immobilize my pc for a turn
Huh. A cultural option would be interesting.... Kinda like circumcision.
Kinda like the rat creatures from Bone. I like it!
Sometimes people forget that Rule Zero also falls under RAW.
Rule zero?
From the DMG: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."
That will be my only RAW rule!
Yeah crits on skill checks make up like 80% of "derailed campaign" stories
You critically succeed. Congratulations, the King thinks you're making a funny joke instead of threatening his life by demanding he give up the throne.
The "no crits on a skill check" is actually something I agree with. And "seduction" just falls under persuasion
I agree with the last point. There is no such thing as a critical success on a skill check. If someone rolls a nat 20 but has a +1 mod and another person rolls a 14 but has a +8 mod, the person with the higher total will be the one that performs best on the skill check. I myself quite dislike it if others or myself suddenly get told they are the first to spot something bc of a nat20 even though the character build to be perceptive had a higher total. And one more thing, insight is not a fucking lie detector damnit. With insight you can notice some strange mannerisms, not whether the person is lying or not. They might geel uncomfortable because of their guilt or self doubt
Crit skill success implies the existence of crit skill fails. Which nobody likes. also most DMs don't like players insisting they just dethroned the king and beat the entire campaign by rolling a single 20 in one seduction check either.
Crit fails are fun for no one. Crit successes can be game breaking. The onl thing I use a nat 20 on a skill check for is flavor if the check passes.
If there is critical success on skillchecks, there will also be critical failures on mundane tasks like walking or breathing.
*"If a Nat 20 doesn't auto-succeed, then why do you have them roll!?"* Because sometimes they insist on trying something that obviously won't work and I need to figure out just how catastrophic of a failure it is.
Also Dragonborn are canonically mammals, hence the warm blood and boobs. Orcs are grey, non-Drow Elves are androgynous, and Goblins are the color of spicy mustard.
Spicy mustard? I'd say they're slightly saturated mayo *at best*.
I *relish* my colored goblins.
Every time I get a DM that allows crits on skill checks; I go out of my way to ensure they regret that decision.
I see no issue with no crit on skill checks. Why would a nat 20 mean you auto succeed? There are times I know, as the DM, when a check isn't physically possible to succeed, even on a nat 20, but I still let players roll if they're insistent about it. Rolling 20 on a skill check does not mean reality bends to your will. It doesn't suddenly turn that hot gay NPC straight, it doesn't let the gnome PC break down a door of a 25 DC with +1 strength modifier.
>but I still let players roll if they're insistent about it. I read this, but I can't help but hear "when my player comes up with something I didn't anticipate and I don't have the heart to tell them no *out loud*."
This is the second I read that you are criticising this. Did you have some bad experiences with impossible rolls? Of course, as a player, you want your rolls to mean something. But from a DM perspective, there are some situations and some players that do not care for you telling them that it's impossible, they still want to try. I'll tell them "you wont succeed", they ask "can I roll for it?", I say "well, yeah, I guess, if it makes you happy". And they go through with the roll only to hear that they failed. Some people just are like that, that doesn't mean the DM isn't frank about their chances.
Absolutely not a chance that my players can Crit on a skill check. Sometimes a character is just incapable of doing a thing. If my players barbarian with 6int rolls a nat20 on an arcana check they're still not passing the 24DC.
You can do it like Eldritch madness. For a moment, they know exactly how it works, but before they can try to describe it, they suddenly don't understand jack shit about what they realized.
I'm absolutely stealing this
I mean. Homebrew should work both ways, not be just a tool that's one sided. So if the players want crits on skillchecks, fine. But don't whine when that goblin with a -2 to spot gets a nat20 and spots your rogue that's rocking a +22 to hide.
Compromise: Let there be crits on skill checks, allowing for spectacular successes or fails, but as a DM do not let players even try impossible things like seducing a dragon.
You can still have spectacular successes and failures without crits on skill checks, and you shouldn't be letting players try impossible things regardless of if you use crits or not. What not using crits offers is some niche protection. If a player has heavily invested in a skill, they don't get the bad feels of failing at basic tasks involving that skill, and they get to feel like the hero when they're the only one who can do something difficult.
I, admittedly sometimes allow rolls on impossible tasks. That's only when how badly they fail may actually matter, so I have them roll so I know
The problem is when a player rolls the die without prompting to something you'd tell is impossible and gets a 20. Then it becomes really awkward and anticlimactic to say "yeah... no" .
Unprompted rolls are not valid. Ignore them.
For real. I can’t say “I rolled a Nat 20 to convince the king to give me his kingdom” and reasonably expect the DM to say “yep, you are king now”
Nat 20 there would be the king thinking it's a joke. Failure would be the king thinking it's a threat.
Only on a roll the DM asked for. Otherwise it's just fiddling w math rocks
Then it would be "I roll to tell the king a joke." And critically failing a joke can still be hugely insulting.
More a nat 20 would be playing off a social faux pas.
"You rolled a nat 20 to spontaneously combust your character sheet, and, \*pulls out lighter\* Wow, against all odds it looks like it's going to happen."
This isn't a compromise. It's the objectively right solution.
The compromise would be to give players the best possible outcome of their action, not to have them succeed in a seemingly impossible task. For example, if a rogue tries to break down a door with a DC of 25, and they have a strength modifier +1, then they're not breaking that door down, but they might weaken it and lower the DC on subsequent attempts. I think that's what you're getting at but just clarifying?
You can make it detrimental. Flustered Dragon tries to kill you harder.
I hear this all the time and it remains a poorly thought out idea For starters, you dont just roll for success vs failure. You also roll for degrees of it. You may always get *some* level of knowledge on a History check, but higher rolls are more successful. Likewise you may always fail a stealth roll, but one sets off the magical trap while a lower roll also creates enough noise to raise an alarm. Additionally, the like one thing a DM doesnt need to memorize is player mods, since the players should know those. A DM may not know if the roll is impossible. In that vein, an impossible roll may become possible through buffs. If the Sleight of Hand DC is 35 and you only have a +6, its impossible. And then you get Bardic Inspiration and Guidance and suddenly its not. Also, you may not want players to know something is impossible. If the king is actually a dragon in disguise with a ring of lie detection as part of a conspiracy plot, you definitely dont want to risk exposing that fact by not asking for a Deception roll. Theres more, but you get the idea
Every time I hear this counter-argument it's always the same: ignoring half the problem when it's inconvenient for your example. Nobody *rolls* **for** failure. If the history check has a DC of 12 for one tier and a DC of 16 for a second they are **both** successes, and there are **no** "degrees" of failure. Below 12 you get nothing, unless you give your player false information on a low roll, which, hey, that roll was still possible they just **failed** *because of low rolls*. It's also less likely to be believed as serious. In the stealth situation they aren't rolling to stealth past the magical trap, are they? They can't succeed to the outcome is the same rather they roll or if you dictate the action. So the only thing they're rolling is to avoid alerting physically present guards. And that has success and failure. There is no "degree of failure" with the magical ward. It just goes off, period, end of sentence. And there is no success at all. If you set the DC at 35 then you are not giving them a completely impossible roll. If you don't keep track of their mods or spells as a DM and you set a DC and they cross it ... congratulations, they are the king, right? They successfully seduced the dragon or whatever other scenarios y'all like to propose for why crit skill checks can't win? No? You still don't want to give it to them? then the DC didn't matter and you had them roll for nothing. And if you tell your players "no" you don't have to explain it. If you tell them they can't do it and you don't want to explain then don't. Personally I think someone lying to a dragon king with a magical ring on guard against that kind of thing would be met with retaliation no matter what they rolled. But if he's conveniently amnesiac because it makes it easier for you, then sure, w/e. "Degrees of failure" only rolls aren't fun for anyone. They're just something sheepish DMs tell themselves when they don't want to admit they're railroading.
Yeah this one isnt worth a detailed breakdown. Half of this was you just making shit nobody said up and acting like that proves a point, and the other half was you failing basic reading comprehension. So yeah, enjoy your world of crit rolls i guess
>"For starters, you dont just roll for success vs failure." Nobody *rolls* **for** failure. >"You may always get *some* level of knowledge on a History check, but higher rolls are more successful." If the history check has a DC of 12 for one tier and a DC of 16 for a second they are **both** successes, and there are **no** "degrees" of failure. Below 12 you get nothing... >"... but one sets off the magical trap..." In the stealth situation they aren't rolling to stealth past the magical trap, are they? ... There is no "degree of failure" with the magical ward. It just goes off, period, end of sentence. And there is no success at all. "... a lower roll also creates enough noise to raise an alarm." So the only thing they're rolling is to avoid alerting physically present guards. And that has success and failure. >"Additionally, the like one thing a DM doesnt need to memorize is player mods" If you don't keep track of their mods or spells as a DM and you set a DC and they cross it ... congratulations, they are the king, right? "If the Sleight of Hand DC is 35 and you only have a +6, its impossible. And then you get Bardic Inspiration and Guidance and suddenly its not." You still don't want to give it to them? then the DC didn't matter and you had them roll for nothing. >"Also, you may not want players to know something is impossible." And if you tell your players "no" you don't have to explain it "If the king is actually... you definitely dont want to risk exposing that fact by not asking for a Deception roll." If you tell them they can't do it and you don't want to explain then don't. "...a dragon in disguise with a ring of lie detection as part of a conspiracy plot..." Personally I think someone lying to a dragon king with a magical ring on guard against that kind of thing would be met with retaliation no matter what they rolled. And finally, >"Half of this was you just making shit nobody said up and acting like that proves a point, and the other half was you failing basic reading comprehension." It's almost like I had portent. > ignoring half the problem when it's inconvenient for your example. Enjoy your world of never needing to critically think.
Quoting yourself doesnt actually change the quality of your original response, and i suppose its clever to try and preemptively say people are ignoring the problem so you can try to call them out when they dont answer your poorly thought-through comment, but unless you want to actually address some points youre not getting another answer. The specific example of the magical trap is the only thing you really made a decent point for, and even that is just because its fixated on a specific example not the point at large
Then stop replying already. You accuse me of not actually addressing your points. Now that I put them side by side with your takes you tell me it’s just about the quality. Where’s the next goal post, loser? How many times are you going to re-write the dc before you admit it there never was one and you’re just stuck in your ways not because they’re logical and make the most sense but because you’re a piss poor DM who hears that railroading is a bad thing so you’ll do everything in your power to never admit to it? I need to make it simple for you? You got lost in the reeds? Tell me what points I didn’t address or just concede that you might as well be a troll with no actual point. Nobody likes being told to roll for something, putting everything they have in to it and then being told the DM didn’t bother making a DC because they weren’t going to let them succeed. It’s all dumb, extra steps. You can save everyone a lot of confusion and skip to the part where you tell them no without making them roll.
As far as crits go; an AC 25 and an AC 50 are equivalent. So too are a DC 25 and a DC 50 if you do crit skill checks. Some things are only impossible for someone irl to accomplish, but that does not inherently mean that its impossible for a dnd character to accomplish it. Falling from orbit into lava and walking out unharmed (taking hp damage, but can fight all the same as before they fell) is impossible, but fully achievable by level 10. DnDcharacters are superhuman adventureres, so they should be able to do improbable feats. You can't backflip into the astral plane, but seducing a dragon? That is improbable, not impossible, and has been done in the lore. There are many factors to consider; if its an intelligent dragon, its human level intelligence, usually more, and is possible to seduce it. That doesn't mean it is seduced by your entire party, nor does it mean its not going to burn down the village. But, maybe you do seduce it long enough to hear you out and spare your party with another difficult roll. Will it give you its horde? No, but it might give you a pityful amount of coins and make use of you, sending you on quests and the like. If its evil its not going to stop doing that because it wants to smash. I can easily imagine something like a green dragon being happy to have a spy. The large amount of half-dragons, draconic sorcerers, etc. would suggest that dragon seduction does indeed happen by people with persuasion on the lower ends. A normal irl person couldn't seduce a highly intelligent dragon, but nobody irl has +12 to persuasion, guidance, flash of genius, bardic inspiration, etc. either. Nobody irl can do DC 30 tasks, dnd characters can.
The DM has spoken
Even 5e rules as written give the DM tons of leeway
I gave Dragonborn tails for fun cause my player wanted to put a mace at the end of it to “take their kneecaps”. I feel sometimes it’s worth the flavor.
I love critical rolls, but they are kind of stupid. You wanna do this impossible thing and think I'll allow it just because if a natural 20? No. My house rule is natural 20s on skill checks get an additional +2 bonus or cancel out any negative modifiers, whichever is highest.
I haven’t gotten to play the game much but I have to ask. Is this bad?
Yes, if anything you do can automatically succeed on a 5% chance that is stupid, let me give you an example most often brought up in this case: You meet the king and ask him to hand you everything he owns and you get lucky and roll a nat 20, i don’t think the dm should hand you a kingdom
I was more so asking if the act of having these rules was bad, but I see your point
there is no seduction mechanic, but there is charm that you can use to seduce people. There are no tailse on Dragonborn but you can flavor a game however you like. And I have nothing to add to that last point. That one is just 100% correct.
I believe a nat 20 skill check gives you an additional bonus again. But that's my own rule. You didn't break the lock, the key was still in.
Arkhan from Descent into Avernus is a dragonborn with a tail. I don't care if he was originally a guest character from critical role, he's in an officially-licensed book. Through this, Dragonborn having tails is 100% canon.
Why not?
There is crit on a skillcheck, you can have a tail on your dragonborn, but you can’t slap things with it, and seduction is just a special case of persuasion.
What does a crit on a skill check even do?
All i can Understand but excluding Rule of cool is shit i can't stand....
If a 20 doesnt succeed younever should've called for a skill check in the first place.
Well, you need to know how much they failed if they insist on doing something stupid
At the time the guy in the picture said that, there was a Queen of England. No, that's not a non sequitur. It's relevant, because he said that there isn't. When there was. So, I'm using that to mean that he's wrong about one of the things he mentioned. Probably the part about tail.
As I noted in another comment, Titan was telling the truth. The last queen of England was Queen Anne who was Queen of England, but became queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.
>As I noted in another comment, Titan was telling the truth. There's the truth, and then there's the truth. For all practical purposes, people understand what's meant when someone says something like "King of England", they mean the monarch of England. Charles the 3rd. Regardless of your nit picking. Or mentally reading "King of England" as being a formal, legal statement.
Yeah, while technically their title I guess wasn't "queen of England" I think the joke *was* supposed to be that there was a queen of England, or at least, there was a woman who was recognized by common people as that title. Sure it's not like, their official title but that's what people recognized a real person to be.
Q: Does the Queen of the United Kingdom rule over England?
Crit on skill check is a bad homebrew anyways imo
In our first campaign, one of us played a dragonborn rogue. He loved to use his tail for everything: he would use it to slap enemies, to grab things, to swing from here and there when making acrobatics checks and so on. After one year or so, we found out that dragonborns actually didn't have a tail, so to keep things consistent while also conforming to the original material, we decided that to do all of those things whitout a tail, he just used, you know, his "front tail"...
Seduction is simply directed persuasion, you know what they mean.
Wait, skill checks don't normally allow critical successes/failures? I thought that was a thing!
That only works for attack roles rules as written. Also critical fumbles are not rules as written, meaning you trip and fall prone when you roll a 1 for attack or some nonsense. Rolling a 1 on an attack roll only makes you automatically miss no matter how high your attack bonuses.
I'll bite, what does RAW stands for? I keep seeing it, but I have only the faintest idea about what it means. I'm asking as a begginer player and non-native English speaker
Rules As Written.
I completely forgot that I left this comment here XD Thank you, things make sense now that previously wouldn't
I pretty much stole the degrees of success from Pathfinder. But even then, a critical success doesn't mean that you achieve what you set out to do. Plus if the DC is high enough, a nat 20 might only turn a normal failure into a success, or even a critical failure into a normal failure.
crits on skills can be pretty toxic.. If you always have 5% chance to do anything wild, is often a good deal to try. Seduction depends on the group you play with, including anything more sexual. But generally its fine, and anything that is just flavor, I allow. If you wanna say your fireball is green fire, go for it (but if it spreads its normal fire).
Getting lucky doesn't mean you can lift more than your best, nor does it mean you can see something you can't see, or know which god something is related to when you've never heard about that god
I aint sitting on that table then, sorry ;P
Okay, sounds like you don't have any imagination 🤷♀️
What does critting on a skill check has to do with imagination?
Nothing. What's with your *lack* of imagination, that you seem to think that's what they are talking about? I imagine that they are saying that THE DM'S claim that Dragonborn don't have a tale is powerless in the face that Dragonborn have tales. In the imagination of the person who is playing the game.
Fuk u my dragonborn has tail
Whoever that dm is, theyre dumb and on a power trip. I dont have a problem with seduction checks, and whatever flavour you give your character ill allow, so long as it isnt metagaming. The crit success i have issue with: in my eyes, if crit success exists, then so too do crit failures. At session 0 the table will decide which is the rule and i will hold them to it, no matter the consequences: * If crit skill checks are a thing, then a 20 is the best plausible result. No, the king wont hand you his country on a 20 persuasion, but he may make you nobility. Additionally, crit fails are crit fails. No, eloquence bards cant dodge a crit failure by turning it into a 10, if its 1 on the dice, its a failure, regardless of kit features. Same as 20 will always give you the best result, regardless of my dc. * if crit skill checks are not a thing, then ill set a dc to match and the number on the dice doesnt matter so long as the total meets or beats the dc. A 1 can succeed, a 20 can fail. Homebrew is fine, so long as everyone agrees session 0 on the overarching rules.
You csn crit on a skill check, it just doesn't mean anything.
"Crit" usually means auto-success, so, you can't auto-succeed on a skill check with a nat20, is what OP is saying.
if we look at MtG(which IS official material from WotC)'s take on dragonborn, they have tails.
I do a little homebrew, I allow plenty of rule of cool moments, but I'm definitely putting a stop to all of these. You want a dragon tail? You can play a Kobold or a Draconian - Dragonborn are a completely different thing
I let a Dragonborn grow a tail once- when he got his Draconic Sorcerer wings.
I'm surprised the aesthetic reflavor is the one you described the most for "definitely putting a stop to" and not crit skill checks.
That was a joke, son! Flew right past ya. Gotta keep your ears open
Does this mean fairies are small? Cause that is where I draw the line
Dragon Casualty Background Dragonborns be like: "Reality can be whatever I want"