You do not understand. I am the DM. I will be giving my players this flying sword sidekick because I believe it will improve my game.
Do not force a sidekick on your players. If nobody asks for or wants to manage a sidekick, then that's the end of it.
Having said that, be aware of how any modifications to the stat block impact the game. It's a flying sword, not a crossbow. It doesn't have limbs to manipulate other weapons. It cannot handle the ammunition property of a ranged weapon. Treating the sword as being sentient (to get around the "friendship" requirement) and having its damage count as magical might not break anything, at first blush, but also stop to consider the implications. That would make it objectively better than a dancing sword. What level is everyone at in the current campaign?
If everyone is okay with it, then, by all means, don't be afraid to adjust the base weapon if you want to bring it up to CR 1/2. Just remember that the base weapon is also its body. Not that it's really possible, but even just a hand crossbow, rather than the prescribed longsword, would have a CR of 1. And that includes scaling the Hit Points down from Small (d6) to Tiny (d4). But a Medium (d8) greatsword would be fine.
For sidekick shenanigans, does a Belt of Dwarvenkind help fulfill the stat block requirement about a creature knowing how to speak? Some monsters by default have items in their stat blocks, and that item's features are part of the creature's stat block. Does that mean equipping an item to a monster is enough to count as a stat block requirement? If so, that would be pretty awesome.
You can give a Finger of Death zombie a Headband of Intellect, then have them read a number of Tomes of Understanding until they reach your desired Int score (the Headband of Intellect is just there for making sure the zombie is smart enough to read). You can also make them read other Tomes and Manuals too as necessary to power them up. I prefer Finger of Death zombies because they are absolutely loyal to you.
After that, give the zombie (or any 1/2 CR monster you want) a Belt of Dwarvenkind so they can speak Dwarvish. And assuming that fulfills the requirement for taking sidekick spellcaster levels, the zombie can now be a sidekick spellcaster. I also assume once the zombie takes a sidekick spellcaster level, they can continue to gain levels without needing the Belt, although I would still let them keep it so they can speak for casting spells that need a verbal component.
Now that the zombie is a wizard, they can cast Regenerate on themselves to repair their undead bodies and make themselves look more presentable. I do not think Regenerating their own vocal cords would allow them to speak normally, but if it does, then you can remove the Belt of Dwarvenkind and let another zombie use it.
As a necromancer, you now basically have vastly superior Magens without the HP drawback.
That's probably not going to work. The biggest reason for that is sidekicks cannot multiclass. If the belt is ever separated from them, they lose their ability to speak and cannot advance. But they're supposed to continue advancing; in accordance with the average party level. This holds true for any sidekick that cannot speak a language. And with the zombie's low Dex score and 13 Strength, I'd sooner make them into Warriors; outfitted in heavy armor.
But this also ignores the other condition for being a sidekick; the creature must be friendly towards you. Unintelligent undead arren't going to just line up for that. Just in the PHB, you need to be a 14th-level necromancer to do this. And they stop being your sidekick if you ever use that school feature again.
Finger of Death zombie is completely loyal to the player who created it, so that should satisfy the friendly requirement.
I do not see how multiclassing is necessary. A Belt of Dwarvenkind has no class requirement, so the zombie can just attune to it to be able to speak. The issue is whether equipping a Belt of Dwarvenkind counts as being part of a creatures stat block. Orcus for example has the Wand of Orcus as part of his stat block. A zombie does not have any items in its stat block, but if we let it equip a Belt of Dwarvenkind, would that count as being part of the zombies' stat block, since the stat block would then be modified to show the zombie can speak Dwarvish?
To gain the Expert or Spellcaster class, the creature needs to be able to speak. However, it does not say that the creature needs to be able to speak to gain levels. If the implication is that a creature must be able to speak in order to gain levels, then the zombie can just keep equipping the Belt of Dwarvenkind until they reach level 20 (assuming equipped items satisfies the stat block requirement).
That's rather exploitative. The creature needs to be able to speak a language in order to have levels as an Expert or Spellcaster. And, yes, you could consider the belt part of the creature's stat block so long as it's wearing it. But I have a few more things to point out.
The spell finger of death creates a zombie that is permanently under your command. That's certainly a kind of bond, but I don't know anyone who would call it friendship. And that's still a 7th-level spell available to 3 classes (4 with the bard's Magical Secrets). You've widened the pool a little, but not by much.
Zombies have what D&D Beyond refers to as a "language override". They understand any language(s) they learned in life, but they cannot speak. In other words, they lack the physical ability. So one issue is whether or not anything can magically give them the ability to speak. I have no doubt that they could learn, read and write, Dwarvish. But speak it?
The belt of dwarvenkind could be considered part of the creature's stat block, yes. There's no shortage of creatures with magic items listed as Special Equipment. That said, how is the zombie attuning to the magic item? What "appropriate activity", in the Basic Rules, is it performing. The suggestion for Wondrous Items is meditation. How is the zombie accomplishing this?
That's rather exploitative. The creature needs to be able to speak a language in order to have levels as an Expert or Spellcaster. And, yes, you could consider the belt part of the creature's stat block so long as it's wearing it. But I have a few more things to point out.
The spell finger of death creates a zombie that is permanently under your command. That's certainly a kind of bond, but I don't know anyone who would call it friendship. And that's still a 7th-level spell available to 3 classes (4 with the bard's Magical Secrets). You've widened the pool a little, but not by much.
Zombies have what D&D Beyond refers to as a "language override". They understand any language(s) they learned in life, but they cannot speak. In other words, they lack the physical ability. So one issue is whether or not anything can magically give them the ability to speak. I have no doubt that they could learn, read and write, Dwarvish. But speak it?
The belt of dwarvenkind could be considered part of the creature's stat block, yes. There's no shortage of creatures with magic items listed as Special Equipment. That said, how is the zombie attuning to the magic item? What "appropriate activity", in the Basic Rules, is it performing. The suggestion for Wondrous Items is meditation. How is the zombie accomplishing this?
Exploitative is the point, or at least that is I what I think the point of the thread is, since we want to push the rules as far as possible while still being RAW.
1. A zombie can distinguish friend from foe according to its description below the stat block, so with the loosest interpretation of friendship, I think you can order your zombie to be friends with you and anyone else you want. I do not think it matters too much whether all classes can create a FOD zombie since as long as one character in the party can create a FOD zombie, then the entire party has a friendly zombie.
2. That is a good point. However, since the Belt of Dwarvenkind does not say it requires a creature's vocal cords to work, I assume it just magically lets anyone to speak Dwarvish.
3. A zombie could be ordered to meditate. A zombie might lack creativity and imagination, but I do not think creativity and imagination is necessary for meditation.
The OP, who is also a DM, sounds not only exploitative but overzealous. Exploitation might be their point, but it should not be the point.
I'm all for finding cool combinations that work without twisting any rules. I mentioned a blink dog spellcaster on the previous page. A giant owl is also a viable option. Both speak their own language, even if it is non-standard, meaning they qualify.
You want a cool warrior? Take your pick of an ape, a black bear, a crocodile, giant goat or wasp, or a warhorse. All are awesome, and those are just beasts. All manner or humanoids, deep gnomes, hobgoblins, orcs, and more, are recruitable. Mephits are up for grabs. You could have a worg.
And those are just some of the CR 1/2 creatures in the Basic Rules. You're free to choose CR 1/4 or 1/8, various NPCs, and from any book out there.
We don't need to pull shenanigans to create something cool.
The OP, who is also a DM, sounds not only exploitative but overzealous. Exploitation might be their point, but it should not be the point.
The title of the thread is "The Craziest Rules as Written Creation Ever", and exploiting RAW seems like something that comes with the territory. As long as it does not break RAW, I do not think there is anything wrong with it.
The OP, who is also a DM, sounds not only exploitative but overzealous. Exploitation might be their point, but it should not be the point.
I'm all for finding cool combinations that work without twisting any rules. I mentioned a blink dog spellcaster on the previous page. A giant owl is also a viable option. Both speak their own language, even if it is non-standard, meaning they qualify.
You want a cool warrior? Take your pick of an ape, a black bear, a crocodile, giant goat or wasp, or a warhorse. All are awesome, and those are just beasts. All manner or humanoids, deep gnomes, hobgoblins, orcs, and more, are recruitable. Mephits are up for grabs. You could have a worg.
And those are just some of the CR 1/2 creatures in the Basic Rules. You're free to choose CR 1/4 or 1/8, various NPCs, and from any book out there.
We don't need to pull shenanigans to create something cool.
I build a thread to be funny, and I'm called exploitative and overzealous. Fine. Here's the deal.
1. My players love funny things. Talking boomerangs. Deep gnomes with a gambling problem.
2. I'm not railroading my players. I'm making an NPC available as a sidekick.
3. This thread was created after I gave them this sword. The session where I gave this sword out has come and gone, and they all loved it. I have a small group and they needed a full rotation of sidekicks to keep things going well. I learned this when they almost died to a troll. Only one person could come, so I gave him control of the other characters, only to realize that I'd overestimated their ability by pitting him against a troll. Things started looking bleak, and I realized I was faced with a difficult choice. I could TPK the party, killing off characters even though the players weren't there and I'd created an encounter too powerful for the characters. Or, I could send in a deus ex machina cavalry to save the players, slightly de-valuing the risk of death. So, I decided to choose the lesser of two evils, and I sent in the cavalry to save the players. After that I knew I couldn't let that happen again. When the other players came back, I could tell they weren't very thrilled with their characters experiencing something they could not. So I decided that I'd use sidekicks to buff my character's party while the party is lacking members.
4. If you don't want this at your game table, don't use it. It's as simple as that.
If only one person could come, then you shouldn't have run a session. I'm glad fun was had, but it still sounds like you're a little too self-indulgent. A troll is intended to be a challenge for a party of four 5th-level characters. Regardless of how big your group is, asking one person to do all of that on their own is a mind-numbing task. Whether you meant it or not, you were setting them up for failure. And now you've overcorrected.
If only one person could come, then you shouldn't have run a session. I'm glad fun was had, but it still sounds like you're a little too self-indulgent. A troll is intended to be a challenge for a party of four 5th-level characters. Regardless of how big your group is, asking one person to do all of that on their own is a mind-numbing task. Whether you meant it or not, you were setting them up for failure. And now you've overcorrected.
You are correct that I threw too much at them, but I will point out that two third-level characters, a group of three second-level sidekicks, and for unrelated reasons a group of 5 baboons managed to fight a pair of trolls, killing one and allowing the other to flee. And as for not having a session with one person, it's been done many times, very successfully. My original D&D group started with 2 people, which often meant one person for sessions. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has rules for one-on-one D&D sessions.
Also, I think you need to brush up on your CR system, because the Monster Manual and Basic Rules both clearly state, "An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with a challenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one." So yeah. A single monster with a CR equal to a fully rested party's level is a medium encounter. I was looking to challenge the party, I made the encounter too tough, and I paid the price for it.
I made a DM mistake, and that's my fault. I have been dungeon mastering for 2 years, and I've made plenty of mistakes, this among them. DMing is no exact science, and every DM makes mistakes. If a DM believes he or she has not made a mistake as a DM, then he or she has made the mistake of arrogance. I do my best, and occasionally I make a mistake, like giving a player control over someone else's character or throwing a troll at a second-level party, and sometimes I have a good idea, like creating a flying sword named Swing and allowing the characters to recruit him as a sidekick.
Please, Jounichi1983, tell me about a time you made a mistake as a DM. Tell me what you did to fix it, and tell me what you learned from the experience.
If only one person could come, then you shouldn't have run a session. I'm glad fun was had, but it still sounds like you're a little too self-indulgent. A troll is intended to be a challenge for a party of four 5th-level characters. Regardless of how big your group is, asking one person to do all of that on their own is a mind-numbing task. Whether you meant it or not, you were setting them up for failure. And now you've overcorrected.
You are correct that I threw too much at them, but I will point out that two third-level characters, a group of three second-level sidekicks, and for unrelated reasons a group of 5 baboons managed to fight a pair of trolls, killing one and allowing the other to flee. And as for not having a session with one person, it's been done many times, very successfully. My original D&D group started with 2 people, which often meant one person for sessions. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has rules for one-on-one D&D sessions.
Also, I think you need to brush up on your CR system, because the Monster Manual and Basic Rules both clearly state, "An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with a challenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one." So yeah. A single monster with a CR equal to a fully rested party's level is a medium encounter. I was looking to challenge the party, I made the encounter too tough, and I paid the price for it.
I made a DM mistake, and that's my fault. I have been dungeon mastering for 2 years, and I've made plenty of mistakes, this among them. DMing is no exact science, and every DM makes mistakes. If a DM believes he or she has not made a mistake as a DM, then he or she has made the mistake of arrogance. I do my best, and occasionally I make a mistake, like giving a player control over someone else's character or throwing a troll at a second-level party, and sometimes I have a good idea, like creating a flying sword named Swing and allowing the characters to recruit him as a sidekick.
Please, Jounichi1983, tell me about a time you made a mistake as a DM. Tell me what you did to fix it, and tell me what you learned from the experience.
You sound passive-aggressive. Don't.
A party of four 5th-level characters should be able to deal with a lone troll easily enough. It's actually rated as an Easy encounter. But a party of four 4th-level characters against a lone troll is rated Hard. For a party of five 2nd-level characters, it's Deadly. Against two trolls, even with the baboons, it was still Deadly. That said, "Deadly" doesn't mean someone is expected to die. It just means someone is expected to go unconscious. You lucked out because the action economy was on the side of your player.
Assuming your player didn't also run the baboons, they still had five characters to run. And don't go quoting Tasha's without also citing that they recommend only one sidekick per player. There's no hard limit, you can allow as few or as many as you want. But it, "can noticeably slow down the game." If you're inexperienced, and your solution to every problem is to just pile on more and more, then you're going to overwhelm yourself. DM Burnout is real. And your player(s) can burn out, too. Slow down. Don't do anything that's going to get you there faster.
I make mistakes all the time. Sometimes I'll forget someone who's being quiet in the initiative order and skip their turn. I've skipped Legendary Actions, homebrewed creatures that were too strong, and gave out too many magic items too fast for a small party. And I've underestimated my players. One of my groups has both parleyed with a talking plesiosaur, instead of trying to fight it, and picked a fight with two giants and their pet bear, in their own home, that, on paper, dramatically outclassed them. And they still won with some smart tactics, so while I'm disappointed from a moral perspective I'm also happy for them.
I've thrown too much at my players before. I've had TPKs. I also wasn't expecting them to try and fight a 50-man mob of peasants trying to drive them out of town. What I've said to you does not come from a place where I've never done what you've done. I've probably done worse. And I've learned those hard lessons. So, forgive me for trying to spare you a little pain.
But, you know what, you do you. No one can stop you. But you don't also get to complain when you've made a sidekick worth more than, on the low end, a 20,000 gp magic item. At least, according to Xanathar's.
If only one person could come, then you shouldn't have run a session. I'm glad fun was had, but it still sounds like you're a little too self-indulgent. A troll is intended to be a challenge for a party of four 5th-level characters. Regardless of how big your group is, asking one person to do all of that on their own is a mind-numbing task. Whether you meant it or not, you were setting them up for failure. And now you've overcorrected.
You are correct that I threw too much at them, but I will point out that two third-level characters, a group of three second-level sidekicks, and for unrelated reasons a group of 5 baboons managed to fight a pair of trolls, killing one and allowing the other to flee. And as for not having a session with one person, it's been done many times, very successfully. My original D&D group started with 2 people, which often meant one person for sessions. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has rules for one-on-one D&D sessions.
Also, I think you need to brush up on your CR system, because the Monster Manual and Basic Rules both clearly state, "An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with a challenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one." So yeah. A single monster with a CR equal to a fully rested party's level is a medium encounter. I was looking to challenge the party, I made the encounter too tough, and I paid the price for it.
I made a DM mistake, and that's my fault. I have been dungeon mastering for 2 years, and I've made plenty of mistakes, this among them. DMing is no exact science, and every DM makes mistakes. If a DM believes he or she has not made a mistake as a DM, then he or she has made the mistake of arrogance. I do my best, and occasionally I make a mistake, like giving a player control over someone else's character or throwing a troll at a second-level party, and sometimes I have a good idea, like creating a flying sword named Swing and allowing the characters to recruit him as a sidekick.
Please, Jounichi1983, tell me about a time you made a mistake as a DM. Tell me what you did to fix it, and tell me what you learned from the experience.
You sound passive-aggressive. Don't.
A party of four 5th-level characters should be able to deal with a lone troll easily enough. It's actually rated as an Easy encounter. But a party of four 4th-level characters against a lone troll is rated Hard. For a party of five 2nd-level characters, it's Deadly. Against two trolls, even with the baboons, it was still Deadly. That said, "Deadly" doesn't mean someone is expected to die. It just means someone is expected to go unconscious. You lucked out because the action economy was on the side of your player.
Assuming your player didn't also run the baboons, they still had five characters to run. And don't go quoting Tasha's without also citing that they recommend only one sidekick per player. There's no hard limit, you can allow as few or as many as you want. But it, "can noticeably slow down the game." If you're inexperienced, and your solution to every problem is to just pile on more and more, then you're going to overwhelm yourself. DM Burnout is real. And your player(s) can burn out, too. Slow down. Don't do anything that's going to get you there faster.
I make mistakes all the time. Sometimes I'll forget someone who's being quiet in the initiative order and skip their turn. I've skipped Legendary Actions, homebrewed creatures that were too strong, and gave out too many magic items too fast for a small party. And I've underestimated my players. One of my groups has both parleyed with a talking plesiosaur, instead of trying to fight it, and picked a fight with two giants and their pet bear, in their own home, that, on paper, dramatically outclassed them. And they still won with some smart tactics, so while I'm disappointed from a moral perspective I'm also happy for them.
I've thrown too much at my players before. I've had TPKs. I also wasn't expecting them to try and fight a 50-man mob of peasants trying to drive them out of town. What I've said to you does not come from a place where I've never done what you've done. I've probably done worse. And I've learned those hard lessons. So, forgive me for trying to spare you a little pain.
But, you know what, you do you. No one can stop you. But you don't also get to complain when you've made a sidekick worth more than, on the low end, a 20,000 gp magic item. At least, according to Xanathar's.
Have a good night.
Alright, let's address this point-by-point.
I was being passive-aggressive. Please except my apologies.
Second, you clearly have a more working understanding of the CR system than I'd expected. I will point out that balancing encounters at levels 1-3 is difficult, because a single commoner could throw the whole thing off. Admittedly, a troll was too much. I understand that now. However, Wizards of the Coast themselves have made similar mistakes. Just about every one of their modules has a good chance for a TPK at 1st level. And just take a look at the random encounters table in Xanathar's Guide. One of the random encounters for 1st level adventurers is 1d3 trolls. Imagine rolling a 3 on that. If you have 4th level characters, all they can do is run. If you have 1st level characters, and the trolls are at all inclined to kill them, divide how many characters you have by five. That's about how long that combat will last. Clearly, my encounter was unbalanced, but it's hard to run complex and interesting encounters with low-level parties. I think if I'd had to do it again, I'd use the reduced-threat rules from Tales from the Yawning Portal.
Technically, I do have three players, I just can't count on every one being there all the time. I think they enjoyed the combat, and I ran both the baboons and the sidekicks. (the baboons were good for using up troll actions, but that created a lot of sad deaths). I managed to do it fairly quickly. I don't really know how long the combat lasted, but I'd say it lasted, in-game, at least 6 rounds, maybe even 10. And, in the end, despite both dropping at least once during the combat and being brought back up with a cure wounds spell, the two PCs were the only ones conscious when one troll died and the other fled.
Finally, you mention often not challenging your players enough. I've made that mistake myself many times. I was trying to challenge them, and I ended up overcorrecting by nearly killing them.
I'm not complaining about Swing the flying sword. He's fun, he's quirky, and he adds comic relief to my game. These sidekicks have been effective, and I think I made the right decision. In future, I may have to weaken encounters, but I think I've gone through my last troll in the campaign, at least as far as I've planned, at least until my players are more experienced.
The first is that a lot of their modules are lethal at 1st-level. And you have something of a point. Those first few levels feel awfully squishy. I've also run plenty of modules, with no alterations, at 1st-level and never had a TPK. I only saw someone fall unconscious twice, and nobody died. The lowest level I've had a character die was 3rd, and they walked right into that one by splitting the party. Adventuring, as a career, is dangerous. It can happen, probabilities being what they are, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The second ties back into the first, and that it's you seem to think an encounter always leads to combat when it doesn't have to. A "random encounter" doesn't mean they just appear as if out of an old JRPG spoiling for a fight. It means the encounters are procedurally generated. It's still up to the DM to set the stage and tell a story. The encounter could be the aftermath of the trolls already killing something and chowing down. The party can find evidence of them in the area and perhaps escape notice. There are random distance tables for encounters; depending on the environment. You don't have to start in striking distance. And if the players can't handle them at their current level, then consider running a Chase out of the DMG. Running away is always an option. There are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. Use them all. Any one of those could be a random encounter.
The third is that I'm not challenging my players enough. I never said that. You need to learn how to read and listen.
If they didn't plan the encounters with at least some chance of combat, then why not just throw ten mind flayers at the party and hope they roleplay it out?
If they didn't plan the encounters with at least some chance of combat, then why not just throw ten mind flayers at the party and hope they roleplay it out?
If they didn't plan the encounters with at least some chance of combat, then why not just throw ten mind flayers at the party and hope they roleplay it out?
They did throw one at a first level party in WDH.
Yeah! I remember that! To be fair, the players had help, but it just goes to show: everyone loves troll, everyone makes mistakes with encounter balancing sometimes, so it goes to show that a lot of times people throw too many trolls at too low level characters. DM mistakes are part of the game.
A fight means risk. It means characters can be hurt or killed. They don't have to win, they don't even have to draw. One of the first possible encounters in Dragon of Icespire Peak is a manticore. It can fly and attack at range for 8 rounds before running out of tail spikes. It is a Deadly encounter for a party of five 1st-level characters. And if such a party tries to fight it head-on, their loss is all but assured. But it's intelligent and can be bargained or reasoned with.
NPCs know that combat is dangerous, too. A troll is going to behave recklessly because of its regeneration unless it takes acid or fire damage. That'll make it think twice. Exploiting that fear, that knowledge, might even scare it off.
A fight means risk. It means characters can be hurt or killed. They don't have to win, they don't even have to draw. One of the first possible encounters in Dragon of Icespire Peak is a manticore. It can fly and attack at range for 8 rounds before running out of tail spikes. It is a Deadly encounter for a party of five 1st-level characters. And if such a party tries to fight it head-on, their loss is all but assured. But it's intelligent and can be bargained or reasoned with.
NPCs know that combat is dangerous, too. A troll is going to behave recklessly because of its regeneration unless it takes acid or fire damage. That'll make it think twice. Exploiting that fear, that knowledge, might even scare it off.
The book, if I remember correctly, says that it tries to escape and attacks if the party attacks it. There is no RP situation there.
If they didn't plan the encounters with at least some chance of combat, then why not just throw ten mind flayers at the party and hope they roleplay it out?
They did throw one at a first level party in WDH.
Yeah! I remember that! To be fair, the players had help, but it just goes to show: everyone loves troll, everyone makes mistakes with encounter balancing sometimes, so it goes to show that a lot of times people throw too many trolls at too low level characters. DM mistakes are part of the game.
No, Durnan had the troll covered. He could realistically drop it to 0 in a single round before the players even get a chance to act. The players were intended to fight 3 stirges and finish off the troll.
Anyone who jumps in is helping him, not the other way around.
If they didn't plan the encounters with at least some chance of combat, then why not just throw ten mind flayers at the party and hope they roleplay it out?
They did throw one at a first level party in WDH.
Yeah! I remember that! To be fair, the players had help, but it just goes to show: everyone loves troll, everyone makes mistakes with encounter balancing sometimes, so it goes to show that a lot of times people throw too many trolls at too low level characters. DM mistakes are part of the game.
No, Durnan had the troll covered. He could realistically drop it to 0 in a single round before the players even get a chance to act. The players were intended to fight 3 stirges and finish off the troll.
Anyone who jumps in is helping him, not the other way around.
Allowed my level 1 player to have a hermit discovery of a pet rock that was hollow and has a Chwinga living in it. Able to grant charms including one that gives auto res 9 times that can only be used once. Used it in the first game of candlekeep mysteries when we got down to one charactor at the flying swords. (I lowered the flying sword attack to d6 instead of d8 to try to keep this from happening) Those little things are so overpowered but at least it got us through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do not force a sidekick on your players. If nobody asks for or wants to manage a sidekick, then that's the end of it.
Having said that, be aware of how any modifications to the stat block impact the game. It's a flying sword, not a crossbow. It doesn't have limbs to manipulate other weapons. It cannot handle the ammunition property of a ranged weapon. Treating the sword as being sentient (to get around the "friendship" requirement) and having its damage count as magical might not break anything, at first blush, but also stop to consider the implications. That would make it objectively better than a dancing sword. What level is everyone at in the current campaign?
If everyone is okay with it, then, by all means, don't be afraid to adjust the base weapon if you want to bring it up to CR 1/2. Just remember that the base weapon is also its body. Not that it's really possible, but even just a hand crossbow, rather than the prescribed longsword, would have a CR of 1. And that includes scaling the Hit Points down from Small (d6) to Tiny (d4). But a Medium (d8) greatsword would be fine.
Finger of Death zombie is completely loyal to the player who created it, so that should satisfy the friendly requirement.
I do not see how multiclassing is necessary. A Belt of Dwarvenkind has no class requirement, so the zombie can just attune to it to be able to speak. The issue is whether equipping a Belt of Dwarvenkind counts as being part of a creatures stat block. Orcus for example has the Wand of Orcus as part of his stat block. A zombie does not have any items in its stat block, but if we let it equip a Belt of Dwarvenkind, would that count as being part of the zombies' stat block, since the stat block would then be modified to show the zombie can speak Dwarvish?
To gain the Expert or Spellcaster class, the creature needs to be able to speak. However, it does not say that the creature needs to be able to speak to gain levels. If the implication is that a creature must be able to speak in order to gain levels, then the zombie can just keep equipping the Belt of Dwarvenkind until they reach level 20 (assuming equipped items satisfies the stat block requirement).
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
That's rather exploitative. The creature needs to be able to speak a language in order to have levels as an Expert or Spellcaster. And, yes, you could consider the belt part of the creature's stat block so long as it's wearing it. But I have a few more things to point out.
Exploitative is the point, or at least that is I what I think the point of the thread is, since we want to push the rules as far as possible while still being RAW.
1. A zombie can distinguish friend from foe according to its description below the stat block, so with the loosest interpretation of friendship, I think you can order your zombie to be friends with you and anyone else you want. I do not think it matters too much whether all classes can create a FOD zombie since as long as one character in the party can create a FOD zombie, then the entire party has a friendly zombie.
2. That is a good point. However, since the Belt of Dwarvenkind does not say it requires a creature's vocal cords to work, I assume it just magically lets anyone to speak Dwarvish.
3. A zombie could be ordered to meditate. A zombie might lack creativity and imagination, but I do not think creativity and imagination is necessary for meditation.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The OP, who is also a DM, sounds not only exploitative but overzealous. Exploitation might be their point, but it should not be the point.
I'm all for finding cool combinations that work without twisting any rules. I mentioned a blink dog spellcaster on the previous page. A giant owl is also a viable option. Both speak their own language, even if it is non-standard, meaning they qualify.
You want a cool warrior? Take your pick of an ape, a black bear, a crocodile, giant goat or wasp, or a warhorse. All are awesome, and those are just beasts. All manner or humanoids, deep gnomes, hobgoblins, orcs, and more, are recruitable. Mephits are up for grabs. You could have a worg.
And those are just some of the CR 1/2 creatures in the Basic Rules. You're free to choose CR 1/4 or 1/8, various NPCs, and from any book out there.
We don't need to pull shenanigans to create something cool.
The title of the thread is "The Craziest Rules as Written Creation Ever", and exploiting RAW seems like something that comes with the territory. As long as it does not break RAW, I do not think there is anything wrong with it.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I build a thread to be funny, and I'm called exploitative and overzealous. Fine. Here's the deal.
1. My players love funny things. Talking boomerangs. Deep gnomes with a gambling problem.
2. I'm not railroading my players. I'm making an NPC available as a sidekick.
3. This thread was created after I gave them this sword. The session where I gave this sword out has come and gone, and they all loved it. I have a small group and they needed a full rotation of sidekicks to keep things going well. I learned this when they almost died to a troll. Only one person could come, so I gave him control of the other characters, only to realize that I'd overestimated their ability by pitting him against a troll. Things started looking bleak, and I realized I was faced with a difficult choice. I could TPK the party, killing off characters even though the players weren't there and I'd created an encounter too powerful for the characters. Or, I could send in a deus ex machina cavalry to save the players, slightly de-valuing the risk of death. So, I decided to choose the lesser of two evils, and I sent in the cavalry to save the players. After that I knew I couldn't let that happen again. When the other players came back, I could tell they weren't very thrilled with their characters experiencing something they could not. So I decided that I'd use sidekicks to buff my character's party while the party is lacking members.
4. If you don't want this at your game table, don't use it. It's as simple as that.
If only one person could come, then you shouldn't have run a session. I'm glad fun was had, but it still sounds like you're a little too self-indulgent. A troll is intended to be a challenge for a party of four 5th-level characters. Regardless of how big your group is, asking one person to do all of that on their own is a mind-numbing task. Whether you meant it or not, you were setting them up for failure. And now you've overcorrected.
You are correct that I threw too much at them, but I will point out that two third-level characters, a group of three second-level sidekicks, and for unrelated reasons a group of 5 baboons managed to fight a pair of trolls, killing one and allowing the other to flee. And as for not having a session with one person, it's been done many times, very successfully. My original D&D group started with 2 people, which often meant one person for sessions. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has rules for one-on-one D&D sessions.
Also, I think you need to brush up on your CR system, because the Monster Manual and Basic Rules both clearly state, "An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with a challenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one." So yeah. A single monster with a CR equal to a fully rested party's level is a medium encounter. I was looking to challenge the party, I made the encounter too tough, and I paid the price for it.
I made a DM mistake, and that's my fault. I have been dungeon mastering for 2 years, and I've made plenty of mistakes, this among them. DMing is no exact science, and every DM makes mistakes. If a DM believes he or she has not made a mistake as a DM, then he or she has made the mistake of arrogance. I do my best, and occasionally I make a mistake, like giving a player control over someone else's character or throwing a troll at a second-level party, and sometimes I have a good idea, like creating a flying sword named Swing and allowing the characters to recruit him as a sidekick.
Please, Jounichi1983, tell me about a time you made a mistake as a DM. Tell me what you did to fix it, and tell me what you learned from the experience.
You sound passive-aggressive. Don't.
A party of four 5th-level characters should be able to deal with a lone troll easily enough. It's actually rated as an Easy encounter. But a party of four 4th-level characters against a lone troll is rated Hard. For a party of five 2nd-level characters, it's Deadly. Against two trolls, even with the baboons, it was still Deadly. That said, "Deadly" doesn't mean someone is expected to die. It just means someone is expected to go unconscious. You lucked out because the action economy was on the side of your player.
Assuming your player didn't also run the baboons, they still had five characters to run. And don't go quoting Tasha's without also citing that they recommend only one sidekick per player. There's no hard limit, you can allow as few or as many as you want. But it, "can noticeably slow down the game." If you're inexperienced, and your solution to every problem is to just pile on more and more, then you're going to overwhelm yourself. DM Burnout is real. And your player(s) can burn out, too. Slow down. Don't do anything that's going to get you there faster.
I make mistakes all the time. Sometimes I'll forget someone who's being quiet in the initiative order and skip their turn. I've skipped Legendary Actions, homebrewed creatures that were too strong, and gave out too many magic items too fast for a small party. And I've underestimated my players. One of my groups has both parleyed with a talking plesiosaur, instead of trying to fight it, and picked a fight with two giants and their pet bear, in their own home, that, on paper, dramatically outclassed them. And they still won with some smart tactics, so while I'm disappointed from a moral perspective I'm also happy for them.
I've thrown too much at my players before. I've had TPKs. I also wasn't expecting them to try and fight a 50-man mob of peasants trying to drive them out of town. What I've said to you does not come from a place where I've never done what you've done. I've probably done worse. And I've learned those hard lessons. So, forgive me for trying to spare you a little pain.
But, you know what, you do you. No one can stop you. But you don't also get to complain when you've made a sidekick worth more than, on the low end, a 20,000 gp magic item. At least, according to Xanathar's.
Have a good night.
Alright, let's address this point-by-point.
I was being passive-aggressive. Please except my apologies.
Second, you clearly have a more working understanding of the CR system than I'd expected. I will point out that balancing encounters at levels 1-3 is difficult, because a single commoner could throw the whole thing off. Admittedly, a troll was too much. I understand that now. However, Wizards of the Coast themselves have made similar mistakes. Just about every one of their modules has a good chance for a TPK at 1st level. And just take a look at the random encounters table in Xanathar's Guide. One of the random encounters for 1st level adventurers is 1d3 trolls. Imagine rolling a 3 on that. If you have 4th level characters, all they can do is run. If you have 1st level characters, and the trolls are at all inclined to kill them, divide how many characters you have by five. That's about how long that combat will last. Clearly, my encounter was unbalanced, but it's hard to run complex and interesting encounters with low-level parties. I think if I'd had to do it again, I'd use the reduced-threat rules from Tales from the Yawning Portal.
Technically, I do have three players, I just can't count on every one being there all the time. I think they enjoyed the combat, and I ran both the baboons and the sidekicks. (the baboons were good for using up troll actions, but that created a lot of sad deaths). I managed to do it fairly quickly. I don't really know how long the combat lasted, but I'd say it lasted, in-game, at least 6 rounds, maybe even 10. And, in the end, despite both dropping at least once during the combat and being brought back up with a cure wounds spell, the two PCs were the only ones conscious when one troll died and the other fled.
Finally, you mention often not challenging your players enough. I've made that mistake myself many times. I was trying to challenge them, and I ended up overcorrecting by nearly killing them.
I'm not complaining about Swing the flying sword. He's fun, he's quirky, and he adds comic relief to my game. These sidekicks have been effective, and I think I made the right decision. In future, I may have to weaken encounters, but I think I've gone through my last troll in the campaign, at least as far as I've planned, at least until my players are more experienced.
You appear to have some misconceptions.
The first is that a lot of their modules are lethal at 1st-level. And you have something of a point. Those first few levels feel awfully squishy. I've also run plenty of modules, with no alterations, at 1st-level and never had a TPK. I only saw someone fall unconscious twice, and nobody died. The lowest level I've had a character die was 3rd, and they walked right into that one by splitting the party. Adventuring, as a career, is dangerous. It can happen, probabilities being what they are, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The second ties back into the first, and that it's you seem to think an encounter always leads to combat when it doesn't have to. A "random encounter" doesn't mean they just appear as if out of an old JRPG spoiling for a fight. It means the encounters are procedurally generated. It's still up to the DM to set the stage and tell a story. The encounter could be the aftermath of the trolls already killing something and chowing down. The party can find evidence of them in the area and perhaps escape notice. There are random distance tables for encounters; depending on the environment. You don't have to start in striking distance. And if the players can't handle them at their current level, then consider running a Chase out of the DMG. Running away is always an option. There are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. Use them all. Any one of those could be a random encounter.
The third is that I'm not challenging my players enough. I never said that. You need to learn how to read and listen.
If they didn't plan the encounters with at least some chance of combat, then why not just throw ten mind flayers at the party and hope they roleplay it out?
They did throw one at a first level party in WDH.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Yeah! I remember that! To be fair, the players had help, but it just goes to show: everyone loves troll, everyone makes mistakes with encounter balancing sometimes, so it goes to show that a lot of times people throw too many trolls at too low level characters. DM mistakes are part of the game.
Now you're getting flippant.
A fight means risk. It means characters can be hurt or killed. They don't have to win, they don't even have to draw. One of the first possible encounters in Dragon of Icespire Peak is a manticore. It can fly and attack at range for 8 rounds before running out of tail spikes. It is a Deadly encounter for a party of five 1st-level characters. And if such a party tries to fight it head-on, their loss is all but assured. But it's intelligent and can be bargained or reasoned with.
The same could also be said of a mind flayer.
NPCs know that combat is dangerous, too. A troll is going to behave recklessly because of its regeneration unless it takes acid or fire damage. That'll make it think twice. Exploiting that fear, that knowledge, might even scare it off.
The book, if I remember correctly, says that it tries to escape and attacks if the party attacks it. There is no RP situation there.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
No, Durnan had the troll covered. He could realistically drop it to 0 in a single round before the players even get a chance to act. The players were intended to fight 3 stirges and finish off the troll.
Anyone who jumps in is helping him, not the other way around.
Fair enough.
Allowed my level 1 player to have a hermit discovery of a pet rock that was hollow and has a Chwinga living in it. Able to grant charms including one that gives auto res 9 times that can only be used once. Used it in the first game of candlekeep mysteries when we got down to one charactor at the flying swords. (I lowered the flying sword attack to d6 instead of d8 to try to keep this from happening) Those little things are so overpowered but at least it got us through.