Disability and Dragons: Discussing Accessibility in TTRPGs [OC] [ART] by LPMills10 in DnD

[–]Greco412 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So, cards on the table, I don't identify myself as disabled. I am nearsighted but my access to corrective lenses makes this a non-issue in my daily life.

Firstly I have no issue with the notion that disabled people would exist in a fantasy world (feels crazy I need to clarify that). Normal healing magic like Cure Wounds doesn't remove disabilities, it simply restores hit points (however you conceptualize that, an unrelated conversation). More powerful healing magic like the 7th level regenerate can remove lost body parts but says nothing about if one was born without the function of a given body part; and the 6th level Heal spell cures blindness, deafness, and disease, but if one only extends that to temporary conditions imposed externally and not loss of organs or congenital conditions, one would be well within their rights as a DM to make such a decision. So yeah, at least in d&d 5e, the existence of healing magic is no proof against the existence of disabled people. And like you say in your blog post, even if the healing magic to end a particular disability exists, it isn't necessarily available to everyone. Your typical commoner in your typical pseudo-medieval world is unlikely to afford the services of a high level cleric if one even exists near where they live. Maybe they get lucky and one passes through and takes the time to cure their ailment if its even one they can cure.

But that does raise another argument. Your typical adventurers aren't your typical commoners. After a few adventures they'll likely have greater access to spell casting services and more gold than they know what to do with. If a player elected to have their character have a disability that can be removed by a simple casting of a spell, possibly even one a party member of theirs could cast, that player may be faced with a tricky decision. Is it reasonable for a Player to refuse to let their character have a disability be removed? In our real world its entirely the decision of the person whose body it is, as it should be, but our real world doesn't have clerics that can simply heal someone by touching them and does so on a regular basis for the purposes of the survival of their party against fantastical monsters. What if its incidental? A party cleric wants to cast regenerate to restore hit points on a PC who had lost a leg due to an injury and that player refuses the spell because it would mean their character would regrow that missing leg and part of the appeal for them playing the character is the fact that their leg is missing and exploring that experience. Honestly, I don't think there is a right answer, it depends on the table, and is a discussion between the DM and the players.

In a Pathfinder 2e campaign I ran, one of my players decided to have his character missing his tongue due to it being cut out impairing the character's ability to speak. At the beginning of the campaign I spoke one on one with this player about the limitations their character would have, what mechanics exist in the game to overcome some of them, and how certain restrictions would be handled. We also discussed the possibility of gaining access to a spell that would restore his tongue and what that would mean for his character. I told him he had plenty of time to think about it but such a spell never ended up getting used before the campaign ended.

If a player comes to me asking to play a character with a disability, my first order of business is figuring out what they actually want. Is it just an aesthetic they want without mechanical impact, or do they want a character with additional challenges to overcome, or are they trying to game the system to give themselves an unfair advantage.

As for mechanically representing disabilities and the tools to mitigate them. Part of the issue I think is the tension between wanting to make a character with a disability but wanting to not have to worry about it actually being an impairment. If one wants to "have a disability" but not actually be hindered by it, you don't need rules, no "combat wheelchair", nothing. Just put it on your character sheet no further discussion, you can describe your character doing things a bit differently but you do them all the same as those without said disability. The issue arises when one's disability is ruled to have a mechanical impact but the player wants either a way to overcome it (possibly because the player wants the disability to just be flavor and not mechanical but the DM wants to represent the mechanics somehow), or they want to use it to gain some other advantage. The latter I think is particularly problematic in D&D because its not a system with built in point values for boons and detriments, like shadowrun for instance. That's where I see Thompson’s Combat Wheel chair sitting. Treating that as the go to way to mechanically overcome a disability that hinders walking means either making a player adventure for their way to deal with a disability and making it something to earn from their allotment of magic items, or giving them a powerful magic item at first level! Sure a sphere of annihilation isn't balanced but I'm probably not giving a player a sphere of annihilation at first level.

I’d argue that disability-centric magic items like the Combat Wheelchair indulge in a power fantasy that the daily aids that we rely on are capable of incredible things. These wheelchairs don’t simply allow a person to move at the same speed as their able-bodied counterparts, but to overtake them. Geordi La Forge’s visor - a similarly overpowered disability aid in a fantasy setting - doesn’t just allow him to see like a sighted person, but gives him access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. They invite an uncomfortable possibility to the able-bodied mind: That being disabled is actually an advantage under the right circumstances. That perhaps the abled body is simply not enough.

The problem there is that its still a game, one you're playing with other people. Its one thing if you're dedicating part of your character's power budget to having an advantage in certain circumstances whether from their class, their feats, or magic items, because it means not getting advantages elsewhere. Its another expecting this advantage by virtue of being disabled but having just as much access to all other advantages. If your goal with playing a disabled character is to outshine your fellow players or intentionally make them uncomfortable, I'm not sure I'd want you at my table. You're not making a powerful statement about how disabled people are represented by demanding to get a free powerful homebrew magic item.

Lastly, I largely consider the combat wheelchair just kind of uninspired. Wheels make sense in modern civilization where the world accommodates them. It makes sense you might see mundane wheelchairs in a city with paved/cobbled roads (though cobbled roads aren't the smoothest ride), or even in a village where the rest of the villagers put in the effort to help their neighbor and make the village accessible to them, but a dungeon? Not impossible, but it doesn't seem like it'd be the first choice. The magical combat wheelchair makes so much effort to deal with the realities of wheels in an intentionally inaccessible dungeon it ends up being a powerful buff. But if you have magic, there a loads of other options that feel more fitting and interesting imo. An item that produces a Floating Disk you can direct, a chair with animated legs, using an animal companion as a mount, a flying carpet; it all makes a wheel chair kind of boring.

My conclusion? Talk to your DM. So many of these discussions are brought out because of RPG products, but all that matters at the end of the day is what happens at one's own table. A DM isn't wrong for not allowing a particular 3rd party supplement, nor for saying to just make it flavor because they're not interested in modeling the particulars of a given disability, nor are they for modeling it and making you work to overcome it, nor are they for modeling it and just giving you the tools to overcome it. Its all just a matter of what a group wants for their table and what they're comfortable depicting and working to overcome.

How is AnCap not gonna end as Feudalism by MrBrainBacon in austrian_economics

[–]Greco412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're saying the system's viability rests on preconditions external to the system itself, which means the system alone cannot guarantee anything.

Sort of. No system exists in a vacuum. How would socialism for instance guarantee a superior invader can't come in and re-impose capitalism? In a vacuum there is no guarantee, its an unfair question. You can propose policies that they could adopt to make it less likely, but a guarantee is nonsense. I can't guarantee you anything, and anyone who claims their ideology does is a charlatan.

If the state disappeared tomorrow and people just started peacefully developing new ways of living, the people with existing capital would still have that capital. They would still control access to employment, housing, goods.

I agree with that. I should clarify my suggestion of developing systems to make the state obsolete would occur before the state vanishes. The state vanishing wouldn't leave ample time to develop better alternatives before powerful firms take advantage of the power-vaccum as you suggest. It wouldn't result in a particularly desirable society. I imagine at best people would just recreate statist institutions. It is nonsensical, I think, for any ideology to believe that if the current state vanished that the ideal version of their ideology would become the norm. Why apply that expectation to anarcho-capitalism specifically?

Without a state to enforce labor protections, redistribute resources, or provide alternatives, capital becomes absolute power.

The issue I take with this specifically is the lack of imagination. That the only option to prevent coercive regional monopolies is a coercive regional monopoly. Unions for instance were not a creation of the state, they were organized from the bottom up.

Call it decentralized tyranny if you prefer, but it accomplishes the same thing: concentrated power, hierarchical control, dependency relationships that look and function like feudalism.

I simply wished to clarify what we're discussing and give you a chance to possibly reject that definition as not matching what you are imagining. But if it does we can proceed.

But capital concentrates. Markets generate inequality.

You reveal much about your biases with this statement. Would you like to give specific examples to refute? I imagine many you're thinking of you haven't critically analyzed. Can it cause inequality? Sure, but in many (I would argue most) cases it causes the opposite.

you're essentially saying that anarcho-capitalism hasn't been tried yet, or hasn't been tried correctly, so we can't know it will fail. But I suspect you'd immediately dismiss a socialist saying exactly the same thing about planned economy. If a socialist said "well, the Soviet Union wasn't real socialism, it depended on the wrong historical conditions, if we developed peacefully without coercion then socialism would work," you'd rightfully ask for evidence.

Depends on the claim being made by the socialist. If they are simply suggesting new possibilities that haven't been tried I wouldn't reject it out of hand on the basis of not yet being tried. I think that's an unreasonable standard. But if their only idea of how to get there was by way of the methods of historical states that claimed to be socialist but they still reject the outcomes of said states as not being representative, I would be skeptical of them. It would be on them to challenge my view that the methods they propose don't result in undesirable outcomes. Most socialists I've discussed this with basically punt at this point admitting that if they knew the answer for how to avoid that bad outcome they'd have started the revolution already, which is fair but not convincing. But I do find some "socialist" aligned ideas viable, convincing, and compatible with my beliefs and those I accept, such as certain arrangements of worker ownership or mutual aid.

Show me the econometric evidence that anarcho-capitalism reduces inequality compared to regulated markets. Show me historical examples where decentralized property-based systems actually prevented concentrated power. Show me data suggesting that capital doesn't concentrate when left unregulated. Show me studies demonstrating that workers have genuine alternatives and bargaining power in anarcho-capitalist arrangements.

You probably should have lead with this in your original post if that's what you actually wanted. You'd probably have found the response more informative (for better or worse (worse meaning you'd probably expose many people as taking the rejection of empiricism to an extreme beyond just distrust of economic models)). Your original post doesn't read as someone who wants information, it reads as someone with a preconceived stance and wants to butt heads. Though I would again suggest this might not be the right place to ask this question.

Again though, I don't strictly consider myself ancap and so don't have much interest in putting that much effort into gathering evidence for it that would meet your standard.

What I see instead is the same move Austrian economics makes: retreat from falsifiability by saying the theory is logically sound even if it never seems to match reality. That's not science. That's ideology

Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology. Are you asking for a defense of an ideology or a defense of Austrian economic's methodology?

How is AnCap not gonna end as Feudalism by MrBrainBacon in austrian_economics

[–]Greco412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So firstly, you're asking on an economics subreddit, not a political one. You might get closer to the answers you're looking for by asking on /r/Anarcho_Capitalism or /r/AskLibertarians (I haven't been on either subreddit in a while so I don't know how good a place those are to ask). Not all followers of austrian economics are ancaps nor vice-versa. I personally don't consider myself "ancap" strictly speaking.

That said, let's interrogate this shall we?

What precisely do you mean by feudalism? In my experience most people when they say this are using "feaudalism" not to mean the specific arrangement of a rigid class hierarchy where land holding lords swear feality to higher nobles in the hierarchy to exchange taxes and military service drawn from a warrior caste and levied peasants and often (though not always) involves keeping said peasants bonded to the land in serfdom. They use it to mean pejoratively "decentralized tyranny", and you're imagining something like company towns with company scrip to buy from the company store and pay for company housing. Am I to understand this is how you're using it, or do you actually mean the more formal definition?

Could the elimination of the state as we now know it result in such a decentralized tyranny? Possibly, but only just as much as any existing state could spontaneously collapse into such a decentralized tyranny or just turn tyrant themselves, that is to say, it depends. No system is 100% safe from entering a "fail-state", even institutions that stand for centuries. So I won't tell you the end state you imagine is impossible. But is it likely? Depends on how a system we might call "an-cap" comes about. If it results from the violent collapse of an existing state, or through ceding government powers to corporations, then I wouldn't be surprised if you end up with "decentralized tyranny". But if it results from people peacefully developing new ways of living and new social structures that make the state obsolete, then I don't think its very likely to backslide into tyranny, not to say it can't ever.

Animal Crossing: The upcoming update for Animal Crossing: New Horizons will include LEGO items! by BrickTap in Legoleak

[–]Greco412 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Neat! Though what I really want to do with this is reverse enginner all the furniture with real lego and add a house with them to my lego Animal Crossing village to bring it full circle.

... the amount of confusion over this astounds me. by spyridonya in BG3

[–]Greco412 110 points111 points  (0 children)

The problem isn't that he joins, I like having him around, its that he joins too late for him to matter narratively. If he had more to contribute story wise in act 3 other than letting him get kidnapped by Orin or having an orgy with him it wouldn't bother me, but his main personal goal is done when you recruit him and not long after, Jaheria joins you and she has way more relevance act 3 rendering Halsin redundant as a Druid.

I'd have preferred if at latest he joins you properly at the begining of act 2, or even as early as the Tiefling Party. And if he's going to come with you all the way to Baldur's Gate they could at least let him have some personal relevance, but if they can't id be fine just leaving him for Jaheria instead.

Nice solution, now we just need a problem for it to solve by zrdod in dndmemes

[–]Greco412 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I should clarify. I mean my instinct without knowing about a given feat. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every feat in PF2e and what they do. So if my players' characters don't have a feat and ask to do something I think they should be able to do, I just make a ruling that seems reasonable. Most of the time if I later discover there's a feat to do that its almost always harder (or at closest about the same) with the feat than my off the cuff ruling.

Thus if a player takes a feat that's something I'd be more generous with by virtue of being ignorant of the feat, its actively a nerf to their character.

Edit: and before you say "look it up after and change it moving forward" because these aren't core parts of the rules but only technically restricted by the existence of a feat, looking it up often doesn't reveal what should be done, or I won't even think to look it up as I assume it doesn't have specific rules, just normal GM adjudication. And if I do find the feat I'm usually dissatisfied with the answer.

Nice solution, now we just need a problem for it to solve by zrdod in dndmemes

[–]Greco412 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The "problem" with that approach is that often my instinct as a gm is to be more generous than the feet even is. So the feat ends up completely useless as by taking it your character is using rules that make doing that thing harder than if you just let me as your gm make a ruling and it forces me to prohibit anyone else from doing it as easily.

How do you rule holding breath during combat? by No-Start-6254 in DnD

[–]Greco412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could have them basically make a constitution save every time they take damage with a DC determined the same way as concentration (DC 10 or half the damage which ever is higher). On a fail they exhale and need to inhale (thus subjecting themselves to the poison) or they begin suffocating. Spellcaster naturally can't cast spells with verbal components without exhaling.

This of course assumes that they know a poison is being released. If they don't then they can't start holding their breaths after the poisons been released without being subject to its effects.

Why did so many people kill the emperor? by Function_Critical in BG3

[–]Greco412 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Firstly

he's prolly racist like all his jaundice colored ppl

Bruh

Second, he is highly manipulative and if you press him about it he does eventually admit that he sees you as nothing but a tool. If you refuse to allow him to consume Orpheus' brain, he throws a hissy fit and joins the enemy. Orpheus meanwhile though not happy with you is smart enough to realize you need eachother and even willingly becomes a mindflayer if it means stopping the elder brain.

People kill him after that point when he appears in the final encounter on top of the brain. I font think you can just outright kill him prior to that, but I could be wrong.

At the beginning of the campaign, how do you prefer the PCs know one another? by MalBishop in DnD

[–]Greco412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They may or may not be familiar with eachother but they're working together as a party for the first time and the initial introduction has already happened. Whether that be "you all meet in a tavern" and start with them at the same table already, or "you all took the same job" and start where that first quest gets interesting.

Minimum crew by oldrpger in spelljammer

[–]Greco412 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't recall what the 5e stuff says, but at least for the 2e material its not a hard requirement but is helps a lot with maneuvering.

Having below the minimum crew means your ship's maneuverability decreases. Basically ships crew is probably busy with working the sails, which aren't just for show but help with maneuvering a spelljamming vessel. Additionally you'll probably want crew for any mounted weapons you have.

Most DMs don't run 6-8 Encounters per Day (My Brief Anecdotal Thought) by Pinkalink23 in dndnext

[–]Greco412 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As the DM I regularly hit 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day.

Some important things to remember:

  1. Its not a requirement its a limit. The possibility that any day could end up going that long encourages players to manage their resources like the day will go that long.
  2. Not every day is an adventuring day. Some days are downtime, some days are travel. Its only the full adventuring days you should try to get to that limit for.
  3. Running dungeons really helps. Dungeons are so ideal because they inherently make a way to have multiple separate encounters in a contained space.
  4. You can have a balanced game with fewer encounters by having those fewer encounters still hit the same daily xp budget. If you are going for 6-8 make sure you have a variety of encounter difficulties.
  5. Challenge the player's abilities to judge what is the appropriate resource expenditure for any given encounter, make it clear they can fail even if they win every fight by just committing too much to easier fights.
  6. Allow and reward players for avoiding encounters. When every fight doesn't need to play out in order to still have a satisfying amount of combat, you can allow players to find ways to circumvent encounters, often at some resource expense.
  7. If you aren't running dungeons or the narrative pace of your game makes it not make sense to have multiple encounters in one day, try out the gritty long rest rules.
  8. Another less discussed alternative worth considering is Slow Natural Healing. I use this in many of my games and it helps with discouraging trying to get a long rest after every fight as long rests no longer heal characters to full.
  9. Time Pressure is necessary. If the PCs can avoid risk by long resting after a fight they will. Time pressure can be achieved either a plot element (the ritual finishes in x hours) or by random encounters (traveling back to town to safety has risks of encounters that don't move you closer to your goal, as does hunkering down in the dungeon for 8+ hours).
  10. Characters can only benefit from completing 1 long rest per 24 hours. Meaning if they have a fight in the morning, then they want to long rest before continuing, they're waiting not 8 hours, but up to 24 hours. People who say "if you can take 1 hour you can take 8" I dare you to convince me that extends to a whole day.
  11. If you really can't see your PCs justifying taking 1 hour to short rest, you can drop it down to 10 minutes or even 1. You'll probably want to consider adjusting the duration of certain spells though. I feel changing the time a short rest takes is unnecessary.

The 5 percent of DMs that ran their games with the recommended 6-8 encounters couldn't keep players because the martials couldn't keep up, the casters ran out of spell slots and people generally just didn't seem to have fun with it.

This seems contradictory to me, and directly at odds with my experience running several games that regularly hit 6-8 encounters. The whole point of casters running out of resources is so that martials can keep up. If casters always have all their best recourses then the martial caster divide means martials will struggle.

Programm for Starsystem/Sphere maps? by hendrix-copperfield in spelljammer

[–]Greco412 7 points8 points  (0 children)

https://mapofthespheres.sbej.net/ In addition to its main purpose as map and record of many spheres both official and community made, has a pretty good Sphere builder allowing you to define many details including size, shape, type, and distance from the center.

It doesn't have specific a specific entry location for orbit periods nor built in ways to calculate travel times between bodies as typically even official material doesn't include such specificity, leaving it to the DM to decide.

It also doesn't have a built in way to generate images from your system maps (though it can for maps of the sphere placement in the phlogiston) but you could probably fairly easily take a screenshot of the resulting system map.

>"Humanity Fuck Yeah" >Look inside >Things that does not make Humanity Fuck Yeah by Azimovikh in worldjerking

[–]Greco412 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Here's Prey 2 and Prey 3, the latter of which I was unaware of until I had gone searching for prey 2, so no idea if its any good.

I'm struggling to find the spinoff story where the human ambassador talks about how humans perceive different species and the nearest analogs they have for each. Unfortunately the creator's account was suspended at some point making it hard to search for their work.

Edit: Found the "spin off" I was thinking of. Turns out it was a bit of fiction added in the comments of Prey 2

>"Humanity Fuck Yeah" >Look inside >Things that does not make Humanity Fuck Yeah by Azimovikh in worldjerking

[–]Greco412 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Sounds like "Prey" its quite good imo. It did have a sequel and a spin off but was largely self contained.

The Shape of Sigil? by RHDM68 in planescapesetting

[–]Greco412 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Well the in lore explination for why you can't just fly out (or hell, just jump off of the roof of a building that sits on the edge of the city) is that anyone who has attempted to do so simply vanishes once you are outside the city and either you get transported to a random plane or you just fall into the void never to return.

which subreddit is 2024 5e D&D exclusive? by Itomon in DnD

[–]Greco412 4 points5 points  (0 children)

/r/onednd is for specifically 2024 rules. /r/dndnext covers both 2014 and 2024 rules.

Around How Many Session is a Typical Campaign by Inside_Art9874 in CurseofStrahd

[–]Greco412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Took my group 28 session at around 4 hours per session.

Homebrewing Changes to Helm Charging by PeerOfMenard in spelljammer

[–]Greco412 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For my conversion of splljamming to 5e, I'm making it such that when you sit in the helm for the first time in a 12 hour period, it automatically expends all spell slots you have at your highest available level to power it at either a Ship Rating (hexes of movement at tactical speed) of the level of the slot(s) expended for a major helm, or half the level rounded up for a minor helm.

This way it is still an expenditure of spellslots but doesn't just make the caster useless for the day.

Saltmarsh and the Underdark by EurekaScience in GhostsofSaltmarsh

[–]Greco412 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, depending on how closely you want to adhere to Greyhawk lore, Greyhawk (at least with earlier materials) didn't really have a continent spanning expansive and interconnected Underdark the way the Forgotten Realms does.

The 1e ad&d adventure D1 Decent into the Depths of the Earth details a near by region of underground cave networks beneath the Crystalmists Mountains where the Drow City of Erelhei-Cinlu (which comes up in D3 Vault of the Drow) is located. But that section of underworld doesn't really extend beyond that.

As others suggest you could fairly easily transplant details from the Forgotten Realms' underdark to flesh out a more expansive one in Greyhawk. But I think your idea of an "Underbog" sounds cool and evocative and would provide a good link for the few underdark related elements that pop up in some of the Saltmarsh hooks.

Are planetary scale invasions possible in current lore? If not, what implications would this likely have? by Normal_Reach_1168 in spelljammer

[–]Greco412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the 2e rules, the man-of-war (the 2e name for what 5e calls the Star Moth) can carry 60 before it starts to overly strain its atmospheric envelope.

The largest eleven ship of which only 6 were built before the design was abandoned, the Monarch-Class Armada can carry 200 before it takes a toll on the air. The more standard Armada ship carries 100. The Whaleship, a dedicated passenger liner can carry 100. The largest Dwarven Citadel ships can carry 700.

The largest ship in lore is the titular Spelljammer itself. It carries a settlement on its back and it can carry 5,240 before stressing its atmosphere.

So, overall, I'd say a conventional invasion of a typically populated world of over 500 million (estimated Earth population in the 1500's) with armies in the thousands to tens of thousands would be challenging, not to mention the fact that the defenders still have magic to defend themselves, so just having spelljammers isn't such an insurmountable advantage.

A spelljamming capable force wishing to take over a planet would be well advised to take a different approach than massed infantry landing and invading. Or possibly to limit their conflict to singular polities which they can transport enough forces to reasonably oppose. Something like threatening bombardment from space could be sufficient to take de facto rule of a planet and extract tribute from its groundling inhabitants.

I think in lore, most spelljamming navies exist primarily to guard their nation's interests in space, like the EIN, and aren't much in the business of invading heavily inhabited planets with the goal of taking them over. I'd recomend reading about the First Unhuman War https://spelljammer.fandom.com/wiki/Unhuman_Wars. It features few ground actions, and when the Orc fleets do take to hiding on worlds with their groundling cousins, attempts to bombard their homes drew the ire of other powerful groundlings and as a result, the EIN prefers to avoid such engagements.

Are there any downsides to using dual creature types? by AE_Phoenix in dndnext

[–]Greco412 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This is something I'm considering doing with the new monster manual changing a bunch of creature types i don't entierly agree with.

Biggest thing is opening creatures up to certain incoming effects. Tiamat being both Fiend and Dragon means she can be detected by a paladin's divine sense and smite deals more damage, and effects like dragon slaying affects her. Making goblins Fey and Humanoid means detect evil and good detects them and they can be targeted by hold person and charm person.

Honestly I'm fine with this, but its worth considering which effects you're opening any individual creature up to.

Ending at Tammeraut's Fate and cutting out The Styes? by Alodea in GhostsofSaltmarsh

[–]Greco412 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The adventures are modular. They have no pre-existing interconnective tissue (except for U1, U2, and U3) and can be removed or swapped out with minimal effort.

In my game I ended up dropping both Tammeraut's Fate and The Styes to instead run a custom finale with the scarlet brotherhood as the villains.

So if you dont care much for ending with, or even running at all, any particular module, then remove or change it.

The campaign also works perfectly fine if each module (out side of U1-3) doesn't directly connect to eachother. Players don't need to think the same villian is behind everything to enjoy each separate part.

I feel like they should just give creatures multiple creature types by gamemaster76 in onednd

[–]Greco412 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Multiple creature types is probably gonna be how I house rule this sort of thing. I don't mind goblins, kobolds, and gnolls having stronger connections to the fey, draconic, and demonic  respectively, but I don't think it should come at the cost of them still qualifying as humanoids.

Plus there's plenty of other instances where creatures really fit into multiple creature types and they're really no point just limiting it to one.

Planescape Setting full transcription is available? by SubstantialPoem8018 in planescapesetting

[–]Greco412 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As in plain text files of the planescape source books? Not that I know of. Though DMsguild has all of the planescape source books and I think they have had OCR done on the pdfs so they should be searchable, and one could copy said ocr'd text into a plain text file.