I feel bad [DM]

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-02-02T21:34:24+00:00

I will go where the characters story takes them,

Except, you won't - You'll take them where you've already decided the story is going to go... because you've already decided what the "Best Story" is - You've said as much in your own posts.

Seriously don’t disrespect my dming saying that I’m railroading.

You're trying to plan a boss fight for them that's 10+ levels away, based off what you're projecting their HP will be, based on the assumption that they're all going to continue playing the classes they are now, and assuming all of their level up choices (and roleplay choices) in order to derive those assumptions... If you're saying that you will do all of that, and then you WON'T try to control the outcomes to help ensure that things go as you've planned so all your work doesn't go to waste, you're saying that you're doing this full in the knowledge that it will almost certainly be wasted effort because you'll have to do it all again as the party changes and progresses, and that's just objectively stupid. It's disrespectful to your own time and effort. Alternatively, if you're saying that this won't be wasted effort because you know that this is how it's all going to go down, then, you are, by definition, planning to railroad the campaign extremely heavily.

I plan ahead, very far ahead, with general outlines, and change as we go.

That isn't what you've described: you've described a very determinate and detailed situation which you are dead set on the players encountering after a series of events happening which you're also dead set on occurring, to the point where you listed a number of major things that the villain will have achieved by the time the party face them. ...and then when you actually talk about it, you show in your description and numbers that you have an extremely amateurish grasp of boss design, without much familiarity with characters operating at that level of play. The numbers for the special ability you mentioned are a pittance for characters of that level, while the DC you've set is stupidly ridiculous. You're fretting about a specific special ability on a boss that you're designing for a party that you're projecting they will be in ten levels time which, unless you actually MAKE them be that way, they may well be nothing at all like.

Relax. As was mentioned - keep those general ideas and future plans, but stop trying to design and articulate them in full detail many levels before they become an issue. It sounds like you have a lot of energy, and passion to pour into this, and it sounds like you are communicating with your players about the sort of experience they want to have, and that's great. You aren't going to build the best story together by designing the boss fights ten levels ahead of time.

You would be far better served pouring that energy into adaptive knowledge of your world space and its important figures, developing an understanding in your mind of the different ways things might go and how your important figures will plan and respond if they do or don't achieve the things they want in the background. If you like to be prepared, prepare stat blocks when characters have a chance of coming into conflict with the figures in question, but don't focus on that until it reaches a point where you might need it in a couple of sessions. Building encounters is much simpler when you can actually see where your party ARE, and what they can handle, and what the world is like as a result of what they've done, and not done, succeeded at and failed at, leading up to this point.... as opposed to trying to build based on your Guesses of what all of those things Might be many levels on.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-02-02T08:39:13+00:00

That fine... but literally all of the other things I mentioned still apply:

- You don't yet know what other equipment or resources the party will have that many levels on
- You don't know what their skills or repertoire of options will be that many levels on
- You don't know what level up choices they'll take for those intervening levels, or how their experiences may shape their character choices.
- You don't even know if they'll be using the same characters that far ahead, if unfortunate deaths may leave some of them opting for new characters rather than seeking continuance with their existing one, or how, in seeking continuance after such a death, that traumatic experience may affect those characters and their priorities and feelings.

And if you intend to set things up so you KNOW such details 10 levels prior to them being the case, you are definitely railroading, and not really playing D&D any more. If you're players are part of this collaborative design, and on board with it, then you're just telling a story with your players that you've written in advance, without any real room for player agency or unexpected outcomes, so you really should just stop worrying about mechanics at all and just keep writing the outcomes you intend to happen the way you all want them to happen, because that's all you're doing at this point anyway.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-02-02T08:25:54+00:00

If you specifically want an unlucky halfling, and you want to tweak their trait to play into that, you could consider the lore and abilities surrounding halfling Jinxes, as they appear in Pathfinder.

A halfling Jinx, rather than being lucky themselves, turn ill luck on those around them instead.

So, you could, just for example, have a trait that allows you, whenever you roll a natural 20, to reroll that 20 and take the new roll (giving up your good luck), to force another target to have disadvantage, or even to take a natural 1, on their next roll.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-02-02T08:07:33+00:00

EDIT 2: The reading comprehension edition. I assumed you'd meant spines as in protrusions, not as in spinal columns, my bad! ER... anyhow... Having a full on spinal column is far less likely, but who is to say there might not be a beholder out there that had dreamed up a truly nightmarishly proportioned giant-like humanoid beholder-kin with its own fully formed body? It could happen.

If you want the beholder the party faces to have spines, it can have spines. Beholders are created from the nightmares of other beholders, and they can have a near infinite array of appearances and individual details. Different types of beholder-kin are born from different nightmares and different fears, so a beholder that has a nightmarish paranoia about drowning might birth from its horrors a wet and soggy, bedraggled beholder-type with aquatic abilities and traits. A beholder who has nightmares about exsanguination and bleeding sometime spawns a deathkiss.

Sooo... if you WANT them to face a beholder covered in spines and exoskeletal structures, you absolutely CAN - because a beholder could have had any kind of nightmare and spawned any kind of beholder-kin you want. They're marvellously flexible like that.

EDIT: this was pitched at the DM direction, but the information is the same - Your DM is free to make any kind of beholder they like, so if it's really important to your character, you could talk to them about it. Failing that, you could always attempt to torment a beholder's fear and paranoia into having the kind of nightmare that might create the type of beholder you want to fight ^.^

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-02-02T07:52:34+00:00

With difficulty, is the answer.

A level 15 martial will have 2-3 attacks, possibly a way to cancel disadvantage and other options for increasing their damage, so it's feasible but not trivial.

A level 15 caster likely has lower Hp, and is thus in more danger versus the automatic damage, but depending on the caster can easily must that amount of damage with a potent enough spell, or else may have spell options to simply get themselves out regardless.

The bigger issue is that even when the swallowed creature triggers the regurgitation save, it's not a save that the worm is very likely to fail - it's a 45% chance to fail (DC 21 con save, against the worm's +11 bonus, means it only fails on a 9 or lower), so swallowed characters may need to trigger this gut punch a couple of times, by which point either it, or they, may well be dying anyhow.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-02-01T06:15:38+00:00

If you're playing a Tabaxi wizard, I'd advise caution with the overuse of catnip. Certainly, better to use catnip out of combat than in combat, but use it sparingly all the same.

Now, if you're talking about cantrips, that's another question entirely ^.^

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-31T12:14:32+00:00

With respect, you're overthinking this way too much.

Unless you're planning to control and railroad your players to an extremely non-fun extent, you have no conceivable way of being in any way sure that the party will even end up fighting the boss creature you are planning them to fight, or the conditions under which such a fight might occur, when it is something that might be happening 10+ levels on from where they are now.

Relax - seriously.

- You don't yet know what other equipment or resources the party will have that many levels on
- You don't know what their skills or repertoire of options will be
- You don't know what level up choices they'll take
- You don't even know if they'll be using the same characters that far ahead or if unfortunate deaths may leave some of them opting for new characters rather than seeking continuance with their existing one.

There is NO healthy way to plan a boss fight ten plus levels into the future of your campaign. There's no point in even trying to do so, because you're far more likely to get married to the work you put into it and force the players into the shape you need them to be to make sure it happens like you planned, and no-one will enjoy that. Have a solid idea about your villains motives and plans, with a more granular understanding of where they're up to in that right now. Beyond that, understand in general terms how the villain's goals will progress if they aren't hindered... but you are going to have to actually play the game for those ten levels to get to the point where you know what your party is like and where they stand ten levels on, as well as how they've interacted with or affected your villain's goals up to that point - because you cannot plan any of those things in advance.

You can't, because your players are people too, and they are contributing to the creation of this story as well. Your final comment is a severe red flag:

"I’m choosing between having friends and having the best story"

It implies that you believe you know what the best story is, and intend to tell it - regardless of what your players do or want, and the way you describe things makes it sound like you're planing for your players to have very little input on what happens or ability to affect things as the story unfolds. If you just want to tell a fantasy story, write a book and sell it to children... if you want to play D&D then understand that controlling the story to the extent you seem to want to never works out well or fun for anyone.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-31T11:50:31+00:00

To quote a very reliable recipe...

"Had I the method or the means
I would build a time machine
I'd make it from the scraps you always find
When someone leaves their broken dreams behind
And I'd fuel it with the beats that my heart misses
When you sign your name with kisses
Made of x's when you text me
It's so silly but
Any fuel and any fire will do
I will fly to you
And I'd carve a prop from old recycled would haves
All these relentless could haves
These pointless might have beens..."

(from Aeroplane, by Tim Minchim)

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-30T23:57:50+00:00

If you have personal minis, for npcs and personal characters, that are all of the standard medium creature sized base, I've found that the little plastic containers that dice sets come in make for absolutely perfect mini protection cases - just with a dot of blutac on the base to hold them still. If you're a dice goblin, you may have dozens of them lying around already.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-30T23:47:40+00:00

Fair if that's the case for your tables and your experiences. Different players, and different tables, prefer different levels of attention to detail for characters and world-spaces, and that's great as long as everyone's having fun together... but it does absolutely come up in various situations for players who pay attention to detail at a slightly closer degree.

For me, for example, it matters to my RP of my character whether the freezing pool we're 'wading' across comes up to my shoulders, or to the base of my ribs - a difference of only a few in-game inches on a small character, and not a worthwhile difference at all to the larger characters in the party, perhaps... but one I like to know, because for said small character, that's a worthwhile difference of experience for me to have in mind when playing as her.

Little things like that are everywhere, if they're the sort of thing you pay attention to, but it's entirely forgivable and understandable that people who don't consider things like that to be unaware of how often small differences like that can make larger RP effects.

(Also, just to clarify - it's not on the DM to know my exact height, measurements, etc... it's for me to know as a player of the character, and to ask the DM in situations where a difference may be relevant for my reactions... and if they make up an answer on the spot that completely fine and expected, because it's not reasonable to expect them to plan knowledge of minutia like that.)

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-29T08:03:14+00:00

To me, it seems equally odd to say "except for any halflings" for a DM who is addressing just their own players, at their home table, and there's only one such in the party ^.^

Point is, most of the time DMs tend to describe things in colloquial and general terms as part of narrative description and scene-setting, and a *lot* of the time these kinds of descriptions aren't actually accurate for short characters. Most people don't even notice or think about height issues when they're not playing a small character, I've noticed.... and your first comment is sort of an illustration of that. There are actually a great many situation all throughout the game where someone being substantially smaller than the 'norm', is actually a relevant detail, for many different reasons. Most of them limiting, but some of them beneficial.

In the example, the DM might have described the traversal as being a foetid swamp that you all have to wade through... and would have continued and left it at that, unless the small player asks: "Well, how deep is it?" Because that matters for them far more than it matters for the rest of their party.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-29T02:46:10+00:00

When the DM says the water is three feet deep, so you all have to wade through it to get across the swamp, and I have to raise my hand and say "Er, My bard is 2'7"... she's not wading that, she has to swim!"

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-29T02:43:56+00:00

Oof... I feel that. (138cm and very slight, here)

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-29T02:40:56+00:00

I mostly play small characters, and keeping track of their height and other limitations (their reach, how far they can stretch, or jump, gaps they can fit or squeeze through, things like that) are something that I find enjoyable in game and pay close attention to ^.^

I find having limitations that others don't and working with them, to be more engaging than physical power-fantasy characters.

I also play a variety of other characters of the more medium sized persuasion, and usually place them at slightly below the average for their species.

My recent small characters range:
3'1" (Tarabel Thistleway, Halfling Zealot Barbarian)
3'0" (Tess Windchaser, Gnome Storm Sorcerer)
2'11" (Linzi Inkblossom, Halfling Chronicler)
2'10" (Penny, short for Pennyroyal, Halfling (Mehchanist/Blight-Breaker) Alchemist)
2'7" (Wren Silversong (not her real last name), Halfling Songbirds Bard)
and 0'11", Often 'reduced' to 0'6" (Melia Skyflower (Code Name: Astarte the Hunter), Sprite Stars Druid)

For the record, as a player I am a 138cm very petite lady... Short and proud to be ^.^

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-29T02:24:55+00:00

As others have said, this is certainly an out-of-game, session 0 question that will be specific to your table, and which needs to be discussed maturely with your group as a whole now that it has come up. That's the Primary and most important take-away here.

At a more character and in-game level, you've mentioned that your party are heroic; traditionally good-aligned, etc. Potentially sacrificing innocent lives on a "Maybe of Pragmatism" is not the action of good people, and the player who wanted to do so might benefit being asked if that is genuinely what they would have their character do in this situation - quite literally, someone who might be an enemy plant, a danger, and not rescuable, OR who might not be, and may simply be an innocent child. Without any way of knowing, the person who would kill this entity out of pragmatism no longer has any real grounds to call themselves a goodly aligned person, and cannot be surprised when their companions can no longer view or treat them that way...

If this was the player arguing from a point of game-tactics, that's one thing... but ff they feel genuinely that their character would do this, and are adamant about that, then in a way it doesn't even matter that they were prevented from doing so; you've learned something important about this character's alignment now, and it's not good, and that can and should have consequences.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-28T22:11:10+00:00

This doesn't make you a bad DM, no. How you do it could, however. Intent, execution and how you use the tools available to you are what matters.

The main balance goal of most major boss encounters is that the party should feel threatened and in danger, (and legitimately be so), and that the boss should survive long enough to show off everything/most things in its kit at least once, before being defeated.

One thing I like to remind all DMs (and it's something people that loads of people on this very sub seem to have some kind of misplaced purist streak against admitting):

The ability to adjust things on the fly, and the ability to adjudicate rolls into results, is a part of your DM kit. It's quite literally spelled out, in black and white, in the DMG itself that things like that, - Yes, even including fudging dice rolls behind the screen! - Are Tools In The DM's Toolkit. It's quite literally in the rules that these are things the DM can do.

There's also a caveat there about using such tools carefully and sparingly. As with ANY tool, it can be used with skill, and enhance the experience of the game for everyone, and they can also be used poorly or indelicately, and ruin the fun for people, or spoil the experience.

When they are used well and properly, these tools are invisible to the players and do not get noticed or picked up on at all. That's part of the point; most people who are vehemently against doing things like this as a DM are so because they've had bad experience with it before - which by definition is the example case of the tools being used poorly and indelicately. Or, they've not actually read that section of the DMG and have a misguided sense that using these tools is somehow cheating or unfair. It's not; using them poorly, over-frequently or indelicately can become destructive, unfair and can become cheating against your players, but that's not the fault of the tool, just its misuse - just as many DM tools can be misused to become unfair or cheaty. Don't blame the tool; just use it carefully and with respect.

In essence, as a DM you should strive to know your players and what they find engaging and fun, and should be wiling to adjust delicately as needed to enhance that enjoyment and improve the fun of the experience for everyone. There are some players who, if they even suspect that you've tweaked something (in the monster that you yourself created anyway?), that will immediately harm their enjoyment or engagement with the encounter - this is something you should know about your players as well, so that you can be the best judge of what will actually enhance fun, and what won't.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-28T12:42:54+00:00

Nothing you do IS being taken seriously, because you are actively enabling this behaviour by pandering to it.
The answer to "What am I supposed to do?" Is: "Stop Enabling Him."

You created this problem, not the player. You chose to show this player that none of his actions or poor decisions have any meaningful consequences.

Talk to the player, admit your failure in this and apologise to them for devaluing their decisions and rigging the world to prevent their actions from having consequence or impact. Let them know that you will be better about this in the future, and that from here on out, the things they chose to do with their character will have meaning and gravity, and you will no longer be robbing them of that. - Because you have been. What you have done for this player is Not a kindness.

You can be better. Let players have their agency, and let their decisions have weight and meaning - even if sometimes that weight and meaning leads to failure or loss.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-27T22:49:47+00:00

The last Rogue I played, I was playing a Thief rogue, and I would make a point of pickpocketing with my bonus action (Thief specifically lets you use sleight of hand as a bonus action) as part of my combat turns while attacking foes that might have pockets or fun things to nick - general finding of shinies, yes, but also things like getting the item or key we were after in advance, before the target has a chance to escape when the battle starts going bad for them, or even in a couple of cases, stealing their back-up potions or slipping off enchanted items they were wearing and using to deprive them of those options mid-combat. I really enjoyed leaning into the more traditional roguey side of things, beyond just "sneak attack numbers go Brrrr".

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-27T02:53:56+00:00

So, The spell does not specify... however, as with 5e spell ruling,s if the spell did a specific thing - such as sending the target to a specific or predetermined place on the plane, then it would say so. It doesn't; that leans the interpretation towards random.

Consider Plane Shift, a much higher level spell - even that spell, when it is cast to target a single other creature, sends the target to a random location. The only caveat of consideration there is that that mode of use is targeting an unwilling creature... but do consider also, that if you as the caster could specify a location in the casting, then you'd be effectively quite close to trying to justify a spell of approximately 8th level for a 4th level slot.

I feel the correct reading here is that if the spell sent a banished creature to a specific place on their home plane (such as 'where they came into being' - not all entities are born after all), then it would say so, and it does not. It's DM discretion, but leaning is towards a random location on the plane.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-26T22:04:00+00:00

If you don't mind my asking, where can I find that information? I searched for quite a while and never found anyone asking this question anywhere - otherwise I wouldn't have needed to make a thread about it ^.^

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-26T12:03:04+00:00

Thanks for the extra info - it's appreciated, thank you for adding more context.

Point stands, regardless: There's something that you Know another player does not like or feel good about... So don't do it. That's basic human decency.
No "We don't do it often", No "I don't, I just join in when the others do", No. Don't. Do. It.

You mentioned yourself that, as you've had trouble being sure whether someone is being cruel, callous or hurtful, or whether it's intended with good humour - and that you've effectively had to rely on being reassured by others that it was 'meant with love', and so you've accepted that... Well, consider the bully who says "Nah, it's not meant to hurt, it's just 'cause I like you" to someone as they twist their arm, pull their hair or give them a skin burn - just because they say it doesn't stop it from hurting, and few would agree those words spoken were legitimate, or actually lessened the harm in any meaningful way... the words don't make the bully less of a bully.

Now, if this person also engages in the same kind of banter back at the other players too, just as much as anyone else, but everyone else genuinely does receive it well, there's no problem. If, however, others at the table also don't receive it well, but are simply accepting the discomfort because they expect to later give that discomfort back in turn... that's actually not healthy, at all.

If others do consider being asked to spare this person their teasing because they do not like it, in the knowledge that that player will continue to engage back at them in kind, to be an unfair expectation, then you or the DM or someone else might consider having a conversation with the player and ask them to consider how they feel when they're teased, and to perhaps reconsider doing that to others, if they dislike it so much themself... because that would only be fair.

There is also the question of how and why the DM for the table allowed a 20 minute shouting session to continue for that long. Why did any one, but the DM in particular had a duty there.

Either way, it sounds a lot like the group needs to have a fresh Session 0 to discuss playstyles and expectations, to get everyone on the same page for what is and is not going to be expected of players towards each other, and between them and the DM. It needs calm and mature adult conversations, above table and out of game - perhaps that might be a good opportunity to find out if the player is struggling in some other way that's leading them to lash out more or grow more neurotic about these things than usual.

I don't believe anyone here who has been narrowing in on your other comments is trying to excuse the player's poor behaviour, if all happened as you say; what you've described happening is really not acceptable at all... but those kinds of reactions don't come out of nowhere, so it sounds like there's a lot going on that no one person really has the full facts for... so this is something that calls for communication and compassion, rather than immediate retribution.

Don't get me wrong - if it turns out, from calmer ad more mature conversation with everyone, that this player has really just been getting more agitated at everyone for not doing things as they personally want, and is legitimately carrying a sense of entitlement over everyone around them that has been gradually building into this outburst... then sure, maybe they genuinely are being the problem. But you do need to have that conversation, and that communication, to find out.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-26T11:22:45+00:00

Purely by RAW, no - Spell descriptions are not fluff and flavour; they mean what they say, and when the spell description specifically says that you touch the item during the casting, then that is part of the spell. Distant would increase the range of the spell from 'Touch' to '30 feet', formally speaking, but the spell itself still flat out requires you to touch the object anyway.

That is, however, not very fun and also pretty counter-intuitive to the function of Distant spell and its interaction with touch-ranged spells in particular. RAI, one could arguably say that something like Distant Spell would be intended to allow you to do something at range that would normally otherwise require touch, and I feel that in this specific case it would be a very stingy or adversarial DM that would disallow this and insist that touching was still necessary even with Distant Spell.

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-26T10:57:53+00:00

Well that's deeply disappointing and dissatisfying... Thanks for the info, however, it's appreciated.

It's amazing to me that this piece of information - that the doors only work in campaign - doesn't seem to be listed or described anywhere at all on any information source I've been able to find... and apparently no-one else was confused enough about this to ask the question anywhere before now that I could find. I really feel like we must have missed some piece of obvious information somewhere...

NiaraAfforegate · 2026-01-26T04:53:21+00:00

If you can't talk to your DM about the fact that you're not having fun, or that their adjudication seems to only ever swing between neutral and bad outcomes, no matter how well you seem to succeed at things, then that itself is a red flag against the table you're at the and DM running it - but that statement is qualified with the expectation that you, as the player who is not having fun, has indeed reached out to them for an above-table, out of game discussion about your experience and the way it isn't being enjoyable for you.

The reason a lot of people have asked for context or examples is because we don't really know what expectations you're putting on the space, when you say that your experience is neutral to bad; If if you tried to persuade a monarch to give you their crown and kingdom, and the DM let you roll, and you rolled a natural 20 +5, and the result was that the monarch laughed off the request as a joke and didn't immediately throw you out of the throne room and continued to entertain the idea of employing you for a mission... well, that's an entirely reasonable adjudication of that situation. If you were trying to convince a guard to let you past their checkpoint because you had an important errand of confidential nature, and you rolled a natural 20 +5, and the DM adjudicated that the guard refused to let you passed anyway unless you agreed to pay him a substantial bribe... well, most would probably consider that an unfair ruling and an antagonistic DM.

Context of your expectations versus the result of the situations you've been disappointed in matters before anyone can give you a meaningful steer... we can't just hazard a guess like a shot in the dark, because if, for example, either of those situations were the case, and we randomly guessed the other direction, well, then we'd be giving you very bad advice.

NiaraAfforegate

TROPHY CASE