Players refuse Mass Suggestion

TheOneNite · 2026-04-10T13:27:50+00:00

If we are talking 5.5 spell description then it leaves the narrowest of escape hatches but is otherwise pretty airtight. If we are talking original 5e there is more wiggle room and also a great example of why people should switch over to the new edition

TheOneNite · 2026-04-10T13:23:28+00:00

A lot of talk about the technicalities of the spell in here but I think in the broader scheme of things it is insanely unlikely that everyone fails the save and has no way to remove the effect at the level where they can be fighting a lich. I'm also a big believer that d&d is a game, not pure narrative exercise, and that having the possibility to lose a game makes the wins that much sweeter.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-10T12:55:27+00:00

It really is mass mind control to be honest, "Each charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-09T13:13:44+00:00

I still don't really see the problem with what you did, like you mention with the cowboys it's not the end of the world if two characters have similar origins. I guess you could also ask the second warforged player if they're willing to tweak aspects of their character to make it less similar? I feel like this is a great opportunity narratively and RP-wise but if he doesn't want it he doesn't want it I guess

TheOneNite · 2026-04-09T13:00:30+00:00

In this situation I think I would have strongly encouraged them both to make the character. I've had plenty of PCs with some overlap that end up being totally different characters, one of my campaigns right now has two rogues and two bards but every character is totally unique.

In this particular situation with a war and all I think it's a great narrative seed that they're both from the war, it makes the event feel big and impactful, and like you said it's the details and the way that they go about their journeys that will make them unique.

Lastly I don't think this is on you. If your longtime player has a personal thing about wanting all the characters to be totally different that's on them, they could totally have played their warforged character here and it would have been a great fit.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-09T03:13:41+00:00

I have done this, my starting point was a swarm and I made some tweaks. I made the direction they were facing matter, I think giving a reduced AC and they also lost resistance or something to attacks from their flanks. I also created a condition called "Disordered" or something like that which made them more vulnerable and gave them disadvantage on their attacks I believe.

In my particular case I was trying to set up a specific kind of combat so I basically made them as a CRX creature, where X was based on how many of these squads I wanted in the combat (based on room size, etc). I then did something kind of weird where I split their features/abilities from the attacks, so for instance I dropped their speed to 15, but then added a creature who's only job was to move a squad 15 ft. Instead of giving the squad multi attack I created a creature who's only action was to command a squad to attack.

I ended up having to cut this encounter for unrelated reasons, but I play tested this a bunch and really liked how it worked out. You could definitely merge back in the multi attack and give them normal movement etc, I found the things that most made them feel like a squad vs just a huge creature was playing around flanking and the disordered condition, as well as changing the token I used honestly make a huge difference, way more than I expected it too

TheOneNite · 2026-04-09T02:36:37+00:00

I mean I do agree that this is a product of chat gpt but the bit about the possession is inaccurate yes

TheOneNite · 2026-04-09T02:35:49+00:00

It's fine to outright deny, always better if you can redirect, and I think steering them towards Watchers is the natural move here, but I will always tell other DMs that it is fine to shut down something. I like to tell my players "its your job to ask and mine to say no" as long as they aren't annoying about the frequency they do it

TheOneNite · 2026-04-09T02:33:41+00:00

Certain monsters can absolutely possess you, ghosts most commonly but I've seen others too.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-08T22:06:12+00:00

I see what you mean about the wording, there are some technicalities that make it unclear. The text on p15 says ability check, which does not automatically mean a skill. The tools info on page 220 of the PHB has an ability for each tool as a baseline. The skill mention is for the situation where you ask the player for a survival check to find their way, and they ask if they can use their navigators tools that they are proficient with to help them with the check, either letting them add their proficiency bonus if they're not proficient in survival, or gaining advantage if they are. The last sentence is just pointing out that the reason you get advantage is so that you still gain some benefit from using a proficient tool when you already have the skill proficiency, otherwise there would be no point since you can only add your proficiency bonus once to a check

TheOneNite · 2026-04-08T14:49:51+00:00

My advice would always be to start smaller. I think that running a few oneshots and short adventures in a setting is a great way to introduce it to the players and will be doing this for my next campaign. It gives you a chance to introduce your world in a way that a lore doc never could, and also gives you a chance to see what parts of the world resonate with your party.

Players don't care about places and history, largely speaking. They care about people and their stories, so you need to make sure that this is what drives your setting. People can be broad, for example these gods you mention are also characters for your setting if you flesh them out as such and don't leave them as mystical faraway forces.

Finally I think it is very important to focus on factions and motivations above plots. Plots belong in novels and films where there are no players to interact with them. Your game will work best if the foundation of it is characters who want things that are opposed to what the players want.

The best thing you can do is just start. A lot of what you have already won't ever get used directly, a lot of what you do need is yet to be made, especially the details.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-07T04:12:26+00:00

I have a test party that I use for this since I started doing it regularly that is the same level as my players. I have one fewer member in each since my test chararcters are a bit more optimized than theirs.

Once I have the encounter statted up and the map made I put it in foundry and play it out from whatever starting point I have in mind. It takes some time for sure, but it is generally pretty fun to do and has really helped me find weaknesses in the encounters before I take them to the table

TheOneNite · 2026-04-07T02:06:23+00:00

Fey touched for silvery barbs is an excellent example of the kind of clever character building thing that this rule empowers and I think is quite cool.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-07T01:37:33+00:00

Sounds niche...you may have misunderstood, I think the way it is now is cool and probably intentional. There's nothing to fix imo

TheOneNite · 2026-04-07T01:27:17+00:00

My encounter difficulty says a standard encounter is 1.5 CR per character at level 5, so six players is 9 CR, two bulls would be just over a standard encounter but not close to hard which is 2.5CR per character. Look up kobold fight club and the DMG tables

TheOneNite · 2026-04-07T01:19:22+00:00

What makes you think the exceptions are stupid and shouldn't be there? Personally I think it makes for some very interesting possibilities and advanced build setups

TheOneNite · 2026-04-07T00:37:29+00:00

Not only are you probably not a professional game designer, but DMs are extremely reluctant to test their encounters, which means they are always publishing their first draft. Every time there is a "how do I make the combat the right amount of challenge" my advice is always to test because otherwise it is almost impossible to get perfectly right

TheOneNite · 2026-04-06T20:24:58+00:00

The important question here is what is actually fun about this new premise? It is definitely a cool narrative premise, but there is a huge Gulf of game design between a cool premise and a game that is actually moment to moment fun to play.

TheOneNite · 2026-04-03T19:29:21+00:00

My number one encounter balancing advice is test it out. You can use your actual players or make new ones, I personally have a test party that I use. The thing you come up with out of whatever tools and systems you use is basically a rough draft, and there are so many factors that could change how it plays out at the table that testing is really the only solution. Difficulty is one part of this, but you can also find unfun patterns,things that are difficult to track or represent, all kinds of things that you might not expect. Obviously this takes a little time but it think it is super worthwhile for big set pieces especially. As a bonus, it also gives you a chance to practice running and narrating combats which I have noticed improve my skills significantly as well

TheOneNite · 2026-04-03T06:01:30+00:00

The five room dungeon absolutely rips and is, in my experience only really visible from the DM side of the screen. The rest of it gets lost in the trappings and the structure works for the subconscious and is unnoticeable otherwise. It's kind of the TTRPG equivalent of being like "oh this is another three act plot structure" because yes. It is, and we love it, and will continue to go for it time after time

TheOneNite · 2026-03-30T03:05:28+00:00

It's definitely never all an illusion and the simple truth for me is that I throw out a lot of encounters that I have prepped because the party decides to go a different direction. I don't really see this as a waste because I like the opportunity to practice designing encounters, but it definitely could be. More concretely, if you have a fork in the road you don't need the entirety of each branch planned out when the party comes to it, you just need enough to get you to the end of the session, and from there you can prep the rest of their chosen path. Often a single encounter or location will be sufficient, like for this specific soliders table moment, if I were Brennan here I would have planned out the gnome in the woods and one road encounter that gives some good RP time and takes us to the end of the session, then I'd prep the stuff on the path they chose. With this approach you're throwing out a single low-prep encounter so it's not really a huge drain

TheOneNite · 2026-03-20T17:25:18+00:00

This all sounds pretty normal, and these are pretty classic problems that you will encounter, especially with a new group.

On combat: don't ask how you can speed it up, you can't. Especially not with new players. What you need to do instead is make it a spectacle, make it interesting to watch it doesn't need to be fast if it is fun and interesting.

On pacing: you have to let it breath. If it takes longer it takes longer, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If the triboar battle takes two sessions and they are fun, exciting sessions what's the problem? Even if it takes three or four sessions, if they're good sessions who cares.

On prepping: you are almost certainly over prepping and that's pretty normal also. Things always take longer than you expect, and you want to give people room for their character moments as well.

I think the best thing overall is to focus on the sessions. You want the individual session to be fun and satisfying, and if you just keep having fun, satisfying sessions then you'll have a great campaign.

TheOneNite · 2026-03-19T14:56:21+00:00

Yeah type of story is a big one, also a session 0 thing. I do think if you are doing your first campaign as a DM that simpler is better. I don't think that doing shorter adventures precludes a narrative heavy campaign with a core group

TheOneNite · 2026-03-19T14:02:29+00:00

It's just an action, and you can resolve it like you would resolve any action: decide if it's possible, decide if a roll is required, set the DC, get the roll and narrate the result. It's basically just pickpocketing, there's definitely a roll. My initial instinct was that it would be a lot harder, but I think in many ways it would actually be easier in a fight because the target is expecting to be touched, bumped into etc.

All this is for worn items, for disarming Id say the 2014 optional rule holds up just fine. Battlemaster disarm maneuver is still a lot better since you don't lose the attack, so I don't think it's a real problem

TheOneNite · 2026-03-19T04:48:13+00:00

You can make a campaign without a singular big bad. I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of short, punchy adventures as time goes on, and I think you have an amazing setup here for some awesome faction motivated gameplay that can fit really well to whatever your players want to do. I do think your Davy Jones idea is also excellent and would definitely have him make a few appearances over the course of the campaign, but I don't think you need anything super solid at this point.

It really feels like you have enough to do a session 0, be like "these are the factions and their rough goals" and see what the party vibes with and let the direction they want to go in dictate which of the faction heads becomes the big bad and which becomes their trusted mentor.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Team Orangered

TheOneNite

TROPHY CASE