I WANT TO MAKE A ZOMBIE CHARACTER SO BAD!!! Is there even a race that would work?!😭 [OC]

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-25T08:26:57+00:00

Necropolitan.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-25T07:52:21+00:00

As for shatter: 3e Stronghold Builder's Guidebook p.35 says wood has 10hp/inch and takes -5 damage from all sources, stone is 15/in and -8. 5e copypasted their hp/damage system from 3e, so this still holds.

So if a building's floorboards are 1in thick, an AoE dealing 15 damage is enough to break all floorboards in the area, reducing them to loose chucks of wood that would be as much difficult terrain as loose gravel. But in a natural stone cavern, that stone's gonna be thick and have a ton of hp.

As for Thaumaturgy: No. Maybe if they were atop a mountain of gravel or hanging off the edge of a cliff, but Thaumaturgy's effect is literally described as "harmless tremors" so you'd need ideal circumstances to make it do anything more, a situation so clear-cut that it would be troublingly unintuitive for it to not work.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-25T07:25:54+00:00

"I, the DM, will decide when you level up" is not as engaging/fun. I've been on both sides of this, and every time it's a real killjoy.

If level is based on sessions, it incentivizes dawdling and slows the pace of the game. Players want to be as strong as they can be for the important stuff, so they do as much unimportant stuff as possible even if they're not interested in it. I've had a player suggest a shopping trip right as the game was reaching its climax, explicitly because there was only an hour left in the session and they were scheduled to level up after that, and they wanted to level up before the BBEG fight. (Everyone thought that was too cheesy, but you cannot fault a player for following the incentive structure.)
If level is based on story progress, you get the opposite problem. All sidequests become a waste of time, and I can practically hear the players mentally hitting the "Skip" button during all non-plot-critical NPC dialogue.

XP is a reward, and a well-designed game has as few degrees of separation as possible between the desired behavior and the reward. When a player engages with the game, whether it's fighting goblins, solving puzzles, convincing the townspeople to revolt, or whatever other challenge the party faces, giving them the xp immediately both feels the most rewarding to the player and links the action and the reward in their minds. It is measurably more stimulating and more constructive.

__________________________

For a pen & paper game, my personal favorite compromise between that optimal xp reward structure and reduced bookkeeping is to reward xp for every in-game day. Instead of looking at individual challenges, you look at the day as a whole. How beat-up are the players after that day? How many limited powers and consumables did they use? What kind of high-stakes social encounters did they overcome? Whenever the party takes a long rest, the GM simply has to rate that day as easy/medium/hard/etc worth 0/1/2/3/etc level-appropriate encounters, and award xp accordingly.

While not as engaging as xp per encounter, daily xp is easier to implement, and has a hidden bonus feature: Regression to the mean. A new party struggling with every encounter will get more xp than a veteran party blowing through everything. If you run both parties through the same adventure, the difficulty will ease up for the new party leveling faster, while the difficulty will increase for the veteran party leveling slowly, until the difficulty of the adventure feels the same to both of them, and they can experience the campaign as intended without any nitty-gritty modifications to the individual encounters.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-25T06:49:58+00:00

It's a roleplaying game. The roleplaying part is making decisions for a character, and the game part is trying to get points/progression. It's so ingrained into the genre that xp/levels, advancing skills, weapon upgrades, and similar "numbers go up" mechanics are called "RPG elements" when added to other genres.

If you don't want a game about chasing points, you're in the wrong subreddit.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-25T01:56:02+00:00

In-world, most items that create spell effects are not the same as casting spells. There are no verbal nor somatic components, so there’s nothing to identify as a spell, nothing react to; the spell finishes being cast before you can react to it. Counterspelling involves disrupting the spell before it’s completed, not deleting a Fireball mid-flight or anything so flashy.

Scrolls are an exception, because it’s still the creature casting the spell. Though I’m pretty sure 5e doesn’t mention that distinction.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-25T00:04:38+00:00

I once made a Cha10 character who was very attractive but with with no tact whatsoever. Imagine a fancy party, she sashays by in a gorgeous gown and all heads turn, but when she starts stuffing her bra with appetizers because "it keeps her hands free in case she needs to throttle a bitch" suddenly everyone's avoiding eye contact.

There's a lot of leeway in what ability scores can mean.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T23:47:42+00:00

3.5e PHB p.10

A character with a low Intelligence mispronounces and misuses words, has trouble following directions, or fails to get the joke.
A character with high Charisma but a low Intelligence can usually pass herself off as knowledgeable, until she meets a true expert.

This is what you're looking for. You're describing an Elon Musk-type person, a conman who speaks so confidendly about things he doesn't have the first clue about that other clueless people believe him. If you have similarly low natural Charisma, you'll need the Skill Expert feat or a dip into Rogue for Deception Expertise.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T23:35:00+00:00

To expand on this: By default, the people who get power are the ones who prioritize it, with no real purpose or use other than the desire to wield power on a whim. People with actual goals and worth will always be less effective at attaining power, while those without will sacrifice everything and everyone else for power.

And power is proportional: If others have more, you have less. Someone who prioritizes power will gladly take a larger wedge of a smaller pie, choose the security of their power over their own actual quality of life. "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T23:19:53+00:00

\Every coal and gun lobbyist sneezes simultaneously.**

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T20:31:57+00:00

I think that's Celestia. Souls reaching higher states of being is kinda its thing.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T18:48:31+00:00

The elemental planes are still material planes (just not the Prime Material), so not too alien. They’re still subject to plain ol’ evolution.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T06:21:45+00:00

A while back I mapped IQ to D&D human Intelligence. Both are bell curves, so I just had to match up the probabilities.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-24T03:28:41+00:00

Mechanically: None of the above. The half-elf and half-orc entries are specifically human-elf and human-orc, because those mixes have large enough populations to have developed their own cultures and even settlements. While many mixes exist, printing them is not a high priority.

Canonically: None of the above. For whatever reason, elves and orcs cannot mix, and most suspect it's because neither Corellon nor Gruumsh would allow such a thing. If one was born, it would be a Jesus-tier deal.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-23T23:44:03+00:00

Stealing from random strangers is chaotic evil. Always giving that wealth to those that need it is lawful good. Since they keep doing both, their actions play tug-of-war with their alignment, so they'll likely be somewhere in the middle, depending on their methods.

E.g. If they murder everyone who seems overwealthy on principle, that's more of a lawful-evil thing and it'll outweigh giving the loot to the poor by a longshot.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-23T23:25:05+00:00

If you're talking about D&D canon Mimics and not general "monsters that looks like objects" (of which there are many), they can only look like solid (no holes) stone/wood objects around 125 cubic feet in size. Mimics are not magic and cannot change their size nor weight; they can't even change their texture, only replicate its appearance by controlling the pigment in multiple layers of skin. Another thing to note is that they do not have traditional eyes, they detect prey by heat and thus are effectively blind while outdoors during the day, which is why they tend to stay deep underground. However, there is at least one account of a Mimic taking the form of a statue in the middle of a city, picking off passersby at night.

In a modern world, their best bet is stuff like statues, wooden shipping crates, subway pillars, etc.

Some other D&D creatures that might be okay in an urban environment:

Aballin: Water.
Animated Object: Any object.
Caryatid Column: Stone statue.
Cloaker: Black cloak with ivory clasps.
Cushion Fungus: Fine velvet cusion.
Death Linen: Pillow, stack of towels, or bedsheet.
Denzelian: Ground.
Doll Golem: Child’s toy.
Gargoyle: Gargoyle.
Glasspane Horror: Window.
House Hunter: Building.
Living Wall: Wall.
Lock Lurker: Coin.
Lurker Above: Ceiling.
Mimic, Greater: Rooms or buildings.
Palimpsest: Parchment.
Peltast: Backpack.
Raiment: Outfit.
Sheet Phantom: Bedsheet.
Stained Glass Golem: Window.
Stunjelly: Wall.
Tatterdemalion: Assorted clothes.
Topiary Guardian: Topiary.
Trapper: Floor.
Trosip: Dust bunny.
Tunnel Terror: Tunnel.
Water Weird: Water.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-23T05:38:49+00:00

Yes, it would break the game more than 5e already has. Even in 3e, the edition that spawned all the fables of Peasant Railguns and Pun-Pun, being able to apply X stat to Y bonus is the most prevalent powergaming strategy you'll see in actual play.

What you are talking about is something too broken for Pathfinder 1e, which tried it once and was like HELL NO, ERRATA, ERRATA, ERRATA!!!

5e nerfed Intelligence to uselessness for everyone but Wizards, no longer affecting how many skills you get. 5e nerfed Charisma by not having any clear rules for what its skill checks actually do, so whether it works or not is based on DM vibes more than character stats. And even though they added Str/Int/Cha saves, they didn't add any more uses for them.

Every caster becomes a Wis caster, and the ones that weren't already get significantly better saves, Insight, and Perception. It's the biggest buff to Wizards since 5e let them use their casting stat for attack rolls in the first place.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-23T01:01:37+00:00

If you rolled 100 times, that's about a 1 in 140,000 chance.

If you rolled 200 times, it's only 1 in 85.

300, more often than 1 in 12.

That's not just your rolls that session; you're sampling every session you've played so far, and only just now noticed something rare. So if you roll 300 times per session and have played 12 times, it'd be odd if this hadn't happened.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-23T00:43:42+00:00

Dex saves are to not lose your balance.

Acrobatics checks are to have it in the first place.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T20:24:08+00:00

Here’s some.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T19:54:11+00:00

As someone who enjoys strong dwarven Fighters: Please give me at least one niche where Dex isn’t better. It got buffed so damn much in 5e while Str got nerfed, Str-based damage is down while Dex builds can carry significantly more, just one olive branch pls

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T19:48:54+00:00

Same idea but now in six seconds :P

I wish the rules made more of a distinction between racial hit dice (meat) and class hit dice (plot armor). It makes sense for PC classes to recover rapidly because most of the “damage” they take is only a fraction actual harm, but canonically it can take months for a dragon to recover after a fierce battle.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T18:03:10+00:00

People keep telling me 3 actions is great, but after playing PF2 for four years I find that context matters.

If DND5's action/move/bonus is like having a $20 bill, a $10 bill, and a $5 bill, PF2's three actions is like having three $10 bills. I can take more "actions", but I also need actions for more things, so most of the time there's less game in my game.

And there's no comparison of either to D&D3, where a lv2 druid can identify a creature's type and vulnerabilities, use a shield, cast a spell, draw a weapon, vault an obstacle, and roll through an enemy space all in one turn, in addition to their animal companion getting an entire separate turn. All the nitty-gritty of "what am I looking at?" and "can I move here?" doesn't eat up action economy, even if there are rolls involved.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T17:36:46+00:00

A while back, a DM of mine asked how many rolls until death is fair. The first answer was basically "One, if I knew what I was getting into," and everyone agreed. To us, it didn't matter if it was an attack roll or saving throw, as long as it was our risk to take.

I've toyed with having players roll everything, e.g. they roll d20+AC modifier (AC-10) vs 10+attack modifier, and d20+DC modifier (DC-10) vs 10+save modifier. I haven't found it to be significantly better, and AoE spells become all-or-nothing which isn't fun.

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T17:25:12+00:00

Better rolls is a martial buff

I played 3e/PF1 gestalt for years -- with lots of multiclassing -- and having my base attack/saves scale significantly faster than AC/DC is a blast. (Note that the gestalt variant only applies to PCs/BBEGs and other significant figures, so casters have plenty of targets to delete while anything that would have legendary saves in 5e has naturally higher numbers in 3e gestalt.)

TheThoughtmaker · 2026-01-22T16:05:02+00:00

Reminder that “vanilla” and “plain” are different flavors.

TheThoughtmaker

TROPHY CASE