Creative Familiars in 5ED

If you're a long-time D&D/Pathfinder gamer, you're familiar with creative familiars and animal forms. Parrots who can talk, monkeys who can carry things around, legendary gorillas who circumvent normal strength maximums while wielding items without restriction...

This came up last session, so I needed to spend a little effort researching whether Talking Parrot Familiars were a part of 5th edition.

Executive summary:

1. Wizards can't speak through their familiars using rules as written.

2. Familiars are significantly weaker than previous editions.

3. You can create a spell to speak through your familiar (or companion).

Analysis:

Parrots on their own will say nonsense phrases, not meaningful speech.

At this time Familiars do not gain INT, so the Parrot is locked at 2 INT. (spell details below)

You could cast another spell to have your Parrot familiar talk. Message is close to what you're looking for, but it only communicates with the Parrot; doesn't allow it to talk to anyone but you. Magic Mouth would do what you need but it's not in the game yet.

N'Krumah's Faithful Companion spell is very like Find Familiar but avoids the "permanent but dismissable at will" Familiar bond, and there seems to be no feedback effect in 5ED anyway. Perhaps you could change it to be a 2nd or 3rd level spell similar to Magic Mouth, targetable (touch) on your familiar but doesn't need to be "pre-loaded" like a normal Magic Mouth. You can already listen through a familiar, range is unclear but implied 100'. Or, the familiar can cast a touch spell, say normal Magic Mouth that would be loaded at time of casting, technically the familiar spellcasting requires touching a creature but IMHO it would be close enough. That definitely suffers the 100' distance, so preloading the spell might be a closer-to-normal way to do it.

The 2 spells for comparison:

Faithful Companion

Smaller creature is summoned (monkey, parrot, dog, etc.), follows simple orders (fetch, guard, attack)

Find Familiar 

1st‐level conjuration (ritual) 

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose. [statistics and rules removed]

1. within 100 feet of your familiar, you can communicate with it telepathically.

2. as an action, you can see and hear through your familiar's senses 

3. your familiar can deliver a spell that requires touching a creature.

Dwarven Forge gaming tiles - 2013 Dungeon set: Hand-painting steps

Dwarven Forge ran a Kickstarter campaign in 2013 to create expensive steel molds for extremely durable gaming tiles. Their initial foray into this arena was with the Dungeon tile set. I bought a few sets then, and I have pledged for more sets in their current (2014) Kickstarter campaign. The current campaign is for a Cavern set. I should state that the Cavern tiles look more difficult to paint, so I ordered pre-painted tiles this year.

In the previous Kickstarter, I bought unpainted tiles. They were perhaps $30 cheaper for set, and I felt if I wanted to paint them I could handle it myself. Around a month ago, I finally got serious about painting them. Dwarven Forge produced a very helpful in-depth video demonstrating how to paint the tiles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VCa23FMigw An experienced painter might this video unnecessary, but I certainly felt more comfortable after seeing Stephan's demonstrations. The video covers intricate details like proper drybrushing and color recommendations, to the mundane aspects like mixing paints and cleaning brushes.

  

The video shows four painting steps. The pictures below show the process from unpainted tiles to final game-ready painted tiles. I also included a picture of a tile painted using stone-texture spray paint. (Had to try it. Would have been a great time-saver.)

Comparison 1- Unpainted thru 4 coats + sprayed

Comparison 2- Final + Unpainted + Sprayed

Comparison 3- Unpainted + Final + Sprayed

Detail 0- Unpainted

Detail 1- Base Coat

Detail 2- Highlight

Detail 3- Unifying Coat

Detail 4- Final Coat

Detail 5- Sprayed

This is a link for the Cavern Tiles Kickstarter:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dwarvenforge/dwarven-forges-caverns-dwarvenite-game-tiles-mini

Searing Smite analysis

One of my gamers plays a multiclassed level 3 paladin / level 13 fighter. In this edition of D&D, paladins gained a new spell that applies minor (1d6) instantaneous fire damage and adds ongoing minor damage until the target makes a saving throw, which ends the spell. The gamer questioned whether multiple melee attacks would add more ongoing damage. After my analysis, I find the current ruleset is unclear. The following is my interpretation:

The proper interpretation is not to have the ongoing effects stack.

The target is burst 1d6 extra fire upon each attack. This is an instantaneous effect and it is applied for each attack. (It could be viewed that the initial 1d6 extra stacks.) Each melee attack also applies the "OMG I am on fire as a secondary effect but this effect does not have a name" secondary condition. These secondary conditions do not stack. Once the target has the condition, they have it, and they don't get another from more attacks.

(reference: While this is not specifically addressed by the stacking rules which are limited in scope to benefits and penalties, the designers have restricted stacking rules more in this version than in the past. Even METEOR SWARM explicitly does not stack with itself in 5ED, although it explicitly has stacked with itself since Expert and 1ED.)

So the secondary effect is SV VS CON (DC 8+5+5=18) or take 1d6 fire damage, success ends the spell, repeat each round.

If Cazzian wishes to overload the secondary 1d6 damage he can hit multiple targets. Of course they would each get a saving throw, and any one of them making their save would end it from that point on.

Interestingly, the SV VS CON DC 18 should probably be 8+1+5=14 due to multiclassing into a non-casting class, but whatever it's another flaw.

How to run games within games

This post on games within games is still in in draft form to make it accessible to my friend Joel, since it includes feedback/suggestions for his table. I will revisit later to clean it up and remove personal references.
Joel,
I wanted to address the general issue rather than make recommendations for your table specifically, since that’s your domain. Why? Because this comes up in one form or another in EVERY group eventually. But time is getting short, so at the risk of being somewhat blunt I’ll summarize. So this is kind of a mix of general concepts and table-specific thoughts/suggestions.
Before I begin: if using a drinking game or casino-style gambling at your table, consider alcohol and gambling can be real-life touchy subjects. There are a few potentially touchy subjects, for example, domestic abuse or kidnapping, but in Wisconsin you’re most likely to encounter alcohol or gambling. Now, then:
How to run games within games.
Given the tendency of PCs to frequent taverns, drinking games are an ever-popular game-within-a-game (GWAG). Other popular GWAGs are arm-wrestling contests, 3-dragon ante, wizard’s chess, duels by steel or magic, archery contests or festival tournaments. These are great fun when used sporadically. They are less fun when repeated week after week, and do not move the story forward. When you use the same GWAG repeatedly, you run the risk of making the GWAG an easy replacement for actual gaming activities.
The first thing is to consider how much time should be spent on the game.
If it’s basically a poker game that runs every session, then it doesn’t really move the plot forward. It’s a red herring- something that seems to move the plot forward, but is actually not relevant to the plot. This is not necessarily bad. Some good uses for a red herring game would be as a warmup activity while people are eating, or to refocus if people are losing it.
Sometimes the game is important to the plot. If it’s an important plot theme for 1 character, then it’s only moving the plot forward for 1 character. 4 of 5 characters = 20% useful time, 80% not useful. That is, if it’s the same thing week after week. And I don’t mean minor variations, like 1 week it’s whiskey instead of ale. Variations CAN make it more interesting, more on that later.
If it’s an important plot for everyone, then it’s worth the time spent.
BUT.
Spending a long time to repeat the same game week after week just to “determine the winner”, to have that set up an actual in-game result, is either A) a setup or B) ignored. Or C), a diversion.
A setup? If the winner is predetermined, even if only due to a large number of bonuses, then yes, a setup. A lot of time spent toward a predetermined result that could have been summarized in a 1-minute paragraph.
B ignored? If the winner is not predetermined but must be a specific  individual in order to move the plot, then yes, ignored.
C diversion? If the GWAG does not significantly impact the plot, then it is a diversion.

Remember that your group gathers to play D&D. Another game, although embedded in D&D, is not what attracted them to the table.
·         Games within games cover a wide range. Drinking games and Arm wrestling tend to be the most commonly used.
o   GWAGs can be a good way to start a session, as people catch up and/or eat.
o   All “games” are the same: set rules, generate randomness, determine result.
·         Not D&D
o   Players come together to play the D&D game, not a drinking game that uses D&D dice.
o   Adding random or enhanced features to a drinking game doesn't make it a better game.
o   Drinking games tend to encourage obnoxious ingame behavior. Such behavior usually doesn’t advance the plot, which leads to time issues.
·         Time issues
o   Sessions have limited time. Be careful not to dominate the D&D time with the drinking game. Set a goal for total duration, including time for the after-party sillies.
o   The time for the drinking game is additive when used for several sessions.
·         Results
o   If the winner of the drinking game is predetermined then the entire system of randomness, the entire drinking game, is false.
§  If the winner is predetermined, use a story instead of spending time at the table rolling dice that don’t matter.
o   On the other hand, if randomness is important, consider having one die roll decide the winner.
·         Group inclusion
o   If the game is not important to the story of everyone, consider having Evan be the only die roller.
§  If this is the case, you could do it away from the table.
§  Other players could be told what happened if they chose to have their characters participate.
o   Make participating in the game a choice, not a requirement.
§  A player sitting at a table where everyone else is participating counts as a requirement, even if the PC is not in the game.
§  Being stuck on a boat with nothing to do other than drink counts as a  requirement.
·         That’s tough when you ARE on a boat. Old school method was to use a world-based perspective, which… took… forever… to… get… anywhere. Roll up random encounters every X miles, it just sucked for long trips and everyone knew it but it was RAW so everyone followed it. More recent method is to include story-significant events, and briefly describe the rest.
·         Relevance to plot
o   If the game is not important to this week’s story, don’t use up the table time. Summarize it.
o   It seems to be leading up to an epic conclusion for Evan specifically. If it doesn’t include everyone, don’t make everyone participate.
o   Make the game relevant to the table in significant and important ways.
§  Have the ship be attacked by a sea monster during a game. The drinking chars suffer penalties.
§  Include different benefits or drawbacks depending whether the characters drink or not. Obviously the non-drinkers will have whatever kinds of pros and cons depending on the usual story elements.
·         Drinking Pros ideas
o   Meet someone new
o   Hear about some story element
·         Cons ideas
o   Don’t have time to prepare all their equipment,
o   Have a hangover for the rest of the day.
·         Someone doing something else is prepared with their gear when the boarding party hits the boat.
·         Check the effects of alcohol and drugs in the various Books of Vile Darkness. The Thieves’ World novels use a drug named K’rrf. Bonuses, Penalties, scaling use and cost, plus addiction and withdrawal are addressed. In mainstream published rulebooks it’s almost universal to have detrimental long-term effects. This is driven by cultural norms and the legal dept. You can find some alternative splatbooks that focus on benefits without drawbacks.

I love this!

http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/

Campaign design: handling failure

Inspired by discussion about the article "Make it BIG!", written by Chris Perkins and hosted by Wizards of the Coast at http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20130307

E:
"An interesting read! I think that is what I am missing right now in what I am working on is anything particularly "big", as I've mostly stuck with usual fantasy world tropes. Still, it's a bit harder to think big when you're planning for first level characters. I'll have to think more about this...."

Me:
Yeah, the "big" comes later. It's good to design carefully for the first 4-5 levels as the characters are fairly fragile and don't have many resources. Up to 10th, still somewhat limited. After 10th, take off the kid gloves. Pull out the really big stuff, let the party figure out the rest. If the wizard doesn't have teleport on a scroll to get out of a tight spot, it's their fault.

OH, one secret of campaign/game design that you don't see often: Always have a plan. Figure the party is either going to succeed, OR fail. Plan for both. Sure, you hope they succeed, and you design your main threads around the presumption of success. But what if they don't succeed? 

The secret is to have a general idea of what happens if they fail a quest. Not necessarily a detailed plan, as failures can be very unpredictable, but simply consider a general idea of where events may lead. Once in a while you can use a deus-ex-machina rescue as the cavalry charges in to save the PCs, but try to avoid overuse. The players should deal with the consequences of failure. PCs with a safety net are generally not as fun for the players. Some examples:

• A simple "The End". Roll up a new group of characters to begin anew, or continue where you left off.
• A Feaste of the Beastes, possibly with a Pirates-of-the-Carribean-esque escape before dinner.
• Negotiations for the party's release, conducted by an interested NPC (especially the one for whom they are performing a quest).
• A round of Raise Deads or Resurrections for everyone after they don't communicate with their home temple after a year (hopefully this was pre-arranged by the party). This could tie in with the loss of their main gear-- possibly spurring a quest to get their gear back from the hands of the NPCs that are now ravaging the wildlands with powerful new magicks...
• Failure need not involve the deaths of PCs; if they were trying to prevent the Mad Baroness' flight from town, well, now the Mad Baroness now roams free to the frustration of the party. I'm sure they'll encounter her in the future...

Eric Weberg

D&D Next & Past: History of targets knowing about spells

During a game of D&D Next, the question came up of what a spell's target knows about spells cast upon them. This is not a new question to D&D, and given the nature of D&D Next to admix the previous editions, I wanted to detail some subjective history as I can best recall.

I forget whether it was 3ED or 4ED that clarified that targets are aware of spells cast upon them, who cast the spell, and what the spell was. For SURE within 4ED, 3ED I'm not positive offhand, but I think it was first addressed in mid-3ED in a Sage Advice column. 2ED and 1ED and BECMI had no such clarification, so it was done by house rules. And as you can imagine, it did come up in most games eventually.

This is most troublesome when it's A) not obvious who's casting the spell, for example a silenced and stilled spell or an invisible caster. B) a spell with no noticeable effects upon a successful save, particularly charms and holds, especially when the party is trying to be sneaky. (e.g. Can you re-cast a failed charm on the guard at the door? When the spell wears off, does the guard realize she was charmed or does she simply remember being unusually happy to see you?)

What were popular table rules in the older versions?
1. Since it's quite possible for a target to simply not know about a caster being there at all, most tables ruled that the target does not automatically know who cast the spell that they're saving against.

2. To the question of whether targets notice spells that have no noticeable effect upon failure, there's more variation. If the save was made by a significant margin, or the target made a subsequent ability-based check, they could notice something. Other tables simply had nothing happen; like the spell fizzled.

3. The aspect that probably continues to generate the most debate is whether targets can identify the failed spell. Obviously, non-magic-focused characters are not even going to know the names of most of the spells available to high-level casters. Even if the target saw a spell name printed in bold letters they wouldn't know its effects, even more so in campaigns in which casters create their own custom spells. So it follows that the target wouldn't possibly automatically know what the spell was named. What the effects are, that's a different story.

I think it was 3rd edition that allowed a Spellcraft check to identify a spell- but even that is a little loose, because technically you identify the spell by watching it being cast, not by being the target. Regardless, that's pretty much the way it worked in most of the tables I played. You could use whatever the magical skill of the edition was to identify the spell.  If you had a high skill because you were that class or similar, well, yeah, you'd almost always identify any spell. This was generally based on spell level, so say, 2nd level spell Hold Person might have a particular feel to it that a 5th-level prison guard has probably felt a few times so it makes sense they'd maybe identify it, but 8th level spell Maze? What's that? So as a table rule, you might use the spell level versus target's character level to set a difficulty to determine what the spell effects would have been, or perhaps simply the magic school. (Enchantment/Charm, Evocation, Necromancy, Illusion, etc.)

A search for rules covering this question in D&D Next turned up no official rule as of yet.

Eric Weberg