PDA

View Full Version : [Poll] Would you allow this character at your table? / How much homebrew is too much?



Greywander
2020-05-27, 05:21 AM
I wanted to come up with a character build that could be used as a "default" character, something I could bring to any table without needing to know much about party composition or house rules and without needing much in the way of DM approval. The thing is, as I developed the character concept, it started getting more complex to point that it started needing homebrew to support it mechanically. So I thought it would be interesting to bring the character concept, starting with the original RAW character followed by escalating layers of homebrew, to the forum to see where most people would draw the line. How much is too much for your table?

Without further ado...

Chapter 1: By the Book - "Deus Vult!"
Variant human Grave cleric. The idea is that she is a priestess of a Good goddess of Death, but after looking at the actual gods of Death, Kelemvor seems the closest fit. Neither Good (Lawful Neutral, though backstory suggests he may have once been good before becoming a god), nor a goddess, but still has the "Don't Fear the Reaper (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontFearTheReaper)" vibe I'm looking for.

For our free feat, we're taking Magic Initiate to grab Find Familiar for a flavorful pet (probably cat or raven), Mold Earth (great for digging graves!), and one other cantrip (probably Light). Cleric cantrips would be Guidance, Thaumaturgy, and Toll the Dead. Grave clerics get free Spare the Dying. As I level, I would pick up Sacred Flame and Word of Radiance, so that I have options against enemies resistant to necrotic or with high WIS saves. I'm also considering ditching Guidance for Light or Mending, though Guidance is on point for someone who guides the dead into the afterlife.

What's my backstory or motivation to adventure? I dunno. I'm sure I could come up with something, but the character concept had already developed past this point before I started to get a good idea of who they were beyond just a collection of stats.

Chapter 2: The Refluffening - *Ring* *Ring* "Bring out Your Dead!"
One of my main points of contention with the vanilla build was that I wanted something that was more of a white mage, and less of a crusader. The armor is fine, it makes sense that an adventurer would wear armor. But the shield really has to go. Thing is, as a caster cleric, I really have no reason to hold a weapon, and the AC bonus from a shield is too good to give up. There's no point in having both hands free, so I gain nothing by dropping the shield.

The other thing was I actually wanted to use a staff as a holy symbol. A staff with chimes or bells on the end. I don't know why I fixated on this, but I did. Now, I could hold the staff and still use a shield, but now I have no free hands for spells (Warcaster would eventually make this moot). Also, I can just put the holy symbol on my shield, so the staff is pointless. But what if... what if I were to refluff a shield as a staff and disguise it as my own cooking? I get to have my chime staff, get rid of the shield, and still keep the AC bonus. Delightfully devilish, Seymour!

So, here's the TL;DR for this bit of homebrew: sacred chimes have similar (but not identical) mechanics to a shield. Sacred chimes can be affixed to a staff +X to turn it into a Not Shield +X.

Here's the current write up for the homebrew (cross-posted from this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612895-Cleric-s-Sacred-Chimes-(shield-holy-symbol-alternative)&p=24527792#post24527792)):


Sacred Chimes
Sacred chimes are a holy symbol that can be used as a spellcasting focus. They are typically held in the hand or affixed to a staff, club, rod, scepter, or similar object. Some religious orders might use a cross, crosier, censer, khakkhara, or other holy symbol or object, instead of chimes. Sacred chimes have a value of 15 gp and weigh 2 lbs. They can be affixed to or removed from a suitable object as an action.

If you affix the chimes to a weapon, such as a quarterstaff, that weapon becomes too unwieldy to use as a weapon. The weapon loses all of its weapon properties and becomes an improvised weapon. It retains any other properties, such as magic item traits.

Some divine spellcasters forgo training with shields, instead receiving a divine blessing from their deity that protects them. As a cleric, paladin, or other divine spellcaster, you may choose to give up the shield proficiency you would normally gain from that class to instead receive this divine blessing. You can invoke this blessing as an action, uttering a prayer, ringing the chimes, or performing some other ritual that calls upon your deity's protection. When you invoke the blessing of protection, you gain a magical +2 bonus to your AC. This bonus lasts until it is dispelled or you end your turn without the chimes in your hand. This bonus can't be used with a shield; you must choose which of the two AC bonuses to use.

If the chimes are affixed to a magic weapon that grants a bonus to attack and damage rolls with that weapon, the weapon loses that property as it can no longer be used effectively as a weapon. Instead, this bonus is replaced by an equal bonus to your AC when you invoke the blessing of protection.

But now there's more the character's backstory. We're ditching Kelemvor for a homebrew goddess, like I originally wanted. I'll need to do an actual write up of the religion, so don't expect that here, but would have something ready to give to the DM. The main thing would be the chimes as a sacred symbol, the use of them to guide the dead into the afterlife, and the cat as a sacred animal (now I know what my familiar will be). While many of the priests of this church remain in one place to provide their services to those who live there, some of the priests are itinerant, wandering the land to provide services to those beyond the established reach of the church. My character would be one of these itinerant priests.

Hmm, we're still missing something, though... We need to make this... personal.

Chapter 3: This is Homebrew Country - "And then Jon was a Zombie"
You know what would be a big twist on a Grave cleric dedicated to preserving the boundary between life and death and hunting down and destroying the undead? An undead Grave cleric. Now our character has a personal motivation to go on a quest: she seeks a cure for her curse, or the release of death. Fortunately, I've done extensive work on playable undead. On top of her regular race/class, we can apply the following template:


Undead Template
The following traits are common across almost all undead. Notable exceptions are that zombies are not immune to exhaustion, and vampires are not immune to poison. Aside from that, just about every undead have the following traits. You can use this as a template to make a character undead with minimal other changes.

Undead Nature. You don’t require air, food, drink, or sleep. Your creature type is undead instead of humanoid.
Although you don’t require food or sleep, nothing prevents you from eating or sleeping.

Darkvision. Even the most elementary undead are able to see in the dark. You have darkvision out to 60 feet.

Immunities. You are immune to poison damage, and to the poisoned and exhausted conditions. You are also immune to disease.

Note: Being undead means some spells, like Hold Person, no longer work on you, but many healing spells also don’t work, and spells like Detect Evil and Good will work against you, as does Turn Undead. So being undead is a double-edged sword. Also, most people will assume you are evil if they learn you are undead.

I've estimated that this is a power-neutral template. You are neither weaker nor stronger, just different. Opinions may vary on this subject, however. There's certainly a potential for exploitation, but many of these exploits only work if the entire party is undead, much in the same way that an entire party of flying races opens up new possibilities that a single flying PC wouldn't have.

How did our character come under such an affliction? Well, I might let each respective DM invent their own cause of the curse, whatever best fits into whatever campaign plans they already had. Otherwise, my go-to might be that she died in an accident, and a mysterious traveler offered to bring her back to life. But instead of a normal resurrection, she was turned into an intelligent undead. At first no one realized the difference, but once it was noticed she was taken to a local temple for the goddess of Death for healing. The priests couldn't help her, nor did they have the heart to end her, so they trained her as a cleric so she could go out into the world to find a cure to her curse. And, of course, to track down the mysterious traveler and confront him (he could be good or evil, depending on how the DM runs it).

Chapter 4: The Final Homebrew - "I guide others to a treasure I cannot possess."
Of course, this does beg the question of why she doesn't just off herself. Or why the priests don't do it. We can handwave it and say, "They just don't want to," but what if the real reason was that she just couldn't die? Or rather, didn't know how to. As I said, I've done extensive work on playable undead, so why settle for a generic template when I can pull out an actual undead race? Something that would actually give us some character?

Another TL;DR for this one: dual-type humanoid and undead, can only be killed by specific methods, bad touch attack, staring contests, and fear of rivers.

Note: Since I don't feel like editing it to remove these references, you'll probably see references to "graveborn" and "stillbloods". These are the undead race and subrace, respectively. The race doesn't necessarily exist in-universe, unless the DM really wants to introduce them.


Graveborn Template
Graveborn are a special breed of undead, and receive the following traits in addition to the base undead traits. You can apply this as a template over an existing race to make them a graveborn.

Undead Template. You gain all the traits of the base undead template shown above.

Dual Nature. Although you are undead, graveborn stand out from other types of undead in that they haven’t completely left their humanity behind.
You have two creature types; one is undead, and the other is whatever your creature type was before becoming undead (usually humanoid).

Withering Touch. As an action, make an unarmed weapon attack with a free hand against a target within reach. On a hit, the target takes necrotic damage equal to 1d6 + your Constitution modifier. This attack uses Constitution instead of Strength for the attack roll.
This damage increases by 1d6 at 5th, 11th, and 17th level.

Vigor Mortis. Whenever you are reduced to 0 hit points, you automatically stabilize, and even decapitation can’t kill you. There are only a few ways you can be permanently killed:

If you receive enough damage to kill you instantly, as described on page 197 of the Player’s Handbook.
If an effect kills you without reducing your hit points to 0, as with power word kill.
If your body is disintegrated, as with the disintegrate spell.
If your body is completely destroyed in acid or fire. When you take acid or fire damage while at 0 hit points, your maximum hit points are reduced by that amount instead. This reduction lasts until you finish a long rest. If your maximum hit points are reduced to 0, you die.
If you are slain inside an anti-magic field. While you are inside an anti-magic field, this feature is suppressed, allowing you to be slain just like any other mortal. If you are removed from the field while still dying, this feature reactivates, instantly stabilizing you.
If the lichstone that resides in your chest is destroyed. Your lichstone can only be attacked while you are at 0 hit points, and is immune to all damage except bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from magical weapons. The lichstone is a black pearl with hit points equal to your level + your Constitution score and an AC of 20 + your Constitution modifier, and regains its hit points when you finish a long rest.
If you take radiant damage that reduces you to 0 hit points or while at 0 hit points, you do not stabilize and must make death saving throws like normal. Subsequent radiant damage causes you to fail death saving throws as normal, but all other damage does not.

If you are unconscious for at least one hour, then you may gain the benefits of a short rest when you wake up.
Features that normally trigger or activate when you make a death saving throw, such as the Celestial warlock’s Searing Vengeance feature [XGtE], can be triggered or activated for the next five turns after you are reduced to 0 hit points.


Since we're dual-type, that means that spells like Hold Person work on us again, and yet healing spells still don't work. So that is a strict downgrade, but overall I think this template is stronger than the generic undead template. Withering Touch will generally be worse than Toll the Dead, especially since our CON will be lower than our WIS, but it's still a handy (ba dum tsh!) backup attack in case Toll the Dead can't be used for some reason. Vigor Mortis is the main point of interest here. I originally designed it to counteract your inability to heal*, so you're harder to heal but harder to kill. In this case, it gives us a narrative excuse as to why you can't just die (maybe you've tried, or the priests tried, and it didn't work).
*Remember, most healing spells explicitly say they don't work on undead or constructs. This isn't a penalty or restriction I've added, it was always there in the PHB.

But we're not done yet, this isn't complete without the subrace. I've written up six different subraces, each with varying degrees of balance. Since I still want to appear as human, there's really only one option to choose.


Stillblood Traits

False Appearance. While you remain motionless, you are indistinguishable from a dead body. You appear to be a somewhat fresh corpse, already cold but showing no signs of decay yet.

Masquerade. You can pass as a living member of your original race with reasonable success without taking special measures to disguise your true nature. Only your pale skin, red eyes, cold touch, and still breath betray you. Even those who notice something is off about you are unlikely to guess your true nature, unless they are already familiar with stillbloods.

Alluring Gaze. As a bonus action, you affix a creature you can see with your alluring gaze. If the creature is able to see you, it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or else it finds itself unable to look away. Your gaze holds the creature’s full attention, giving them disadvantage on all Wisdom (Perception) checks. The effect ends when either you or your target can no longer see each other. Your target may repeat the saving throw if eye contact is broken for a moment, such as either of you getting distracted and glancing away, or an opaque object briefly passes between you. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for this feature.

Your alluring gaze is considered a magical charm effect. For example, a creature that is immune to being charmed can’t be affected by your alluring gaze, and your gaze has no effect inside an anti-magic field.

Harmed by Running Water. You take 1d10 acid damage if you end your turn in running water.

As with the generic undead template, we should end up mostly power-neutral here. Each subrace comes with it's own drawback, and it always relates to one of the ways of killing a graveborn. In this case, falling into a river is a good way to kill yourself for good, thanks to acid being one of the ways to destroy us. In return, we get the ability to still look human as well as to distract people with a staring contest. Alluring Gaze will be of limited usefulness since our CHA won't be as high, but we'll probably get more mileage out of it than we will Withering Touch.

So now we can add a bit more character to our... character. She knows mundane weapons can't kill here, but otherwise isn't sure how she can die. She knows running water burns like acid, so she's afraid of rivers and refuses to swim in them, but has no problem with still water like a lake. She's a pure soul who would never tell a lie... but she might be willing to distract a guard with her Alluring Gaze while her friends pull some shenanigans.

The Conclusion
Well, I started with wanting a nice, generic character who could slide into practically any D&D game, and ended up creating a monster (literally). Where did I go astray? At what point would you cut this off? Where's the line at your table?

I know you can't assume any homebrew will be allowed when joining a new table/gaming group (and, in a sense, it might be rude to ask if you're a new player), but I'm interested in seeing where most of you draw the line for this character.

Also, I thought there was an actual poll function on the forums, but I can't find it. ¯\(ツ)/¯

MrStabby
2020-05-27, 06:04 AM
Base character is cool - no problem here having this at my table.

Second iteration is similarly cool. Flavour of the priest you want with some of the mechanical advantages the class is owed. Not the way I would have done it myself but OK (for what its worth I would have added some kind of "Grave-ward" defensive spell instead). Absolutely legitimate. Homebrew god - sure, but needs enough work so that as a DM I can work it into a campaign setting and willingness on your part to accept any liberties I might end up taking with it as it gets woven into the story.

Third step... becoming undead. Maybe. This isn't about power at all but about the type of game people want to play. There is a preconception of what an adventuring party looks like and this doesn't fit. This means it requires other players as wel as the DM to get on board. Not something I think is appropriate to a PC you might want to take to any table. Furthermore, the strengths and weknesses of an undead character are somewhat extreme - it is easy to imagine some plots/campaigns where they make the character overpowered or too weak. It means that the DM might have trouble setting you up for a campaign against the church of an evil god if there will be loads of clerics running about with turn undead. Tying a DMs hands on what they can run with the character you might bring is not cool. This is where I would draw the line...

On the other hand, if I were your DM and you had expressed an interest in going down this route it might be something that would happen in game as a result of rituals, curses or whatever. It might not be bad for a game, but it is bad to presume it won't be.

Likewise for the last setup. It might be ok in some campaigns but I wouldn't presume it to be

Gungor
2020-05-27, 06:25 AM
I agree that this is a cool character concept but the idea that it would work as something that you could "bring to any table" is absurd. I haven't really thought deeply about the mechanical balance of playable undead but it would need some real wire-brushing to make sure it is not OP.

The bigger problem to me is that you are coming in with a whole lot of rules bending/breaking and background fluff which "any table" just has to sign off on. It's very gracious of you to allow the DM to have some say in aspects of their world. If this were brought to me as a DM I would not receive it too well especially since it comes off as "here's 10 pages of mechanics, backstory, and world building that I came up with. You're cool with it, right?"

Also, any DM accepting all of this amounts to an open invitation for everyone else at the table to hog-wild with their own rule changes and world building. Even if each character's individual ideas are "balanced", it is very likely that they would combine in non-obvious ways to produce an OP party. It's asking too much of a "DM at any table" to want to go down this road. And if the intention is that only you get to bring rule changes and world building to the table then the rest of the table will ask why you get to be the special snowflake.

About the only thing that seems non-controversial is your shield idea. But you're working too hard. Your character uses a shield, with a holy symbol emblazoned on it. The shield happens to look like a staff. No need to home-brew a new idea for a focus, just refluff the shield and call it a day.

Dork_Forge
2020-05-27, 06:44 AM
The base version would obviously be okay and refluffing a shield as something else I would be okay with but being an undead... maybe in a short game but otherwise no. You can't really make a default character with any degree of homebrew involved and have it be a character you can take to any table.

KorvinStarmast
2020-05-27, 07:50 AM
Chapter 1: By the Book - "Deus Vult!"
Variant human Grave cleric. The idea is that she is a priestess of a Good goddess of Death, but after looking at the actual gods of Death, Kelemvor seems the closest fit. Neither Good (Lawful Neutral, though backstory suggests he may have once been good before becoming a god), nor a goddess, but still has the "Don't Fear the Reaper (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontFearTheReaper)" vibe I'm looking for.

For our free feat, we're taking Magic Initiate to grab Find Familiar for a flavorful pet (probably cat or raven), Mold Earth (great for digging graves!), and one other cantrip (probably Light). Cleric cantrips would be Guidance, Thaumaturgy, and Toll the Dead. Grave clerics get free Spare the Dying. As I level, I would pick up Sacred Flame and Word of Radiance, so that I have options against enemies resistant to necrotic or with high WIS saves. I'm also considering ditching Guidance for Light or Mending, though Guidance is on point for someone who guides the dead into the afterlife.
Keep Guidance. You are playing on a team. Help your team do all sorts of stuff. Heck, help yourself with Religion checks, etc.

What's my backstory or motivation to adventure? I dunno.

Then work on that, maybe don't wast time with home brew. The Character is more important than the mechanics.

Your ringing staff - complicated without added value. Simply have the holy symbol embedded in the stafff as you do with the shield, and get buy off from DMs.

[INDENT]Undead Template Sorry, that's where I draw the line.

Would you allow this character at your table?
Nope. There are magic items and artifacts for a reason. Choose wisely.

Lupine
2020-05-27, 08:14 AM
I join with Korvin. We play D&D for the stories of our characters. By having a choice that you always rock up, you lose that character development. You are bound by what you’ve done before.

Plus, part of the fun of D&D is the process of creating a character, and breathing life into him or her, IMO. You lose that also.

If you don’t have a backstory for a character, that’s where you should start, rather than building an assumed loadout. Let the mechanics of the character fit the story, rather than the other way around

However, I know the annoyance of asking a question and getting answers to a different question back. Here is what I would say to your designs: first two are fine, if you want to do them. The rest would not be welcome at my table.

prabe
2020-05-27, 08:18 AM
I'll add my voice to the chorus here and say that "by the book" is almost certainly fine (unless the DM is restricting access to XGE--something one DM I play with is doing; the gawd you have in mind also might not be available), and reskinning a shield as a staff/holy symbol seems unobjectionable. Homebrewing the race, though ... that's asking for a lot of DM buy-in. If they're running published stuff, there might be room for it. If they're running their own world they probably have specific ideas about the world, if not the sorts of adventures they want to run, so there's probably less room for any player to add that much material.

I'll echo another voice and suggest that you put thought into the character's background and personality, rather than writing up pages of homebrew you can hand the DM as a fait accompli.

At my table? The first two are fine, as far as the mechanics go (there are no gawds in my setting, so you'd have to ponder how that changed the character); the rest, not.

Porcupinata
2020-05-27, 08:27 AM
Chapter 1: By the Book - "Deus Vult!"

That's absolutely fine at my table. Since I don't run in the Forgotten Realms, I'd suggest maybe Anubis as a good-aligned deity of the dead.


Chapter 2: The Refluffening - *Ring* *Ring* "Bring out Your Dead!"
One of my main points of contention with the vanilla build was that I wanted something that was more of a white mage, and less of a crusader. The armor is fine, it makes sense that an adventurer would wear armor. But the shield really has to go. Thing is, as a caster cleric, I really have no reason to hold a weapon, and the AC bonus from a shield is too good to give up. There's no point in having both hands free, so I gain nothing by dropping the shield.

The other thing was I actually wanted to use a staff as a holy symbol. A staff with chimes or bells on the end. I don't know why I fixated on this, but I did. Now, I could hold the staff and still use a shield, but now I have no free hands for spells (Warcaster would eventually make this moot). Also, I can just put the holy symbol on my shield, so the staff is pointless.

If you don't want to use a shield that's fine. If you want to stick your holy symbol on a stick (staff) that's also fine.

At this point, I'd suggest that if you want something more like a "white mage" then you might want to consider being a Divine Soul Sorcerer or a Celestial Warlock instead of a Cleric.


But what if... what if I were to refluff a shield as a staff and disguise it as my own cooking? I get to have my chime staff, get rid of the shield, and still keep the AC bonus. Delightfully devilish, Seymour!

If you want to use a shield, then use a shield. If you don't, then don't.

But using a "staff" that doesn't work as a staff but does work as a shield is just confusing for everyone, and it gets even more confusing when you and the rest of the party start finding treasure. If the party finds a Shield +1 does it mysteriously change from a shield to a staff when you use it and then back to a shield again when someone else uses it? What if you find a magic staff? Does it act as a staff or act as a shield?

Just no.


Chapter 3: This is Homebrew Country - "And then Jon was a Zombie"
You know what would be a big twist on a Grave cleric dedicated to preserving the boundary between life and death and hunting down and destroying the undead? An undead Grave cleric.

A definite nope on two fronts. On the one hand undead PCs don't fly in my campaign. On the other hand even if it weren't undead you don't get to invent your own race and add it to the setting. My campaign world has a large number of races already, pick one of those.


Chapter 4: The Final Homebrew - "I guide others to a treasure I cannot possess."

Hahahaha.

No.

OldTrees1
2020-05-27, 08:34 AM
Undead Template
I've estimated that this is a power-neutral template. You are neither weaker nor stronger, just different. Opinions may vary on this subject, however. There's certainly a potential for exploitation, but many of these exploits only work if the entire party is undead, much in the same way that an entire party of flying races opens up new possibilities that a single flying PC wouldn't have.

That template was mostly buffs. You got several immunities including no longer being humanoid. Healing magic is hard for an undead to find, but hit dice, healer feat, or inspiring leader work. I see those options used frequently enough that I would not consider healing to be a noticeable debuff.



Dual Nature. Although you are undead, graveborn stand out from other types of undead in that they haven’t completely left their humanity behind.
You have two creature types; one is undead, and the other is whatever your creature type was before becoming undead (usually humanoid).

Personally I don't like 2 creature types. I would have suggested something type, subtype like Undead Elf rather than Undead Humanoid.

I suspect Vigor Mortis would need some tweaks during playtesting, but the campaign could be the playtest.


All in all it seems slightly overpowered, but could be playtested during a campaign. I would allow it with the warning that playtests are subject to alteration. The Player and the DM would work with eachother on that as needed.

Christew
2020-05-27, 09:35 AM
Chapter 1: By the Book - "Deus Vult!"
By the book is almost always fine. Barring a really specific setting/campaign with race/class restrictions, do you.


Chapter 2: The Refluffening - *Ring* *Ring* "Bring out Your Dead!"
I'm pretty forgiving towards refluffing. For example, I have a player that wanted to do rapier/dagger for aesthetic purposes, so we refluffed a shield as a parrying dagger (+2 AC, can't be used as a weapon). I'd extend the same privilege here.

Yes, to refluffing a mundane shield as a chime staff, no to the rest. If you change the mechanics (i.e. can be attached to magic weapons for a bonus) it is no longer fluff, it is homebrew.


Chapter 3: This is Homebrew Country - "And then Jon was a Zombie"
Homebrew is an outright no unless the player and DM design it together. If a player brings homebrew to the table, I may be willing to revise it with them to fit the campaign, but more often than not I will just direct them to existing options that can be refluffed to fit their concept (Warforged comes to mind here: i.e. Sentry's Rest becomes Rest without Peace, Specialized Design becomes Echoes of a Past Life, etc).

I don't entirely buy your claim that this is a power-neutral template. 5e's approach to resting makes the lack of healing a weak offset for some strong gains. Also, as a template, I'd have to look at possible interactions with base races (Relentless Endurance springs to mind) and that sounds like more work than I'm interested in doing.


Chapter 4: The Final Homebrew - "I guide others to a treasure I cannot possess."
Surely you jest. Even if you managed to get approval for the template from Chapter 3, you have now effectively removed the only downside. Who cares if healing doesn't work on you if you also can't die? If this were my table, I would at this point be convinced that you are only seeking mechanical benefit and trying to hide it behind a veneer of creative character concept. I would probably ban this character outright and restrict you to book options only moving forward (mostly for having wasted my time).

Conclusion
Ultimately, I don't have an issue with creative character concepts. I wholeheartedly welcome players to connect with their character during the design phase and am very willing to advise and even refluff to facilitate this. What I do have an issue with is the attitude engendered by comments like this:

How did our character come under such an affliction? Well, I might let each respective DM invent their own cause of the curse, whatever best fits into whatever campaign plans they already had.
As a DM, I am the one doing all the work to facilitate gameplay. I am responsible for campaign story coherence. The notion that you "might let" me integrate your backstory is downright insulting. I am DM, you are a player; I might let you do things, not the other way around.

If you came to me with a character concept to facilitate an interesting backstory instead of mechanical advantage, I'd be more than happy to work with you within the existing published mechanics maybe even with some light collaborative homebrew to make it work for the game I want to run. Don't come with a fully fleshed out homebrew that may or may not have anything to do with my world/story.

Greywander
2020-05-28, 01:59 AM
This is more or less what I expected. Most people seem to be fine with refluffing a shield as a chime staff, but wouldn't allow me to be undead. After I posted this, I realized the whole undead thing probably wouldn't fly at any table, unless it happened to fit exactly into the existing plot the DM was running. And in any case, a big part of an undead campaign is having to hide the fact that you're undead and be cautious around clerics and paladins, and that wasn't something I was really interested in doing with this character (and is especially weird when you're a cleric of an established church that hunts undead). So I'll nix the undead part and come up with something else (that doesn't require homebrew beyond custom lore). Honestly, it did seem over the top after I wrote it.

Some of you seemed confused as to why I'd change the mechanics for the chime staff instead of just making it a straight refluff of a shield. Mostly, this just comes down to conflict between fluff and mechanics. It takes an action to don a shield; okay, so we'll require an action to invoke the blessing of protection, no problem. It takes an action to doff a shield; so... why can't I just drop the staff? Is it glued to my hand until I use an action to remove it? The party finds a shield +1, except it suddenly turns into a chime staff +1 when I'm using it... for some reason.

The purpose of the chime staff rules was to get around this conflict. You can just drop the chime staff, and even retain the AC bonus as long as you pick it up before your turn ends. In exchange, the bonus counts as magic and thus can be dispelled or suppressed. Frankly, neither of these are likely to come up, but at the very least it's neither a straight upgrade or downgrade. Likewise, I simply can't use a shield +1, but I can take a staff +1 and attach sacred chimes to it to get an AC boost as if it were a shield +1. Weapons +X have the same rarity as shields +X, so it should be a fair trade, and I can only put the chimes on specific types of weapons, and the DM controls what magic items get handed out. What these rules do is allow us to retain the same mechanical benefits while sidestepping the fluff awkwardness of a straight refluff.

If the DM is fine refluffing a shield as a chime staff, that's probably sufficient for me. I can keep those extra rules around in case we need them later, but most of the places where it deviates from the shield rules are unlikely to come up.

There's one last thing I want to address:

As a DM, I am the one doing all the work to facilitate gameplay. I am responsible for campaign story coherence. The notion that you "might let" me integrate your backstory is downright insulting. I am DM, you are a player; I might let you do things, not the other way around.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I was talking about was bringing a finalized character concept to the table vs. working with the DM to integrate my concept into their campaign. Writing a complete backstory yourself and hoping the DM integrates it somehow seems to be the "default" way of handling backstories, from what I've seen. Working with your DM to figure out how to integrate your concept into their world doesn't seem to be done as often. All the players create their characters in a vacuum, and the DM does likewise with their story and world, and then everyone comes together on game night and tries to force square pegs into round holes. Sometimes it works and everyone has fun. Sometimes a player's backstory never comes up. Sometimes the players have no motivation to pursue the main story and instead derail the campaign. It's kind of a shame and I wish we saw more tables collaborating when writing up characters and campaigns.

That last part of your response also feels a bit player vs. DM, but maybe I'm reading too much into it. DMing is a tough job and it deserves respect, but never forget that you're only the DM because your players allow you to be. We're all here to have fun, though, and part of the DM's job is to make rulings, because a game with no rules isn't fun.

Anyway, back to the drawing board I guess. :smalltongue: At least I still have a good foundation to build on, I mostly just need to flesh out the custom religion and come up with a personal motive for this character to be out adventuring. Bonus points if I can run the same concept as a priest of Kelemvor, in case the DM doesn't have a place in their setting for a custom deity.

DrKerosene
2020-05-28, 02:51 AM
At what point would you cut this off? Where's the line at your table?
Let’s see.


Chapter 1: By the Book - "Deus Vult!"
Variant human Grave cleric.
Seems fine. I’d be happy to work with a Player on world building, especially if they showed actual interest in lore like this.


Chapter 2: The Refluffening - *Ring* *Ring* "Bring out Your Dead!"
One of my main points of contention with the vanilla build was that I wanted something that was more of a white mage, and less of a crusader.
At this point I’d ask if Divine Soul Sorcerer or a Celestial Warlock doesn’t fit your idea better.

Your chimes seem like a complicated version of a Ruby Of The War Mage (combined with some other magic items). Would I allow this because it doesn’t seem to actually change much? Sure, but I’d also point out that there is an unofficial twitter sage advice comment that says you can put your staff into the crook of your shield arm (or hold the staff with your shield hand) to cast. Which I would typically allow unless the group really wanted a gritty caster game where Counterspell and reaction identifying is actually important. Which might make this pointless if I’m so permissive.


Chapter 3: This is Homebrew Country - "And then Jon was a Zombie"
The not needing food and water would probably be fine in the majority of my games, but I would have trouble permitting this if I was specifically running a gritty survival game.

Also, the immunity to Exhaustion and not needing Sleep would probably get a “no” from me. Some undead are immune to Exhaustion, but not all (like Zombies vs Skeletons). If permitted, I’d probably have these abilities be gated behind a character level like the Aasimar/Eladrin (or they would replace class features). The immunity to Poison would probably depend on the rest of the Party and their preferred campaign themes before I could say if I’d allow it or not, and if it would replace something or be added ontop.


Chapter 4: The Final Homebrew - "I guide others to a treasure I cannot possess."

While I’m fond of this much stuff being available in 3.5e days, and I’d definitely use such sources for inspiration and/or guidance regarding undead PCs (Necropolitan, katane, etc), my initial reaction to your expanded stuff is skepticism. With that much writing, it just feels like bartering to justify immunity to exhaustion, poison, sleep, suffocation, starvation, etc. Though I’m willing to chalk that up to the last three times I’ve permitted Players to try their own homebrew ideas with minimal input from me.

WaroftheCrans
2020-05-28, 10:48 AM
One part that really irks me is where you said that you "might let each respective DM invent their own cause of the curse, whatever best fits into whatever campaign plans they already had."

This communicates a lack of regard for the DM, and a handwaving away of their plans and campaign world. My outlook on this would have been vastly different if you had said, "It's primarily up to the DM, and I'd ask them first, but my default idea is X."

It's a shame that in the games you play, players don't talk to the DM about the world, and their backgrounds. In my experience, things work best when each player designs the backstory individually with the DM, and works it into a cohesive world.

On to the homebrew of the staff: Action required to drop it, as it has a leather strap around it. It should simply be a refluffed shield, because in my experience, shields +1-3 are rarer than staffs. In addition, staffs often have other properties. What if you get a staff of swarming insects? and in the later game, when you want to wield multiple staffs, do you still gain the advantage of the superior AC of a shield? At my table, this would be a shield, but with different fluff.


Homebrew of the Undead: Going to quickly summarize all of these features, and not take into account your class.
Immunities: Exhaustion, Sleep, Breathing, Eating, Drinking, Poisoned Condition, and Poison Damage. (Does this seem a little long to you? It does to me. Note Yuan-ti and Grung are the only races with immunity to Poison Damage and condition, and they lack any other immunities.) Also leads to the brokenness of coffee locks, and probably a variety of other problems. Remove the exhaustion immunity, and change poison to a resistance, and it might be ok.

Stat increases: Not listed, presumably none, or that of the original race. If the latter, just NO.

Dual Nature: If this is solely a downgrade, as you've explained it to be, ok. If a player tried to use a "gotcha" after explaining it thus, that character would be gone, and maybe the player too.

Withering Touch: The "as an action" saves it. Otherwise, this would be totally broken cheese. Right now, it's simply not very good, but not very bad either.

Vigor Mortis: An emphatic no. After 5th level, you're practically immune to dying. Taking your entire hp as damage is unlikely to happen, and the damage types that can down you are rare on monsters. Even monsters that have those damage types would find it difficult to bring you down permanently. Also, a lichstone? Really?

Stillblood traits: So you have the benefit of looking dead, with the benefit of looking alive? Really? How does this make sense?
Also, a cold corpse looks very dead. It takes a decently long time for a corpse to chill, and its quite evident.
The alluring gaze is something that a bard or certain warlocks would love. Quite powerful if used by the face of the party.
Running Water seems like an attempt to say: "Look, this isn't broken! I have a traditional weakness of certain undead!" In practice, this is incredibly rare, and can be avoided as simply as not fighting next to a river.

Healing: So most of the healing spells don't work for you, but hitdice, goodberry and healing potions do. Since you autostabilize, it's not a very large concern, and if you have a class feature that allows you to heal, its very powerful.

Undead Typing: How often have your enemies cast detect good and evil on you? Or protection from good and evil? Or an enemy cleric cast turn undead while fighting what appeared to be humans? Without the graveborn race, you're also immune to a wide range of effects that target humanoids.

Conclusion: Undead template is very broken, Graveborn is powerful because it can't die, Stillblood has contradictory features, and a tiny built in weakness. Would not allow for near any character at near any table.

langal
2020-05-28, 10:51 AM
If you don't want to use a shield, then you don't use a shield.

I would not allow some "refluff" just so you can get the benefits of one. Especially where you can doff and don the shield during your turn and retain a "shield's" benefits. The turns are a game mechanic. The actual action is simultaneous.

Too much refluff turns the game into a set of numbers.

I like it when players are willing to sacrifice a bit mechanically.

Amechra
2020-05-28, 12:30 PM
Much like most of the other people in the thread, I'd be OK with #1 and #2. As we get into the Undead templates... yeah, no, not without clearing it with me first. Like, really clearing it with me.

The difference between your "play as an undead dude" rules and stuff like the sacred chimes is that I could easily extend the benefits of the chime staff house rule to other members of the party if they liked the idea and wanted in on some of that action. On the other hand, the undead stuff can't really be offered to the rest of the party without radically altering their characters.

On top of that... starting of as a zombie grave cleric in an otherwise "normal" party feels more like a gimmick than an interesting character trait. I'd go for a character with a well-defined personality over "normal character type X, but they're a Y!" - on top of that, I'm a little bit tired of people coming to the table with concepts that pretty much require an involved backstory to explain. I'd probably go with one of the following if you really wanted to play an undead character:


You start off as a "normal" Grave Cleric. Then you die at some point and come back as an undead monstrosity, once we actually care about your character.
You're a refluffed Warforged. Enjoy.
Hey, the Vampire race from the Ixalan PDF (https://media.wizards.com/2018/downloads/magic/plane-shift_ixalan.pdf) look pretty balanced. Why not play one of those guys?

Christew
2020-05-28, 03:52 PM
Some of you seemed confused as to why I'd change the mechanics for the chime staff instead of just making it a straight refluff of a shield. Snip.
Can't speak for others but I was not confused. What you are describing is what I would not allow. It is much easier to sidestep "fluff awkwardness" by saying your chime thing has a leather strap and takes time to doff than it is to invent new mechanics. If you want a shield, use a shield or a direct analog, if not don't. All this is discussing a starting item. I don't think you are entitled to magical boosts in the form factor that your character prefers. I'll supply what magic items I see fit and then your character will have to make choices. Is the form factor of a chime staff worth forgoing the additional +1 from a magic shield?


I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I was talking about was bringing a finalized character concept to the table vs. working with the DM to integrate my concept into their campaign. Writing a complete backstory yourself and hoping the DM integrates it somehow seems to be the "default" way of handling backstories, from what I've seen. Working with your DM to figure out how to integrate your concept into their world doesn't seem to be done as often. All the players create their characters in a vacuum, and the DM does likewise with their story and world, and then everyone comes together on game night and tries to force square pegs into round holes. Sometimes it works and everyone has fun. Sometimes a player's backstory never comes up. Sometimes the players have no motivation to pursue the main story and instead derail the campaign. It's kind of a shame and I wish we saw more tables collaborating when writing up characters and campaigns.

That last part of your response also feels a bit player vs. DM, but maybe I'm reading too much into it. DMing is a tough job and it deserves respect, but never forget that you're only the DM because your players allow you to be. We're all here to have fun, though, and part of the DM's job is to make rulings, because a game with no rules isn't fun.
Again wasn't confused, you and I just have very different D&D experiences. Mine ALWAYS have a session zero to introduce the world/tone/specific rules of the game, make characters, work out people's goals, etc. By session 1, we already have a coherent party often with interwoven backstories and complex goals both short and long term. Only way to play IMHO.

Even if things do happen in a vacuum before playing in your group (for which you have my sympathies, that sounds needlessly aggravating), the base assumption of that vacuum is the published rules unless your DM says otherwise. Making a backstory your DM knows nothing about and has no cues or hooks into the campaign story seems like an obvious recipe for backgrounds being ignored entirely. Do you guys just state your backstory at introduction in session one and then never really use them again?

As to my sounding player vs DM, just no. D&D is a collaborative storytelling game that is a fun experience for a group of friends. That said, one of those friends is doing the work to facilitate the game and the others are reaping the benefits of that one friend's labors. Sure you need players to play, but players are easy to find. Finding a friend who is willing to put in hours of prep time before the campaign, in between sessions, etc. just to keep the game afloat is much rarer.

I appreciate my players, but we all acknowledge that they are only responsible for their character, I am responsible for my game. Think of it like visiting a friend who works as a bartender. You all may have a great time talking together, but one of you is at work.

JNAProductions
2020-05-28, 04:02 PM
C1
Fine.

C2
Fine. Mostly just a flavor change.

C3
No. You're adding a lot of bonuses for minor penalties.

C4
You remove pretty much all the penalties from before and add more bonuses. Why would you think that's okay?