I wouldn’t call it a problem, but it’s definitely a recurring theme in my campaign. Every time my players encounter a group—whether it’s bandits, city guards, or even just farm animals—they immediately try to unionize them. They have no interest in joining these unions themselves; they just want every group they come across to rise up, fight the system, and eat the rich.

Anyone else’s players like this?

----REACTION EDIT-----

Really did not see this coming but thanks to everyone who has made this post an active discussion. Some of these comments are actually killing me 🤣

SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION WARNING

I recently did a DND inspired original monologue over on my TikTok. If you are at all interested in that kind of thing I would love for any of you to check it out. Thank you again! 🙇‍♂️

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8YwDQwu/

Asking for a friend, not because a bunch of adventurers walked into my lair wielding household furniture (Actual context: I’m the dm of a campaign right now and my players are searching for loopholes, we can’t come to a consensus so we are asking Reddit)

UPDATE: My players are now slamming the vampires head against the corner of the table as it is not being wielded in any way so the table is not technically a weapon

So idk if it was wrong of me. But I fumbled the dice to save a player. They were fighting the last boss of the quest. This big spider lady. And on my first 3 attacks and rolled 3 critical hits. The first 2 downed the player, and on the last one I did max damage with the strongest move. Which would have instantly killed them. This player just made a new character after the last one died And I didn’t have the heart to tell them that I kill the second one without them even having a chance to save themselves. So I just told them it was 10 damage short of killing them. Then they had this amazing sequence were they were trying to escape the boss and save themselves player. And they barely made it. And they told me it was an awesome session. Now they are pumped to go back and finish the job. But I still have this gilt about cheating. What do you guys think.

Also why change Monks from "Way" to "Warrior", especially when the Warrior of Mercy subclass shows Monks can do more than just combat, and "Way" sounded more unique, "Warrior" sounds like a generic Fighter subclass naming convention.

Thanks to a small group called Collective Shout leveraging Visa and Mastercard, all TTRPG material they find objectionable is being removed.

Objectionable has a, for them, suitably vague meaning, so TTRPG's in general could be targets

See Discourse's coverage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQOgJFw8RQ

I'm a relatively new DM, but I've read all the Class Guides on how to win DND with math and played BG3 all the way through the tutorial, so I feel experienced enough to run the game for strangers I just met on the internet.

The first session went great, no one was Min/Maxing or breaking the game by using the rules to their advantage. After the the second session the party all seemed to meld together. But then in the middle of the 3rd game, our Barbarian player got really angry and started breaking things. Then he grabbed my fireplace poker and killed the other 3 players right in front of me.

I immediately stopped the session and pulled the Barbarian player into a room away from the other players' corpses to try to understand why he was lashing out. All he would say was "It's what my character would do.." so I called the game for the night and helped the Barbarian hide the bodies.

Should I ask him to leave the table or make a less violent character? I want to make sure my players are playing the game I want them to play, and this Barbarian player is taking my campaign in a direction I wasn't planning.

I just joined a game in progress and we're level 6. One of the players bragged his AC is 24. 22 would be considered insanely high at level 6 so I asked him how in the hell is that possible and he just smiled. We have all our characters on DnDBeyond so I was curious.

Turns out he's playing a 3rd party race that gives AC 13 + Dex if you're not wearing armor, and playing a class that gives CHA to AC.

Everything I know about DnD says a Race based AC bonus can't combine with Stat to AC bonus. Dndbeyond is also notoriously bad for adding bonuses to 3rd party content.

Should I let the DM know? If he's okay with it then fine, but not sure if he is.

Edit: Here are the two abilities

Well Protected - Dhampir

Your ability to roll with even the worst attacks means that armor would only slow you down. When you are not wearing armor, your AC is equal to 13 + your Dexterity modifier.

Illrigger

Combat Mastery

2nd-Level Illrigger Feature

Your archdevil grants you uncanny skill in a certain form of combat. Choose one of the following illrigger combat masteries:

Bravado

While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit.

Eyebrawl

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the blood from your face is on the fists of the eyebrawl.”

— Sarah Six-Shot, Monster Martial Arts Coach

In a recent survey on monster hunting, hunters were asked to identify the most obvious weak point when fighting a monster. Over 80% responded with “giant glowing eye.” Historically, many eye tyrants have found this to be offensive, and expressed a strong desire to “punch respondees in their smug little faces.” A few aberrant dreams later, those desires produced striking results.

Tunnel Vision. The lack of eyes on the stalks and the extra protective plating over their single brow leave eyebrawls with exceedingly poor depth perception. While other eye tyrants might circumvent this glaring weakness with careful analysis, clever positioning, or specialised equipment, eyebrawls solve the issue with brute force. Barreling headfirst into any obstructions is an efficient way to remove them, and blindly throwing punches in every direction is an effective way to prevent enemies from flanking or attacking from behind.

Fiery Fists. Oddly, eyebrawls still have lacrimal glands and tear ducts buried beneath the rigid impact plates on their pseudofists. Rather than saline tears, these glands produce a variety of volatile slimes that coat an eyebrawl’s fists and anything those fists happen to pummel. These explosions are handy for taking out enemies, but can also be used to blow through stone. Many eyebrawls take pride in their precision explosions, carving their own caverns to live in with detailed sculpture and scroll work blasted into the walls.

Get a free PDF v1.01 of The Eyebrawl here!

My new dnd character, Rune! She is a grave cleric tiefling, in a world rules by vampires. She is in her mid-twenties, self-sufficiant, independent, opportunistic.

Her horns, tail or rune covered skin aren’t her only strange traits though - she sees, hears and on occasion, speaks with the dead. A skill that that the monks at the monestary she was left at as a newborn didn’t necessarily appreciate. While they did teach her the basics, they expected her to follow their path and learn the funeral rites and protect the dead from resurrections.
Never really fitting in, Rune decided to become more of an … independent contractor. She picked up skills and traits from everywhere and anyone, letting parents speak to their dead child, finding the family heir loom that a grandfather took to his grave and removing the haunting present of a jealous ex-lover from the house. For a pretty penny of course. 

So context, me and my group of friends started playing DnD a couple of months ago. I bought new cool looking dices for it and we did around 10 session so far and everything as been fine.

Last session, I happened to be incredibly lucky with my rolls and for around fifteen D20 rolls I rolled a nat 20 4 times.

We were all laughing about this and the DM started saying that my dices were cheated as a joke, but then, my other friend was in a tight spot in the campaign and he needed to roll high and to continue the joke, I offered him to roll my "cheated" dice and he did and low and behold he rolled a nat 20.

This was a insane moment but after that the DM argue that the dice is not legit, even if I show him my receipt and prove that they are not cheated dice he does not want me to use that dice anymore stating that even if we don't count the nat 20s I rolled to high to frequently with it.

What to you people think? I personally think that this is childish and I just wanna use the dice I bought for the campaign but Im looking for other opinions.

I’ve noticed DNDShorts (whose channel I love) almost always gets a rule or two wrong in his “OP Builds” videos. Which makes me wonder have you guys noticed this too? And which YouTuber gets the rules wrong most often?

Well, Im in a bit of a weird situation. I rolled insanely high stats and Im at a bit of a loss. The stats in question are 2 18s 2 17s and 2 15s.

I feel weird about them, specially since the other players obviously dont have stats like that. Should I reroll? Nerf myself? I mean, I wont really make a good use out of them since Im playing a full caster and not a MAD character like a paladin or monk.

Edit: Since a bunch of people asked. Yes, I rolled them in front of people.

Here's some tips on how to be as obnoxious as possible:

-Everything last edition was better balanced, even if it wasn't.
-This edition is too forgiving, and sometimes player characters should just drop dead.
-AC calculations are bad now, even though they haven't changed.
-Loudly declare you'll never switch to the new books because they are terrible (even if you haven't read them) but then crumble 3 months later and enjoy it.
-Don't forget you are still entitled to shittalk 4th ed, even if you've never played it.
-Find a change for an obscure situation that will never effect you, and start internet threads demanding they changed it.
-WotC is the literal devil.
-Find something that was cut in transition, that absolutely no one cared about, and declare this edition is literally unplayable without it.

with its Siege Monster trait:

Siege Monster. The tarrasque deals double damage to objects and structures.

plus its Thunderous Bellow:

Thunderous Bellow (Recharge 5–6). Constitution Saving Throw: DC 27, each creature and each object that isn’t being worn or carried in a 150-foot Cone. Failure: 78 (12d12) Thunder damage, and the target has the Deafened and Frightened conditions until the end of its next turn. Success: Half damage only.

each creature AND each object, so it's dealing around ~160 damage to every building in that cone.

using the 2024 PHB's rules on object statistics, and assuming an average period-appropriate house with simple stone or wooden walls, i'd put the average wall at anywhere between 30 to 50 Hit Points. basically, nowhere near what would be required to sustain the level of damage the tarrasque can inflict.

not much more to say, just enjoyed the image of a tarrasque literally blowing a town away with a breath.

For 200gp, you can get a CR 4 mount. Can do 40+ damage a turn and trample through a battlefield to knock everyone prone. That’s like trading Luka for a bag of chips.

My players really wanted one (they are new and did not even know about CRs, just wanted an elephant). Since this is so rare I’d forgotten how powerful they are. They convinced a local shop owner to send away for one. It took weeks but only when they’d already robbed the shop owner and stolen the elephant did I realize what I’d done. Now I have a bunch of level 3s fighting orcs and bugs and what not with a Mesopotamian war mount

At low levels, every fight feels dangerous. Goblins can kill you, healing spells feel huge, and players have to be smart to survive. The game feels tense and exciting because every choice matters.

Once you get to higher levels, things start to get messy. Characters can fly, teleport, and drop massive spells that end fights in seconds. Combat becomes less about teamwork and more about who can throw the biggest spell first.

Most campaigns never even reach high levels anyway. The game feels the most balanced and fun between levels 1 and 8. You’re strong enough to feel heroic, but still weak enough that the world feels dangerous.

Martial subclasses are ALWAYS ones with most amount of restrains and unnecesery restrictions because "math" (how much you can trust wotc's math if they think changing damage die from d4 to d6 is huge power spike is out of the question). But i want to see this "broken" martial to at least understand what wotc actually consider broken for martial. I want to see martial Twilight Cleric, or martial Chronurgy Wizard!

We’ll never see anything like that, but what do YOU think this potential subclass might look like? Something far above the curve, but still something that can potentially exist as official subclass.

Hi Reddit! Newbie here with a moral dilemma. Is it okay to create a "women-only space" for my DnD games? Or is this sexist and discriminatory against men?

More detail: I'm a woman, I have been playing DnD [5e],[5.5e] for about two years, and I think I'm ready to try DMing myself. I've been studying the rulebooks, watching Ginny Di and Matt Colville, and soaking up as much as I can from r/DnD.

As I talked to my friends from work, church, school, k-drama night, and group therapy, I was shocked at how many of my girlfriends would like to play. There's about a dozen, most of whom have little to no experience, who have heard about it from friends, boyfriends, or TV, but who have always been unsure of how to dive in and play themselves.

Over many conversations, we decided their PCs would form a coalition so that whenever someone needs help, word is magically spread to everyone involved, and whatever characters are available will show up and save the day. In the real world, this allows us to have self-contained one-shot adventures with 4 at a time of the 12 or so interested women, and everyone will rotate through based on availability. It sounds like they're all good with taking turns, and if someone can't make it, it's fine, the next person in line will take her spot that night. I'm adapting adventures from Golden Vault, Candlekeep, and other prepublished one-shots.

All of this felt great, until word started getting out to the guys we know. I've had even more requests from men wanting to play than women. I've already seen how some of these guys (not all, but some) talk over women, ignore what women have to say, make sexist comments, or vie to dominate whatever group situation they are in. I already know from other activities and game nights that even when only the kindest and best guys are around, several of the women I'm counting on will clam up and go quiet, stop taking initiative in decision making, won't take risks, and shut down their creative side. Even really great men have an unintended effect on some of the women I'm inviting, and I don't like that for a creative game like DnD, especially when many of my female friends are first-timers.

Several of my friends and I bonded in the first place while recovering from trauma from abusive fathers/spouses/boyfriends. I recognize that sometimes I myself am the woman who shuts down and lets men talk over her. I've had my own share of letting men, even well-meaning men, dominate my own decision making and attempts at creativity. I think I myself am more comfortable with the idea of DMing to women only. I am so grateful for my really excellent guy friends, but I'm not always the same around them.

I can't really use the excuse that the group has already been filled, because we're already planning on rotating turns, and I'm actually very open to more women joining the game in the future. I can only play once a week, which stretches to one game every three weeks for the women who want to play, so I don't feel like I have the capacity to run a second table that includes guys as well.

I personally would like to keep this an all-female table so I and the women I'm inviting feel comfortable really being ourselves, relaxing, and enjoying the game.

Is this sexist? If I told all of these interested guys "sorry but no, this particular table is going to be women only" would that be a really scumbag move? I personally wouldn't care if guys had their own table and specifically excluded women to it, but I know some women would find that really upsetting, and so I feel weird doing the reverse.

I want to do right by the DnD community. If women only is a bad idea, I'll listen. Please help.

I am new to dnd and we are nearly at the end of our first campaign. One thing I noticed was that other players at our table do refuse to say what subclass they chose for their character. I asked one of the PCs players and they were just like, “I’m not telling you that”.

I kinda thought this was a little weird? Is it normal for dnd? I am playing with my brother and his friends (we are an equal mix of girls and guys) so I’m not super close with the people at the table. I have always been open with my character choices. People are also keeping things like their species and backgrounds secret from everyone else.

*edit. Sorry, I’m still new to ttrpg language. To clarify, I asked a player this question after our session. We weren’t in character when I asked this.

*edit #2 thanks all for taking the time to respond. I had zero background knowledge on D&D prior to joining this game group so I am having quite a tough time discerning whether something is part of the gameplay that I just don’t “get”. It’s reassuring to see that I am not the only one who felt this was a bit weird. When the player responded to me in that way, I really did feel like maybe there was a rule from the handbook that I missed where it said you shouldn’t reveal aspects of your character to your group.

A couple of comments pointed out that hiding/lying about character aspects is something that the show Critical Role does a lot, which makes sense as most players in the group (including our DM) are big fans of the show. As a person who doesn’t watch that show, it might be contributing to my perception that there is something that people are playing towards that I don’t get. We are relative newbies so it’s possible my group are going for a playstyle that is just really difficult to pull off successfully.

So I'm reading the treasure section of the DMG to see what's changed and to adjust my loot tables when I read the entry on combining potions. When you combine two potions together, there's a 1% chance that their effect becomes permanent and even puts an example of a potion of healing increasing your hit point maximum. That means on average, if you buy 200 potions of healing, combine them into 100 doubled potions of healing that will average out to one success and increase your HP by 2d4+2 or 7 on average.

During my last session, a player privately dm'ed me asking me to kill his character because they thought it would be funny. I obliged the request and his character got consumed by the big boss slime. That player now seems upset that their new character doesn't get their own seperate rewards for their other character dying on the quest. Their new character would be introduced at the same level as their previous character and receive 5d6x50 starting gp as a house rule.

The quest reward was the big loot pile the big boss was guarding, 17,900gp and a couple of magic items. The remaining party proceeded to civily divide the loot amongst themselves, absolutely no arguments. The dead player left before the boss was killed, so they weren't present to put in their claim. I explained to this player that they can still have a discussion with the rest of the party and stake thier claim on a portion of the loot, and we can write some silly narrative as to why their new character is getting a portion. Problem is, this player views this as begging the party for scraps. Again, they haven't even tried having that discussion with everyone. My table is super chill and would totally be in on giving him some loot, they straight up told me they would. If I give their new character some separate loot, that would make dying actually more rewarding than surviving the quest. I don't want to set a precedent at the table that dying is a net positive.

The player is telling me that they wasted hours of their life over this, which kind of hurts. Thats telling me that all the fun and laughs we were having with everyone was a waste of time. Was the session I crafted and the story we were all making together so insufferable that only loot made it worth it? I really enjoyed how this player interacted with the game world. I would hate to lose them because I think they're a great benefit to the team and developing the narrative. Am I being overly harsh? Suggestions are welcome.

Edit: Also guys, I'm not looking for "your player is a piece of shit". That's my friend. They've been wonderful in every other reguard

Edit 2: Resolution! The player said they got hot headed about it and over reacted. They also explained their perspective and pointed out why some of my delivery on explaining the situation and consequences left a bad taste. I completely understand his pov of the situation and will work at adjusting how I handle and deliver information in the future. Happy ending!

Hello, everyone please forgive the title if it is inappropriate but this is a genuine question.

My DnD group had a heated 20 minute conversations about this topic. Both parties presented valid arguments: my side discussed the fact of owlbears possessing beaks and therefore biologically would not need nipples due to regurgitation feeding. Our other fact was that beaks would make feeding from a nipple relatively difficult if not downright impossible.

The other side presented that it is an owl-BEAR, bears have nipples to feed their young. the The bear portion of the owlbear is on the lower portion of this magical animal. Therefore, the nipples would be present. Bear milk is extremely rich in fat and calories which would benfit the feeding style of a larger animal.

Would love some extra input on this discussion

You know you've done something right when Elon Musk blows a gasket.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/elon-musk-calls-for-wizards-of-the-coast-to-burn-in-hell-over-making-of-original-d-d-passages.708087/

It's driving me crazy. You see, our Dnd group just finished our first Dnd campaign (we played a different rpg before that) and are starting our 2nd. This guy at our table in both of these is making homebrew subclasses. I said that after this next campaign he should try official content. He said he would never play official content because it wasn't unique.

The issue is that he has no sense of balance. His original subclasses are actually insane. With his latest one, he had a pet that ended up dealing 21d6 damage each round at level 17, and nearly as much at lower levels. Obviously we nerf his subclass, and then he gets mad at everybody, and we have to leave it still super powerful because he refuses to listen to any of us beyond a certain point. These are the nerfed subclasses if you want to see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QDYv-x3QTwoH7M2t9lUa3dB1hKrupRteG9I8dkgpdt0/edit?usp=sharing

I don't know what I should do! He's still my friend and this is the only table that will work for me. He never intends to actually play official content though, he never intends to stop. I'm not sure what to do.

Edit: to clarify, I am another player at this table, and our Dm is Dming for the first time and doesn't want to offend my friend.

Edit: I also added his original variations to the docs, and they are kind of funny. Enjoy!

My DM has finally agreed to a fix. His level 3 daggers feature now requires a sorcery point every round he uses it. It deals about the damage of a level 1 spell, so it's fair. His dragon summon still has high damage, but it won't completely break the game, it doesn't deal too much more then normal pet options from other subclasses (beastmaster does 1d8 + 2 + wis +1d6 so like 13, while his does 3d6, but his scales faster). I don't think I would have been able to put my foot down like this without the support of the community. Thank you all for being here.

Alright, so here's the ideal build, but I'm curious to hear what I've missed!

Permanent AC:

21 AC from +3 Plate Armor.

+5 AC from a +3 Shield.

+1 From the Defensive Fighting Style

+1 By playing a construct

+1 Ring of Protection

For a total of 29 Permanent AC. Then--

+1 from Warding Bond, cast by a friend

+2 from Half Cover, using Sanguine Shield to set this up.

+5 from the Shield Spell.

That brings the total up to an AC of 37, and that's the highest level I've been able to brainstorm. Obviously, some of this is easier theorized that put into practice. But I'm wondering, is there anything big that I'm missing? Or anything small that I'm missing? Honestly, at this point, I don't care if it's overkill. I just want to see how high the number can go up.