So, I DM a lot. I often DM multiple different campaigns a week.
Ever since Xanathar's dropped:
every game has had a warlock
every single one of those warlocks has been a hexblade
not one of those hexblades has had their patron be a sentient or talking weapon: they're just a bladelock with a regular patron
and I am so bored of it. This isn't "Hexblade is OP" or even "Hexblade is a boring class", it's "please for the love of christ, play a patron except a hexblade for once; there's so much cool shit you're not exploring because you want the charisma sword and you're willing to bend the fluff to make it work; please just play literally any other warlock. Roleplaying Patrons used to be fun and now they're all just some unimportant minor god you didn't really think out because you wanted the goddam charisma sword."
I'm not mad enough to ban it, I'm just so bored of it.
EDIT: like six different people have UM ... ACTUALLY'd the Raven Queen thing, you're not adding anything new
I'm male but usually when I make a character they end up being female. I've never really put too much thought into why I do this, after all lots of guys end up playing female characters in computer RPGs such as WoW, but lately I've been wondering how unusual it is for people in TableTop RPGs to play characters that are not their own gender. I really started wondering about this after watching several different online groups such as Critical Role, Roll4It etc...Among the five or so groups I've watched (each typically consisting of at least 4 PCs, only one player has played a character that doesn't share their gender, that of course being Nott the Goblin from Critical Role. This got me wondering if I'm more of an outlier than I originally believed. It seems strange because in games like D&D you end up playing creatures like Elves, Dwarves and other races that have mindsets completely different to humans, yet no-one seems to have a problem with that.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it 'bothers' me, but I am curious; in your experience, do players have something of an aversion to playing characters of a different gender to them?
Follow-up: Holy hell this blew up. I honestly was not expecting this many responses. Thank you all for your input. :)
Have my 6th session tonight. One of my player told me I was too nice when one of them rolls a nat 1. So far I took as a reference what Matt Mercer does : comical but not really consequential for the rest of the situation. Maybe being knocked prone or having to waste a bonus action to unstuck a weapon for exemple.
What is your politic for nat 1? How do you mix the comical and the sense of dread without it being unfair?
The Hobgoblin has been around since the Dungeons & Dragons White Box (1974), making it one of the original monsters. It appears in every edition thereafter, always showing up in the Monster Manual, and always in the first one. So why did this Deep Dive almost not happen? One might think it would be easy to find a plethora of information on this creature, and it was. The problem was that all the information remained basically the same.
If you go back through our previous Deep Dives, you’ll see that most of the creatures that we discuss change throughout the editions, some drastically from one edition to the next, others changing like a slow burn, so that by 5th edition they are just the shell of the creature they once were. The Hobgoblin remains, well, a Hobgoblin. Sure, we get more details on their changing appearance, how their societal and political systems work and how their favorite weapon changes... But there are no major changes in its core stats or abilities. They still have under a dozen hit points, their AC is good but not great, and they are still lawful evil. Based on what we were seeing, there wasn’t going to be much to talk about beyond the new little bit of lore you get each edition.
A Deep Dive should demand that we drill down just a little further than everyone else and find those little nuggets of information that people never knew about. Otherwise, we’d just be another in a long list of articles that just cuts and pastes the description from each of the Monster Manuals and passes it off as an in-depth look at the said creature. We not only owe you the reader more than that, but we owe it to the Hobgoblin itself. It’s a creature with a rich and storied history outside of D&D, and that history is completely ignored, making the hobgoblin a twisted, unrecognizable creature when compared to its brethren in folklore and literature.
The Hobgoblin was never the older meaner cousin of a goblin. In fact, while the goblin has been described as ugly, evil, and a mean creature, the Hobgoblin wasn't at all about being evil, but about mischief. Hobgoblins were pranksters, more interested in seeing what bad things could happen instead of being the direct instrument of evil. The character of Puck from Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream is the example of a Hobgoblin that is most commonly presented throughout our research.
You see, the word Hobgoblin is a combination of goblin with the word hob, which means ‘elf’ or ‘sprite’. They are not creatures bigger than orcs, meaner than goblins, and living in tribes that spread chaos and death throughout the land. They tie your shoelaces together while you eat dinner or whisper in your ear that your beloved has eyes for another. Hobgoblins laugh and cackle in glee at the mischief they cause and are a lot like their cousins, the brownies.
So how did we end up with the Dungeons & Dragons Hobgoblin? Let’s start at the beginning and see if we can make sense of this.
The Hobgoblin is introduced in the Dungeons & Dragons White Box (1974) as large and fearless goblins, having +1 morale. Morale is important in OD&D, since it is the mechanic by which the DM determines whether or not the creature continues the fight or runs for the hills. Nowadays the DM makes that call, but the OD&D the rule was as follows:
Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or "Chainmail") whenever a highly dangerous or un-nerving situation arises. Poor morale will mean that those in question will not perform as expected.
Men & Magic, p. 13
What are the main things that you think an “updated” PHB would contain (other than the errata) – how would they balance this edition further?
My thoughts and opinions:
Fix the short rest/long rest disparity between classes.
A simple solution would be to offer all classes some amount resource recover during a short rest to incentivizes parties to take it. Perhaps increase the long rest to 24h without nice accommodations (i.e. in the wild).
2) Fix death saving throws.
I find it very frustrating how characters can simply be “instantly” revived after reaching 0 and regaining 1 hp, and that death saving throws go away immediately. It ends up creating a scenario where healing should only be used on unconscious targets in combat and it just seems totally silly that characters can simply pop back up and fight. This really reduces the lethality of combat (especially at higher levels). I’d propose to bring back negative HP points, and when you reach (-character level + - CON modifier) you die.
3) Identify the most popular subclasses for each class from Xanathar’s guide and the PHB and print those with the new edition.
Xanathar’s guide really hit the nail on a lot of subclasses after the PHB (hindsight is 20/20).
4) Provide a second “decision tree” beyond subclasses choices.
Right now, you make a big choice at level 3 for your subclass and… that’s it! Perhaps allow another “decision” at level 9+ to add a bit more variety (even if the choice is simple).
I had a terrible idea that just might be amazing with the right group. Giving a player a Deck of Many things but you pull a Cards Against Humanity answer card and the result is up to DM interpretation.