Only for attack rolls. Ability checks and saves do not crit fail (or succeed) and reliable talent treats rolls for ability checks that add proficiency bonus as 10 at the lowest regardless, so even if a 1 were a crit fail, it wouldn’t matter.

Agreed, Laserllama did most of 5e’s classes a kindness. I prefer those to the PHB content.

Vumans get a feat, which is arguably one of the strongest abilities. Base humans are notoriously weak though.

I think they’re both winners.

Found the elf.

‘Normal D&D character’ is an oxymoron.

I’ve heard “because I like the sound of dice hitting the table.”

That’s because you have more agency in D&D than you do in real life.

Can’t long rest more than once per 24 hours.

Per Gygax himself:

“Adding a d% roll to an 18 Strength roll is hardly complicated. It was done because Strength was the only stat that needed to be increased in steps by the d% mechanic so as to improve fighters to hit and damage chances. So that was used because I favor interesting play over any imagined elegance, that being quite unlikely in an RPG in my view. RPGs are games, not art, and I don’t give myself airs.” “Can you imaging the increases of stats going into the 20s needed in order to get the same result as 18/00? The human norm bell curve of 3-18 down the tubes in a jiffy. Not elegant at all, and simply foolish ;-)”

Disclaimer, his views don’t reflect my own.

Hello there

Reverse necromancer

So like, a murderer?

The issue with this kind of thing is almost never the actual challenge or moral dilemma, wherever and however it may spring up - it’s usually about trying to narratively ‘pants’ a character with a poorly contrived But Thou Must or Sophie’s Choice, and the most generous interpretation of that action is that the GM feels that the suffering of a PC will help tell a good story. I find more often that these scenarios pop up in Humiliation Conga campaigns, where the GM just gets a kick out of creating worlds and encounters that primarily serve to inflict pain and misery on the PCs, and sometimes even the players themselves. And that’s not to say that those kinds of stories and settings can’t work or be enjoyable (Paranoia and the character-focused 40K games like Rogue Trader come to mind) but it has to be the kind of story that everyone at the table wants to tell.

Well that’s a given in most games, unless you’re going to lengths to depict your character as particularly homely.

In D&D I can live out my fantasies of having enough agency in my life to do something about the end of the world brought about by megalomaniacal bastards, and having positive net worth.

I mean, it does also illustrate how the empire’s strength lies in numbers and resources, and not in superior skill. There’s some evidence that stormtrooper accuracy is a lot better than popular media gives credit for (e.g. “these blast points are far too accurate for sand-people,”) and the only reason stormtroopers miss as much as they do in the movies is because they are under Vader’s orders not to injure Luke and Leia, which may or may not be true, but the battle on endor shows how susceptible the armor is to guerilla warfare that does, in fact, utilize those lower-tech weapons. I’m sure if the empire cared enough about the efficacy of the armor, they could develop a suit that incorporated shield technology and win battles with a fraction of the troops they use, but again, the suit’s primary function is to mark these shock troops as the face of an insurmountably vast empire. I would not be surprised if the poor defensive qualities of the armor are intentional, to foster a strategic message to the empire’s enemies that says “we don’t care how many you kill, there will always be more.”

What the fuck was the point of this thing?

It’s just a two hour long exposé into misery.

I mean, yeah.

I think there’s a misconception, especially among less-experienced DMs, that the only valid interaction a PC can have with elements of their backstory is through conflict and/or resultant trauma, and while it is certainly a tool in the GM’s toolbox to create tension and give real stakes to the campaign, it tends to create a world where nothing is worth investing in emotionally, and the character’s personality and actions will reflect that. I mean, imagine you have a family or a community, and it gets torched by the fire-breathing dragon on the mountain. That can certainly foment a strong motivation to go slay the dragon, and if they succeed, maybe the character moves on from the loss (or they don’t,) but either way the next time the opportunity for comfort and belonging comes up, they’ll be more loathe to engage, because it opens up the possibility of getting hurt again. You effectively push the character (and possibly all that player’s future characters) one step closer to being an edgelord rogue with no acquaintances who broods in the dark corner of every tavern.

It is perfectly okay for a PC to visit their hometown and spend quality time with their family with no incident whatsoever. You can also make this family a source of information or plot hooks - if they know their adventurer child is on a mission from god, certainly they’d be keeping their ear to the ground for tidbits whenever any adventurous passersby come through to rest, right? Or perhaps the PC left on bad terms, and this is an opportunity to patch the relationship (or summon the conviction to cut ties altogether, in the case of harmful relationships.) Even without loss, or the threat of loss, a PC can be reminded of why they became an adventurer in the first place and get some character development.