That’s fair. Neither is the Tarrasque.

How do they manage an average of 679 damage?

First Aerial bombardment rules would probably give the Tarrasque a DC 15 Reflex save for half damage for each. Assuming it was a surprise at first the Tarrasque probably doesn’t get this so I’ll ignore it.

Second, a Giant owl’s likely only weigh like 140lbs by loose calculation, being a little over 4x the height of a snowy owl (so assuming 4 times equivalent weight and then cubed is 64kg which approximately equals 141lbs. It could be a little higher but its not breaking 200lbs) and requiring falling at least 20ft before they even start ranking damage by the srd 3.5 rules for items falling on players (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm). Assuming you meant 40ft over the Tarrasque, and allowing for 1d6 damage every 10ft past the point instead of the 20ft that’s implied to be required, the owls would deal 2d6 damage each at that height, requiring 20ft of falling to start incurring damage. Even without it that’s not 679 damage.

That’s pretty much 0 damage too, because 2d6 per owl - subtract the DR 15 of the tarrasque from each instance of damage - is 0 damage. Iirc there was a min 1 damage even for negative strength modifiers but DR superseded that. Even if I’m wrong that’s 1 damage per owl max.

Even if you went the 220ft up above the Tarrasque you’d need to hit maximum fall speed under the more polite 1d6/10ft rules, after falling 20ft, you’d end up with 20d6 each, the cap for fall damage. Which after DR is 440 damage.560 damage without DR.

Which actually isn’t that high up. I thought the Tarrasque was taller than 50ft, but its still a hell of a timed shot tbh. It assumes the Tarrasque doesn’t move for like 6 or 7 rounds, or moves in a straight line into the falling birds.

That doesn’t’ fix the weakness of a Tarrasque to some form of high impact drop damage, necessarily, just means that I’m suspicious the birds can pull it off.

deleted by creator

Drow freed from Lolth, in isolation of another way being convincingly presented to - likely forced on - them, have had how many thousands of years of abusive culture hammered & manipulated into them. More likely than not they’ll still develop an evil culture, though the structure of their society would likely shift due to power gaps. Given how they work either a single powerful demagogue or some sort of council system of the great houses.

Drow even under Lolth aren’t necessarily evil but she set them up for biological rewards for evil whenever she can (there’s little detail on this but I think that’s concept’s the source of the terrible “mother’s ecstasy at womb murders” thing - good idea, bad example/implementation), on top of enforcing an ongoing culture of brutality and wickedness. Its how most of the evil deities still allow for Free-will to empower their Faith. They combine physiological reward hijacking, adding aspects that encourage easier exclusion from others (isolation is good for limiting options), and rigorous and brutal cultural and societal reinforcement. It doesn’t prevent good, but it gives far higher hurdles for an evil race to overcome.

My players shall curse you for the fun you’ll have given me on their next trek out of the city. I’m think Yeth hound stats but I’m flexible atm. Maybe a shadow.

Have him stab the mayor who’s evil because he’s greedy and selfish and borderline abusive in trade-deals with neighboring regions but is otherwise beloved (and has rewards heaped on him) because he’s so good at actually keeping order in the town and keeping their goodwill (although probably at least a little bit through some passive-aggressive blackmail). That’s always fun.

No argument save that all of that shouldn’t make you exemplary or unique in the way the rules present. It makes you motivated. Frankly even class levels shouldn’t make you special because everyone should have them. (The NPC classes of 3.5 fell into this trap to for the Warrior and Adept, imo.)*

Johnny Haysee who had some training in the town guard only to lose his family when his village was murdered by a sudden zombie incursion, who then goes on a vengeance fueled life of adventure to gain the power to fight the necromancer that created them isn’t any less of a Johnny Hayseed who signed up for basic training, washed out, and then decided to go adventuring. Either can fight but no better than any other guard at lvl 1, because all lvl 1 guards should be fighters (or some other class, not to go too deep down the rabbit hole of “what classes should have what skills in what jobs”). What makes the Adventurer special is their motivation, but their motivation shouldn’t start them with super-powers. It should deliver those to them as they explore the world, themselves, and their abilities.

(*) I guess you could define class levels as adventurer only, but even then at lvl 1 I’m not sure you’re “better” enough to qualify as meaningful, and in 5e at least its irrelevant because the divorced system between opponents - even npcs - and players means its all nonsensical to justify anyway because the town guard there isn’t a Fighter lvl 5 by the rules its a Monster labeled Fighter and will be stated according to what would be a challenge for the DM’s needs. Which demands a lot of world based hand waving but that’s not what the conversation was on.

Or a one note one. But, while I like monstrous races as options, I dislike the trend of 5e to make our characters “special”, unique, or noteworthy before the adventuring even begins. (If this is duplicated for some reason, I’m sorry. It tried editing and that didnt’ seem to take, then I tried deleting my original message and reposting. Not sure what’s up.)

deleted by creator

I need to watch that, I’ve heard good things but have never seen it.

I can’t think of any media that explores its magic at any level where that isn’t true though, tbh.

A joke that keeps being told with slight variation.

Save we’re discussing mechanics for a game that’s job is to simulate a real life (albeit not this one) to the best of its abilities, because that’s what role-playing is. Living through a character, another person, in a world. The entire structure of the game’s supposed to support that conceit. And counting arrows is part of that because your character would have to count and track their arrows. I guess you can break it if the entire table wants to but if that keeps happening I venture to guess the table’s not actually playing the right system. I censor myself from harsher critique because I am old and bitter, but I really don’t like the concept that “less tedious is more fun” since the tedious stuff is normally the investment that leads to the moments of fun. That last tense shot, the drama of dwindling supply, and the excitement at looting the enemy and finding what you neat. But I also think a lot of the modern convenience items for spell-casters are what helped to destabilize the game and would like to see the “tedium” of them come back.

Yes and no.

If he’d gotten powers from the divine oath-giver he’d be a Warlock or Cleric, dependent upon the nature of their relationship and the being’s powers.

If he got the powers himself from his absolute rigid dedication to his oath, then he’d be a 5e Paladin (I prefer “Dedicant” or “Crusader” for which Paladin should be a specific Oath but that’s a different conversation).

Otherwise in older editions he’d probably just be a devout warrior.

For those older editions he’d only be a Paladin if the oath he held to was far more specific and arguably he and several of the other hobbits were a bit too quick and dirty for. Particularly during the era of Racial restrictions to classes which didn’t allow halfling Paladins. (Assuming halflings to hobbits is 1:1 in all settings, which is far less consistent over time.)

For how a generous DM might work around that in older editions sometimes, I’d look to BG2’s Mazzy Fentan: https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Mazzy_Fentan

…I miss when Time Stop let you cast attack spells…

Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone’s noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player’s capabilities in place of the character’s. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster’s “power” or a character’s actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the “pack it up” approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)

The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you’re trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren’t a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don’t think we’ll agree.

*The “Dorkness Rising” problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.

Ah, see, I was preaching to the choir. You’re on top of it already. =P

That sounds insanely dangerous for like a bunch of reasons. Like “that’s a Planescape campaign by itself” dangerous. So, yeah, let us know what happens when you get there. Sounds like fun. =P

Killing him altogether seems pretty epic level, like level 25+, given that he’s a deity. (But your DM could be ballsier than me, lol. Killing an aspect of him to weaken him for a bit seems more my speed.)

Alternatively you could try shifting goblin worship in localized communities to another deity. Maybe someone like Kikanuti (since I imagine getting them to worship someone like Tymora immediately might be too much of a jump?) or some other goblin. (Were Konsi to be more arrogant, I’d suggest her. =P) Kill him slowly, death by 1000 cuts of lost faith style.

Okay, chad faced joke aside (which is what I was going for there and couldn’t undercut it with =P) I do prefer more simulation based ruleset which sortof demands that at least some basic rules of physics are able to be mapped between reality and the gamestate. Abstractions can exist, and explanations can be provided (like the idea of a potion only being a mouthful/shot in quantity and/or size), but strain of an increasingly divorced rulest from the actual narrative is always a problem and should be avoided, imo.

No