r/DnD

My DM runs a homebrew campaign. I joined the group for this campaign but the nat 1 system he uses makes me dislike my character.

Here are some examples:

Roll nat 1 in combat - you automatically hit an ally instead.

Roll nat 1 on intimidation - you scare yourself instead so much so that you pee yourself and slip in your own urine hit your head and take 6 damage.

Roll nat 1 on perception - you get dust in your eyes take 4 damage and have disadvantage on all perception checks until rest.

Roll nat 1 on a save - you take double the damage.

I really like the other players and love to play with them, they were very welcoming even when i was new to the group. But the DM is rubbing me a bit the wrong way. I can handle the scarcity of magic items and the underwhelming power of our characters compared to the monsters. But it seems like it is the DM versus the players and all about making the player characters the butt of the joke, where i was hoping for a heroic adventure. Would it be unreasonable to quit over this? The others seems fine with it, at least they dont say anything. I'm just the new person.

Edit: After reading your replies i decided to quit effective immediately as most confirmed that i was not just imagining that these were dumb rules. Since my DM is a man and significantly older than me and don't have a decent view on womens opinions i decided to do so as quietly as possible.

I sent him a message explaining that i did not find myself right for his campaign. Wished him luck and texted the other members saying that i quit and would love to hang out and just chat or play some board games if any of them wanted.

I will be looking for another group, and do more research on what rules they use before joining.

Thank you for the replies, some of you at lightning speed.

The Context: I’m playing in a long-running campaign where the DM explicitly allows PvP. One of the players is running a Chaotic Evil Wizard. We’ve already had a major red flag with him: we were trying to send evidence of demons to a Paladin order, and the Wizard flat-out attacked us because he wanted to keep the evidence for himself. We handled it in-game and supposedly resolved the issue.

The Incident: Fast forward to our last session. We were fighting a very powerful enemy, and four of our party members were engaged in melee with it. The Wizard decided to drop a fireball right on top of the boss, hitting all four of our melee fighters. The DM allowed it, and everyone took the damage. Because of that friendly fire, two of those characters ended up dying during the combat.

The DM's Stance: The DM says that pvp is allowed and we need to solve it in-game.

My Question: Before anyone suggests it: leaving the group is not an option I am looking for right now. I want to handle this exactly how the DM requested—within the narrative.

Given the circumstances, how would your characters naturally react? Would it be going too far if the surviving characters immediately attack the Wizard or forcefully expel him from the party? It feels completely illogical for our characters to continue trusting or traveling with someone who just got half the team killed for convenience, but I want to know if going full PvP retaliation is a justified in-game response here. How would you play this out?

EDIT for clarification: the DM is a first time DM and all the players except me are playing their first long campaign

I am running my first ever campaign starting this sunday.

I have never played dnd I am playing in a star wars ttrpg.

Anyone got any dm tips and tricks:

What to add to dm screen, what to note things to bring ext.

The more help the better.

Im planning to run Shattered Obelisk for the first time and was thinking of giving players the option to have a Bastion at level 5, since i know a lot of them like basebuilding games. But im a pretty new DM and never used these rules, do people like them? Have you ever ran a bastion? Did anyone else ever fit on into Mines of phandelver?

Most of the things I've found online about them have been negative, but it's also barely been out, so maybe people just haven't had the chance to work them out yet, idk. What do you all think about em?

Kinda like the title says. My PC's will soon face a serious boss, whom they know is a competency caster. I'm contemplating whether to include counterspell in the kit. Team consists of a monk, cleric and sorcerer. Opinions?

I am a player in a Curse of Strahd (5e) campaign. I am playing a monk and leaning towards grappling enemies in combat. I was thinking (haven't attempted yet): shouldn't I just be able to silence a grappled enemy by covering their mouth? To me, it would make sense to be able to do so since, lore-wise, most spells have a verbal component that needs to be said out loud.

Would it make sense to be able to do so? Maybe have the enemy roll a STR/DEX save? Or would it break the combat/be too over-powered?

EDIT: I do understand that it is not RAW, but I was thinking if and how it could be made to work without breaking the game. Also, I wasn't intending grapple itself to silence the caster; I rather intended grapple + additional action to "gag" the character and possibly having to use an action/bonus action every turn + concentration to keep/refresh the gag, and saving throw for enemy every turn. The idea would essentially be to take one enemy out of the fight while I am also essentially taken out of the fight.

EDIT2: The intention here is primarily for role-playing (being able to neutralize a spellcaster without harming them) rather than creating an unbalanced game-breaking mechanic. In hindsight, I probably should have titled the post as "how can I make this work?" rather than "would this work?".

EDIT3: I agree that it makes a lot more sense to be able to try to gag the opponent if I am restraining them, rather than just grappling.

Exactly the question. In a world where resurrection magic exists for the players, how do you make death mean anything. If players die two encounters in a row, does their death carry the same narrative weight anymore? Does anyone need to bother crying when the cleric can just bring them back?

How have you or your DM’s managed to address this problem? Removing resurrection magic? Making the campaign more lethal? Less lethal? I’m genuinely interested because I don’t think there’s a single right answer.

Idk if it was on this sub or somewhere else but I saw someone mention their DM had little loading screen fun facts on folding cards that they put on their DM screen whenever they have to look something up. I would love to suprise my DM with some home made loading screen cards. I am however quite new to DnD, so I'm wondering if anyone knows some fun facts I could use for these cards.

I am primarily the forever Dm for my little group, and I really like the idea of characters working towards their progression in a roleplay kind of way. For instance, something as simple as the player informing me that during downtime, they are doing some sort of training in whatever aspect. But it has come to my attention that most of my players just want everything given to them immediately they don't even care about character progression or their characters that much at all most of the time when we start something new we have to wait an extra hour before we begin because at least two of them couldn't be bothered to make a character before hand even though they were well informed.

What were your thoughts on the last dnd movie? My family and I just watched it for the first time and we thought it was a real cute movie.

Our family recently welcomed our daughter into the world and it has been amazing, wonderful, and of course exhausting. As much as I love being a parent, it also means I no longer have the time to play D&D.

Our group recently finished The Wild Beyond the Witchlight. We ended up rushing the campaign because our daughter was due and one of our players was also moving away for a new job. Knowing that the campaign was coming to an end made those final sessions feel a little different.

When we finally finished, it was surprisingly emotional. I teared up. A few of the others did too. After spending a year and a half adventuring together, watching our characters grow and seeing all the ridiculous things our party got ourselves into... it felt strange to suddenly know that this particular story was over.

It reminded me of the Dr. Seuss quote: "Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."

I couldn't quite bring myself to say that at the table, but I did tell everyone in our group chat how grateful I was, especially to our DM, for giving us such a wonderful adventure.

I probably won't be playing D&D again for quite a while. Life is pretty full right now and I am very happy about that but I still find myself lurking on Reddit and reading D&D threads at work. Seeing people talk about their campaigns, their characters, and the ridiculous things that happen around their tables makes me happy.

I think part of me is comforted by knowing that D&D isn't going anywhere.

Someday, when I have more time I'll find another table. I'll roll another character, sit down with a new group, and start another adventure.

For now, I'm just grateful that I got to have this one.

Until then, I'm happy just knowing that the game is still out there and you all are enjoying it...