Proposed Changes to the Multiverse Conventions


  • Dungeon Master

    Howdy.

    At the risk of sounding too verbose, I'll just preface this by saying this: Multiverse is great, but it could be better. The Conventions themselves have provided a suitable framework for which the Multiverse can abide for the past three years, but it's clear that they were written for a time when Nerd Louisville was much smaller and the pool of available games was similarly small. As the organization has grown in size and scale, amendments have been made to the Conventions, but I believe that there are fundamental flaws that should be addressed in order to ensure that Multiverse can continue being awesome and to prevent issues from arising in the future. My proposed changes are a combination of solutions to existing problems and measures to proactively solve problems that may arise later.

    I'll start by saying this is going to be a very detailed dissection of the Conventions in their current form, and some suggested changes. I'll also go ahead and put down the "TL;DR" so you don't have to.


    Article 1

    Any player-character (PC) that began play at 0 xp and level 1 on or after April 3, 2016 may move freely between any Multiverse game sessions run by any DM subscribing to these conventions, provided the player can get a spot in the game.

    The term "provided the player can get a spot in the game" is vague. It may be of benefit to define what would allow a DM to refuse a player to join a game (i.e. how many players is "full"). Obviously this differs from DM to DM, but a definition of a standard "full" game - 5 or 6 players - would make it easier to say "Oh, well this game is full" at an event that doesn't have sign-ups, such as FNRPGs.

    Article 2

    There are no in-game "hoops" to jump through in order to move a PC from one game to another. For example, you don't have to have your PC sail in-game over the edge of the world and then cross a desert to get from Mike’s Eldritch Isles game to John’s Ruins of Hyboria game.

    This article is problematic for reasons that I will go over later on, but besides that, this Article presumes that the DM does not have a story-relevant way to integrate a new character into the setting or narrative.

    Article 3

    Article 3.1.b

    You may play as a character of evil alignment, but you may not PvP (as each DM judges)

    PvP is unrelated to character alignment and has no bearing on how one creates a character at level 1, so this should be placed in another article unrelated to character creation. A possible change might read "Players may play characters of any alignment, but are strongly discouraged from taking actions that directly undermine the party, even if such actions would follow the pattern of their chosen alignment." This is a grey area and could be seen as infringing on players' ability to play the characters they want to.

    Adventurers League mentions this point:

    • No Undermining Other Characters. Adventurers are brought together by common cause, and during an adventure, they’re expected to work together to overcome challenges. Though certain factions might find others distasteful, individuals will put that aside and become a team when put in dangerous situations. In short, play nice with each other when things get deadly.

    Article 3.1.e

    Races that grant flight at 1st level are prohibited.

    Multiverse campaigns spend such a short amount of time at levels 1 and 2 that I believe this restriction is unnecessary. Items that grant flight are common in MV, and several classes gain access to spells and abilities that grant a fly speed as early as level 5. (Full disclosure: I have wanted to play an Aarakocra in MV since VGTM became legal after a similar battle about player characters as monstrous races.) One proposed solution could be that natural fly speed cannot be used before a certain level.

    Article 3.1.f

    Options available in other resources like the Oathbreaker Paladin found in the Dungeon Master's Guide and content from Unearthed Arcana articles is not permitted without specific Nerd Louisville documentation indicating otherwise.

    I propose that the Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger be made Multiverse legal. Rangers are by far the weakest class in 5e relative to other classes, and for that reason there are very few of them over level 6. Worse, the relative weakness of Rangers only begins to show clearly at level 6 and beyond, well past the point where players are allowed to re-spec their characters while maintaining their XP.

    Article 3.1.g

    Monstrous races (such as the Yuan-Ti and Bugbear must be roleplayed as somehow different from standard members of that race. For example, a player roleplaying as a Yuan-Ti may state that they abandoned their people after discovering a terrible secret about them or a player roleplaying as a Bugbear might state that they always knew they were different from other Bugbears and thus had little in common with their brethren.

    What are "standard members of that race" and how would they otherwise be played? Do the conventions stipulate how a theoretically generic bugbear might normally act in a theoretically generic situation within the confines of a theoretically generic campaign? This sub-article is problematic in a number of ways, but the biggest one is that it defines how players must (or must not) play characters of certain races.

    Article 3.4

    If you use resources beyond the Player’s Handbook, you must have that book with you at the table as a reference for the GM.

    To take a quote from this past BlizzCon's infamous Diablo Immortal reveal, "Do you all not have phones?". Forcing this rule would mean players who wanted to take concepts from the expanded materials beyond the PHB would need to spend over $200 to purchase all of the hard-cover books. This sub-article completely ignores the prevalence of digital resources such as D&D Beyond, and its inclusion in the Conventions is baffling.

    Article 4

    If a PC is far outside the bounds of a game’s genre (e.g. a Dragonborn Paladin in a humanocentric swords & sorcery game), the DM may “convert” the PC to fit into the game. For example, a GM may say, “Dragonborn don’t exist in my world, for this adventure, you are a human with the ability to breath fire.” The mechanics of the race would remain unchanged in this example but the player would be expected to role play the character as if they were a race that exists in the campaign world.

    This article is also problematic on a number of levels. To begin with, I refer to Article 2 stating "There are no in-game "hoops" to jump through in order to move a PC from one game to another." I would strongly argue that completely altering a character's race - and therefore that character's traits, bonds, and flaws - is a "hoop" and therefore should not have to occur because of Article 2. As to the example given within the Article as written, no compelling reason has been given as to why a restriction would be placed beyond DM personal preference, and the argument could be made that removing Dragonborn - a core race in the PHB - from a setting precludes that setting from being compliant with D&D 5e. And in the example given, the DM, not the player, decides what that player character will be, removing agency from the player. I propose this article be removed entirely.

    Article 6

    Generally, any spell, magical item, or other unusual power may be used among all Multiverse games. However, each DM reserves the right to restrict, or outright forbid, magic and powers that they deem “broken”, overpowered, out of genre, or just too weird. If a player has such a spell, item, or power, they should make an honest effort to warn the DM before the game and decide the proper course of action.

    This has been a point of contention for the past several months. It is not a secret that certain campaigns tend to bestow much more powerful boons, loot and other goodies to their players than others, and when players from those campaigns travel to other campaigns that are not of a similarly high "power level", problems arise. This is probably the most contentious of the issues surrounding the Multiverse. I have no concrete proposals for Article 6 but I believe a summit of the Multiverse DMs would be helpful to generate ideas for ways to address the proliferation of ultra-high-powered boons and magical items.

    Article 9

    For each session a player’s character completes, that character is awarded 10 downtime days that they may use for crafting and other downtime activities. Downtime activities are listed on page 187 of the Player’s Hand Book but DMs may offer other downtime activities to players at their discretion. Players are also offered the ability to “Catch Up” with friends using Downtime days. When a player uses their Downtime days in this way, they immediately gain another level. This is only possible at 4th, 10th, and 16th level. For example, a 4th level character could “Catch Up” and immediately move to level 5 if they have the required amount of Downtime days to spend. This can only be used to reach levels 5, 11, and 17 from levels 4, 10, and 16 respectively.

    Setting aside that this has been taken straight from Adventurers League (which is not in and of itself a bad thing), this opens itself up to exacerbate the issue known as "turbo-leveling", where a player manages to get a character from level 1 to level 20 in a matter of months. AL has a weekly schedule and player advancement is largely regulated to where players are by and large matched with other players in a similar level range. MV allows DMs to run games Level 1-20, resulting in some characters being turbo-leveled from 1 to 6 after just one session. The need for catch-up levels is largely reduced in such an environment where "tiers" do not exist. Catch-up levels just allow players to gain an extra level at an arbitrary break point in Multiverse. My proposal is to allow a single catch-up level per character. It can be used at any level, and it would cost the character's current level multiplied by 20 downtime days.

    Article 10

    Magical items of Uncommon or higher rarity shall not be sold by NPCs and cannot be crafted. Common items, like potions and scrolls, may still be sold by NPCs or crafted by player characters. Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, and Legendary items are generally permanent magical items and the means and process to create them has been lost to time or hidden by the gods.

    Similar to the issues in Article 6, there is nothing precluding DMs from home-brewing even more powerful magical items and selling them through NPCs (or just giving them away), making this article rather redundant. It would be like banning handguns in a city where everyone already owns an assault rifle. In addition, this restriction limits the role play possibilities for Forge Domain Clerics at higher levels. (Full disclosure: I am currently playing a Forge Domain Cleric.) And it once again dictates how DMs run their settings, preventing a DM from theoretically running a setting in the gilded age of high magic where magical artisans are not uncommon and such knowledge can be freely learned, or where the techniques of enchanting such items can be acquired for a steep cost. The rules quite clearly say "no, you cannot run your campaign this way", and I propose doing away with this Article entirely.

    Article 11

    For each session you are a Dungeon Master for the Multiverse, you will accrue XP for one of your Multiverse characters. Choose which character after you run the game and then apply the following amount of XP to that character. Between Levels 1-3, you will earn 33% of the total XP required to increase in a level (e.g. a beginning, 1st Level character requires 300 XP to increase to 2nd Level, thus you will earn 100 XP for each session you run as a Dungeon Master). To get to Levels 4 and above, the percentage decreases to 25% of the total XP needed to reach the next Level (e.g. you just increased to 3rd Level and it requires 1800 XP to reach 4th Level, thus you would earn 450 XP for each session you run as a Multiverse Dungeon Master).

    First, I propose that running any game at a Nerd Louisville event allows for the accrual of DMXP. Second, I propose that DMXP increases at lower levels and tails off at higher levels. Running a game should net a DM more than 100 XP if they are contributing to a Level 1 character and fewer than 12,500 XP if they are contributing to a Level 19.

    Article 12

    Treat everyone with respect, regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, ability, favorite edition, or other differences. Avoid depicting stereotypes of real-world minority groups. Do not depict sexual assault or threats

    Adventurers League has a much more comprehensive Code of Conduct that I believe these Conventions can take a few pages from:

    • Participants must conduct themselves in a manner that is conducive to the enjoyment and safety of others at the event.
    • Avoid excessively vulgar, sexual, or overly mature language and themes.
    • Follow the DMs lead, avoid arguing with the DM or other players over rules.
    • Let other players speak, avoid talking over others.
    • Avoid excessive cross-talk that is not relevant to the adventure being played.
    • Allow other players to get attention from the DM.
    • Discourage others from using social media to bully, shame, or intimidate other participants.
    • Avoid phone conversations at the table. If you must take a call, please excuse yourself from the table until your call is completed.
    • No tolerance is given for theft or aggressive behavior. Theft and aggressive behavior are grounds for immediate removal from the play area and the premises. Aggressive behavior includes threats of or actual physical aggression, using racial, gender, or cultural slurs against another participant, and otherwise harassing other participants.

    I've personally witnessed one player calling another player a "bitch" in a shout at the table, with no repercussions to the offending player. I have personally sat at tables where one player was hogging the DM's attention for the entire five-hour session. I've witnessed player intimidation and gaslighting myself, and have been the target of aggressive play on a couple of occasions. Encouraging a play group that doesn't turn into a cesspool of toxicity requires a lot of work beyond just saying "don't make fun of minorities and don't make rape jokes."


    That's all I have for now. Please let me know your thoughts on these proposals, if you have any proposals of your own, or if you think I'm completely off of my rocker. I do this because I love Multiverse and I want to see it succeed and flourish for a long time to come.


  • Judge

    I can't believe the MV has been around for 3+ years! Woot!



  • I don't have a ton of time to respond to all of this, but here are my thoughts at a high level.

    Article 1
    Each DM has the ability to decide what their max table size is. At each official event, there may be minimum requirements for the game to run. For example, I likely would not allow a table under 4 players at Slur Your Role, and in most cases, I would ask the DM to take at least 5. Someone at FNRPGs should be managing table size.

    Article 2
    This article makes it possible for players to move characters without worrying about "story reasons" for their appearance in a different setting. This does not preclude the GM for having a story reason for the player's appearance in their world.

    Article 3

    3.1.b
    This is a good point. I will integrate this into the rules.

    3.1.e
    You will have to take this up with the other Multiverse DMs. This is something they voted on and it is in line with what Wizards of the Coast is going with AL.

    3.1.f
    Adding unofficial or playtest content is a slippery slope. If and when Wizards publishes the Revised Ranger, I would be open to adding it.

    3.1.g
    This is taken from AL documentation and relates to their typical roles as described in Volo's Guide and other 5th edition sources.

    3.4
    D&D Beyond is an acceptable source to use provided that the player has documentation with them and it is easily accessible. I will add this to section 3.4.

    Article 4
    This allows DMs to create the world they want to create. If I want to create a world where all PCs are angelic (magical) cowboys in the old west, that should be possible by saying that all PCs are angels rather than the race listed on the character sheet.

    Article 6
    I fully support this rule and believe that in order to balance the game, this is a requirement. It may lock some weapons or magical items to certain games but that is better than trying to regulate magical items between all DMs.

    I am in favor of a Magical Item sheet that all players would need to keep and present to the DM, allowing the DM to sign off on anything out of the ordinary prior to the session beginning. I personally have outlawed items from other games.

    Article 9
    I have no strong feelings about this either way. If others would like this changed/removed, I have no problem with that.

    Article 10
    I have broken this rule before. I have had NPCs sell magical items. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your point on this one, though. How would this rule limit a Forge Domain Cleric? I am 100% against player crafted magic items in most circumstances but if a DM wanted to create a system and allow some type of crafting, I don't see an issue with that. I am nervous about opening up the floodgates on that sort of thing and allowing players to craft without direct DM supervision, however.

    Article 11
    I agree with the first point. I do think 4 sessions per level is pretty reasonable at higher levels though.

    Article 12
    Several things I need to unpack here.

    Why wasn't this shouting incident reported to someone in charge? We cannot act on these sorts of things unless we know about it. If the DM did not act upon seeing this, this is something we need to know as well so we can help GMs understand how to deal with conflict at the table. Nobody is going to be perfect at this, though GMs are regular people and they aren't always the best at dealing with conflict themselves. Any major incidents should always be brought to the attention of Nerd Louisville leadership.

    I have personally had conversations with players when there have been problems at the table and I agree that the code of conduct could be expanded to make the rules more clear. At the same time, if we are not aware of a problem, we can't do anything to address it.


  • Dungeon Master

    First, thanks for responding. It's always nice to know that comments and suggestions are heard and taken seriously.


    Article 1
    Fair enough. That sort of thing should be written into the Conventions.

    Article 2
    The article should be rephrased so as to more accurately communicate its intent. "In game hoops" is a vague term and should be clarified.

    Article 3
    3.1.e
    Who are "they"? Who voted, when, and why? I've spoken to a half-dozen other MV DMs and none of them have mentioned any strong feelings against allowing L1NFS races. (I won't name names here out of respect for privacy and because those discussions were held in confidence, but I will say that they are all active and run games routinely - at the very least once per month.)

    To your other point about WotC and AL, Multiverse is not AL. MV does not have "seasons" or "adventure tiers" or "treasure points". My understanding was that MV was built to allow the DMs more latitude in what they run and how they run their campaigns. I use examples from AL to illustrate solutions to similar problems in Multiverse, but the blanket restriction on characters with Level 1 Natural Flight Speed is an AL specific issue, and precludes DMs who want to allow players to play races with L1NFS. As I said before, the perceived problem becomes smaller and smaller as characters advance, and I'd argue it all but disappears once characters reach level 5.

    3.1.f
    It's not a slippery slope if a singular exception is made to address what pretty much every DM and player (as well as the designers of 5e) agree is a blatant imbalance in the rule set.

    3.1.g
    Multiverse is not AL. AL restricts players from choosing Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil alignment, and limits deity choices to the listed Forgotten Realms and Nonhuman Deities in the PHB. I would argue that those restrictions aren't necessary in MV, and so I would also argue that telling players in MV how to play (or how not to play) monstrous races is similarly unnecessary.

    Article 4
    I would strongly argue that in your example you would be running something based on the rules of D&D 5e but that is not actually 5e. I would also point to Article 3.1.e to ensure that said angelic cowboys didn't have wings that allowed them to fly.

    (Many of my issues with the Conventions right now are that they are contradictory on a number of levels. I am not trying to troll you on this point, I am trying to point out those contradictions.)

    Article 6
    It's not the rule I have issue with, it's the implementation. The state of Multiverse right now is one where some characters have been "buffed" to the point where trying to regulate what items they can use or can't use would be a tall task. I don't have an easy solution to this one, but I will say that a number of players and DMs agree that this is probably the single biggest problem facing the Multiverse right now.

    Article 10
    I agree that leaving it to players to craft their own magical items would be a poor choice, but the article as written precludes DMs from allowing players to craft even with direct DM guidance or supervision.

    Article 13
    I'm not indicting specific DMs for specific incidents or specific players for specific actions. I'm saying that right now, these things are happening, and the two-sentence Code of Conduct simply isn't substantial enough to communicate how serious the organization should be about preventing and addressing abusive behavior.


  • Adventurer

    As a player of a good year and a half(soon to be DM?) here are some of my thoughts on a few of these points.

    The article regarding Monstrous Races(3.1.g) suggests outright telling people how they're allowed to RP their character, in the bad way. I feel this connects closely with the point brought up in 3.1.b, so long as the nature of the character does not undermine the rest of the table it should be fine.

    Regarding races that have flight, Article 3.1.e, I'm not sure what the problem truly is. If it's the idea of the player being able to fly off wherever they please... well, I'm of the opinion a DM should then be able to go "Okay, can you pull out a character that will be playing the game then?" But of course, Fly and a variety of magic items allows the same "issue" to happen. If it's about combat, a flying player is the biggest target for ranged attacks and there is a deadly risk of having Hold Person or some other incapacitation to hit you and send you spiraling to your death.

    When it comes to PvP, from Article 3.1.b, I too agree it has nothing to do with alignment. But I'm also of the opinion that both players agreeing to it above the table is a good way to keep things fair. We have no system in place to label games as "PvP Allowed" after all, and some may not be looking for an experience where their character can be put in harms way by another player so easily without knowing about it.

    Magical Items. Article 10. I've never been a fan of this one myself, and it especially hurts higher level games where a simple potion of healing is, to be quite honest, not even a drop in the bucket. There's also something of an issue of no one having anything to do with their gold in the MV. I think a better system would be to restrict what types of items can be sold for different tiers of levels. Players in the 1-5 level range should possibly get access to Uncommon items for instance... but not Very Rare.

    For my own part I'm actually in favor of implementing some kind of Tagging System so people know what they are getting into. In AL you don't really get the benefit of a Session 0 to know what you're going to play, and that is currently the case in MV but I think we can do better. Simple tags such as [High Fantasy], [PvP Allowed], [Deadly], [Heroic], [Open World] and so on. This would be something listed next to/under/above a game and which tags are used would be 100% DM discretion.


  • Dungeon Master

    I hate to go on a rant about Article 4 but it has really been bugging me.

    Article 4 allows DMs to literally take agency away from the players by saying "I want this to be this certain way. You are going to play your character like this, because I said so." This is different than the last part of Article 2: "However, it is acceptable that a DM cast your character as an 'outlander' or clearly foreign to their game setting." I would argue that it goes against the rest of Article 2 as well. Forcing a player character to change their race to suit a particular setting is an enormous hoop to jump through.

    "Nope, you're not a Dragonborn anymore. Why not? Because Dragonborn are not native to this plane. Never mind that we are in a game structure that allows characters to freely travel between planes, universes and timelines. Planar travel turns your Dragonborn into a Human. Because reasons."


  • Adventurer

    From a player perspective, even if that particular rule has NEVER came up and that might be reason enough for its removal in the first place, I presumed you'd keep everything about your character despite the racial change.

    There's definitely some precedent for races being different between official settings, anywhere from some not existing to more simple modifications like the Dragonborn have tails, or how they came to be to even what they are called.

    The first type of game I intend to run will be somewhat traditional, setting wise. However the other, more homebrew idea I've got would place an interesting situation with this rule. The norm, is not the norm. Humans/elves/dwarves/etc are unknown creatures. For my part, I've not been planning this intending to ask everyone to change their Tiefling to an Orc. Instead... they're just an outsider, an unknown. Keeping this rule to that might work better than changing peoples choice of player race, visually anyway.


  • Judge

    Your dwarf is just a ruddy, short human on this plane.
    Your human is composed of transparent water because everyone is on this plane.
    Your dragonborn's scales fall off and you grow long ears on this plane because everyone is an elf of some variety.
    Your tiefling looks like a human except in mirrors because there is no devils in this world, but your strange taint from your homeworld still lingers.
    Your swords are laser beams on this world because all swords are lightsabers here.

    I don't get throwing a fit about this.


  • Judge

    Also: don't play in that game if it bothers you?


  • Dungeon Master

    All I'm looking for is consistency. Giving DMs the right to make drastic changes to your character but saying that L1NFS is too strong and that Winged Tieflings and Aarakocra are banned simply doesn't add up to me.


  • Judge

    I think you said it yourself:

    @dcanton said in Proposed Changes to the Multiverse Conventions:

    As to the example given within the Article as written, no compelling reason has been given as to why a restriction would be placed beyond DM personal preference

    DM Preference is key -- at least in the original MV articles. The DMs are the ones running games and doing the hard work. The DMs are the ones building a setting and trying to tell a story.

    As a player, you are a guest in that world and should feel obliged to do your best to fit into the themes, flavor, and setting motifs inherent there. Jumping into a world where your dragonborn is a burly Nord barbarian who sips ancient elixirs to spit ice instead of a scaled dragon man seems like an opportunity to do something cool and different with your character, not a restriction.

    "When I go to Hyperborea, the barbarians beyond the northern winds claim me as their own, even though on my home plane I am dragonborn."


  • Judge

    All that said, I've got no dog in this fight. The conventions have changed leaps and bounds from their original incarnation!

    That particular complaint just stood out to me as weak.


  • Dungeon Master

    Mike, you don't need to talk down to me. I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons for nearly 20 years. I've played in hundreds of games and dozens of campaigns with nearly 30 different DMs, so I am aware of differences in DM philosophies and how games are run. Please don't patronize me about what a DM does and doesn't do.

    For what it's worth, I spend an inordinate amount of time crafting my characters' stories, personalities, flaws and narrative tendencies. Many of those are baked into the character's race. A Dragonborn who grew up among Dwarves and developed a sense of anxiety over being different from everyone would have a fundamentally different personality from a Dragonborn who grew up among his own kind. Maybe he shaved his horns down when he was younger in a short-sighted attempt to fit in better with his comrades. Maybe he resents the fact his scales are bright blue and spent most of his formative years searching for a way to change them. Things like that are important to the fabric of the character being played.

    Saying something like "oh well none of that matters your dragon is a human now" discounts all of the work the player put into building the character a certain way. And your quote "Jumping into a world where your dragonborn is a burly Nord barbarian who sips ancient elixirs to spit ice instead of a scaled dragon man seems like an opportunity to do something cool and different with your character, not a restriction." also discounts all of that work that the player puts into making a character into something more than just numbers and words on a sheet.

    I'd chalk this up to simple differences in DM philosophy but when you insist that my way of viewing things is "weak" then I take issue with your argument.


  • Judge

    Dude, you are being hostile. We can disagree, but I'm not going to get involved in hostilities over elf games.

    I'm sorry you felt me saying it was a weak complaint was me talking down to you. Good luck, homie.


  • Dungeon Master

    It's not about me being hostile, it's about you telling me what D&D is and isn't. All of this should be a matter of opinion and that's why this is a discussion.

    You've admitted yourself that you're no longer involved in the Multiverse, which is why I found it strange that you inserted yourself in a discussion about the Multiverse to begin with.


  • Adventurer

    I can personally see things from both sides. In a situation of a full home game, the DM creates the world and is free to restrict what races are allowed.

    This breaks down for MV, in my opinion. There's almost an unwritten rule among players and DMs alike that there is some strange force pulling adventurers around different games already. And for my part? I've yet to see a single DM ask someone to change their characters race. And I agree with Darrenn that wanting someone to change a pretty important aspect of their character is just... odd.

    You also use examples for games I've never even heard of in my year and a half of consistently attending both Slur Your Role and FNRPG. Fact is, the active community has changed. Which is why a lot of these conventions do need to be looked over and voted on again.


  • Judge

    Darrenn, I literally invented the Multiverse and wrote the original conventions (well, technically Jeff Reints wrote them and I stole them, but tweaked them for MV). I wasn't telling you what D&D is and isn't. I was explaining the original intent of that rule.

    I said I didn't have a dog in the fight. You're just being a dick.


  • Judge

    @CAWilliams said in Proposed Changes to the Multiverse Conventions:

    You also use examples for games I've never even heard of in my year and a half of consistently attending both Slur Your Role and FNRPG. Fact is, the active community has changed. Which is why a lot of these conventions do need to be looked over and voted on again.

    I don't disagree, dude. It's y'alls thing now.

    party on


  • Judge

    Honestly. My main complaint is with the no crafting rules. They either need to be clarified or removed. Dms won't even craft items. Some DMs do it still. But clarification is nice. I've heard older players talk about working with a dm to make an item. Most DMs now refuse to even do that.

    I mean, we can't make spell scrolls or potions which is frustrating. I do play a wizard so I have a horse in the race. I'd like to be a potion master in addition to being a archmage. But as the conventions are written, they limit an aspect of dnd that I was very excited about.

    I think adding a section that working with the DM and having costs built in, like a heavy down day and gold investment. Honestly Xanathars has some rules in it for this. I dont see why we couldn't use them.

    Sorry if this is a bit rambling. I'm at the gym. I'll try and revise and make this a bit more concise at a later date.

    Actually. Items and buffs are getting out of hand. There is a heavy disparity. Its mostly a problem of the MV and not easily fixed. I think the sheet is going to be the best solution. I'm heavily against a ban on powerful things or limiting what DMs can give out.


  • Dungeon Master

    @Seeker said in Proposed Changes to the Multiverse Conventions:

    Actually. Items and buffs are getting out of hand. There is a heavy disparity. Its mostly a problem of the MV and not easily fixed. I think the sheet is going to be the best solution. I'm heavily against a ban on powerful things or limiting what DMs can give out.

    I'm with you on the "getting out of hand" part. I'm all for giving characters the ability to do awesome things, but a lot of these buffs and boons are game-breaking abilities that circumvent the limits of the game (i.e. giving a character four Manuals of Gainful Exercise instead of a Belt of Storm Giant Strength to get around Attunement limits).

    Part of what I think needs to be implemented is a general "range" of item power. Not a hard cap per se, but expectations of what characters should be able to do at certain levels. I for one think 29 Strength on a Level 3 character is pretty unreasonable, but there are DMs out there who disagree. The challenge would be coming to some sort of agreement within the Multiverse.


Log in to reply
 

1
Online

392
Users

1.7k
Topics

25.8k
Posts