D&D 5th Edition VSRD

[Fall]

Hello all!

Longtime lurker here to ask a simple question that I have been unable to find an answer to: has anyone updated the old Pathfinder VSRD for 5th edition D&D? I tried searching the forums here, but only turned up a discussion of a group contemplating how to adapt it with no mention of actually making a new, updated document.

Thanks in advance,

Fall

Edit 1:

Included is a link to the VSRD I worked up.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aKv ... sp=sharing

Edit 2:

I am taking a hiatus from working on this as life has gotten busy. However, I did work up a second version of the document (links below). I have also gone ahead and made a version of the document that uses the lethal rules by default.

Nonlethal VSRD (with updates highlighted):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13n3 ... sp=sharing

Nonlethal VSRD:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f_2 ... sp=sharing

Lethal VSRD (with updates highlighted):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RJm ... sp=sharing

Lethal VSRD:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tw2 ... sp=sharing

Thank you all again for your suggestions and feel free to make changes as you see fit!

[Netjak]

As far as I know, no one has, but it shouldn't be terribly hard to accomplish either, as the two systems are very similar. You really only need to let one 5e feat provide two vore feats from the VSRD, or smack two feats together, or double their bonuses, and then change the wording of a few feats or traits that increase specific bonuses, like morale, to just general ones, since 5e doesn't have any of that stuff.

I kinda wanted to adapt the VSRD for 5e and make some other general changes some time ago, but I am still far from ready to try my hand at DMing, so I left that by the wayside.

[Fall]

I see. I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to be needlessly duplicating work someone else had already done, but if that is the case then I'll just go ahead and do it myself!

As for you not being ready to DM, I have found that starting with incredibly rules-light systems (like Honey Heist, for example) is a really good way to get a feel for the improv and storytelling side of DMing as it frees you to focus on that. Also, watching other DMs run their games is a great way to pick up on tricks to add to your toolbox. I've been DMing games for over a decade now and am still learning new things to add to my style, mostly from the wealth of videos available on youtube.

I'm sure you could be a great DM!

[Netjak]

Firstly, thank you so much for the vote of confidence, I really wasn't expecting it! But it's not so much that I think I won't be up for the task, as it is just me lacking the time to sit down and properly think through a campaign, before then playing it out with my players.

And I already watch way too many D&D streams and videos as it is, so that's nothing new! >.<
Still, if you need help or someone to discuss with in regards to the adaptation to 5e, give me a call! I love the mechanics and rules almost as much as the storytelling of tabletop games.

[Fall]

Ah, I see! Yeah, planning a campaign is pretty time intensive. That's what I'm spending today doing. x.x

Gotta be ready for Saturday's game though!

Thanks for the offer! I'll work on getting something written up for the adaptation. The hardest bit is definitely going to be re-balancing from 3.5/Pathfinder's system of crazy, stacking modifiers to 5e's bounded accuracy system. Balancing is always tough enough as it is, so another set of eyes on that would certainly be appreciated.

I'll post what I end up making in this thread when it is ready.

[Netjak]

In a way, I am assuming the stacking modifiers from Pathfinder will be even more broken in 5e, seeing as in Pathfinder, you only count your highest bonus from most sources, for example morale, while in D&D, every bonus counts! And of course, feats are a whole load more plentiful in Pathfinder than D&D, so there might be difficult to really build a vorish character, atleast combat wise. Unless you are a 11th level rogue of course, those skillfull bastards can eat anything!

In short, I don't think the VSRD, or your game will end up being anywhere close to balanced in the least, not that regular 5e is either, so I wouldn't fret too much about it! Rogues with their expertise and reliable talent and fighters with their bonus actions and loads of feats are probably going to be the most viable to use vore in combat whichever way you spin it. Unless you decide to toss everyone tons of free feats, of course.

[Fall]

Those were roughly my general thoughts on the matter. I've combined many of the similar feats into single feats similar to what 5th did, but even still it would be pretty much impossible to ever balance perfectly.

The biggest problem with using vore as a viable combat tactic is the amount of time required to use it and the payoff for it need to outweigh what you could have been using your actions doing instead. It's hard to justify spending two-to-three turns wrestling down a meal just to have it cut its way out when you could have been smacking it in the face with magic or a hammer that whole time to likely better effect.

The best way around this that I can think of is to treat vore less like a new, viable combat option and more like a flavorful thing that you can do to the last-person standing or that guard you crept up behind who is alone at his post. At best, it is a new tool for your toolbox, but not the central pillar of your character's build.

The only way around that would be to make a class that is centered around using vore... or maybe subclasses, but that is a ton of work and even more balancing.

I mean, eating a person wearing armor and bearing weapons is just not a good idea. For my games, using vore on the fringes is looking like the best way to go about it rather than making it the dominant tactic.

Like you said though, nothing in D&D is really too balanced. Even with the strides 5e has made, the game still feels most functional at lower levels before spellcasters gain their massive AOE spells that wreck face. So I'm not going to sweat balance too hard.

I'm also just going to abandon the traits and flaws section of the Pathfinder VSRD as there is no comparable system in 5e, really. Most of that could be re-flavored by making vore-centric subraces for the various races and allowing them to pick traits from that list, but that is outside the scope of what I'm wanting to do right now. If a player wanted a transparent belly or something, I'd just let them have it (as long as it doesn't give some special advantage, of course).

[Netjak]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything, save for the point about vore being useless in a fight, specifically at higher levels. Devouring your enemies does indeed seem very inefficient at lower levels, before you have managed to accrue a critical mass of feats, assuming that you have multiple attacks to grapple with, otherwise, it's just absolute trash. Then you can essentially take down a 200+ health enemy with a single turn of action, lock them away in a tummy, and unless they manage to cast a spell and teleport out, or actually have a light slashing weapon that can deal enough damage to cut their way out, they will slowly but surely sizzle away without much they can do.

That's something else the VSRD is a little prickly on, as it states in one place that the stomach AC is 10 + bonuses, and another place states the more balanced 15 + bonuses.

There is always the possibility of letting your players come up with homebrewed vorish archetypes, though, that does of course bring in another massive variable in terms of balancing.

[Fall]

True, but in 5e those feats come at the cost of attribute bonuses and that situation only really applies against creatures that you can eat (due to size). In most combats with few enemies, the enemies are either very big or are spellcasters. Due to the nature of the vore system, it excels against single targets while the nature of the D&D system is to make single targets difficult or impossible to get into your mouth.

I have been doing my best to approximate the 5e rules for swallow whole rather than using the older system. In this edition, you don't actually cut your way out of an enemy. Instead, you end up upsetting their stomach and forcing them to release you. This requires doing an amount of damage equal to roughly 1/10th of the creature's health in a single turn to its stomach. The creature is then allowed a Constitution save to keep its prey inside. The DC for this save is based off of the creature's own Constitution modifier (10 + mod) and essentially amounts to a 50/50 because of this.

That said, the above rules only seem to apply to bigger creatures. Some creatures don't give the prey inside them ANY options of escape other than hope their party members kill the creature and to help contribute to its death by attacking from within (giant toads).

As for AC, there are no AC values listed for monsters that swallow players whole. Swallowed creatures are both restrained and blinded, giving them disadvantage on their attack rolls. Nothing in the rules actually limits you to light piercing or slashing weapons for the damage either.

In general, the Swallow Whole mechanic this edition is anything but uniform.

I was considering setting the AC of your stomach equal to your Constitution score. This combined with there only being a chance of you releasing the target and the fact that the prey have disadvantage on attack rolls would better fit the bounded accuracy system and make the AC based entirely upon your natural toughness. Players also receive proficiency bonus to that Constitution save to keep prey as long as they are proficient with Con saves, meaning they could have an easier time of it than monsters.

Anyways, here's what I've got so far. Forgive my lack of forum formatting knowledge if that doesn't actually turn into a link! D:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aKv ... sp=sharing

[Netjak]

It's sensible that a creature's AC is equal to their constitution score, and a rather nifty, if perhaps a bit imbalanced in making constitution an even more important stat. If it was 12 or 15 + con modifier it might be more balanced.

I find it a little bit weird that you haven't added any actions to forcefully free yourself from a stomach, either by acrobatics or athletics, even if you technically can't mechanically with 5e's rules on monster that have the devour whole actions. To me, it doesn't make much sense that you can't just use a pair of daggers as ice picks and climb back out of a giant beast, if you are strong or dexterous enough. Still, you are the DM, so play it as you want.

I never really cared for 5e's rule that a creature two size categories smaller than another can't grapple it, even if he/she had ropes or lassos to assist in the grapple. It's not like a god couldn't grapple and hogtie a kraken if that's what he/she wanted to do! Sure, it should be much more difficult, but just making it impossible is lazy gamedesign. But again, it's your game, so this is just my humble opinion.

The first thing that struck me as really odd while reading the VSRD was how ingested creatures take psychic damage, not acid and bludgeoning! What's the reasoning behind that?

I love the feats you bundled together by the way, they actually look very viable, atleast in a class with many ability score increases! In fact, they might just be too strong, but I suppose it balances out with the inherent penalties of using vore in combat scenarios.

Other than that, you might want to add a prefix on how heavy slashing weapons can't be used in cutting your way out of a humanoid sized gut. You don't really have space to move a greatsword or glaive around enough to cut anything! Otherwise, it might still be far too easy to upset a stomach with just one attack, as most characters can easily do more than 1/10 their health in damage each round!

[Fall]

The principal behind the psychic damage thing is explained in the introduction: personal taste. I'm not into digestion, but I know others are. Optional rules are included at the end of the document to substitute in and it can be done with no other adjustments. I was using the psychic damage to simulate a feeding on the mind/soul rather than on the body. The damage stops when the creature within is rendered unconscious.

While I do understand the ability to climb out of a larger predator, it shouldn't be practical for one closer in size. I had initially skipped the action to attempt to climb out as I was trying to avoid unnecessary rules clutter, but I could easily add it in under the optional rules for people who want to use it in their games. Something like "if you've been swallowed by a creature at least X (1 or 2?) size categories larger than yourself, you can use your action to attempt a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the creature's Strength (Athletics) check. Success removes the swallowed condition and returns you to the creature's mouth with the ingested condition."

As for the grappling rules in 5th, if one of my players argued that they wanted to try to grapple something that the rules say is impossible, I would allow them to try it with disadvantage. If they had rope or some other brilliant plan, I would remove the disadvantage and maybe even give them advantage if their idea was really brilliant. Just giving the check disadvantage will, in most scenarios, make it very unlikely they would succeed, but that is better than impossible while maintaining some realism.

I was worried that the feats were too powerful, but, like you said, I decided that they were powerful feats built around a system that isn't terribly powerful. If the game is using the standard rules for when character's get feats then I think it is probably fine.

I had included a line in the "Rules for Escaping Your Stomach" section of "Rules for Predators" that specified the attack needed to be a light piercing or slashing weapon, but I do agree that that should be given additional visibility. I'll add a line limiting attack rolls to such weapons into the Swallowed condition. Should it also be added to the ingested condition, too?

I thank you again for your feedback! It's been a pretty big task to tackle.

[Netjak]

I figured that was why you had noted it down as psychic damage, but I was just so curious as to why you went for that damage type, instead of nonleathal bludgeoning damage or something as a sort of exhaustion effect. Thanks for the explaination though, my curiosity is satiated!

On the climbing out a predator your own size or smaller, I more envisioned it as simply kicking off of the bottom of the stomach, and force yourself back up the sphincter! But again, to each their preferences!

I see we are on the same page when it comes to grappling and sizes then! Though, I imagine it's one many share. D&D is mostly about the storytelling, after all!

I mostly see your Chomp and Backbiter feats as very powerfull, especially in conjuction with multiattack. As a sneaky fighter, with all four multiattacks and action surge would be able to chain devour 8 enemies in a single turn, as long as they rolled well enough, weren't spotted, and had movement enough to reach all of them. While a bity fighter could just straight up bite and swallow 4 enemies with their multiattacks and action surge. Of course, a 20th level character is supposed to be powerful, but still, maybe a 'once a turn' prefix could be apt for the both of those feats. Or just leave it as it is and let your players have a bit of OP fun if they discover the possibility!

Ah, I am sorry then, perhaps I misread it. I thought it stated, "A light or slashing weapon", not "A light piercing or slashing weapon"! And I wouldn't add it to the ingested condition, as the character is only partially swallowed, and should still be able to swing their weapon, albeit with disadvantage. Of course, if they were swallowed hands first, that would be a different story, but that's hardly something to write down in the rules. The DM has final say in things, after all.

[Fall]

Nonlethal damage doesn't exist in 5e as you can always choose to deal nonlethal damage with weapons now. So rather than refer to a non-existent damage type that might confuse players who never played past editions, I decided to try to find some easier way of showing it. I had considered an exhaustion effect, but decided it would be too brutally punishing as exhaustion is pretty nasty this edition.

And yeah, we're agreed on the sizes thing. I'm generally all for anything my players want to try as long as it seems remotely possible and would be fun. Fun is supposed to be the point of the game after all!

As for the climbing out of smaller predators, I imagine getting into the right position to accomplish this would be pretty difficult. You could use the section of the struggle action where rolling a natural 20 results in the predator releasing you to represent this. It would even make sense that you are straight-up ejected rather than returning simply to ingested in that case.

I'm trying to understand the action flow of a 20th level fighter using those feats, so I'm going to note it out below as I understand it. Correct me if I am wrong!

Chomp would look like this:

Bite (Attack 1), Ingest (Bonus Action), Swallow (Attack 2), Grapple (Attack 3), Ingest (Attack 4)
Action Surge!
Swallow (Attack 1), Grapple (Attack 2), Ingest (Attack 3), Swallow (Attack 4)

This results in (assuming no failed checks and adequate stomach capacity) three eaten creatures twice per short rest as a level 20 character.

Using Backbiter and assuming all creatures are unaware results in the following:
Grapple + Ingest (Attack 1), Swallow (Bonus Action), Grapple (Attack 2), Ingest (Attack 3), Swallow (Attack 4)
Action Surge!
Grapple (Attack 1), Ingest (Attack 2), Swallow (Attack 3), Grapple (Attack 4)

This results in (assuming no failed checks and adequate stomach capacity) three eaten creatures twice per short rest as a level 20 character.

The two feats actually don't work together very well at all as Backbiter allows you to use a bonus action as part of a grapple and Chomp allows you to use a bonus action as part of a bite attack. Action surge or not, you're still limited to one bonus action a turn anyways and most of Backbiter's benefits only work if you use the bonus action granted by the feat, already limiting it to once a turn.

It's fine! It's a big document and it did need to be clarified a bit more I think.

And yes, SO much of this game just comes down to the DM scratching their head and making a judgment call. Players get into such wacky situations!

[Netjak]

Ah, yes, you are correct about Chomp! My quick, of the top math failed me. And I seem to have been a bit to hasty reading through the document, though with the way you worded it in the VSRD, concerning backbiter, you should be able to grapple and ingest in one go, whenever you are hidden from a foe.

'If you make a Strength (Athletics) check to grapple a target who is unaware of your presence, you gain advantage on the check. You can choose to ingest the target as part of this check.'

Only the next part mentions a bonus action, which is specifically aimed at the instantly swallowed mechanic, so in my interpretation, the chain of events would go like this:

Grapple + Ingest (Attack 1), Swallow (Bonus Action), Grapple + Ingest (Attack 2), Swallow (Attack 3), Grapple + Ingest (Attack 4)
Action Surge!
Swallow (Attack 1), Grapple + Ingest (Attack 2), Swallow (Attack 3), Grapple + Ingest (Attack 4)

Assuming the character can retain it's stealth, which it should, as long as he or she doesn't fail a grapple check and let's their target alert the others about the sneaky nommer, it would be 4 and 2/3 swallows, which still is a bit too formidable for the cost of just a single feat. Of course, if you move the wording of the bonus action to the start, as in;

'If you make a Strength (Athletics) check to grapple a target who is unaware of your presence, you can use a bonus action to gain advantage on the check. You can choose to ingest the target as part of this check.'

[Fall]

Ah! You are correct about that. Thanks for catching that!

I think the approach I would rather take is amending the first benefit to this:

"If you make a Strength (Athletics) check to grapple a target who is unaware of your presence, you gain advantage on the check. Once per turn, you can choose to ingest the target as part of this check."

This allows you to still fully devour one target using a single attack and bonus action (which is useful for rogue) while limiting the utility of it for classes with multiple attacks.

Thoughts on that solution?

[Netjak]

That does seem like the best way to handle it, yes! Rogues love their bonus actions, as to go back into hiding, so atleast the option not to use the bonus action on fully downing a meal seems apropriate!

[Fall]

Awesome. Then that's likely how I'll be leaving it for now. Maybe someday I'll add some class options or more spells, but for now I'll just leave it as it is.

Thanks again for your help!

[Netjak]

No problem! I really like just theory-crafting and mechanics tinkering! Have a good weekend!

[Fall]

You too!

[MasterGryph]

Well, I read the document and have a question. Why exactly does "lethal" digestion damage still cease when the prey falls unconscious at 0 hit points, and before they start making death saves?