Kaiju already exist in D&D. And, using the rules, you can already fight them.

But these mechanics tend to shrink the scope of these creatures. You can square off with a tarrasque, for example, in basically the same way you would with an ogre and poke at it with a spear until it dies. It doesn’t really matter how many squares the tarrasque takes up on the battlemap; it doesn’t feel like you’re fighting something that’s truly enormous. (Particularly if you picture the scene and realize you’re really just tickling its toenails.)

So what should a fight like this look like?

For our touchstones, let’s consider the Bahamut fight form Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children:

The dragon fight from God of War 4:

And the Dweller in Darkness fight in Shang-Chi: Legend of the Ten Rings:

(Video Coming Soon!)

Which is particularly notable, I think, because it features kaiju on both sides of the fight, with human combatants wedged between them.

In each of these fights, there are also common elements that jump out for me:

• Ranged attacks obviously feature quite a bit. (Although they can usually be described as bouncing almost harmlessly off the creature’s thick hide, unless a particular weak spot can be hit.)
• In order to be effective, characters have to literally be on the kaiju.
• The fights feature lots of terrain being casually devastated… including, frequently, the places where the PCs are standing or were just standing a moment before.

Finally, for something a little different, let’s add literally this entire game:

Shadow of the Colossus has a very different pace from the other examples, which I think is useful for keeping in mind when considering the breadth of what kaiju encounters can be.

HEY! I DON’T WANT THAT!

Some of you reading this are undoubtedly thinking, “I don’t want humans running along dragon spines! It’s silly! I want grounded, gritty fantasy! It’s not realistic to think that a normal human could solo Smaug with a sword!”

Short version: These rules are not for you.

Long version: Neither is D&D. By which I mean that the unmodified rules for D&D already let high-level characters solo Smaug. So if that’s not the sort of thing you want your D&D characters to be doing, you’re already having dissonance with the system. Check out E(X): The Many Games Inside the World’s Most Popular Roleplaying Game for an approach that will let you dial in the experience you want.

DEFINING YOUR KAIJU

There are a lot of big monsters in D&D. What counts as a kaiju?

Some key things that I, personally, would think about are:

• Is this monster big enough that it’s basically part of the scenery? A very active part of the scenery, yes, but basically the size of a building or even bigger.
• Is this monster so large that it’s difficult to imagine someone standing on the ground next to them even being able to reach their vital organs?
• Is this monster capable of trivially destroying human-scaled objects while barely even noticing that they’re doing it?

I think the lowest cut-off that makes sense to me (again, speaking only for myself personally) would be at least the size of a storm giant. (Storm giants stand 26 feet tall, are probably 6-7 feet across at the shoulders, and their knees would be about 8 feet above the ground.) And I’d probably want to aim a little bit higher than that.

So as you’re looking at the kaiju rules below, think about what scale of creature they feel right for. Here are a few options to consider.

OPTION #1: GARGANTUAN CREATURES

The simplest metric would be to just declare all Gargantuan creatures to fall under the kaiju rules. This conveniently includes all our likely suspects: tarrasques, rocs, dragon turtles, ancient dragons, and purple worms.

Using this option, the rules for fighting kaiju would only apply to Large or smaller characters. (Huge or Gargantuan characters are close enough to the kaiju in size that no special rules need apply.)

OPTION #2: THREE SIZES LARGER

Alternatively, we could extend this logic to say that any creature three size categories larger than you is considered a kaiju. This would mean that Small creatures would have to treat Huge creatures as kaiju.

This makes a certain amount of sense. If we use our previous example of a 26-foot-tall storm giant, its size relative to a halfling would be like a 50-foot giant relative to a human. (This would actually be the same height as a tarrasque!)

The drawback, of course, is a practical one: PCs can be both Small and Medium size. When encountering Huge creatures, some of the PCs would consider them kaiju and others wouldn’t. You might consider this a feature (and even a great roleplaying opportunity), but it would undoubtedly add the possibility for confusion and probably some potential issues with balance.

OPTION #3: TWO SIZES LARGER

This is the option that treats storm giants and treants as kaiju-class foes for human opponents. However, it would also mean that Large creatures would be treated as kaiju for Small PCs, and Large opponents are actually quite common in D&D. So this would almost certainly result in the kaiju rules being used frequently.

OPTION #4: BESPOKE KAIJU

It’s a kaiju if I say it is.

You might choose this option if you want to include specific corner cases (like storm giants, who are near the high end of the Huge class). This can also be appealing if you just want to include the occasional kaiju-themed encounter in your campaign, but then not worry about the kaiju rules every single time some big monster shows up for a tussle.

THE KAIJU RULES

In order to engage a kaiju, you enter its space while moving or as a reaction to being the target of a kaiju’s melee attack. This usually requires some form of check (e.g., a Strength (Athletics) to jump onto the kaiju from above or a Dexterity (Acrobatics) to grab on as it flies past). This check is contested by the kaiju’s Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to avoid the little pests.

Being engaged with a kaiju usually means that you are physically on the kaiju in some way. Being engaged is an exception to the normal movement rules preventing you from willingly ending your move in another creature’s space. As long as you are engaged with the kaiju, you will be carried with the kaiju when it moves.

Characters who are not engaged with the kaiju suffer disadvantage on their melee attacks targeting the kaiju. Characters engaged with a kaiju gain advantage on their melee attacks targeting the kaiju.

Shake Loose: As a special melee attack, a kaiju can attempt to shake off anyone currently engaged with it. When they do so, all engaged characters must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the kaiju’s Strength (Athletics) check. On a failure, the engaged character is shaken loose into an adjacent space of their choice and is no longer engaged with the kaiju. They must also succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or suffer 2d6 falling damage (or more if the creature was flying at a height greater than 20 feet).

Siege Monster: All kaiju are given the Siege Monster ability. They deal double damage to objects and structures.

Kaiju Destruction: All kaiju are given the Kaiju Destruction ability. They can deal damage to structures within reach as a bonus action.

Design Notes: These rules are deliberately quite simple. Our goal is not to weigh the system down with a lot of detailed mechanics, but rather to provide a straightforward prompt for DMs and players to dynamically describe these battles.

ADVANCED KAIJU RULES

Flying Characters: Flying characters and characters on flying mounts do not suffer disadvantage when making melee attacks against a kaiju.

Engage with Vantage: If circumstances allow a character to attack a kaiju’s vulnerable areas, then, at the DM’s discretion, it will not be necessary to engage with the kaiju in order to avoid suffering disadvantage on melee attacks against it.

For example, a character might be located on a wall or in a tower that the kaiju is passing by. Or they might be riding another kaiju.

Such vantage points do not grant advantage on attacking the kaiju, but may grant advantage on skill checks to engage the kaiju.

Hey! I Was Standing On That! When a kaiju destroys a structure that a PC is standing on, they can attempt a DC 15 Dexterity check as a reaction to land on the kaiju and immediately engage it.

Helping Others to Engage: This can be done with a standard Help action, granting advantage to the aided character’s skill check to engage the kaiju.

Knocked Off: If a character is knocked off a kaiju, the DM may allow them a DC 12 Dexterity saving throw to grab hold of a lower point on the kaiju and remain engaged. In addition to deliberate enemy action (kaiju gnats or other allies fighting the PCs on the kaiju’s back), the DM might also call for such saving throws (possibly at a higher DC) in response to environmental conditions — when the kaiju smashes through a wall or flies through a waterfall, for example.

ROLEPLAYING KAIJU

Nothing in the rules of 5^th Edition requires motion, but these creatures are simply massive and even a single step that might only be a small adjustment for a human-scale character can easily chew up significant distance.

So you’re under no compulsion, but describe your tarrasques not only staggering back from mighty blows, but actually moving across the battlefield as they do so (and even chewing up their bonus action to unintentionally smash through a wall along the way). Have your ancient dragons constantly swooping back and forth across the battlefield.

Also keep in mind that these gargantuan creatures may not immediately pay any attention to the PCs, or simply disregard them as irrelevant. (In much the same way that we might see a chipmunk or sparrow in the woods and just… not care that much.)

This, in turn, sets up the moment when the kaiju is suddenly VERY MUCH PAYING ATTENTION TO YOU. That’s a big moment. Play into it.

It’s not unusual for the property damage inflicted by a kaiju to unwittingly prove its undoing: Leave large, heavy, sharp objects dangling precariously and then let the kaiju linger under them for a round or two.

REVERSE KAIJU ADVENTURE

The limited range of size categories in 5^th Edition (compared to previous editions) prevents this idea from being directly supported by the rules, but it might be fun to frame an adventure or encounter in which the PCs are the kaiju.

Their opponents might be diminutive Lilliputians or perhaps a scurrying mass of anthropomorphized mice. Either way, the kaiju mechanics work the same in both directions, and you can describe the little folk clutching the PCs’ hair or scurrying inside their armor.

Another option along these lines is to give the PCs temporary (or permanent) control over a gargantuan construct, which can benefit from its status as a kaiju-class combatant.

ThinkDM recently wrote a blog post discussing the skill list in 5^th Edition called 5 Skill D&D. His two main points are,

First: The optional rules that allow you to roll any Skill + Ability combination should just be the way that the game works rather than an optional rule. I enthusiastically endorse this: Not only is it basically a no-brainer to take advantage of this flexibility and utility, but if you DON’T use stuff like Charisma (Investigation) checks then there are some glaring holes in the default skill list.

Second: Once you’re using these optional rules, it becomes clear that there are many skills that don’t need to exist. The most clear-cut examples of this, in my opinion, are Athletics and Acrobatics. One of these is Physical Stuff + Strength while the other is Physical Stuff + Dexterity. If you can just combine a “Physical Stuff” skill with the appropriate ability score, then you clearly don’t need two different skills for this.

Concluding that the game, therefore, has a whole bunch of superfluous skills, ThinkDM aggressively eliminates and combines skill to end up with a list of just five skills:

• Fitness (Athletics, Acrobatics, Endurance)
• Speechcraft (Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation, Performance (oration))
• Stealth (Stealth, Deception (passing a disguise))
• Awareness (Investigation, Perception, Insight, Survival)
• Knack (Sleight of Hand, Medicine, Animal Handling, Performance (instrument))

(Note: He eliminates the Knowledge skills – Arcana, History, Religion, Nature, Medicine – entirely.)

While I agree with the general principles here, I have some quibbles with the, in my opinion, overzealous implementation. So let’s take a closer look at some of these decisions.

I’M SOLD

I’m sold on Fitness, Speechcraft, and Stealth.

Stealth is fairly self-explanatory: Most of the conflation here actually happened before 5^th Edition was even published, which – as I’ve discussed in Random GM Tips: Stealthy Thoughts, among other places – is something I’m fully in favor of.

Lumping all the social skills into Speechcraft might initially seem too reductionist, but it’s another good example of how ability score pairings can be used to distinguish different uses of the skill and differentiate characters: Charisma + Speechcraft can be used for making a good first impression, seducing someone through sheer sex appeal, or swaying a crowd’s opinion through an emotional appeal. Strength + Speechcraft can be used for physically threatening someone. Intelligence + Speechcraft can be used for witty repartee. And so forth.

I’ve also found that this kind of conflation can sidestep the conceptual difficult of trying to figure out which skill is appropriate when someone tries to, for example, persuade the local garrison to join them by lying to them about the goblins’ intentions while subtly threatening to expose the garrison captain’s dark secret. (Logically the debate about whether this is Perception, Deception, or Intimidation should just shift to which ability score is the most appropriate; I’m just saying that, in my experience, this doesn’t usually happen. Don’t really know why, but people just seem more willing to let the muddy reality of most social interactions default to any appropriately invoked option when it’s ability scores. This also frequently flows in the opposite direction, with players moving away from one-note presentations of “this is my deception” or “this is me persuading her” to more nuanced portrayals within the broad rubric of a skill like Speechcraft. Your mileage may vary.)

I particularly like the name of Speechcraft. It has a nicely fantasy-esque feel to it; evocative, but not binding.

By contrast, I don’t like Fitness as the name for a skill. Fitness is not an action, but rather a state of being, and I don’t think it clearly captures the spirit of most such tests made at the table. I’d stick with Athletics.

AWARENESS

As I discuss at length in Rulings in Practice: Perception-Type Tests, I think there’s a lot of utility in clearly distinguishing between noticing things and actively investigating things. This becomes even clearer, I think, when you start combining them with different ability scores: Charisma + Investigation is canvassing information and rumor-gathering. Perception + Wisdom/Charisma, on the other hand, is reading body language and the like.

Lumping Survival in here doesn’t make any sense to me at all. The skill is a lot more than just following tracks and, in my opinion, should be important enough to most D&D campaigns to merit its own silo.

KNACK

Knack is all too clearly “here’s a bunch of skills I need to arbitrarily glom together so that I can hit an arbitrary clickbait title.” There’s little reason that the pick-pocket should also be the party’s best healer. Conversely, not everyone who is good at riding a horse should automatically be great at picking pockets.

So split those back out.

KNOWLEDGE

My personal proclivity is that not only should there be at least enough knowledge skills that everyone in the group can have a distinct expertise (which often means more knowledge skills than party members), but that there should be enough knowledge skills that it becomes quite likely that any given group will, in fact, have holes in their knowledge.

(Why? Because that forces them to either work around the gap in their knowledge, do research, seek out an expert, and/or set a personal goal to become the expert they need. And those are all interesting outcomes.)

As I mentioned above, ThinkDM eliminates all knowledge-type skills. He offers a contradictory hodgepodge of reasons for this (for example, “no one knows everything” but also “the GM should always just assume the PCs know everything”) which I could discuss at more length, but honestly I’m tired of explaining why failure is narratively interesting and delayed gratification is satisfying.

What I really want is for a knowledge skill list to completely cover the fields of knowledge in a setting. This doesn’t mean getting super granular in the distinctions (quantum mechanics vs. electromagnetics vs. optics). Often the opposite, in fact. When a question of knowledge arises in the setting, what I want is for there to be a clear skill check that can answer the question.

This is why I really dislike the incomplete fields of knowledge in 5^th Edition’s current skill list and much prefer 3^rd Edition’s comprehensive list. (3^rd Edition was also designed to let people custom-design knowledge categories, although a surprising number of people never understood that.)

If we want to slice down the knowledge-type skills, I’d say start by saying that Backgrounds should grant proficiency in any related Knowledge checks.

And then my list of knowledge-type skills would be:

• Arcana
• Religion
• Lore
• Knowledge: (Specific Location)

With Lore here covering the entirety of mundane knowledge.

Thus we broadly distinguish between mystic shit, god-stuff, and everything else. This gives the opportunity to spread Knowledge around the table (instead of just one guy who’s a smarty-pants) and gives players the ability to flavor their character.

We’ve also given people a chance to say, “I know this city or forest or whatever really, really well.” It’s a skill type I often reach for as a GM (regardless of system) and I think it can be very flavorful for players looking to define their characters or give them a unique niche.

THE BIG LIST

• Animal Handling
• Arcana
• Athletics
• Investigation
• Knowledge: (Specific Location)
• Lore
• Medicine
• Perception
• Religion
• Sleight of Hand
• Speechcraft
• Stealth
• Survival

If you want an even tighter list, you can:

• Merge Investigation with Perception
• Fold Medicine into Lore
• Drop Sleight of Hand into Stealth

To give you a nice, notable number with 10 Skills.

TOOL PROFICIENCIES

In 5^th Edition, of course, skills are only half the story. You’ve also got tool proficiencies.

You don’t have to muck about with these, but I think there’s definitely some conflation here that would be valuable, although it’s a lot more fidgety. (This is somewhat inherent in the decision to use tool proficiencies in the first place.) 5^th Edition already sets precedent for this, however, with things like Vehicle (Land) and Vehicle (Water) proficiencies which cover a multitude of specific tools/vehicles.

The question I have is why other obvious candidates likes Musical Instruments and Gaming Sets weren’t similarly grouped together into a single proficiency.

At a certain point in staring at this, though, you realize it probably makes more sense to just create a list of skills that require tools to use:

• Alchemy
• Art
• Craft
• Gaming
• Music
• Thievery
• Vehicle (Air/Land/Water)

With the following notes:

• Navigator’s and Cartography Tools would be conflated into Survival.
• Forgery Kit would be conflated into Stealth or Thievery.
• Disguise Kit would be conflated into Stealth.
• Herbalism Kit is conflated into Alchemy.
• Poisoner’s Kit is conflated into Thievery (although you could make a case for a separate skill).

To make this actually work, of course, you’ll have to do additional work on how characters gain skills. May not be worth the headache, so keeping this short list in a separate silo (which can be trained) may still make the most sense.

Sometimes you want to use your weapon or your martial arts skill to do something more than just lethally incapacitate a target. For example, maybe you want to knock the White Witch’s wand out of her hands. Or shoot a fleeing nobleman in the leg to slow them down.

1. Define the effect you want to achieve with your called shot.
2. The DM determines a penalty which will be applied to your attack roll (usually -2 or -4).
3. If your attack roll is successful, you deal damage normally and the target must make an appropriate saving throw (DC 5 + the margin of success on your attack roll) or suffer the desired effect.

GUIDELINES

Here’s some guidance for DMs making rulings with these rules.

STUFF YOU SHOULD VETO: This system is not designed to bypass the normal rules for combat.

I want to shoot them in the head! The effect you’re looking to achieve here is killing the target. We have a specialized set of rules designed just for that: It’s called “making a normal attack.”

I want to gouge out their eyes and permanently blind them! Like killing the target, permanent maiming in D&D doesn’t happen until you run out of hit points (and usually not even then). You can kick sand in their face or give them a cut that causes blood to run down into their eyes and temporarily blind them, but this system isn’t about inflicting permanent damage or disfigurement.

I want to paralyze them so that they can’t take any actions! This is probably too strong. You might make an exception if the PC is taking advantage of some specific environmental factor (e.g., making them fall backwards into a vat filled with sticky ethereal goo); this shouldn’t be something that characters can just automatically do without special equipment or a special ability.

Similarly, anything that would normally be handled by the Grapple mechanics should be handled through the Grapple mechanics.

EFFECT MECHANICS: There are a number of conditions which are appropriate for a called shot effect — Blinded, Deafened, Frightened, Prone, Restrained. Other effects could include the target being disarmed, distracted, or having their speed reduced. Lots of stuff can be mechanically modeled by giving the target disadvantage or another character advantage against the target.

THE PENALTY: In determining the size of the penalty, think about whether the desired effect is mild (-2) or significant (-4). Anything that requires the target to spend an action to remove the effect should probably be considered significant.

Circumstances can also affect the penalty. For example, trying to blind a beholder is probably a lot more difficult than blinding a cyclops. Alternatively, give the target advantage on their saving throw if appropriate.

DURATION: How long should the effect last for? As mentioned above, avoid permanent effects. If in doubt, go with 1d4 rounds or until the target takes an action to resolve the problem.

DESIGN NOTES

Why let the attacker deal damage normally AND create the effect? The goal of this system is to make combat more interesting by encouraging players to think outside of the “I hit it with my sword / I hit it with my sword again” box. By allowing them to both do damage and do something interesting, you eliminate the action cost penalty where players avoid doing interesting things because their best option is always to deal as much damage as possible and end the combat as quickly as possible.

Why a penalty? Because otherwise PCs would need to make called shots on every single attack. Which, if the goal is to make combat more interesting, might seem like a great idea. In practice, however, thinking up the called shot when circumstances don’t call for one or where you’re not inspired by a cool idea becomes a mechanical chore. And chores are boring.

Why not use disadvantage on the attack instead of a penalty? Whenever a character had disadvantage from another source, they would be mechanically incentivized to make a called shot every single time… which leads us back to the same problem above, only it’s more ridiculous. (“We’re fighting in the dark? Guess I should be making exclusively called shots to the knee.”) The problems associated with hard-coded advantage/disadvantage are discussed more in Untested 5^th Edition: Situational Advantage.

What about the existing mechanics for Shoving (PHB, p. 195) or Disarm (DMG, p. 271)? You can still use those mechanics in concert with called shots. Taking the Disarm action, for example, should make it more likely that you successfully disarm your target, but the cost is that you’re focusing your whole action on that.

I also generally recommend that DMs look at the “Contests in Combat” sidebar on p. 195 of the PHB and spend more time empowering and encouraging players to come up with cool uses for contests; which is more or less the same philosophy as this called shot system but with the PC spending their full action to accomplish the desired effect. I suspect that using these called shot rules will, ironically, ALSO result in the players forgoing their attack more often to focus on a contest. (Once you get players thinking outside of the box, they tend to continue thinking outside of the box.)

What about the Battle Master? The Battle Master’s Disarming Attack ability is mechanically similar to a called shot, but completely superior (pun intended): They suffer no penalty to their attack roll AND can add their superiority die to the attack’s damage roll. The DC of the target’s saving throw is calculated differently, but should generally be higher than a generic called shot with a disarm effect.

(I actually dropped the DC for called shots from DC 8 + margin of success to DC 5 + margin of success to help make sure the Battle Master’s mechanical edge was well protected here. Playing around with that value to make sure that called shots feel worthwhile, but without becoming more likely to succeed than the Battle Master’s maneuvers is probably the key thing to watch out for from a playtest standpoint. In a pinch, get the called shot DC right and then just give the Battle Master the option of using that DC if it would be better than their flat DC.)

The Ultraviolet Grasslands (UVG) is a caravan-crawl campaign designed by Lukas Rejec. If you’re not already familiar with UVG, this whole post will probably make more sense if you read my review of the setting first.

Short version: There’s a network of nodes. Each node (or destination) is a potential market where PCs can buy or sell trade goods. One form of play in the caravan-crawl is discovering profitable trade routes between destinations (where you can buy a trade good at a low price in one destination and then sell it at a high price in another destination).

The PCs can use market research to determine the prices for trade goods. UVG has two different systems for market research: One described in the free PDF Ultraviolet Grasslands: Introduction and another in the full-fledged Ultraviolet Grasslands and the Black City.

UVG INTRODUCTION – MARKET RESEARCH

In the Introduction system, PCs can spend 1 day learning the price of a trade good in an adjacent location or 1 week to figure out the price of trade goods in up to three chained locations. For each location, they make a market check sing an appropriate skill and the result determines the price factor for that location (e.g., a result of 8 gives a price factor of 1 for the location; a result of 17 gives a price factor of 1.5). You multiply the base cost of the trade good by the price factor to determine how much it sells for in that location.

There are two things I like about this system:

• It’s simple and straightforward. Almost effortless.
• It requires zero prep. In fact, it’s specifically designed to be used during play, generating only those results which are relevant to the PCs.

The problem with the system is that the prices are dependent on the PCs’ skill check. At the most trivial level, this means that as the PCs increase their skill bonuses, prices will inflate across the grasslands. You’ll also get some weird plateauing effects where certain chart results drop below the minimum possible result.

UVG & THE BLACK CITY – MARKET RESEARCH

At first glance the system in Ultraviolet Grasslands and the Black City appears fairly identical to that from the Introduction. In practice, however, the system has received several tweaks which, speaking frankly, are almost entirely to its detriment.

First, a cash cost has been added to the time cost of market research. This is just fine and the intention is to probably discourage PCs from simply camping out in a “safe” destination and just grinding out market research.

Second, although the system still allows the PCs to focus their market research on a specific destination (or destinations), it can now produce results like, “Three stops away a place pays x4.” This seems fine, but in practice it muddies things up considerably by creating non-specific results. In addition, since there’s no way to directly generate these x4, x5, and x6 results for a location directly (only at a distance), the system inadvertently incentivizes the PCs to NOT explore the caravan routes and instead grind market research in the locations closest to Violet City (their origin point) in the hope of generating high reward locations as close as possible.

Third, key results are now seeded onto the results table, which makes the plateauing problem a lot worse. For example, a result of 7 determines that the location produces the trade good in question. That means anyone with a +7 skill check modifier will no longer generate locations that produce trade goods, completely warping the trade map. (How soon could that happen? Theoretically, a 2^nd level character.)

Fourth, they accidentally broke the system. The Introduction system could indicate that the trade good could not be sold in a particular destination (generally due to the market being saturated with local products), but indicated that the price factor in these locations was still 1 (meaning that the PCs could buy the trade goods there at their base price).

In the Black City system, these scenarios are instead modeled with a price factor 0. But remember that you multiply the price by the price factor, so a price factor of 0 means that the price will also be 0. So, for example, you can get a result of, “But they produce it here. New source, cool.” paired to a price of 0. (And it’s unclear whether that means you can’t buy it even though it’s a new source, or if they’re just giving it away for free. But either is broken.)

Note: Now that I’ve spent a considerable amount of time ripping apart one small sub-system of UVG, I do want to take a moment to say that this is no way representative of the overwhelming quality of the book as a whole. (Seriously. Go read my review.) I would not be spending so much time working on such a relatively tiny element if it wasn’t part of a well-oiled machine.

REVISED MARKET RESEARCH

The core problem with the existing market research system is that the PC’s skill check is determining the local market price. Instead, we need to generate the demand separately from the skill check to learn the demand.

• Spend 1 day and make an Easy (7) skill check to determine the market price for a specific trade good in your current location. If you succeed at a Very Hard (18) skill check, you gain advantage on your haggling check (see UVG, p. 176; you’ve found lead that may be more lucrative than the base local price).
• Spend 1 week and make an Easy (7) skill check to determine the market price for a specific trade good in one adjacent location. For every 4 points of margin of success on the check, determine the market price in an additional adjacent location. (These adjacent locations can be built out in one or more chains, with the second being adjacent to the first, and so forth.)

Design Note: I’m using difficulty numbers calculated for UVG. If you’re using 5E, you can translate these to DCs based on the descriptive values (Easy = DC 10, for example).

VARIANT – RESEARCH COST: As noted above, Ultraviolet Grasslands and the Black City added a cost to these actions. You can do the same here: Local research (1 day) costs cash = local expenses. Regional research (1 week) costs cast = 5 x local expenses.

Alternatively, or in addition to this, you could give bonuses to the check if the PCs are spreading cash around. I proposed a similar system for bribing here, and you could basically use the same structure while swapping out “bribe value” for “local expenses” in UVG.

DETERMINING LOCAL PRICE – SIMPLE VERSION

To determine the local price for a trade good, simply roll on this table:

VARIANT – MARKET FLUCTUATIONS: Once per month (every 4 weeks) or between each session, check all locations with known market prices. There is a 1 in 10 chance that 1d4 prices in that location have changed. Reroll on the table.

Design Note: You may need to play with the frequency of these tests and/or the rate of change to get a satisfactory result.

DETERMINING LOCAL PRICE – COMPLEX VERSION

… but not ultra-complex.

This system determines prices by establishing the original source(s) for a trade good and then calculating local prices based on the market’s proximity to the source. It is more time-consuming, but I don’t think significantly so.

GENERATE SOURCES: Each trade good has 1d4-1 sources in the Ultraviolet Grasslands. (If there are zero sources in the grasslands, then the Violet City is treated as the source, although most likely because it is being shipped from somewhere in civilization.)

For each source, roll 1d30+1 to generate a random destination (this excludes the Violet City and the Black City).

The price factor of a trade good at its source is 1. Haggling checks to sell are made at disadvantage and haggling checks to buy are made at advantage.

CALCULATE PRICE – EASY VERSION: When the PCs do market research in a location, determine the number of weeks of travel between the location and the closest source of the trade good. The price factor increases by +1 for every two weeks of travel, to maximum of 6.

Design Note: The advantage of this method is that it be done as quickly as you can count spaces on the map. However, it will create a very uniform (i.e., boring) experience. Like a dungeon featuring perfect symmetry, there will be considerably less interest in exploration and market research will be generally devalued.

CALCULATE PRICE – STEPPED VERSION: When the PCs do market research in a location, determine the shortest path between the location and the closest source of the trade good. For each week of travel along this path, modify the price factor by 1d4-2. This cannot reduce the price factor below 1, nor above 5.

SPECIAL MARKETS: 1 in 6 markets will have a special relationship with the trade good. Roll 1d8 on the table:

Design Note: Rolling again twice on this table may create strange combinations. (For example, Taboo + High Demand. Or Illegal + Taxed.) Seize the opportunity to creatively explain the discrepancy. For example, if the goods are illegal, who’s charging the tax? A local crime syndicate? A strange goddess who haunts the village?

Go to Part 1

Yesterday I rolled out some experimental rules for revising hydras and creating new hydroid creatures. Today we’re going to put them into practice with a few sample creatures.

Bear in mind that this is still an installment of an Untested column: The general rules for hydroids haven’t been tested and these specific monsters even less so. If you do find occasion to use them in your own games, please circle back and let us know how it went!

HYDRALING

Baby hydras — also known as hydralings – are two-headed serpents, only developing the legs of an adult hydra during adolescence. The mothers of hydralings have been seen to deliberately bite off one of the heads from their offspring, prompting the growth of an additional head. Some have hypothesized that this is because hydralings never truly sleep (since one of their heads is always awake), but it’s more likely an instinctual action which prompts (or is prompted by) the hydraling’s development.

HYDRALING
Medium monstrosity, unaligned

Armor Class 13 (Natural Armor)
Hit Points Special
Speed 40 ft., swim 20 ft.

STR 12 (+1)
DEX 15 (+2)
CON 12 (+1)
INT 2 (-4)
WIS 10 (+0)
CHA 6 (-2)

Skills Perception +3, Stealth +4
Senses passive Perception 13
Challenge 1/2 (100 XP)

Amphibious. A hydraling can breathe air and water.

Hydroid. The hydraling has two heads. For every 10 points of damage the hydra suffers, one of its heads dies. If all of its heads die, the hydraling dies.

At the end of its turn, the hydraling grows two heads for each of its severed heads, unless it has taken fire damage since the head was severed. A hydraling can have a maximum of five heads.

Multiple Heads. While the hydraling has more than one head, it has advantage on saving throws against being blinded, charmed, deafened, frightened, stunned, and knocked unconscious.

For each additional head beyond one, it gets an extra reaction that can be used only for opportunity attacks.

While the hydraling sleeps, at least one of its heads is awake.

ACTIONS

Multiattack. The hydraling makes as many bite attacks as it has heads.

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (1d4 +2) piercing damage.

TENTACULAR ABOMINATION

A dog-size creature with eel-like skin. It has no head, but its back is a writhing mass of tentacles.

TENTACULAR ABOMINATION
Medium monstrosity, unaligned

Armor Class 15 (Natural Armor)
Hit Points: Special
Speed 30 ft.

STR 17 (+3)
DEX 12 (+1)
CON 14 (+2)
INT 6 (-2)
WIS 13 (+1)
CHA 6 (-2)

Skills Perception +5
Senses Blindsight 60 ft., passive Perception 15
Challenge 3 (700 XP)

Pack Tactics. The tentacular abomination has advantage on an attack roll against a creature if at least one of the tentacular abomination’s allies is within 5 ft. of the creature and the ally isn’t incapacitated.

Hydroid. The tentacular abomination has five tentacles. For every 10 points of damage the abomination suffers, one of its tentacles dies. If all of its tentacles die, the abomination dies.

At the end of its turn, the abomination grows two tentacles for each of its severed tentacles, unless it has taken acid damage since the head was severed.

Multiple Heads. While the tentacular abomination has more than one head, it has advantage on saving throws against being blinded, charmed, deafened, frightened, stunned, and knocked unconscious.

For each additional head beyond one, it gets an extra reaction that can be used only for opportunity attacks.

While the abomination sleeps, at least one of its heads is awake.

ACTIONS

Multiattack. The abomination makes as many tentacle attacks as it has tentacles.

Tentacle. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: (1d6+3) bludgeoning damage. The target is grappled (escape DC 13) by one of the abomination’s tentacles. Until this grapple ends, the tentacular horror can’t use that tentacle on another target.

LENGLIAN SERAPHIM

Wings. Dozens of wings clustered together as if shielding a central mass (although no such mass exists within the impossible dimensional toroid of the Lenglian seraph), with eyes opening and shutting between the wings. Some Lenglian seraphs are also known to emit smoke or aurora-like, multi-colored halos as their wings continue to fold and unfold, stretching, reaching, searching, beating the air around them.

(It is also not unusual for Lenglian seraphs to be confused for a swarm of winged creatures, particularly from a distance.)

LENGLIAN SERAPHIM
Large celestial, lawful good

Armor Class 17 (Natural Armor)
Hit Points Special
Speed fly 80 ft.

STR 22 (+6)
DEX 21 (+5)
CON 14 (+2)
INT 21 (+5)
WIS 16 (+3)
CHA 19 (+4)

Saving Throws Wis +7
Skills Perception +7
Damage Resistance Radiant; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks
Condition Immunities Charmed, Exhaustion, Frightened
Senses Truesight 120 ft., passive Perception 17
Languages All, Telepathy 120 ft.
Challenge 12 (8,400 XP)

Innate Spellcasting. The seraph’s spellcasting ability is Charsima (spell save DC 17). The seraph can innately cast the following spells, requiring only verbal components:

• At will: bless, detect evil and good
• 1/day each: augury, commune

Hydroid. A Lengling seraph has thirty-five wings. For every 5 points of damage the seraph suffers, one of its wings is severed. If all of its wings are severed, the seraph dies.

At the end of its turn, the seraph grows two wings for each of its severed wings, unless it has been splashed with unholy water since the wing was severed or is under the effects of a bane spell.

Many Eyed. A seraph has eyes proportionate to its wings. While the seraph has more than one wing, it has advantage on saving throws against being blinded, charmed, deafened, frightened, stunned, and knocked unconscious.

For every five wings the seraph has, it gets an extra reaction that can only be used for opportunity attacks.

ACTIONS

Multiattack. The seraphim can make one wing attack for every five wings it has.

Wing. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (1d8+6) bludgeoning damage.

Radiant Gaze (Recharge 5-6). One creature that the seraph can see within 60 feet of it must make a DC 17 Constitution saving throw, taking 70 (20d6) radiant damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

LEGENDARY ACTION

Can take one legendary action. Only one legendary action can be used at a time, and only at the end of another creature’s turn. Spent legendary actions are regained at the start of each turn.

Buffeting Wings. The seraph beats its wings. Each creature within 10 ft. of the seraph must succeed on a DC 17 Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6+6 bludgeoning damage and be knocked prone. The seraph can then fly up to half its flying speed.