Commonly Accepted House-Rules?

[Reosoul]

I'm currently running a Sandbox, Hexcrawl homebrew game with standard 5e rule sets. Started off playing things as RAW as possible just to see where my players fell in the spectrum of this particular game. Feats are allowed in this game and as such, I'm beginning to see where some of them tend to hold more weight than others simply because of other mechanics and options built into the game(such as Two-Weapon Fighting vs. Great Weapon Fighting -5/+10).

Of course, I simply could retcon and remove feats than deal with the balancing headache, but players obviously have fun with them, so they're going to stay for this campaign. That said, what are good house-rules that are accepted at most tables? After the game having been out for more than a year, what is considered pretty-damn-balanced rules options that help elevate some of the 'traps' of D&D 5e to being less clunky and more fun?

[JoeJ]

I don't know how common this is, but I decided that a spell effect that has become permanent through casting over and over again (teleportation circle, for example) is actually permanent and can't be dispelled. I did this for worldbuilding reasons rather than balance, because I want there to be a bunch of them around that are little used or even completely forgotten, but still active and potentially dangerous.

[hymer]

I believe a nerfing of the moon druid's wild shape from level 2 to about 4 is very common. Its exact nature varies, though.

[Kryx]

I doubt you'll find any commonly accepted ones.

Balance fixes that I'd suggest:

Match the expected amount of encounters and short rests per day. This ensures that all classes get what is expected of them. Try for 5-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests. Several options to fix this.
Don't use -5/+10 in games - it throws the math way off.
Give TWF either another attack when using their bonus action or rend automatically at 11. (Rend = proficiency bonus in damage extra if both main hand and offhand hit. Double it if you use -5/+10)
Buff Sorcerers. Sorcerers gain 2 metamagic at level 3 as normal, and gain an additional one at 7, 11, 15, and 19. Sorcerous Restoration. At 5th level you regain 2 expended sorcery point whenever you finish a short rest. This increases to 3 at 10th, 4 at 15th, and 5 at 20th. Give extra spells known based on Origin. See Sorcerous Origins (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aGlSiAbLxyN04vmaOjDt1os3jVy9PhN2iNLvc19I7XU/edit). Response to these buffs:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427376-Wizards-vs-Sorcerer-Spell-List&p=19528547#post_19528547


You're welcome to look through my houserules (https://docs.google.com/document/d/112evwX4-QFfkLlAEq8UDKLREazWlCpvAg6Ek_16752A) and take what you like.

[The1exile]

A simple one that helps in my current game is letting players have more than one point of inspiration (it still doesn't carry between sessions). That can help with potion syndrome, where players are reluctant to spend it in case they don't get another, and generally encourages people to keep being awesome even if they're not making rolls.

[Reosoul]

I doubt you'll find any commonly accepted ones.

Balance fixes that I'd suggest:

Match the expected amount of encounters and short rests per day. This ensures that all classes get what is expected of them. Try for 5-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests. Several options to fix this.
Don't use -5/+10 in games - it throws the math way off.
Give TWF either another attack when using their bonus action or rend automatically at 11. (Rend = proficiency bonus in damage extra if both main hand and offhand hit. Double it if you use -5/+10)
Buff Sorcerers. Sorcerers gain 2 metamagic at level 3 as normal, and gain an additional one at 7, 11, 15, and 19. Sorcerous Restoration. At 5th level you regain 2 expended sorcery point whenever you finish a short rest. This increases to 3 at 10th, 4 at 15th, and 5 at 20th. Give extra spells known based on Origin. See "link I can't repost". Response to these buffs:
"Another link I can't repost"


You're welcome to look through "link I can't repost" and take what you like.

Thank you for all the helpful responses everyone, including Kryx. This is basically what I'm looking for. Some of the homebrew tweaks threads are pretty extensive, but also get into pretty granular issues, such as changing spells like Sleep, or swapping when class features come online. I tend to prefer more elegant solutions, when it's possible.

Unfortunately, -5/+10 is already in the game and I'm not going to break a player's toy(for this campaign, but definitely for future campaigns.) Don't currently have a sorcerer in the group, but that's probably good as these changes are more in-depth and something I'd need to take more time to look at.

Thank you for the responses, this is all quite important to me as the group I have right now I might be gaming with for quite a time into the future, so I like to have these in my back pocket to ease out that feeling of "Wow my character is **** compared to this other guy" syndrome that can sometimes come about just from how the numbers add up. Really, thanks!

[JoeJ]

A simple one that helps in my current game is letting players have more than one point of inspiration (it still doesn't carry between sessions). That can help with potion syndrome, where players are reluctant to spend it in case they don't get another, and generally encourages people to keep being awesome even if they're not making rolls.

I like that, although I'd still limit it to one use per die roll. That is, you can accumulate but you can't stack.

[Velaryon]

On the subject of sorcerers:

The Wild Magic sorcerer's starting ability (I'm away from my books right now but it's the one that you can roll on a chart for) defaults to "when the DM says, you can make a d20 roll when casting a spell, and on a 1 you can roll on this chart." Just have the sorcerer make that d20 roll every time they cast a spell (not a cantrip). Even doing it every time, it still doesn't come up that often. Limiting it further beyond that takes the already weaker sorcerer version and hits them harder.

[Naanomi]

While I have a few others in place, the only important ones have been shifting a few spell effects (contagion, similacrilum, natures ally) to be less enticing to break-ability

[woodlandkammao]

My DM runs with a rule that fall damage can be transferred to an enemy if you land directly on them with a DC12 acrobatics check. I may or may not have created an Orbital Drop Rogue.

[ad_hoc]

On the subject of sorcerers:

The Wild Magic sorcerer's starting ability (I'm away from my books right now but it's the one that you can roll on a chart for) defaults to "when the DM says, you can make a d20 roll when casting a spell, and on a 1 you can roll on this chart." Just have the sorcerer make that d20 roll every time they cast a spell (not a cantrip). Even doing it every time, it still doesn't come up that often. Limiting it further beyond that takes the already weaker sorcerer version and hits them harder.

That is already the rule. Every non-cantrip spell warrants a roll on the Wild Magic Surge unless the DM determines otherwise (which would be the case for downtime casting and such where it would just make the game drag).

The Wild Magic Surge is not the strength of the Wild Mage, it is Tides of Chaos. Being able to get advantage on anything is very powerful.

[bid]

The easiest way to deal with the -5/+10 is to increase enemies AC. If your players hit less than half the time, it becomes useless. Don't do it every time, but once a while to see them sweat.

[Reosoul]

The easiest way to deal with the -5/+10 is to increase enemies AC. If your players hit less than half the time, it becomes useless. Don't do it every time, but once a while to see them sweat.

While that is a solution, it's not one I tend to like to use. It makes it seem like I'm trying to punish the player, rather than raising everyone to a similar level. I mean, I'll still probably remove -5/+10 for my next game, but the philosophy of picking on a player isn't what I prefer to do(though yes, it is a quick and easy option).

[Firechanter]

We only have a small handful of houserules:

- Quarterstaves do not benefit from Polearm Master if you are using a shield. (Should go without saying)
- Readied Actions can be carried over to the next round, as long as you like.
- You can delay your entire turn as in 3E. Your initiative count changes for the rest of the encounter.

And then we also have a houserule to prevent dumpstats, but that is probably not relevant for this thread.
I'm not really aware of anything else.

Edit:

Oh yes, and then not exactly a houserule, but rather the acceptance of an official guideline as a rule:
- only 2 Short Rests and 1 Long Rest per 24 hours. We call the Short Rests "Lunch" and "Teatime".

[Strill]

- Quarterstaves do not benefit from Polearm Master if you are using a shield. (Should go without saying)
Bad houserule. I instead allow Spears to work with Polearm Master. Exact same mechanically as Quarterstaff + Shield, but with perfectly reasonable imagery.

[Firechanter]

Well, Spears do not work with PM at all, with shield or without, so that would be a different houserule.
If we're looking at that, and thinking about RL imagery, I guess I'd allow it to trigger an OA on approach, but not the bonus attack with the butt unless you're wielding it two-handed.

[Malifice]

I really view the 5/10 feats as good but overrated. It's a chance for GWM fighters to land a hit that does around 20 instead of around 10 damage. With a +5 to hit vs an AC of 16 it halves your chances to hit (from 50 to 25 percent) meaning you miss with it as often as you hit with it at that mark.

I also second the rest mechanic advice. 6-8 encounters a day is the sweet spot. For a sandbox campaign you should definately be using the longer rests (1 day/ 1 week) variant.

[Kryx]

Based on DMG averages the chance to hit drops from 65% to 40%. It's worth using every time against the average and the benefit is very substantial.

It's not overrated in the slightest.

[Malifice]

Based on DMG averages the chance to hit drops from 65% to 40%. It's worth using every time against the average and the benefit is very substantial.

It's not overrated in the slightest.

Average damage with a greatsword is just over 11.

65 percent of 11 is 8.45.

40 percent of 21 is 8.4.

Considering the opportunity cost, (you could have bumped strength by 2 instead) it's highly over rated.

[bid]

Average damage with a greatsword is just over 11.

65 percent of 11 is 8.45.
40 percent of 21 is 8.4.

Considering the opportunity cost, (you could have bumped strength by 2 instead) it's highly over rated.
I kinda agree the -5/+10 is overrated, but the bonus attack might compensate for that.

[MaxWilson]

I really view the 5/10 feats as good but overrated.

It really, really depends upon what kind of monsters your DM likes to use. The difference between AC 18 hobgoblins, AC 15 goblins, AC 13 orcs, and AC 11 beasts is huge when you're considering the -5/+10 bits.

(The numbers below assume 16 Dex and Sharpshooter + Archery style, or 16 Str and GWM + Defense style.)

Against AC 18, power attacking with a greatsword is worthless (although cleave is not worthless) and sniping with a heavy crossbow is about half as good as +2 to Dex. (4.53 DPR => 4.90 with sniping, or 5.50 by boosting Dex.) Against AC 15, power attacking is about half as good as +2 to Str (5.85 => 6.35 with power attack, or 6.95 with +2 Str), and sniping is right between +2 and +4 to Dex. Against AC 13, power attacking is slightly better than +2 Str, and sniping is effectively +4 to Dex. Against AC 11, power attacking is like +4 to Str, and sniping is like +6 to Dex.

Monster selection has a huge impact on the value of those feats, and so do monster tactics. Obviously in a game where goblins like to fort up behind partial cover, Sharpshooter has even more value than the above analysis for AC 15 indicates.

-Max

[Malifice]

I kinda agree the -5/+10 is overrated, but the bonus attack might compensate for that.

There are other things to do with that bonus action though. Off hand atfacks, pole arm master, rage/frenzy, cunning action, second wind, smite spells, etc)

I'm not saying its a bad feat. It's good. Situationally it's actualy a great feat (mook clearance etc).

It's not OP however

[Firechanter]

The beauty of Power Attack comes into play when you have Advantage. A GWM benefits much more from Advantage than any other melee fighting style. And a smart party can generate Advantage very often.

[Kane0]

For my group:

- No -5/+10, its straight +2 damage or +1 to str/dex (chosen when you get the feat, cannot be changed)
- Getting healed up from 0 HP gives you a level of exhaustion
- Dragonborn get darkvision
- Sorcerers regain sorcery points equal to half (rounded down) the hit dice spent to heal HP during a short rest
- Warlocks can pick one of the two patron spells of each level to gain as a bonus spell known that does not count against their total
- Medium Armor Mastery feat increases bonus from dex by +2 instead of +1
- High power game: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 stat array and half proficiency bonus to nonproficient saves

There's more, but they are the more persistent ones.

[JAL_1138]

Ditto on the "no Qstaff Polearm Master when wielding it one-handed." Stick and board shouldn't be objectively better than sword and board.

[Kryx]

Average damage with a greatsword is just over 11.

65 percent of 11 is 8.45.

40 percent of 21 is 8.4
Your math is incorrect. Assuming +3 strength a GWF Greatsword does 8.33 + 3 = 11.3333

.65 * 11.3333 = 7.366645
.4 * 21.3333 = 8.53332

Only looking at weapon damage that's a 15% increase in DPR. Slightly less than a stat increase (~20%) and that's only one half of the feat.

Now that is incredibly limited. If we look at a Barbarian who gets advantage to every hit:
65% turns into 87.75%
40% turns into 64%

.8775 * 11.3333 = 9.94497075
.64 * 21.3333 = 13.653312

Only looking at weapon damage and reckless attacks that's a 37% increase in DPR. Significantly better than a stat increase, and that's only one half of the feat.

Now if you take all the factors into account at level 20 (no frenzy):
Barbarian GWM: 58 DPR with -5/+10. 47 DPR without. That's a 23% increase.
Barbarian Polearm+GWM: 73 DPR with -5/+10. 57 DPR without. That's a 28% increase.

It is literally the best choice in the game based on the average AC presented in the DMG.



Agreed on Darkvision for Dragonborn. I'd also suggest improving their breath weapon to be 2/4/6/8 dice at the cantrip intervals. That's quite common.
Agreed on QStaff & Polearm Master.
Healing 1 hp at 0 hp is gimmicky. I fix that by making some abilities have to use more HP. For example lay on hands must use 5 hp to heal from 0 (still heals 5). Others use exhaustion or keep saving throws until a short rest.
Medium armor should allow +3 dex by default imo.

[Lollerabe]

Okay Kryx can you please tell me - GWM is OP compared to what?

Now this might be a wall of text so bear with me. But assuming the following:

If you are playing with GWM, i'll make a broad assumption and assume that you are either a paladin,barb or figther.

Not only did you pick a class that more or less only shines in combat (granted pala can be a partyface, but almost all the class abilities are combat related) you also chose to go for a strength build. Thus forgoing the awesomeness that is a high dex score, last but not least you then chose to pick up a heavy weapon thus forgoing the awesomeness that is high AC. So at this point you've put ALOT of eggs into the "I wanna kill smash things with a huge weapon" basket.

In order to actually do this efficiently, you then spend further resources by picking up the GWM feat, and alas you have now done one thing - made a character that is good at dealing a high sustained solo target damg. Gz.

So I guess we aren't calling GWM martials OP compared to casters, that would be silly - the versatility and aoe damg potential of casters are unmatched.

At the same time archers are still relevant through having a way better prime stat, and CBM and SS feats to boot.

Sword and board? That's another discussion entirely, shieldmaster is awesome and serves a different playstyle.

So I'm guessing GWM is OP compared to the last contender - TWF, in which case please don't nerf GWM and SS to match the absolute worst fightstyle there is.
TWF is just bad design, and if that's your benchmark do as you, yourself suggested - buff TWF.
Prof. damg as a rend effect at lvl 11, 2xprof damg if you grab the dual wielder feat - there, you now used a feat as well and are actually putting out damg (while also having the luxury of being able to be dex based)

So as a TL;DR why is it a problem that GWM martials deal a Fton of single target damg? That's what they are supposed to do, and they are investing ALOT to do it. I just don't see the issue at all.

[Kryx]

The game can be played without feats and the balance of the game there is quite good. The balance of feats is that they are a tradeoff worth something around an ability score improvement. In some cases that is not true. This is one of those cases.
-5/+10 alone is worth more than an ability score improvement. Cleave is nice, attacking with no cover penalties or range penalties is nice, but the issue is -5/+10.

You can call on the old argument of "omg martials need something because casters are OP", but that's not really true in this edition. Casters have their moments and Martials have their moments. If a group players as prescribed in the Adventuring Day section of the DMG then the balance is overall very very good compared to old editions. But either way that isn't really relevant to the discussion imo.
The biggest victim of -5/+10 is classes like Monk, Rogue, TWF, Cleric, moon druids, melee casters, etc that do not have access to it. Their combat effectiveness in comparison to a -5/+10 class is hugely diminished.

There are 2 ways to balance that out:

Remove -5/+10
Allow -5/+10 for all classes (large bloating of the damage math, but for all classes)


Either way you do it GWM and Polearm are still great builds, just not 150%+ the damage of other classes. More like 120-130% depending on the other class.

[Celcey]

Getting back to common houserules, many people allow advantages and disadvantages to stack and not automatically cancel each other out.

[Kryx]

Stacking Advantage: Having 3 advantage and 1 disadvantage being canceled out isn't good imo. It should cancel on a 1:1 ratio so whoever has the most wins.

You could also implement a small stacking - giving a +/-1 each additional stack. I did so, but it actually hasn't come up once.

[mephnick]

One of mine the table seems to like is the fact that no one rolls death saves until the unconscious character is healed or checked on.

Removes the meta-game of counting saves vs failures, "Oh he's got 2 saves, he's fine, don't bother healing him, keep fighting."

If you suddenly have to roll 4 or 5 saves all at once to see if you die, players begin to treat downed allies with a bit of realistic worry.

[Kryx]

Agreed on not knowing the state of a downed ally. It adds a lot.

I even made it possible on roll20 using the 5e sheet so that death saves are only whispered to the GM.

[Malifice]

Your math is incorrect. Assuming +3 strength a GWF Greatsword does 8.33 + 3 = 11.3333

.65 * 11.3333 = 7.366645
.4 * 21.3333 = 8.53332

Only looking at weapon damage that's a 15% increase in DPR. Slightly less than a stat increase (~20%) and that's only one half of the feat.

Now that is incredibly limited. If we look at a Barbarian who gets advantage to every hit:
65% turns into 87.75%
40% turns into 64%

.8775 * 11.3333 = 9.94497075
.64 * 21.3333 = 13.653312

Only looking at weapon damage and reckless attacks that's a 37% increase in DPR. Significantly better than a stat increase, and that's only one half of the feat.

Now if you take all the factors into account at level 20 (no frenzy):
Barbarian GWM: 58 DPR with -5/+10. 47 DPR without. That's a 23% increase.
Barbarian Polearm+GWM: 73 DPR with -5/+10. 57 DPR without. That's a 28% increase.

It is literally the best choice in the game based on the average AC presented in the DMG.



Agreed on Darkvision for Dragonborn. I'd also suggest improving their breath weapon to be 2/4/6/8 dice at the cantrip intervals. That's quite common.
Agreed on QStaff & Polearm Master.
Healing 1 hp at 0 hp is gimmicky. I fix that by making some abilities have to use more HP. For example lay on hands must use 5 hp to heal from 0 (still heals 5). Others use exhaustion or keep saving throws until a short rest.
Medium armor should allow +3 dex by default imo.

Re GWM point noted the maths. However your maths is also off. You need to factor in the opportunity cost of taking the feat - ie give the non GWM fighter an extra +2 strength.

Increasing the base damage of the non GWM by 1 to 12.3333 and give him an extra 5 percent chance to hit.

So it should be 0.70 percent of 12.3 damage vs 0.4 of 21.3.

Or 8.61 DPR v 8.5.

And that's vs the most optimal AC.

So without advantage, non GWM is always better (barring corner cases like extremely low ACs or ACs of 20+ or when attacking with advantage.

Bonus strength also:

Increases Str saves, battle master manouver DCs, altletics checks (so combat manouvers) wearing heavy armor, other (non heavy) weapons including thrown weapons, encumbrance, lifting and carrying.

The 5/10 is overrated.

The bonus action attack generates far more DPR than the 5/10, and its situational (you need the kill, a target, and a bonus action free).

[Lollerabe]

Okay im sorry if people feel like im derailing the thread, but if we talk about common houserules I think it's fair that we ask if those rules make sense.

Kryx I feel like you kind of overlooked my entire point. If you add -5/+10 to all classes you are indeed doing the 3/3,5 thing again. A moon druid is a full caster with versatility out the wahzoo, if it also becomes on par damg wise with a GWM barb/figther/pala then yes we are back to the "why the hell should I play a figther, let alone have one in my party".

The monk ? You want highest movespeed, best saves,least gear reliance, stun on hit AND comparable damg to a GWM char? You can't have the cake and eat it too.

My point is by RAW barb, fighter and paladin (allthough to a lesser extent) are some of the least versatile classes, they excel in combat - GWM/PAM allows that to stay as such throughout.

It kind of baffles me that anyone could disagree with the idea that they should be ahead at the one thing they shine at.

And no I don't believe that "all classes have the same DPR in a non feat game over a day" is a good thing- if that's the case then ill never play anything that isn't ATLEAST a half caster.

[Talyn]

I don't know about "commonly accepted," but our table uses the following houserules which seem to be common sense:
- allow 3E-style delay, which reduces your initiative until you jump back in, and that is your new initiative
- critical successes and failures can happen on skill checks as well as attacks
- polearm mastery only works with quarterstaves when you are wielding them in two hands

[Daishain]

Couple of tweaks I've chosen to work with and have proven popular at my table:
-Con modifier is added to death saves (but not proficiency even if con saves are trained)
-Upon receiving an ASI, a player can add 2 ability points, 1 ability point and 1 minor feat, or 1 major feat. The list of minor feats include all feats that add to an ability score, but are stripped of that particular bonus for the sake of this rule. Medium armor master and weapon master are also on the list. (this adds a great deal of flexibility and has increased the odds of a feat being picked for flavor reasons rather than optimization)
-Sickle has the finesse property. Mace is versatile (1d8). Morningstar and War Pick are versatile (1d10). Pike grants 15 foot reach, but imposes disadvantage to strike targets 5 feet away. Glaive loses the heavy property (making it usable by small races), but its damage drops to 1d8. Blowguns damage goes up to 1d4, and checks to apply poison to its darts are made with advantage
-If already a spellcaster, characters picking up the Magic initiate feat can choose to use their own casting stat rather than the one for the list they're picking from.

I'm also working on allowing master smiths to craft armor and weapons from advanced materials such as dragon scale, mithral and adamantine. But I'm still debating the details, especially since I'm not satisfied with the examples given in the DMG.

[Kryx]

You need to factor in the opportunity cost of taking the feat - ie give the non GWM fighter an extra +2 strength.
Only until level 12. After they have +5 stat and -5/+10. Even before then a Barbarian always wants -5/+10 at level 4.

I've done the full math taking ASIs into account. Choosing -5/+10 is choosing to accept 150%+ damage. Otherwise it stays within the normal percentages compared to other classes (but is still a good boost).

@Lollerabe: I simply don't agree with your points. Your point is you want Fighter/Barbarian to be able to do 150%+ the damage of any other classes. That is not anywhere near the default nor do I think it's good for the party to have such large variances.
One other one to consider is S&B. -5/+10 isn't available to sword and board so the previous tradeoff is no where near the same. Tripping is great, but it doesn't amount to as much as a -5/+10 user as they can trip (Battlemaster) or get advantage another way (Reckless Attacks).
My goal isn't "all classes have the same DPR in a non feat game over a day". Please don't bias the argument with that kind of logic. My goal is to not invalidate classes. The default balance is good. Adding a feat that does significantly more than an ASI is not good.

You're free to disagree and say it's fine for your game. But it's a common houserule because it heavily distorts the math. That's what we should be discussing: the math. The rest is just opinion which everyone can choose which they like.

I, personally, prefer to have options like S&B, TWF, Monk, Rogue, War Cleric, etc be viable options. By making them do significantly less damage they are no longer viable options in comparison.

[Malifice]

Only until level 12. After they have +5 stat and -5/+10. Even before then a Barbarian always wants -5/+10 at level 4.

So the -5/+10 of GWM only becomes better DPR wise at 12th level? That doesn't sound broken to me at all.

And at 12th level (when stats are on par) and GWM finally overtakes the non GWM on DPR slightly (only taking into account the 5/10) then the non GWM character is a feat (or ASI to another stat) ahead. Such as lucky, resilient (wisdom) or alert.

And re the Barbarian, I don't have a problem with them being channelled towards GWM. They're a class designed around Str based risk/ reward melee attacks with big heavy weapons.

It's a feature not a bug that it's a mechanically better choice for them than for other classes.

[Kryx]

So the -5/+10 of GWM only becomes better DPR wise at 12th level? That doesn't sound broken to me at all.
You're not listening. Barbarian and Battlemaster fighter want it at 4 as they have reliable ways to pull off advantage.
Paladin wants it early as well due to bless.

Subpar classes like bladelock who already struggles to compete has to wait until later.


150% damage in your eyes is a "feature, not a bug". In other people's eyes it's a bug. That's why it's a common houserule. You just disagree with the premise.

[Lollerabe]

Didn't mean to offend, pardon.

Since when is the war cleric prohibited from grabbing GWM, yes warpriest feature dosen't always work with the GWM bonus action but hey if you down the mook you use the GWM bonus action, if you want to nova a BBEG you deplete you warpriest feature.

I guess you are right, I believe that being a full caster (cleric fx) while still being able to deal decent attack damage is a fair balance. I believe that the rogue monk shine in alot of other areas, and therefore shouldn't deal as much damg. And I don't think that they aren't viable options, just because they perform worse (at times) in the combat aspect of the game.

SB offers more than a damg advantage too, being able to survive a great ordeal more and provide soft CC.

TWF - as I said I think that TWF should just get a alternate version/overhaul in a official WOTC release, the style suck and the feat that compliments it - even more so.

Anyway you are right, agree to disagree. Didn't intend to come off as rude, so again my apologies.

As far as houserules: We play with 27 pb, but no 15 max - the idea is that it opens up all race+class combos, so you can go ahead and make the char you want without feeling overly mechanicly punished.

It has not come up yet, but we would rule that versatile weapons counts as heavy for small races - which would allow the halfling barb the full aspect of the GWM feat when wielding a warhammer in two hands. This is because we think that the small races are already inferior as strength based two handed wielders, through smaller damage dice and no + racial strength.

My DM has also ruled that critical 1's applies to everything as well (a rule I hate, since it messes with my build :D )

Hmm for most things we go with the rule of fun tho, wanna use a 1d8 martial warspear? Sure that's a weapon now, np.

[Malifice]

You're not listening. Barbarian and Battlemaster fighter want it at 4 as they have reliable ways to pull off advantage.
Paladin wants it early as well due to bless.

Subpar classes like bladelock who already struggles to compete has to wait until later.


150% damage in your eyes is a "feature, not a bug". In other people's eyes it's a bug. That's why it's a common houserule. You just disagree with the premise.

No, the numbers show that barring corner case classes who have access to advantage (str based and two handed heavy weapon using melee orientated BM fighter, Barbarian) the +5/-10 does not grant better DPR till 12th level (and even then it's offset by the fact classes with lower DPR have the opportunity cost of an extra feat at their disposal).

It just doesn't sound like the sort of thing that needs a house rule. Expending a feat (basically a whole levels worth of class feature) for a slight to medium increase to DPR limited to benefitting only a small number of classes who focus on using big heavy weapons (ie focus on DPR) at the expense of AC from a shield and the advantage cost of a different feat like alert, lucky, resilient, shield master etc AND the advantage of a higher strength elsewhere doesn't sound like a bug.

Most DMs are put off because they only see the big hits and don't take note of the times GWM leads to misses.

[Kryx]

It just doesn't sound like the sort of thing that needs a house rule.
You're welcome to disagree, but the numbers don't show what you think they show.

Further discussion w/o me doing lots of work to show the full math is worthless. Feel free to look at DPR of classes to see the difference in damage between a -5/+10 class and a class without it.
By RAW it's worse than I let on. In a lot of cases it's double the amount of damage. In other cases it's closer to 150%.

I think double the amount of damage is not good for the game. You are ok with it (or think it isn't the case). That's your choice to make. Consider this my final word on it in this thread.

[Malifice]

You're welcome to disagree, but the numbers don't show what you think they show.

Further discussion w/o me doing lots of work to show the full math is worthless. Feel free to look at DPR of classes to see the difference in damage between a -5/+10 class and a class without it.
By RAW it's worse than I let on. In a lot of cases it's double the amount of damage. In other cases it's closer to 150%.

I think double the amount of damage is not good for the game. You are ok with it (or think it isn't the case). That's your choice to make. Consider this my final word on it in this thread.

We just did the numbers above man.

At 4th level a 2H GWS champion fighter who bumped strength to 18 at 4th hits at +6 dealing 12.3 damage on a hit. Versus AC 14 (average expected AC at that CR) he deals [0.65 x 12.3] or 7.995 damage.

The same bloke with GWM instead (and thus a strength of 16) deals [0.35 x 21.3] or 7.455 damage (0.5 less) for the cost of a lower Str save, being worse (-1 hit and damage) with thrown javelins and axes and non heavy melee weapons, and not as good with Athletics checks (combat manouvers, escaping grapples etc) and being able to carry and lift less.

If it wasn't for the bonus action attack on a kill I would advise the player to give the feat a miss - the +5/-10 is a trap option for him.

That's the maths.

Now in some corner cases it may be slightly better for raw DPR (recklessly attacking Str based melee barbarians attacking a creature within a certain AC range) in isolation of the opportunity loss elsewhere, but it in no way does it need a house-rule to 'fix' or is it a no brainer of a feat as written that outstrips every other option.

I can see greataxe weilding Barbarians grabbing it early but that fits their risk/ reward fluff and mechanics perfectly.

I just don't see it as being the problem it's made out to be.

[Finieous]

Your math is incorrect. Assuming +3 strength a GWF Greatsword does 8.33 + 3 = 11.3333

.65 * 11.3333 = 7.366645
.4 * 21.3333 = 8.53332

Only looking at weapon damage that's a 15% increase in DPR. Slightly less than a stat increase (~20%) and that's only one half of the feat.


Agree with the math, +15% DPR is nice, but it's just less than +1.2 DPR, after all. Tavern Brawler increases my average unarmed strike damage by 150%, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it's overpowered. This is just to say you have to look at the incremental values, not just the percentages. In return for that +1.2 average damage each round, in actual play, you're going to have to be patient and trust the math, because you will be doing a lot more whiffing than your compatriots.



Now that is incredibly limited. If we look at a Barbarian who gets advantage to every hit:
65% turns into 87.75%
40% turns into 64%

.8775 * 11.3333 = 9.94497075
.64 * 21.3333 = 13.653312

Only looking at weapon damage and reckless attacks that's a 37% increase in DPR. Significantly better than a stat increase, and that's only one half of the feat.


So that's a bit less than +4 damage. In return, you're giving advantage on all attacks against you, and your damage output is still highly volatile in actual play. Assuming we like the iconic barbarian with the two-handed weapon (as opposed to, say, the ridiculous "Dex barb"), what's the right number if +4 damage per round is too much?



Now if you take all the factors into account at level 20 (no frenzy):
Barbarian GWM: 58 DPR with -5/+10. 47 DPR without. That's a 23% increase.
Barbarian Polearm+GWM: 73 DPR with -5/+10. 57 DPR without. That's a 28% increase.


That's awesome damage! Why is it too much for a 20th level barbarian with 2/5 ASIs dedicated to dealing that damage in melee combat? How many 20th level encounters are most easily solved by the straightforward application of 73 points of damage per round?



It is literally the best choice in the game based on the average AC presented in the DMG.


It's the best choice for dealing damage, especially in the least challenging battles where opponents can be expected to have average or worse AC. But what's wrong with a design that makes specialization in heavy two-handed weapons the best path to high, single-character melee damage? Maybe you favor defense, or maybe you're in a party with a rogue and melee cleric, and Shield Master offers a bigger increase in party damage output. Why be content giving yourself advantage and increased damage in melee when you can do it for the whole party? For that matter, it's not just that single-character damage isn't the whole game -- combat isn't the whole game. If that's true, why is the fact that there is a "best choice" for dealing single-character damage in melee a problem?

TL;DR I agree with your math and your premise, I just don't see why it's a problem.

[broodax]

I don't understand why people keep doing napkin math when the actual math has already been done. Y'all are losing half the feat when you spill your drinks, not to mention all the details.

Houserule commentary:

I don't think changing the readying and delaying rules would be good for the game. This simplification is one of the great things 5e did. That's not to say they can't work in your games (especially if you want to make them as simulationist as possible), but I don't think they'd be "commonly accepted" at all.
Changing quarterstaff/PAM to make sense seems to make sense.
A lot of people do something about variant human. I think the most reasonable (fun) solution is to give every character a feat at level 1 and just ban variant human.
All of my games (played and DM'd) have used the "variant" rule for counting diagonals the same way it was done in 3.5 (I guess using a grid is supposedly a variant as well...), and I don't know why you ever wouldn't.
Adding critical success and failures to skills seems like a really bad idea to me (again, maybe you like it, but I don't think anyone would call it "commonly accepted").
Search sane magic item prices on the forum here - this is necessary if you want magic items to ever be bought or sold and make any sense.

[Naanomi]

Yeah the -5/+10 just adds damage to a guy with a giant weapon who likely only does damage... I agree it can be a big boost in damage but since that is all it is I'm on with it. Certainally not a 'common house rule' to ban them (at least not in my gaming neighborhood)

[Shining Wrath]

Some nerfing of "broken" spells


There can be only one Simulacrum of a creature in the multiverse. A Simulacrum of a Simulacrum counts as a Simulacrum of the original. Casting Simulacrum to create a second copy fails with loss of all materials.
True Polymorph cannot create a magic item
If you Fabricate too much of a particular salable good, the guild of people who make their living off that salable good obtained via mundane means will send extremely competent assassins who specialize in killing wizards after you.


I justify all of these with the saying "You aren't the first wizard". In particular, if the Simulacrum cheese works, some lich back at the dawn of time set himself to creating as many simulacra of him or her self as possible - a certain level of narcissism being essential to becoming a lich in the first place - and now 90% of the population of every planet is simulacra of that lich, with instructions to destroy utterly anyone who reaches a level where they might be beginning to understand the possibility of pulling off their own assembly line.

[Malifice]

Some nerfing of "broken" spells


There can be only one Simulacrum of a creature in the multiverse. A Simulacrum of a Simulacrum counts as a Simulacrum of the original. Casting Simulacrum to create a second copy fails with loss of all materials.
True Polymorph cannot create a magic item
If you Fabricate too much of a particular salable good, the guild of people who make their living off that salable good obtained via mundane means will send extremely competent assassins who specialize in killing wizards after you.


I justify all of these with the saying "You aren't the first wizard". In particular, if the Simulacrum cheese works, some lich back at the dawn of time set himself to creating as many simulacra of him or her self as possible - a certain level of narcissism being essential to becoming a lich in the first place - and now 90% of the population of every planet is simulacra of that lich, with instructions to destroy utterly anyone who reaches a level where they might be beginning to understand the possibility of pulling off their own assembly line.

Im not sure I would call them house rules. Particularly not the third one (which is just common sense reactions from people in game with vested intrests in the economy).

In my games attempts to use spells like Simulacrum to do things beyond the implicit parameters and power of the spell as I interpet it (one only, and subject to AI issues) tend to backfire rather spectacularly in whatever way I decide would be the most entertaining for the game (creating your very own recurring evil twin as a villanous DMNPC for example).

True Polymorph not creating a magic item is also implicit in the rules as I interpret them.

My biggest houserule is that I grant everyone 1 feat at first level (humans can have two) and reduce short rests to 5 minutes a pop, but not more than 2 a day.

I also use lingering injuries, but as a player buy in only (once per long rest, you can choose to take one when reduced to 0 HP and not killed outright, and instead remain on 1 HP and alive).

Were at 6th level and our Gnome Evoker has lost his hand, and the Barbarian has 2 permanent facial scars (and is missing an eye).

I grant the last two rules because I only have 4 PC's, and want to bump them up a bit in power to bring them up to a 5 encounter party.

I also just rule crits are double damage. Makes champions and static damage bonus classes really shine.

[Shining Wrath]

Im not sure I would call them house rules. Particularly not the third one (which is just common sense reactions from people in game with vested intrests in the economy).

In my games attempts to use spells like Simulacrum to do things beyond the implicit parameters and power of the spell as I interpet it (one only, and subject to AI issues) tend to backfire rather spectacularly in whatever way I decide would be the most entertaining for the game (creating your very own recurring evil twin as a villanous DMNPC for example).

True Polymorph not creating a magic item is also implicit in the rules as I interpret them.

My biggest houserule is that I grant everyone 1 feat at first level (humans can have two) and reduce short rests to 5 minutes a pop, but not more than 2 a day.

I also use lingering injuries, but as a player buy in only (once per long rest, you can choose to take one when reduced to 0 HP and not killed outright, and instead remain on 1 HP and alive).

Were at 6th level and our Gnome Evoker has lost his hand, and the Barbarian has 2 permanent facial scars (and is missing an eye).

I grant the last two rules because I only have 4 PC's, and want to bump them up a bit in power to bring them up to a 5 encounter party.

I also just rule crits are double damage. Makes champions and static damage bonus classes really shine.

I went thru the Feats and listed off seven I called the "Non-combat" feats, and allowed players to choose one of those at L1, with the additional proviso that you couldn't boost one of your top 3 stats, so, e.g., "Actor" didn't help the bard.

I had one Linguist, two Observant who made a deal to trade something else for the ASI, one straight Observant, an Actor, and a Ritual Caster. It gives the characters some more personality.

[Malifice]

I went thru the Feats and listed off seven I called the "Non-combat" feats, and allowed players to choose one of those at L1, with the additional proviso that you couldn't boost one of your top 3 stats, so, e.g., "Actor" didn't help the bard.

I had one Linguist, two Observant who made a deal to trade something else for the ASI, one straight Observant, an Actor, and a Ritual Caster. It gives the characters some more personality.

Worst case scenario I can have a sharpshooting crossbow master human at 1st level. Seeing as I remove the 'ignore cover' from that feat and impose disadvantage for shooting into melee (the sharpshooter feat now removes that penalty) and even that is not broken.

It enables Stats of 18 (place a 15 in the stat, go a race that grants +2 and take a linked feat that adds 1) at 1st level (I'm happy with that).

Forgot: I also allow half prof to NP saves.

[Kryx]

I went thru the Feats and listed off seven I called the "Non-combat" feats, and allowed players to choose one of those at L1, with the additional proviso that you couldn't boost one of your top 3 stats, so, e.g., "Actor" didn't help the bard.
I did something similar and split feats into half parts. It wasn't too difficult.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14ospp70vgWKehPRegAae8eKjH8YynlEgabiOGEn9RJQ

[Crusher]

You're welcome to disagree, but the numbers don't show what you think they show.

Further discussion w/o me doing lots of work to show the full math is worthless. Feel free to look at DPR of classes to see the difference in damage between a -5/+10 class and a class without it.
By RAW it's worse than I let on. In a lot of cases it's double the amount of damage. In other cases it's closer to 150%.

I think double the amount of damage is not good for the game. You are ok with it (or think it isn't the case). That's your choice to make. Consider this my final word on it in this thread.

I see what you're saying. I responded in the -5/+10 thread you started, but this might be a better place for a question I have. -5/+10 adds a whopping ton of average damage, particularly for anyone who can reliably get advantage in some fashion. In the campaign I'm currently running, no one has GWF but the ranger has Sharpshooter. When the party runs into a pack of things that are easy to hit (she *loves* zombies) she turns into a wrecking ball.

My question is: Is there a reduced level at which the damage output becomes appropriate? For example, someone above mentioned possibly making GWF (and Sharpshooter, for that matter) a flat +2 damage. That seems reasonable to me. What if GWF was tweaked to, say, -3/+6? It would maintain the original flavor of the feat, but would it be enough of a nerf to bring the damage output into line?

[Kryx]

Crusher, best to keep -5/+10 discussion to the other thread so we don't pollute this one.

[Crusher]

Crusher, best to keep -5/+10 discussion to the other thread so we don't pollute this one.

Alright, I'll ask it over there.

[Baptor]

Before you read my houserules, there are two things you should know.

1. I love bounded accuracy. It's one of the greatest things ever IMO. Therefore, I hate anything that

threatens to break BA and will do whatever I must to ensure it goes away with a fair compromise.

2. You will believe that some of my rules make my players OP. The truth is I despise having to

meticulously build encounters and adventuring days, laying out careful battles to ensure the players

reach the boss at 75%hp and 50% resources. It's far easier for me to assume the players are at 100%

hp and short rest resources. The players love it for obvious reasons. They are happy and I am happy.


Magic Item Houserules
1. No +hit items. A magic weapon that gives +hit now gives +damage. the most common is a bonus to

damage equal to the wielder's proficiency bonus. BA is balanced for escalating hit points. It's been

pointed out countless times that if you want to make a monster harder, increase its hit points or

damage, but not its AC or to hit. Why the devs didn't follow that philosophy with magic items is

beyond me.

2. No +AC items. A magic item that confers +AC now confers +1hp per level for each +AC it once gave.

3. Belts of Giant Strength now confer a flat bonus to melee damage rolls.

4. We update other items as we encounter them.

Other Rules
1. Players roll hp, but if the roll is less than the average in the PHB, they get the average.

2. A short rest restores full hp. No more healing dice.

3. The healing potion is now a potent item that always restores 1/2 of your max hp value. There is only one kind of healing potion.

4. Cure wounds can be cast as a bonus action.

[EggKookoo]

Magic Item Houserules
1. No +hit items. A magic weapon that gives +hit now gives +damage. the most common is a bonus to damage equal to the wielder's proficiency bonus. BA is balanced for escalating hit points. It's been pointed out countless times that if you want to make a monster harder, increase its hit points or damage, but not its AC or to hit. Why the devs didn't follow that philosophy with magic items is beyond me.

Aren't the bonuses on weapons both +hit and +dam already?

[locke411]

I doubt you'll find any commonly accepted ones.

Balance fixes that I'd suggest:

Match the expected amount of encounters and short rests per day. This ensures that all classes get what is expected of them. Try for 5-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests. Several options to fix this.
Don't use -5/+10 in games - it throws the math way off.
Give TWF either another attack when using their bonus action or rend automatically at 11. (Rend = proficiency bonus in damage extra if both main hand and offhand hit. Double it if you use -5/+10)
Buff Sorcerers. Sorcerers gain 2 metamagic at level 3 as normal, and gain an additional one at 7, 11, 15, and 19. Sorcerous Restoration. At 5th level you regain 2 expended sorcery point whenever you finish a short rest. This increases to 3 at 10th, 4 at 15th, and 5 at 20th. Give extra spells known based on Origin.



I definitely have to agree with your 1st and 3rd points, I do those myself in my group.

[Zmeoaice]

I posted this question in a thread I made, but it might be useful here as well. What are some house rules to un-nerf 5e rangers?

[Kryx]

1. I love bounded accuracy. It's one of the greatest things ever IMO. Therefore, I hate anything that threatens to break BA and will do whatever I must to ensure it goes away with a fair compromise.
Dozens of us!



I posted this question in a thread I made, but it might be useful here as well. What are some house rules to un-nerf 5e rangers?
That really deserves it's own thread imo. Lots to discuss with lots of different opinions on what a Ranger should be.

[Shining Wrath]

Dozens of us!



That really deserves it's own thread imo. Lots to discuss with lots of different opinions on what a Ranger should be.

I have one germane one ... a Ranger can learn a new terrain or enemy for the same 250 GP / 6 months it takes to learn a language. It's small, but it makes sense to me.

[EggKookoo]

I second the short rest limit. We do 2 per long rest. And only one long rest per 24 hours (which isn't a house rule; it's in either the DMG or PHB).

We use the fumble-on-a-1 variant. I usually invoke disadvantage on the player's next attack with the same weapon if he makes it on his next turn. The player can opt to switch attacks or simply wait it out.

We also do criticals and fumbles on checks and saves. The penalty varies depending on the type of roll and the circumstance. If I can "disable" the character (not a status effect, I mean impede the character's functionality related to the check or save) for a round somehow I usually do that. Sometimes I'll impose disadvantage on a subsequent attempt, or grant advantage on an opposing roll, or something like that. For critical skill checks or saves, if there's a numerical value related to success I can easily increase/double it. For example, if a non-evasion character rolls a nat-20 on a DEX save to avoid AoE damage, I'll probably just let him avoid all damage as if he had evasion. Otherwise I do something where it grants advantage to the character or imposes disadvantage on a hostile creature. All else fails I award a special inspiration for use with the same kind of check or save at some point in the future. It's very situation-dependent, but we usually work something out.

[L Space]

I also just rule crits are double damage. Makes champions and static damage bonus classes really shine.

Sorry AFB at the moment, but isn't that what crits normally do already?

[hymer]

Sorry AFB at the moment, but isn't that what crits normally do already?

Normally doubles the dice, not the static bonuses.

[EggKookoo]

Normally doubles the dice, not the static bonuses.

I think they did that to balance against crits happening a flat 5% of the time, rather than the 3.P confirmation roll.

[Firechanter]

Not a houserule we use, but I've always like the AD&D2 optional rule that you get an extra attack on a natural 20. ^^

[L Space]

Normally doubles the dice, not the static bonuses.

Ok, didn't realize that's what he was saying and thought maybe I had been handling crits wrong in my game :smalleek:. Doubling static bonuses actually makes sense, especially since 5e's crits already apply to things like Smiting and Sneak attack, unlike a lot of other editions.

[deusflac]

one small house rule implemented that the bonus attack with PAM doesnt have reach and would need to be within 5' of target to use.

[sigfile]

At some point I'll run a non-AL table. At which point...


Halflings can't use their Lucky trait when disadvantaged. Disadvantage shouldn't be an additional chance for a critical hit.
Eldritch Knights may use weapon-bonded weapons as spellcasting foci for wizard spells and for performing the somatic components of wizard spells. Admittedly, this one's on the chopping block; while the sword and board workaround to not having this is silly ("I drop my weapon!"), trivial AC 25+ is something I'd like to actively discourage.
Druids who revert to their natural forms from wild shape must end at least one of their turns in their natural forms before using Wild Shape again. This restriction is lifted at sixth level. Low level Moon Druids are a bit over-the-top - this helps reign them in a bit.
Elemental Adept Feat - rather than turning ones in to twos, you may re-roll any damage dice of the appropriate element that come up as a "1". You must use the new roll.
Lucky - burn a luck point to make an attack, save, or ability check with advantage or to grant disadvantage to an enemy's attack against you. It's simple and prevents "superadvantage" shenanigans.
Polearm Master Feat - Replace every instance of "quarterstaff" with "quarterstaff being wielded as a two-handed weapon."
Skilled Feat - Instead of learning three new skills / tool proficiencies, you may opt to gain proficiency with one skill or tool and expertise with a skill or tool with which you are proficient.
Weapon Master Feat - Instead of +1 STR or DEX and four weapon proficiencies, you may choose one (specific) weapon type with which you are proficient. Your weapon attacks with that type of weapon score a critical hit on a natural roll of 19 or 20.
-5/+10 features - still very much a work-in-progress. I'm thinking of limiting them to one use per attack action type (action, bonus action, reaction). Multiattackers would get one superattack per volley of shots/swings. An eleventh level fighter is limited to +30 damage in a nova round rather than +70. I don't pretend to have done the math to know if this does enough or too much towards shifting those feats back in to competition with everything else.

[Reosoul]

It's telling to see how much discussion revolves around feats, class features, and magic items. It's also interesting that feats and magic items tend to be thought of as optional, as one can have interesting effects on balance, and the other can break bounded accuracy. I like a lot of the ideas in this thread though since, I think, for most players, feats and magic items aren't considered 'optional' to 5E. It's been a part of Dungeon's and Dragons for a long time, even if 5E finally does fix some of the arms race aspect.

I already have a few items that add +1 accuracy or +1 AC, but I might make future items more about bonus damage or armor giving bonus HP. Similarly, I'd rather tweak a feat than remove it entirely, and I'll likely implement some of that. Maybe have a scaling version of -5/+10 which really only hits it's stride later in the game instead of just wrecking a kobold for damage that triples it's HP.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

[Vogonjeltz]

Okay im sorry if people feel like im derailing the thread, but if we talk about common houserules I think it's fair that we ask if those rules make sense.

Well, I believe Kryx did say that he doesn't think there are commonly accepted house rules, but that these were his suggestions on how he would "fix" the game. I don't agree with his position, but I wouldn't want his misrepresented.



3.If you Fabricate too much of a particular salable good, the guild of people who make their living off that salable good obtained via mundane means will send extremely competent assassins who specialize in killing wizards after you.

Is this even necessary? They still have to have the skill and raw materials, the only thing obviated is time requirements. Plus this costs a 4th level spell slot! i.e. They could only fabricate 3 items per day without cutting into even higher level spell slots or worse, using arcane recovery.

Equipment only sells for half value per the rules, and it requires the raw materials which, per the crafting rules are worth 1/2 the market value of the item.

Bottom Line: You need 750gp worth of raw materials to craft a suit of plate armor and can, at best, sell that armor at market for only 750gp, for a net profit of 0gp and being down a 4th level or higher spell slot.

I think your other two problem spells are actually resolved within the rules as well: True Polymorph allows an object, not a particularized subset of that object. i.e. You can make someone into a Sword, but not a particular type of sword. I'd also note that the spell specifies targeting of nonmagical objects only, and then refers to it from there on out as merely object, making the nonmagical part implied for the remainder of the spell. This follows standard writing conventions, that means the creature can only turn into a nonmagical object. It would require a contravention of the normal english writing conventions to read it any other way.

The simulacra issue is resolved by the inability of the duplicate to become more powerful. Gaining a permanent minion would violate this clause, disallowing that spell from being cast. Similarly, a Simulacra would be unable to benefit from a Wish spell that gave it resistance, or increased its statistics, in the same way a Wizard simulacrum is unable to use Arcane recovery because of the line disallowing it from regaining expended spell slots. (Or rather, it 'can' use it, it just can't regain any spells having done so.)

Anyway, the point is that these don't require an addition as they are self-resolving.

[JoeJ]

In Simulacrum, where it reads, "If you cast this spell again..." it means you or your simulacrum.

[Daishain]

Is this even necessary? They still have to have the skill and raw materials, the only thing obviated is time requirements. Plus this costs a 4th level spell slot! i.e. They could only fabricate 3 items per day without cutting into even higher level spell slots or worse, using arcane recovery.

Equipment only sells for half value per the rules, and it requires the raw materials which, per the crafting rules are worth 1/2 the market value of the item.

Bottom Line: You need 750gp worth of raw materials to craft a suit of plate armor and can, at best, sell that armor at market for only 750gp, for a net profit of 0gp and being down a 4th level or higher spell slot.
The default rules in regards to the market are incredibly stupid and would very very quickly lead to a crashed economy where money is meaningless. Abandoning them with all possible speed is something I suggest for all DMs and all games. But for the sake of responding directly, I'll ignore that for the time being.

Those prices only apply if simply selling to a vendor. If one can be considered a vendor yourself (which you would be if going into business selling armor), or are partnering with one, then the profit at default pricing is 750 per suit. A normal smithy would be spending months worth of man hours on each item, with a large portion of that profit eaten up over that time frame in indirect costs. Their actual net profit might be 150. Our spellcaster however gets to keep pretty much all of it, can afford to lower his prices, and can produce at a rate that puts him in simultaneous competition with an entire kingdom's worth of blacksmiths.

And then there's the possibility of creating a magic item that can cast fabricate, meaning the spellcaster doesn't even have to burn his own slots up. It would be a pretty expensive and tough to make item, but the man has the profit margins to support it.

Seriously, the only reason I wouldn't call fabricate the single biggest threat to this world's economy is that the default rules already hold that title.

[Shining Wrath]

The default rules in regards to the market are incredibly stupid and would very very quickly lead to a crashed economy where money is meaningless. Abandoning them with all possible speed is something I suggest for all DMs and all games. But for the sake of responding directly, I'll ignore that for the time being.

Those prices only apply if simply selling to a vendor. If one can be considered a vendor yourself (which you would be if going into business selling armor), or are partnering with one, then the profit at default pricing is 750 per suit. A normal smithy would be spending months worth of man hours on each item, with a large portion of that profit eaten up over that time frame in indirect costs. Their actual net profit might be 150. Our spellcaster however gets to keep pretty much all of it, can afford to lower his prices, and can produce at a rate that puts him in simultaneous competition with an entire kingdom's worth of blacksmiths.

And then there's the possibility of creating a magic item that can cast fabricate, meaning the spellcaster doesn't even have to burn his own slots up. It would be a pretty expensive and tough to make item, but the man has the profit margins to support it.

Seriously, the only reason I wouldn't call fabricate the single biggest threat to this world's economy is that the default rules already hold that title.
:smallbiggrin:

Let us not discuss the 3.5 idea of buying ladders, breaking them into two 10' poles plus some torches, and selling them at a profit.

If your characters want to become merchants, retire them as NPCs and start characters who want to adventure.

[Dalebert]

Sorry for wall of text. I'm late to the thread and catching up but very interested.


As far as houserules: We play with 27 pb, but no 15 max - the idea is that it opens up all race+class combos, so you can go ahead and make the char you want without feeling overly mechanicly punished.

That's a way. The way I address this is just giving an extra +1 after point buy that can't be placed in a stat that already has a racial bonus, exception for non-variant humans who can put it anywhere. It just makes the players ever so slightly more exceptional than the average roll without much min-maxing and makes MADish classes a little more viable. My main motivation is so players can play the race that fits their concept/flavor without being as heavily influenced by just numbers.


All of my games (played and DM'd) have used the "variant" rule for counting diagonals the same way it was done in 3.5 (I guess using a grid is supposedly a variant as well...), and I don't know why you ever wouldn't.

I don't because it makes the game feel constricted and mathy-looking and detracts from the immersion. I was inspired by DM Scotty, a YouTuber who shows how to hand-craft D&D props including floors and ground and so forth. I have several devices for measuring distance if it's in question but you'd be surprised how little it comes up and how little time it actually detracts from the flow of action. Most of the movement can be eye-balled and I don't nitpick it unless it makes a big difference. My players have expressed overwhelming enthusiasm for how much it helps their immersion and overall enjoyment of the game.

Anyway, I admit the house rule makes sense if you do use a grid. The AL games I'm in don't use it and I'm loving it as a player with a main character built around battlefield movement (a wood elf teleporting shadow monk with the mobile feat).


Search sane magic item prices on the forum here - this is necessary if you want magic items to ever be bought or sold and make any sense.
[/list]

Is that really a house rule though? The price lists are already incredibly broad and vague. That one already seems left up to DM discretion to decide economic factors.


In Simulacrum, where it reads, "If you cast this spell again..." it means you or your simulacrum.

I am very cautious about spells that give you more spell slots. It's bad enough that this gives a wizard access to a vast array of cleric spells. I've adjusted this spell so you have to give up any slots that you want the simulacrum to have access to for casting its spells known. It can regain them normally but as long as it has those slots, you don't. I feel like this encourages the intended use of the spell (a little) toward being an infiltration/subterfuge/spying type spell as opposed to a permanent lackey who fights for you and casts spells for you type spell.


If your characters want to become merchants, retire them as NPCs and start characters who want to adventure.

Here, here! Honestly, I don't know why characters would want to go through even this much tedium just to make money in an edition where you don't need money so badly to have a fun character. Your character used to depend on having the right magic items to be effective. Now, even buying magic items is so discouraged that most characters are fairly wealthy for all practical purposes just from adventuring even if they have less money than in previous editions.

[Jebble]

Here is our houserules, which I think could be generally accepted:

- Minor advantage (see the minor advantage thread)
- Flanking gives minor advantage
- Standing up from being prone provokes an opportunity attack. Taking the disengage action prevents this.
- You can only reroll one die on a single roll.
- Delay action as per 3.5.

Houserules in this thread I would consider adopting:

- Medium Armor Mastery feat increases bonus from dex by +2 instead of +1 (Kane0)
- Stacking disadvantage (but not advantage)

[Vogonjeltz]

The default rules in regards to the market are incredibly stupid and would very very quickly lead to a crashed economy where money is meaningless. Abandoning them with all possible speed is something I suggest for all DMs and all games. But for the sake of responding directly, I'll ignore that for the time being.

Those prices only apply if simply selling to a vendor. If one can be considered a vendor yourself (which you would be if going into business selling armor), or are partnering with one, then the profit at default pricing is 750 per suit. A normal smithy would be spending months worth of man hours on each item, with a large portion of that profit eaten up over that time frame in indirect costs. Their actual net profit might be 150. Our spellcaster however gets to keep pretty much all of it, can afford to lower his prices, and can produce at a rate that puts him in simultaneous competition with an entire kingdom's worth of blacksmiths.

And then there's the possibility of creating a magic item that can cast fabricate, meaning the spellcaster doesn't even have to burn his own slots up. It would be a pretty expensive and tough to make item, but the man has the profit margins to support it.

Seriously, the only reason I wouldn't call fabricate the single biggest threat to this world's economy is that the default rules already hold that title.

It's all well and good to say you want to be a vendor, but there are already rules for running a business (downtime sections of the DMG), and who cares if you can fashion dozens upon dozens of suits of armor on your own time, there's no guarantee anyone will purchase any of them. Besides already being taken care of by the business rules, it seems rather likely that anyone with the resources to pay for a suit of plate armor would already have their own smith.

Having a magic item that does this is DM collusion, so we don't have to concern ourselves with that, we already know anything can happen if the DM agrees.

[Daishain]

:smallbiggrin:

Let us not discuss the 3.5 idea of buying ladders, breaking them into two 10' poles plus some torches, and selling them at a profit.

If your characters want to become merchants, retire them as NPCs and start characters who want to adventure.
And of course, the wall of salt and wall of iron shenanigans...

In any case, there's room for the adventurer who has a steady job in between saving the kingdom. My wizard for instance runs an alchemy shop to fund his research expeditions. Its more for flavor, I've deliberately kept the actual game impact minimal. But there is definitely an appeal to being more than just the guys who keep the pawn shops happy.


It's all well and good to say you want to be a vendor, but there are already rules for running a business (downtime sections of the DMG), and who cares if you can fashion dozens upon dozens of suits of armor on your own time, there's no guarantee anyone will purchase any of them. Besides already being taken care of by the business rules, it seems rather likely that anyone with the resources to pay for a suit of plate armor would already have their own smith.

Having a magic item that does this is DM collusion, so we don't have to concern ourselves with that, we already know anything can happen if the DM agrees.
Given the choice between paying 1500 apiece for 5 suits and waiting 2 years for the order to be completed, and paying 1200 apiece for the same order which gets done in a week, who do you think is going to get the business?

As for the magic item, you are correct in that the default is no, but I feel that the possibility of magic items that fall outside of the DMG's rather weak listing being allowed in various games is strong enough to make it a stated concern. Heck, one of the first things I ever did for 5E was come up with a basic rubric for the creation of such items.

[JackPhoenix]

The default rules in regards to the market are incredibly stupid and would very very quickly lead to a crashed economy where money is meaningless. Abandoning them with all possible speed is something I suggest for all DMs and all games. But for the sake of responding directly, I'll ignore that for the time being.

Those prices only apply if simply selling to a vendor. If one can be considered a vendor yourself (which you would be if going into business selling armor), or are partnering with one, then the profit at default pricing is 750 per suit. A normal smithy would be spending months worth of man hours on each item, with a large portion of that profit eaten up over that time frame in indirect costs. Their actual net profit might be 150. Our spellcaster however gets to keep pretty much all of it, can afford to lower his prices, and can produce at a rate that puts him in simultaneous competition with an entire kingdom's worth of blacksmiths.

And then there's the possibility of creating a magic item that can cast fabricate, meaning the spellcaster doesn't even have to burn his own slots up. It would be a pretty expensive and tough to make item, but the man has the profit margins to support it.

Seriously, the only reason I wouldn't call fabricate the single biggest threat to this world's economy is that the default rules already hold that title.

In Eberron, this is the reasoning behind Dragonmarked Houses, mainly Cannith. In Eberron, while low-level NPC casters (let's say up to level 4) are pretty common, PC classes and high level casters are extremely rare. Dragonmarks allows access to some of these spells without being a caster, and the Houses developed technologies/magic items operated by dragonmarked heirs that helps to make stuff faster, cheaper, easier...and thus, the fantasy megacorporations were born. Ones that are very stingy about others encroaching on their turfs, with assassins and (oficially non-existent) private armies, and influence in government, and...you get the idea.

[Markoff Chainey]

Here is ours... they were developed in this forum with the help of many contributors, foremost Kryx :)
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?437569-Fixing-broken-stuff-in-5e

[Iolo Morganwg]

Our table's two house rules are Darkvision for Dragonborn, and the ability to select Thirsting Blade at Warlock six.

[EggKookoo]

Any thoughts on what the balance implications would be to allowing Extra Attack when Readying an attack? I find the limitation that you can only make use of Extra Attack when you attack on your turn to be frustrating.

I'm not talking about allowing Extra Attack anywhere you swing your sword. I don't mind disallowing it for pretty much anything else, like opportunity attacks, but it's strange to me that you can wait and take your time but somehow you can't get in as many attacks as you would be able to on your turn.

[Kryx]

Any thoughts on what the balance implications would be to allowing Extra Attack when Readying an attack? I find the limitation that you can only make use of Extra Attack when you attack on your turn to be frustrating.
I think you'd be better off just allowing the delay action per 3.X which moves the initiative. Allow them to act before the opponent if they use their reaction perhaps.

[Iolo Morganwg]

Any thoughts on what the balance implications would be to allowing Extra Attack when Readying an attack? I find the limitation that you can only make use of Extra Attack when you attack on your turn to be frustrating.

I'm not talking about allowing Extra Attack anywhere you swing your sword. I don't mind disallowing it for pretty much anything else, like opportunity attacks, but it's strange to me that you can wait and take your time but somehow you can't get in as many attacks as you would be able to on your turn.

I thought that was how it was supposed to work RAW for a readied action. Is that not correct?

[Demonic Spoon]

I thought that was how it was supposed to work RAW for a readied action. Is that not correct?

Nope - extra attack only applies when you take the attack action on your turn. The ready action is not the attack action. You could argue you are taking the attack action, but it's not on your turn, so you don't get the extra attacks.

[EggKookoo]

I think you'd be better off just allowing the delay action per 3.X which moves the initiative. Allow them to act before the opponent if they use their reaction perhaps.

Why would this be better than just allowing the extra attacks on a readied attack action? I think the 5e approach to initiative order makes sense and is supported by other things (lair actions, save-on-turn effects, etc.). Last thing I want to do is introduce a mechanic that makes me restack my init order all the time.

[Daishain]

Any thoughts on what the balance implications would be to allowing Extra Attack when Readying an attack? I find the limitation that you can only make use of Extra Attack when you attack on your turn to be frustrating.
I'm inclined to think that it is fine (especially since the cantrips that are the mage's basic attacks are not so hindered), so long as players are aware that the ruling goes both ways. Running smack into a hobgoblin troop right behind the door with readied actions is going to hurt.

[Theodoxus]

My group ran into this - coming from a PF background, the "simplified" 5th Ed combat round took a bit of getting used to. When we realized the Warlock still got both his EB blasts off when readying to cast at an enemy peeking over a wall, but the Ranger only got one bow shot, that it was just another case of Casters getting all the toys and Mundanes being left in the dust.

I argued that casters should be similarly limited, but was over-ruled; based primarily on the wording of Warcaster. If the Reaction cast triggered by Warcaster was a full cast, then a readied Reaction cast should be as well.

I have no qualms letting a readied Reaction trigger a "full attack action" (to coin a 5th Ed phrase from 3.x) - It's still burning the Reaction and Action, so limits what the character can do in the rest of the round. I wouldn't let them use a Bonus as part of the Reaction, though I would let, say a rogue start his round by using a Bonus Action to move into an advantageous location, Ready to attack on some trigger; Reaction to the trigger (and if he had an Extra attack [Rogue 3/Fighter 5] say, attack twice. Any bugger getting swatted and survive would then be able to back away from the character, as they wouldn't be able to React to the triggering OA. Seems balanced to me.

[Kane0]

A more complete list, not including some class abilities, spells and feats I look at on a case by case basis:


- Nat 20 is always a success, Nat 1 is always a failure

- Can always choose average HP when levelling up, even after rolling

- Add half Prof bonus to nonproficient saves

- -5/+10 now applies once per turn (GWM and Sharpshooter)

- Sharpshooter ignore cover applies once per turn

- Sorcerers regain 1 spent sorcery point for every 2 hit dice spent to heal during short rest

- Advantage & disadvantage cancel on a 1:1 basis

- TWF: If you hit an enemy with both primary and off hand in the same round you deal extra damage equal to your prof bonus

- Crits are x2 damage

- Inspiration can be accumulated, though max of 1 at start of each session. Inspiration allows a lucky style extra roll and choose or a reroll, chosen when the inspiration is used and cannot be used more than once for a particular instance/roll.

- Standard stat array 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

- Spears replace quarterstaves for polearm master

- Dragonborn gain 60' darkvision and Breath weapon scales at 2d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6

- Medium Armor mastery increases to +4

- Warlocks pick one patron spell per spell level to gain as bonus spell known

- Getting healed from 0 gives you a rank of exhaustion

- One feat at level 1, no variant humans. Subject to DM approval.

- Eldritch Knights can use their bonded weapon as a spell focus

- Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters choose one addional spell school to have access to as well as their normal access.

- Fighter indomitable recovers on a short rest, and you are always considered proficient when using the ability

[Firechanter]

I really don't see the argument. You're readying your Attack Action, then on the trigger you perform your Attack action, with however many Attacks you normally get.
What you don't get are any Bonus Action attacks, like from TWF, PAM or GWM.

[Iolo Morganwg]

Nope - extra attack only applies when you take the attack action on your turn. The ready action is not the attack action. You could argue you are taking the attack action, but it's not on your turn, so you don't get the extra attacks.

Can you tell me where you are reading that?

From the "Ready" section on p. 193, you decide the trigger, then "...choose the action..." You can choose any action.

Under the "Attack" section on p. 192, says that Attack is an action, and it clarifies that Extra Attack is part of the action.

The "Reactions" section on p.190 says nothing to contradict this.

[Kryx]

Why would this be better than just allowing the extra attacks on a readied attack action?
Because it's still inherently unequal to classes that use bonus actions. Examples would be TWF, monks bonus action unarmed strikes, spiritual weapon (cleric), bonus action dash stuff from rogue, bonus action spell continuation like (flaming sphere), etc.

Everyone should just get everything normally - that normal is fairly balanced. And the cost is now a lower initiative.

On the topic of monsters: they already get multiattack on a readied action. See the early pages of the MM.

[Firechanter]

I think you'd be better off just allowing the delay action per 3.X which moves the initiative. Allow them to act before the opponent if they use their reaction perhaps.

In our group we use both. Delay if you want to take your entire turn at a later point, including possible Bonus Actions, at the cost of permanently changing your Initiative. Or Ready if you want to retain your original Initiative, at the cost of possible Bonus Actions. No problem at all.

[EggKookoo]

I really don't see the argument. You're readying your Attack Action, then on the trigger you perform your Attack action, with however many Attacks you normally get.
What you don't get are any Bonus Action attacks, like from TWF, PAM or GWM.

According to the PHB, you only get your extra attacks when you take the attack action on your turn.

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

I don't like it but that's the RAW.


Because it's still inherently unequal to classes that use bonus actions. Examples would be TWF, monks bonus action unarmed strikes, spiritual weapon (cleric), bonus action dash stuff from rogue, bonus action spell continuation like (flaming sphere), etc.

Everyone should just get everything normally - that normal is fairly balanced. And the cost is now a lower initiative.

On the topic of monsters: they already get multiattack on a readied action. See the early pages of the MM.

I dunno, for me it's easier to just say when you move your action to your reaction via readying, you've literally just transplanted it over. That includes anything you could do as if you had taken your action. If you haven't used your bonus and you have a use for it, you get it. Basically you just move your action to your reaction, consuming both. Either would work but I like keeping it within 5e's rules as much as possible.

[Malifice]

I also allow readied Attack action = full number of attacks.

Breaks nothing and gives all classes access to their full DPR ecery round.

[Kryx]

I dunno, for me it's easier to just say when you move your action to your reaction via readying, you've literally just transplanted it over. That includes anything you could do as if you had taken your action. If you haven't used your bonus and you have a use for it, you get it. Basically you just move your action to your reaction, consuming both. Either would work but I like keeping it within 5e's rules as much as possible.
So basically the same as I said, but without the initiative delay.

I think the initiative delay is rather crucial to the concept, but we don't need to debate that.

[EggKookoo]

So basically the same as I said, but without the initiative delay.

Correct. At the top of the next round, everyone's back to their normal init position. I don't re-roll initiative each round mainly for speed, but also because I like to make sure a full round passes between each character's turn. Your turn serves more purpose than just the point in time that you get to take your action. A lot of status effects use things like "end of your next turn" as a key point. I don't want to give the player control over that.

Plus it just jives with my brain.


I think the initiative delay is rather crucial to the concept, but we don't need to debate that.

I... what? You're on the Internet and you don't want to debate something?

...are you an alien?

[Reosoul]

I... what? You're on the Internet and you don't want to debate something?

...are you an alien?

Certainly alien to this forum, from the short time I've been here.

Illithid avatar is very appropriate.

[halcyonforever]

Wow these are all really specific rule modifications. My group never seemed to want to change numbers precisely, more improvised weaponry, home-made feats, etc.

The one house rule that seemed to be enjoyed was the +2 crowning moment of awesome or -2 stupid idea of the day. Basically the RP bonus to a roll based on the creative presentation. (Sure your elf ranger can ride a shield down the stairs and fire his arrow I'll give you a +2 for that, {but the DC is going to be higher than all your dice combined})

[Kryx]

I... what? You're on the Internet and you don't want to debate something?

...are you an alien?
I've found my life more enjoyable when I choose not to endlessly debate and argue over things. I much prefer a discussion as it helps both sides understand one another.

The argument I'll make in this case: The user of this modified ready is getting a benefit of being able to respond to another person's action. In the past this benefit has cost a delay in initiative. One could argue that using a reaction is now the cost, but I don't find that cost to be sufficient for the total benefit. Therefore I think delayed initiative is the best choice. But, that's my opinion.

[EggKookoo]

I've found my life more enjoyable when I choose not to endlessly debate and argue over things. I much prefer a discussion as it helps both sides understand one another.

Indeed. As I get older I've found myself more frequently hitting the reply button, starting a charged response to something someone said, only to take a breath, decide no one really gives a crap, and backing out. It's liberating.


The argument I'll make in this case: The user of this modified ready is getting a benefit of being able to respond to another person's action. In the past this benefit has cost a delay in initiative. One could argue that using a reaction is now the cost, but I don't find that cost to be sufficient for the total benefit. Therefore I think delayed initiative is the best choice. But, that's my opinion.

I was thinking that the reaction is a good cost. It means no opportunity attacks, arrow deflections, opportunist, etc. We make a lot of use of OAs as I like to keep my NPCs mobile. And for the rogue in my party who likes to delay/ready, it means no uncanny dodge, which he relies on. I like to throw the brutes at him.

Certainly a matter of preference. But if it makes a player at my table furrow a brow and weigh options, it's a fair price. For me it's less about mechanical balance and more about trying to make sure each player has at least two interesting options each round, so that no one's just playing on autopilot.

Regarding my original question about it breaking, I honestly didn't know you couldn't use your extra attacks on readying and I've been playing it that way for the six or so months I've been DMing 5e. I've also been allowing the off-hand bonus action attack on a ready. It doesn't seem to have broken anything but I just wanted to see if anyone else had any contrary experience. So far so good.

[Dalebert]

So basically the same as I said, but without the initiative delay.

I think the initiative delay is rather crucial to the concept, but we don't need to debate that.

I agree and I think I'll implement this house rule as well. It makes sense because you're essentially delaying acting at all so you can do everything you would otherwise do when it was your turn. If you stand around doing nothing, time passes, and now a full round has to go by from that point before you act again. I also think that that much benefit should be more costly than just a reaction. It's like, I want to get out of line to go get more groceries that I forgot but the line keeps moving while I'm gone so I have to get back in line wherever I end up when I come back.

I'm also clarifying that you can't do anything at all. If you want your turn bumped down, you can't split it in half. That's too complicated. So don't move 15 feet and then say you're delaying. Nope. Too late.


Indeed. As I get older I've found myself more frequently hitting the reply button, starting a charged response to something someone said, only to take a breath, decide no one really gives a crap, and backing out. It's liberating.

I do that more in my "old age" as well. :smallamused:

[JoeJ]

Given the choice between paying 1500 apiece for 5 suits and waiting 2 years for the order to be completed, and paying 1200 apiece for the same order which gets done in a week, who do you think is going to get the business?

The spell description says it creates one object. A suit of plate armor is made up of a whole bunch of pieces, so you're not making 5 suits in a week. (It's still a lot faster than pounding it out by hand, though.)

I think the easiest way to handle the economic effects is socially. Sure, you can make armor, but unless you belong to the guild you're not allowed to sell it. And if you are a member, the guild has rules about pricing. The wizard can't corner the market, but they can still make a huge profit on every sale. So in a little while they'll probably become filthy rich and retire to enjoy their wealth, and then everything will be back to normal.

[Theodoxus]

I really don't see the argument. You're readying your Attack Action, then on the trigger you perform your Attack action, with however many Attacks you normally get.
What you don't get are any Bonus Action attacks, like from TWF, PAM or GWM.

Nope. When you use your Action to Ready, you convert your Action into a Reaction. You don't Ready an "Attack Action". Because you're not using an Action anymore, but a Reaction, you lose access to Extra Attack and Bonus Action attacks. Per RAW. Feel free to house rule that away though.


But that's the argument, in a nut shell.

[Coidzor]

The one house rule that seemed to be enjoyed was the +2 crowning moment of awesome or -2 stupid idea of the day. Basically the RP bonus to a roll based on the creative presentation. (Sure your elf ranger can ride a shield down the stairs and fire his arrow I'll give you a +2 for that, {but the DC is going to be higher than all your dice combined})

You don't run into trouble asking for rolls when it's impossible and your players find that even a nat 20 fails? :smallconfused:

[JoeJ]

Wow these are all really specific rule modifications. My group never seemed to want to change numbers precisely, more improvised weaponry, home-made feats, etc.

The one house rule that seemed to be enjoyed was the +2 crowning moment of awesome or -2 stupid idea of the day. Basically the RP bonus to a roll based on the creative presentation. (Sure your elf ranger can ride a shield down the stairs and fire his arrow I'll give you a +2 for that, {but the DC is going to be higher than all your dice combined})

Why would you make the DC that high? Don't you want the players to do cool things and be awesome?

[Talakeal]

You don't run into trouble asking for rolls when it's impossible and your players find that even a nat 20 fails? :smallconfused:

My DM constantly gets berates me for assuming I fail when I roll a natural 1 or succeed when I roll a natural 20.

He demands that I tell him what I got and then let him decide what happens rather than the dice.

I think it is incredibly frustrating and time wasting, if I literally can't fail / succeed why is he asking me to roll in the first place?

[MarkTriumphant]

I think it is incredibly frustrating and time wasting, if I literally can't fail / succeed why is he asking me to roll in the first place?

Just because you can't fail doesn't stop someone else in the party from doing so. Maybe your DM doesn't know the stats of everyone in the party.

[AbyssStalker]

My DM constantly gets berates me for assuming I fail when I roll a natural 1 or succeed when I roll a natural 20.

He demands that I tell him what I got and then let him decide what happens rather than the dice.

I think it is incredibly frustrating and time wasting, if I literally can't fail / succeed why is he asking me to roll in the first place?

Yeah... 1's and 20's should be auto fails/succeeds for reasonable tasks, I'm with you on this one, rolls should only be used when the outcome is in question, and if 1 or 20 doesn't tell you what you need, you shouldn't have been asked to roll in the first place.

[JoeJ]

With the release of the EEPC and now SCAG, with more books to come in the future, I'm ruling that only spells and cantrips in the PHB can be known to starting characters. Other spells can only be learned and/or prepared after they've been encountered in play.

[deathbymanga]

So, I just found out that apparently you recharge only half of your used up short-rest hit dies after a long rest, and you need to make 2 long rests in a row before you get them all back. Seriously? As a DM I've always allowed my players to fully recharge their hit dies after a single long rest. is that too OP?

[Talakeal]

Just because you can't fail doesn't stop someone else in the party from doing so. Maybe your DM doesn't know the stats of everyone in the party.

I considered that. I actually asked him what was up with that and the answer was for more surprising than I ever could have imagined... (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25610)

[Ace Jackson]

So, I just found out that apparently you recharge only half of your used up short-rest hit dies after a long rest, and you need to make 2 long rests in a row before you get them all back. Seriously? As a DM I've always allowed my players to fully recharge their hit dies after a single long rest. is that too OP?

Do your players complain about the encounters being far too easy?

Do you have difficulty providing varied, fun, and challenging encounters to your group?

Do your games suffer because your players are moving too quickly through objectives and adventures and you, as the DM, can't make new content fast enough?

Do you or your players plan on moving to an organized play of some form in the foreseeable future as a group goal?

If you answered yes to any of these, then you might consider changing. Otherwise, I don't see a great problem personally, it's just a different style of game.

This said, I know nothing about your group in particular, and I might not have listed every useful reason to consider switching styles in general. YMMV.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I considered that. I actually asked him what was up with that and the answer was for more surprising than I ever could have imagined... (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25610)

Wow. That's some broken social contract right there. :smallfrown:

[hymer]

I considered that.

I had a DM do the same to me. He basically told us that the story was already written, and he'd make sure it ended the way he wanted it to. I took a break, and so did a lot of players, and he became more... pliable.
Anyway, there could be a very reasonable reason to tell you to say what your total is (not so much chewing you out for it): There could be degrees of success and failure. Common in many games' mechanics. Even when not applicable, I often have the narrative reflect the degree of failure/success on skill rolls.

[EggKookoo]

Wow. That's some broken social contract right there. :smallfrown:

The problem here is extremism. A good DM will sometimes fudge dice. It's a bad DM that always fudges dice as much as it's a bad DM that never fudges dice, although personally I'd weigh it such that it's better to not fudge than to fudge.

A DM who always fudges dice has essentially lost control of the game. Not control over the session or the encounter, but of the game itself. It means he really doesn't understand, on some fundamental level, how the game works. So at some point he shrugged and gave up.

Conversely, a DM who never fudges dice under any circumstances lacks the confidence to take that control, even a little bit. Like a musician who can play sheet music flawlessly but is terrified of any improv whatsoever. He's not really getting the most out of his medium.

For the record, I'm a "roll out in the open" and "tell my players the DC" kind of DM. I almost never fudge dice. Except for when I do... :smallcool:

Edit: Re: "A good DM will sometimes fudge dice." What I mean is that it's not inconsistent for a good DM to sometimes fudge dice, not that a DM must sometimes fudge dice in order to be good. English am funny ofttimes.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The problem here is extremism. A good DM will sometimes fudge dice.

[..]

Conversely, a DM who never fudges dice under any circumstances lacks the confidence to take that control, even a little bit.

I may be a semi-extremist myself, but I think statements such as these are only conditionally more appropriate than "A good player will sometimes fudge dice" or "A player who never fudges dice under any circumstances lacks the confidence to take that control". Common role-playing conventions such as the DM but not players being trusted with arbitrarily steering events should ideally be actively understood and not just come with some inherited "DM as the boss of the table" paradigm, but at a minimum, of course, people should not lie to each other about what activity is actually taking place at the table.

[Firechanter]

In our group, the DM rolls all bis Attack Rolls and Saves openly and for everyone to see. And most other rolls. Only exceptions are stuff like Stealth/Perception etc.
I wouldn't want it any other way. I used to have fudging GMs before and, ever since I was aware of their fudging, it sucked.

[EggKookoo]

Common role-playing conventions such as the DM but not players being trusted with arbitrarily steering events should ideally be actively understood and not just come with some inherited "DM as the boss of the table" paradigm, but at a minimum, of course, people should not lie to each other about what activity is actually taking place at the table.

Sorry, are you suggesting that the DM isn't the boss at the table?

Edit: Rereading your post a few times, I think that isn't what you're saying. The clearest I can distill is that you're saying it's bad for either side to lie about what's going on. While in general I agree with that, the DM may need to lie from time to time. Ideally it's kept to a minimum but if a situation arises where the DM has to fudge something on the fly, that's not automatically a sign of a bad DM.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Sorry, are you suggesting that the DM isn't the boss at the table?

By exceptionally common convention, this tends to be the case. There are usually practical reasons for the DM to assume various refereeing duties, but it's by no means given that they should be most suited for them.

[Coffee_Dragon]

While in general I agree with that, the DM may need to lie from time to time. Ideally it's kept to a minimum but if a situation arises where the DM has to fudge something on the fly, that's not automatically a sign of a bad DM.

Yes, agreed. The DM can also effectively "lie" by taking into account information that isn't known to the players, or perhaps sometimes to obscure something that "must" remain obscured. And we can probably think of several other reasons, but the reason should not be as simple as "the DM just gets to do that". Because then if the players don't get to do it, if players fudging is always cheating while the DM fudging is just part of the toolbox, I think it loses track of the fact that everybody around the table should on the highest level be an equal participant, with an equal investment in the social contract and equal input in what constitutes good playin'.

But this is mostly theorizing, admittedly - in practice I don't rant about social contracts at the table or fudge rolls as a player and I accept that my DM will fudge because I trust him to do it and it's always been done that way and so on. :) (But if I end up refereeing again I think I'll try to do it a little bit differently.)

[Talakeal]

By exceptionally common convention, this tends to be the case. There are usually practical reasons for the DM to assume various refereeing duties, but it's by no means given that they should be most suited for them.

I've never understood DMs who need to be all powerful and unquestioned. Its a game with your friends, not a grave undertaking by your servants, there is no reason to act like a tyrant. I have met a LOT of controlling DMs over the years (although my "current" DM by far takes the cake) both online and in person, and even a few players who prefer it that way, but it has always baffled me.

[Doug Lampert]

In our group, the DM rolls all bis Attack Rolls and Saves openly and for everyone to see. And most other rolls. Only exceptions are stuff like Stealth/Perception etc.
I wouldn't want it any other way. I used to have fudging GMs before and, ever since I was aware of their fudging, it sucked.

My regular commenting on fudging is that the world is full of GMs who fudge dice and are convinced their player's can't tell. And it's also full of players who have a horror story about a railroading GM whose fudging was blatantly obvious.

One of these groups is wrong about what's happening at the table and they are spoiling people's fun as a consequence. Don't be a member of that group.

Maybe you can fudge dice "well", and aren't in the first group and no one suspects you're fudging dice, but you know what, all those people those horror stories are about, they probably thought that too. How do you actually know?

I hear a lot fewer horror stories (as in zero in over 30 years of playing) of GMs who stick with the dice no matter what and roll openly. (I do hear the occasional complaint about someone who rolls behind a screen and then insists "that's what the dice say", but part of those complaints is that the player's don't seem to actually believe that the dice said that, or that the particular roll was according to the rules of the game.)

In any case if I want to fudge something, why in the world would I fudge die rolls? I have so many other things I control that I'm actually expected to manipulate or use my judgment on. Insisting on changing die rolls seems to me to indicate a lack of knowledge of the other tools available.

[Talakeal]

My regular commenting on fudging is that the world is full of GMs who fudge dice and are convinced their player's can't tell. And it's also full of players who have a horror story about a railroading GM whose fudging was blatantly obvious.

One of these groups is wrong about what's happening at the table and they are spoiling people's fun as a consequence. Don't be a member of that group.

Maybe you can fudge dice "well", and aren't in the first group and no one suspects you're fudging dice, but you know what, all those people those horror stories are about, they probably thought that too. How do you actually know?

I hear a lot fewer horror stories (as in zero in over 30 years of playing) of GMs who stick with the dice no matter what and roll openly. (I do hear the occasional complaint about someone who rolls behind a screen and then insists "that's what the dice say", but part of those complaints is that the player's don't seem to actually believe that the dice said that, or that the particular roll was according to the rules of the game.)

In any case if I want to fudge something, why in the world would I fudge die rolls? I have so many other things I control that I'm actually expected to manipulate or use my judgment on. Insisting on changing die rolls seems to me to indicate a lack of knowledge of the other tools available.

I wish this forum had a like button!



To this day my friends laugh about a guy they played under in high school who had the worst poker face ever and fudged everything in the players favor and then feigned surprise at how awesome they were.


The DM I was talking about often falls back on "that's the rules" or "I am just following the dice" when he makes a stupid call, even when he is obviously lying. He also hides all his rolls as a player and magically never seems to roll less than "amazing", but he claims that he is merely "the luckiest man alive when it comes to dice," and I might have bought it before his rant recent rant about fudging dice.

[EggKookoo]

By exceptionally common convention, this tends to be the case. There are usually practical reasons for the DM to assume various refereeing duties, but it's by no means given that they should be most suited for them.

I think most tabletop RPGs, and D&D in particular, don't just feed this assumption but are actually built around it. It's kind of like assuming the guy with the steering wheel is controlling the motion of the car. Even if the driver asks the passengers where they want to go and does his best to get them there, it ultimately comes down to the driver's ability to get them there.

The DM has significantly more responsibility than the players. Even that of all the players (at a table) combined. If a session is bad, 99% of the blame goes to the DM. And even the 1% that goes to the players can be indirectly laid at the DM's feet (not setting up situations properly, not communicating the conflict clearly, etc.). Exceptional players can elevate a given session, of course, but that pales in comparison to the effect an exceptional DM can have.

I firmly believe that if the players fail to save the princess, it's because the DM messed up somehow.


Yes, agreed. The DM can also effectively "lie" by taking into account information that isn't known to the players, or perhaps sometimes to obscure something that "must" remain obscured. And we can probably think of several other reasons, but the reason should not be as simple as "the DM just gets to do that". Because then if the players don't get to do it, if players fudging is always cheating while the DM fudging is just part of the toolbox, I think it loses track of the fact that everybody around the table should on the highest level be an equal participant, with an equal investment in the social contract and equal input in what constitutes good playin'.

What justification are you using for this "should"? Why should they be equal participants? The DM has to do mountains more prep work before the game. He has to do more work during the game, both in sheer quantity (all those NPCs!) and in the sense that he has to be both a performer and a composer, all before a live audience. By performer I don't necessarily mean he has to stand up and act out his NPCs, but he has to keep his players' attention like they're his audience. He has to -- often on the fly and without warning -- improvise events that he didn't plan for to account for player behavior that he couldn't anticipate in a way that ideally strengthens his campaign concept. Or at the very least doesn't demolish it.

Players are under nothing like that kind of pressure. They just have to show up and act in character for their one (!) PC. They can attempt to derail the DM's campaign as often as they like, as long as what they're doing makes sense at the time.

They are not equal participants.


But this is mostly theorizing, admittedly - in practice I don't rant about social contracts at the table or fudge rolls as a player and I accept that my DM will fudge because I trust him to do it and it's always been done that way and so on. :) (But if I end up refereeing again I think I'll try to do it a little bit differently.)

Right, well, I try to never fudge, simply because it's easier if I can plan things so that I don't have to. But I have decades of DMing with mostly the same set of players, so I've learned how to prod them without it being annoying to them (I'm not even sure if they're aware of it half the time but that's one of those things you can never really know). But I've had to from time to time. The pressure to keep the game flowing and fun is too great.

To me it's like writing. When you read a story (or watch a movie or whatever), you are being utterly and completely manipulated. If the writing is good, you don't notice it. It's only when the writing is bad that people complain about cliches or plot holes.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It's kind of like assuming the guy with the steering wheel is controlling the motion of the car. Even if the driver asks the passengers where they want to go and does his best to get them there, it ultimately comes down to the driver's ability to get them there.

I no longer subscribe to this as an appropriate metaphor for role-playing. :| I effectively did for a long time, though. And before that I was just young and stupid... let's not talk about it.


If a session is bad, 99% of the blame goes to the DM.

That sounds a bit unfair!


I firmly believe that if the players fail to save the princess, it's because the DM messed up somehow.

She probably wasn't a very good princess though


What justification are you using for this "should"? Why should they be equal participants?

I use "participants" to mean the friends (hopefully) who sit down at the table to engage in an activity, distinct from the asymmetric/unequal roles of "DM" and "player" they assume as part of this. I also believe it's perfectly reasonable for this higher-level equality to manifest on lower levels of play, e.g. if someone says "this web supplement feature is a good fit for my character concept and I'd like to use it", it would be bad form for the DM to shut it down with no justification beyond "it's the DM's call". If you're going to play a game, why not trust everyone to negotiate the rules, instead of appointing a single person to decide everything from that point?


He has to -- often on the fly and without warning -- improvise events that he didn't plan for to account for player behavior that he couldn't anticipate in a way that ideally strengthens his campaign concept. Or at the very least doesn't demolish it.

It's possible to delegate a lot of this, though, let players narrate and invent stuff on the fly as well - because why should they, unlike the DM, not be trusted to want and be able to act for the fun and benefit of all? The value of their input on where to take the story (or a large or small scale) cannot be measured only by how close it sticks to the DM's prior intentions.

[EggKookoo]

That sounds a bit unfair!

It just means DMing and playing aren't symmetrical. The DM isn't "just another player." It's a very specialized role that not everyone can or wishes to fill.


She probably wasn't a very good princess though

Possibly. Wonder why the DM didn't put more effort into her...


I use "participants" to mean the friends (hopefully) who sit down at the table to engage in an activity, distinct from the asymmetric/unequal roles of "DM" and "player" they assume as part of this. I also believe it's perfectly reasonable for this higher-level equality to manifest on lower levels of play, e.g. if someone says "this web supplement feature is a good fit for my character concept and I'd like to use it", it would be bad form for the DM to shut it down with no justification beyond "it's the DM's call". If you're going to play a game, why not trust everyone to negotiate the rules, instead of appointing a single person to decide everything from that point?

I also am assuming all involved are operating in good faith. Obviously players can scuttle a game and it's all on them if they do.

In my experience, the DM sets the tone for the game. The DM has the creative impulse that causes the game to happen. The DM organizes and schedules the game. The DM even dictates the specific game ("I'm going to run a PF game, anyone in?"). All of the decisions that involve the game and game world beyond the individual choices of the PCs is made by the DM.

"It's the DM's call" is just shorthand for "The DM has decided to run an XYZ game with ABC elements and he can't figure out how to work in that special thing you want to do. Sorry, maybe next game, or perhaps you would like to run a game with your special thing at some point?"

To my mind, the game rules don't exist to make everything fair. They exist to make everything fun.


It's possible to delegate a lot of this, though, let players narrate and invent stuff on the fly as well - because why should they, unlike the DM, not be trusted to want and be able to act for the fun and benefit of all? The value of their input on where to take the story (or a large or small scale) cannot be measured only by how close it sticks to the DM's prior intentions.

This smacks of more of the theorycraft of earlier posts. I have never met players who really wanted to do this aside from the most token efforts. And I don't blame them. I don't want to do it when I'm playing, either. I like the clear division between player and DM, regardless of which side I'm on.

This isn't to say a DM shouldn't be listening to what the players want, or shouldn't consider it when players say a houserule is broken. Good faith dictates that if the players are chafing under a DM's arbitrary decision, the DM should revisit that decision. If it's a good decision but poorly communicated, bring everyone to the same page. If it's a bad decision, explain the problem that the decision was intended to solve and see if anyone else has any alternate solutions. But in the end, the DM owns those decisions, even if that means going with a player-initiated solution.

My players and I are more confabulatory* than collaborative.

* In the conversational sense, not the neurological one.

[JoeJ]

It's possible to delegate a lot of this, though, let players narrate and invent stuff on the fly as well - because why should they, unlike the DM, not be trusted to want and be able to act for the fun and benefit of all? The value of their input on where to take the story (or a large or small scale) cannot be measured only by how close it sticks to the DM's prior intentions.

The problem is that, for a lot of people, the mindset of roleplaying a character is very different from the mindset of creating a world, and it's very difficult to do both at the same time. And even if the players do try to enrich the world by inventing things, it's still the DM's responsibility to decide whether or not the invented details fit with the rest of the world - including parts of the world that haven't been revealed to the players yet.

[bid]

It's possible to delegate a lot of this, though, let players narrate and invent stuff on the fly as well - because why should they, unlike the DM, not be trusted to want and be able to act for the fun and benefit of all? The value of their input on where to take the story (or a large or small scale) cannot be measured only by how close it sticks to the DM's prior intentions.
Leverage does that with its flashbacks. Amber / Lord of Glossamer and Shadow has the story of how you got here more important than the "now". DnD is more acting now than character building.

[MarkTriumphant]

I wish this forum had a like button!

I agree.


He also hides all his rolls as a player and magically never seems to roll less than "amazing", but he claims that he is merely "the luckiest man alive when it comes to dice," and I might have bought it before his rant recent rant about fudging dice.

I don't get how it is acceptable for a player to hide die rolls at all. There is certainly no reason to do so (unless you're a PvP table, but that's not for me). We have a very specific time when players hide die rolls - when making death saving rolls, so that the other players can't metagame as to when the character needs to be stabilised. It's just a bit of fun.

[Talakeal]

I agree.



I don't get how it is acceptable for a player to hide die rolls at all. There is certainly no reason to do so (unless you're a PvP table, but that's not for me). We have a very specific time when players hide die rolls - when making death saving rolls, so that the other players can't metagame as to when the character needs to be stabilised. It's just a bit of fun.

Basically it is a very relaxed social game. We don't gather around a table, instead we just sit on couches around the room and we each have our own dice tray to roll in. The game is really relaxed and fairly rules light, so no one really bothers checking on anyone else's rolls. But I have started noticing recently that the guy in question always rolls amazingly well and then brags about how his character always outperforms other people's characters even in their specialties.

[Reosoul]

If a session is bad, 99% of the blame goes to the DM. And even the 1% that goes to the players can be indirectly laid at the DM's feet (not setting up situations properly, not communicating the conflict clearly, etc.).

Wait.. What?

Maybe you're just baiting, but that seems like absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. As a DM, if someone said that to me, I'd wonder if they were having a stroke.

The DM does have responsibilities, yes, but the players also have to bring 110% or the game is going to suck. A DM can't force players to not be apathetic. If there's a player at your table who just 'doesn't care' about the campaign or the game, or is playing on their phone, generally they just need to leave and find another game that better suits them. If it's everyone else who has a problem with the DM, then yeah, it's probably the DM. And it's usually pretty clear it's just not going to work. But at what point does self-responsibility factor into this equation?

You want a fun game as a player? Put in as much work as the DM does.

[Safety Sword]

Wait.. What?

Maybe you're just baiting, but that seems like absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. As a DM, if someone said that to me, I'd wonder if they were having a stroke.

The DM does have responsibilities, yes, but the players also have to bring 110% or the game is going to suck. A DM can't force players to not be apathetic. If there's a player at your table who just 'doesn't care' about the campaign or the game, or is playing on their phone, generally they just need to leave and find another game that better suits them. If it's everyone else who has a problem with the DM, then yeah, it's probably the DM. And it's usually pretty clear it's just not going to work. But at what point does self-responsibility factor into this equation?

You want a fun game as a player? Put in as much work as the DM does.

Reosoul: A person after my own blood pumping muscle organ.

[EggKookoo]

Wait.. What?

Maybe you're just baiting, but that seems like absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. As a DM, if someone said that to me, I'd wonder if they were having a stroke.

The DM does have responsibilities, yes, but the players also have to bring 110% or the game is going to suck. A DM can't force players to not be apathetic. If there's a player at your table who just 'doesn't care' about the campaign or the game, or is playing on their phone, generally they just need to leave and find another game that better suits them. If it's everyone else who has a problem with the DM, then yeah, it's probably the DM. And it's usually pretty clear it's just not going to work. But at what point does self-responsibility factor into this equation?

You want a fun game as a player? Put in as much work as the DM does.

Did you miss the part where I said this?


I also am assuming all involved are operating in good faith. Obviously players can scuttle a game and it's all on them if they do.

[Reosoul]

Did you miss the part where I said this?

No.

And maybe this is because I typically run more free-form or sand-box type games that don't railroad my players, but players have just as much, if not more, narrative responsibility than me as the DM. If a game starts to suck, and everyone is 'playing at their best', it doesn't mean it's more likely it's the DM's fault- and such thinking can be pretty poisonous to groups as a whole.

[EggKookoo]

No.

And maybe this is because I typically run more free-form or sand-box type games that don't railroad my players, but players have just as much, if not more, narrative responsibility than me as the DM. If a game starts to suck, and everyone is 'playing at their best', it doesn't mean it's more likely it's the DM's fault- and such thinking can be pretty poisonous to groups as a whole.

I think you're using a false dichotomy there. It's not "sandbox or railroad." But regardless, maybe we shouldn't derail the thread about this?

[Reosoul]

I think you're using a false dichotomy there. It's not "sandbox or railroad." But regardless, maybe we shouldn't derail the thread about this?

Whether False Dichtomy or not, it doesn't matter, since it's not a conversation of whether all campaigns are either sandboxes or railroads. It's a conversation of personal accountability at a table, instead of a game going to crap and immediately blaming the guy who is probably the most invested in the campaign(since he's the one having to do the most prep).

I agree that this has certainly gone off-topic, but it's hard to let a comment like that just fly through without getting peppered with some flak. There are many players who never take the seat as DM and don't have the wisdom on why such a perspective is damaging to not only a single campaign, but to an entire gaming group. Lack of respect kills a game more often than anything else.

*End Rant.*

[EggKookoo]

Whether False Dichtomy or not, it doesn't matter, since it's not a conversation of whether all campaigns are either sandboxes or railroads. It's a conversation of personal accountability at a table, instead of a game going to crap and immediately blaming the guy who is probably the most invested in the campaign(since he's the one having to do the most prep).

I agree that this has certainly gone off-topic, but it's hard to let a comment like that just fly through without getting peppered with some flak. There are many players who never take the seat as DM and don't have the wisdom on why such a perspective is damaging to not only a single campaign, but to an entire gaming group. Lack of respect kills a game more often than anything else.

*End Rant.*

I still think you're missing the point about good faith. Of course apathetic or disruptive players can kill a game despite the best efforts of the DM. I'm saying that, assuming everyone involved has the absolute best intentions, if a game goes south, the lion's share of the blame goes to the DM. The DM has more prep time and has more power to correct the course of the game. Hell, the DM can wiggle some fingers and arbitrarily alter the game reality. Players can't do that. Even if you give the players some narrative control, it has to be limited and subject to DM approval. The players are there to overcome challenges. The DM is there to present those challenges.

The DM is the authority at the table. "First lesson in leadership. Everything is your fault."

[Baptor]

In response to the DM who doesn't actually use the dice or the dice are a lie or whatever...

I've been DMing for nearly 15 years....straight. That is, I've gotten to be a player maybe 2-3 sessions out of those 15 years. I've been my group's DM so long I fear I don't even know how to play anymore. :P

Nevertheless, I recall a guy who DM'd a game and said almost the same thing to me. Short story: I did not like his game.

Now I do fudge dice sometimes. There are two times when I may do so. One is when the luck has gone badly against the players. I simply will not stand by and allow a TPK when its not their fault. If they make poor choices that's one thing, but bad dice rolls are another. The other time is if I have badly misjudged an encounter. Maybe I setup an ambush of 5 wargs and realize it should have been 3, or not been an ambush, because now the players are being torn to shreds. I won't punish them for my poor foresight.

But the dice matter. I'd rather play with a strict DM who played only by the dice than one who just considers them toys people rattle and roll for their own amusement while he makes up crap. That's a control freak of the highest order unless I've missed my mark.

[Doug Lampert]

Now I do fudge dice sometimes. There are two times when I may do so. One is when the luck has gone badly against the players. I simply will not stand by and allow a TPK when its not their fault. If they make poor choices that's one thing, but bad dice rolls are another. The other time is if I have badly misjudged an encounter. Maybe I setup an ambush of 5 wargs and realize it should have been 3, or not been an ambush, because now the players are being torn to shreds. I won't punish them for my poor foresight.

I can see fudging dice for your reasons (basically to avoid a TPK when the player's haven't done anything to "earn" a TPK).

But I still think it's a mistake.

A couple of my players have a favored story about getting slaughtered by a totally outgunned group of foes, because the GM (who rolled in the open) hit a ridiculous number of 20's in a single combat while they rolled way too many ones.

They've been telling that for decades (literally). Seriously, think about how popular stories like Tucker's Kobolds are. PCs don't always have to win, having them lose in interesting ways is just as good. And openly rolling and letting the dice stand can generate an interesting loss.

Not only did that give them a good story, it also established that the GM in question would TPK them and wouldn't pull punches. It improved every following campaign with that GM, even if he did pull punches in some of them or some of the time.

Also: if you won't TPK the party with a "minor" encounter, then you're basically admitting that you decide what the narrative weight of an encounter is, rather than the narrative being what comes out of player actions and the narrative determining the narrative weight.

It's the player's story. I'm just an enabler.

In any case, it's often the player's fault even when it isn't obvious. IIRC my 4th edition group had FIVE different ways to teleport out of a mess in a single round and every character had at least one healing item or power. The setting also had an established system of ransoms, and most of them carried paperwork proving they had a ransom on deposit with a reliable bank. Strangely, I never needed to fudge dice to keep them alive as a group (some of them were killed, some repeatedly, but they never got TPK'd and only came close twice. One of which is one of the stories they tell about that campaign, because they got out of it by their own efforts using resources they'd picked up to help in that sort of situation).

I try to avoid TPKs, but the effort is almost all in setting stuff (like ransoms being a thing) and in choice of enemies and enemy motivation and operating methods. Once a fight starts, if I need to fudge because I've really badly misjudged, I'll just admit that I made a mistake and ret-con something.

Admitting the mistake doesn't actually cost anything but a bit of your pride.

The ret-con does some slight damage to immersion, but far less than even a slight suspicion of fudging and it supports the idea, "He won't fudge, and he's only ret-conning because he made a bad mistake." Thus it actually encourages the players to proactively worry about avoiding TPK like situations.

If I admit "this one was a mistake by me", then that means the other one where an extremely weak allied NPC minion (4th edition) controlled by a player (I almost always make a player run an allied NPC) was the one thing that stopped a TPK wasn't me fudging or ret-conning or playing the foes badly. It was them winning in a fight where it really was that close that one action by one minion made all the difference.

[Naanomi]

I will fudge rolls to speed play sometimes... Have the last skeleton die when it really has 2HP left and so on...

However I almost always roll behind a screen even when completely honest with my rolls, too many of my players have the system mastery/gaming mindset to count bonuses... 'Wow he has at least a +12 to his Insight check if he beat us with that roll, no way this guy is just a normal businessman' sorts of things I'd rather not deal with

[Doug Lampert]

I will fudge rolls to speed play sometimes... Have the last skeleton die when it really has 2HP left and so on...

However I almost always roll behind a screen even when completely honest with my rolls, too many of my players have the system mastery/gaming mindset to count bonuses... 'Wow he has at least a +12 to his Insight check if he beat us with that roll, no way this guy is just a normal businessman' sorts of things I'd rather not deal with

Perception and deception rolls are an obvious spot to hide rolls, but generally, I have no problem with them recognizing what most rolls mean. The case where it commonly comes up is combat, and the players are information starved in D&D combat, an actual combatant can see his foe, see how he moves, knows how hard he hits and how well the foe is avoiding damage.

D&D, "You hit and do 10 damage." Was 10 damage you almost eviscerated him? Or was it a minor scratch? Did I barely manage to make contact, or was that a solid hit? The character should know, the player almost never knows (just being told when someone is bloodied is still far less information).

"He just hit on a roll of 3, maybe we should be running" isn't something they get in character, but "he's having no trouble getting through your defenses" is basically the same information, and something they should usually get.

Sure, hide, move silently, sneak, bluff, insight: Hide those rolls. But for most things, a screen is just the GM being even more parsimonious with information when the players already have vastly less than their characters should.

[EggKookoo]

Perception and deception rolls are an obvious spot to hide rolls, but generally, I have no problem with them recognizing what most rolls mean. The case where it commonly comes up is combat, and the players are information starved in D&D combat, an actual combatant can see his foe, see how he moves, knows how hard he hits and how well the foe is avoiding damage.

D&D, "You hit and do 10 damage." Was 10 damage you almost eviscerated him? Or was it a minor scratch? Did I barely manage to make contact, or was that a solid hit? The character should know, the player almost never knows (just being told when someone is bloodied is still far less information).

"He just hit on a roll of 3, maybe we should be running" isn't something they get in character, but "he's having no trouble getting through your defenses" is basically the same information, and something they should usually get.

This is why I not only let my players see the rolls, I usually tell them the AC/DC of whatever it is they're trying to succeed against.

[Talakeal]

This is why I not only let my players see the rolls, I usually tell them the AC/DC of whatever it is they're trying to succeed against.

+1

I find that tactical decisions are a lot more meaningful if you are not trying to play battle ship at the same time trying to figure out just what DC you are trying to hit through trial and error.


I will fudge rolls to speed play sometimes... Have the last skeleton die when it really has 2HP left and so on...

However I almost always roll behind a screen even when completely honest with my rolls, too many of my players have the system mastery/gaming mindset to count bonuses... 'Wow he has at least a +12 to his Insight check if he beat us with that roll, no way this guy is just a normal businessman' sorts of things I'd rather not deal with

I agree that actual deceptions like stealth or bluff should probably be rolled in secret. But for everything else, not a chance.

Someone trying to mask their true abilities is such a rare occurrence that I am not sure how I would handle it OOC, but it has literally never come up in my games so I am not about to redesign my entire setup over this weird corner case.

The only time I ever had anything close to this happen was one time almost two decades ago when an NPC had become possessed by a demon and suddenly got a huge jump in power without the PCs knowledge and the PCs called BS on me for "fudging his rolls" beyond what he should have been capable of.

[JoeJ]

This is why I not only let my players see the rolls, I usually tell them the AC/DC of whatever it is they're trying to succeed against.

I do too, unless there's some reason the character wouldn't be able to get any idea of how tough the challenge is. So you'll certainly know the AC of somebody you can see and are trying to hit. But if they're hidden and you're only guessing where they are, probably not. That way, if you miss, you won't necessarily know whether or not they were even located where you were aiming. Or if you're trying to convince a complete stranger that you're an envoy from the queen, you likely won't have any idea whether or not you succeeded until they respond to you in some way.

I also sometimes call for Perception, Investigation, and/or Insight checks when there's nothing to notice.

[Naanomi]

Keeping info secret can lead to interesting tactical decisions... Is that a low level wizard who just learned fireball, or is it a high level wizard who rolled low damage? I understand both paths of it though

[Safety Sword]

I do too, unless there's some reason the character wouldn't be able to get any idea of how tough the challenge is. So you'll certainly know the AC of somebody you can see and are trying to hit. But if they're hidden and you're only guessing where they are, probably not. That way, if you miss, you won't necessarily know whether or not they were even located where you were aiming. Or if you're trying to convince a complete stranger that you're an envoy from the queen, you likely won't have any idea whether or not you succeeded until they respond to you in some way.

I also sometimes call for Perception, Investigation, and/or Insight checks when there's nothing to notice.

Players get an idea of how tough something is by you describing it.

I don't "call" for checks. Players tell me what they want to do and I tell them which check determines what information I give out. Unless I'm trying to make them paranoid on purpose... :smallamused:

[JoeJ]

Players get an idea of how tough something is by you describing it.

Players do. Characters get an idea, or don't, based on the circumstances. If the character can estimate how hard something is, I'll let the player know too. So if you want to try swimming a river, I'll let you (the player) know the DC. If you're trying to shoot a visible enemy, I'll tell you their AC. But if you want to try persuading a dragon to do something, the only way you're likely to find out whether you even have a chance of success (assuming the dragon is a complete stranger) is to try it.

[Safety Sword]

Players do. Characters get an idea, or don't, based on the circumstances. If the character can estimate how hard something is, I'll let the player know too. So if you want to try swimming a river, I'll let you (the player) know the DC. If you're trying to shoot a visible enemy, I'll tell you their AC. But if you want to try persuading a dragon to do something, the only way you're likely to find out whether you even have a chance of success (assuming the dragon is a complete stranger) is to try it.

For your river example, why would someone standing there even know all of the variables just by looking at it.

If it's fast flowing, freezing cold, murky, 12 feet deep, infested with piranha... you can't tell all of that by just looking at it. You have no way to know how "hard" that is.

I think you're taking away from players needing to find out more. If there was time pressure and you didn't have time to investigate, you might do it no matter what the DC, so why let the player know?

I try to keep the game mechanic talk off my table though, because I like it to feel like a story, not a game.

[Doug Lampert]

For your river example, why would someone standing there even know all of the variables just by looking at it.

If it's fast flowing, freezing cold, murky, 12 feet deep, infested with piranha... you can't tell all of that by just looking at it. You have no way to know how "hard" that is.

I think you're taking away from players needing to find out more. If there was time pressure and you didn't have time to investigate, you might do it no matter what the DC, so why let the player know?

I try to keep the game mechanic talk off my table though, because I like it to feel like a story, not a game.

Fast flowing rivers are almost always fairly clear water. Even if not, the surface will show you if it's shallow or not as a deep river will have a smoother flow. If it's fast flowing I expect to be able to see the hazards and depth from shore, I've gone swimming in a fair number of rivers, and none really surprised me. You can see flow speed, you can usually estimate depth and if you can't you simply assume it's too deep to stand on the bottom and too shallow to dive (i.e. take the worst case for both).

Even undertows can be seen from shore, because the water flow above and near a significant undertow is different.

If my life were governed by d20 rolls (i.e. discreet 5% probabilities and difficulties), I doubt that as an adult I've ever encountered a river where I'd have been off by even 1 point of DC.

I know I can swim a river baring extreme width, and I know the potentially hazardous wildlife I might encounter in any river within 1,000km or so of where I live, I fail to see why my character should be vastly more ignorant of his own capabilities.

Edited to add: Since you're counting on your descriptions telling me the difficulty, and it's fast flowing, murky, AND deep, then of course you're well aware that it's at flood stage and the banks may be fairly hazardous due to things like trees and branches, but that there's almost no chance of any large predators being actively hunting large game in the river.

You of course know all about rivers, more than a character with survival trained whose lived outdoors his entire life, of course you do, and so do all your players too, because you're counting on the description giving them everything they'd get from standing there and actually examining the river, something absurdly difficult even if you were all world class experts at this sort of thing.

There's NO CHANCE AT ALL that you're unaware that a deep, fast flowing, river will have swept all the significant sediment from its normal bounds, and that thus to have enough sediment to be murky it must be at flood stage, why were you not far more knowledgeable about rivers than I, it would be absurd for you to think your description could tell anyone what a character whose actually there and experienced in the environment would know at a glance about the state of the river and it's safety.

[Safety Sword]

Fast flowing rivers are almost always fairly clear water. Even if not, the surface will show you if it's shallow or not as a deep river will have a smoother flow. If it's fast flowing I expect to be able to see the hazards and depth from shore, I've gone swimming in a fair number of rivers, and none really surprised me. You can see flow speed, you can usually estimate depth and if you can't you simply assume it's too deep to stand on the bottom and too shallow to dive (i.e. take the worst case for both).

Even undertows can be seen from shore, because the water flow above and near a significant undertow is different.

If my life were governed by d20 rolls (i.e. discreet 5% probabilities and difficulties), I doubt that as an adult I've ever encountered a river where I'd have been off by even 1 point of DC.

I know I can swim a river baring extreme width, and I know the potentially hazardous wildlife I might encounter in any river within 1,000km or so of where I live, I fail to see why my character should be vastly more ignorant of his own capabilities.

Thanks for the lesson in river flow dynamics...

The point was over there and you seem to have missed it.

[Malifice]

Re rolls, I mix it up. Sometimes I roll in front of the screen, sometimes behind it.

I like to mix things up.

[JoeJ]

For your river example, why would someone standing there even know all of the variables just by looking at it.

If it's fast flowing, freezing cold, murky, 12 feet deep, infested with piranha... you can't tell all of that by just looking at it. You have no way to know how "hard" that is.

I think you're taking away from players needing to find out more. If there was time pressure and you didn't have time to investigate, you might do it no matter what the DC, so why let the player know?

I try to keep the game mechanic talk off my table though, because I like it to feel like a story, not a game.

Because I, personally, know how to swim. And if you stand me in front of a river I could look at it and have an idea of whether or not I could make it across safely. It may not be 100% right, but it would almost always be enough to make a rational decision as to whether the reward justifies the risk. And if I can do that, then a D&D character can probably do it too. So I'll give the player the information their character already has (or, if some circumstance makes it impossible for the character to judge, I'll tell the player they can't tell because of X).

[Scuronotte]

Two Weapon Fighting style allows all attacks to be part of attack action

Sorcerer knows 20 spells

Ranger knows more spells, able to change spells after long rest, and added some spells

[JoeJ]

Sorcerer knows 20 spells

Every sorcerer always knows that many? Or is that what they know by level 20?

[Naanomi]

The river example is good because it can highlight the time element. If someone has time to look at the river they could guess the DC (I'd tell them), but if they are fleeing bears and had to make a snap decision whether to jump in the river or turn and face the bears... Good luck, I'm not telling the DC, you don't have time to look for eddies and logs and search for signs of undertow, those bears are right behind you do you jump in or no?

[hymer]

The river example is good because it can highlight the time element. If someone has time to look at the river they could guess the DC (I'd tell them), but if they are fleeing bears and had to make a snap decision whether to jump in the river or turn and face the bears... Good luck, I'm not telling the DC, you don't have time to look for eddies and logs and search for signs of undertow, those bears are right behind you do you jump in or no?

Oh, jump in. Definitely.

[Naanomi]

Oh, jump in. Definitely.
Which is great, decision on insufficient data leads to interesting stories. Jumping in a river only to find it too shallow to swim in easily and the Bears (who fish there often) run out to fight you while partially submerged. Not every time... Not every 'blind decision' should be a trap, but they still have a good place and are not the DM 'cheating' in some capacity

[Socko525]

My personal houserule is to bring back bonus languages per point of Intelligence modifier.
With a +1 modifier you learn any common language of your choice.
With a +2 modifier you learn any uncommon/rare language of your choice, or 2 common languages of your choice.

I wanted to incentivize Intelligence a bit more so it's not just wizards only

[Scuronotte]

Every sorcerer always knows that many? Or is that what they know by level 20?

Max known at 20th level. Should have been clearer

[Tanarii]

Because I, personally, know how to swim. And if you stand me in front of a river I could look at it and have an idea of whether or not I could make it across safely. It may not be 100% right, but it would almost always be enough to make a rational decision as to whether the reward justifies the risk.people who know how to swim drown all the time because of unknown hazards, or misjudging them. I'd even go so far as to posit that when someone drowns, that's almost always *why* it happened. They don't usually accept the risk they might drown. They know how to swim, think it looks safe, then get caught in a rip-tide or undercurrent they can't see and don't know about. Or over-extend themselves and run out of juice in the middle of a lake or too far off the beach.

IMO one way to replicate that That kind of thing is by characters not knowing exact DCs of tasks before you set them. I mean, it's still a good idea to tell a player Easy, Medium, Hard (either static or relative to their ability, and make that clear).

Alternately you can consider that already represented by the chance of failure, and assume that it's pretty obvious when it's far too dangerous or really easy (auto or almost certain failure or vice versa), and assume those 'unexpected danger' failures are covered by failing mid-range success chances. If a character looks at a 10+ success swim and decides to chance it, you can RP it as he was confident of success and expecting no danger. Then fails by 5 and starts to drown ... Undertow!

[Doug Lampert]

Thanks for the lesson in river flow dynamics...

The point was over there and you seem to have missed it.

Nope, YOUR POINT was that you want to use description to pass information. MY POINT is that this requires that you know what your description means and implies about difficulty, and YOUR EXAMPLE proves you are clueless about the interactions in what you presumably thought was a good example.

If you are not an expert on rivers, why are you expecting your made up description to mean anything much?

OTOH the character knows if he can swim a river, if he has a swim skill, he probably learned in rivers and lakes, he knows what water conditions mean and how to judge them at a glance. You and the player may have no clue, but the character should know.

And the character knows, "can I do this, is it something risky or straightforward", you can pass this information, which the character should have, accurately and concisely, by giving a DC. Or you can make **** up, call this a description, and expect a player to read your mind to decide on a difficulty and figure out what his character should know at a glance.

One of these is better than the other. If you need a lesson in river dynamics, then your POINT should be, "You can't use descriptions of a river to give an accurate gauge of difficulty, and given such a description you also couldn't judge a realistic DC", so just give the DC, because anything else is information starving the character with no good reason other than your belief that ignorance is as good as knowledge.

[Doug Lampert]

people who know how to swim drown all the time because of unknown hazards, or misjudging them. I'd even go so far as to posit that when someone drowns, that's almost always *why* it happened. They don't usually accept the risk they might drown. They know how to swim, think it looks safe, then get caught in a rip-tide or undercurrent they can't see and don't know about. Or over-extend themselves and run out of juice in the middle of a lake or too far off the beach.

Actually no, skilled swimmers don't drown all that often, much less all the time, small children drown, people who think being in a car makes them safe drown.

Care to cite a bunch of 2015 news stories of it happening, shouldn't be hard if it happens "all the time". No children, no vehicle wrecks that put you in water when you weren't expecting it and didn't choose it, no "trying to rescue someone else (typically a small child)" because again that removes the choice.

Adults, who know how to swim, who choose to get in the water, and drown without having a stroke or something mid-swim. You may find a surfer or two, they do deliberately dangerous stuff, but I'm betting that's all you can find.

All the time? Even if true, in a world of 7,000,000,000 people, that still wouldn't actually make it a serious risk. I'm expecting zero actual examples from this year though, even with worldwide news coverage to help you find them and reporters chronically trying to exaggerate risks to make for better stories.

[Tanarii]

According to the World Health Organization:
Drowning is the 3rd leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, accounting for 7% of all injury-related deaths.
There are an estimated 372 000 annual drowning deaths worldwide.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs347/en/

[Lucas Yew]

I considered that. I actually asked him what was up with that and the answer was for more surprising than I ever could have imagined...

(gasps, screams, then faints out of utter disgust for the GM mentioned)

[Tanarii]

And the character knows, "can I do this, is it something risky or straightforward", you can pass this information, which the character should have, accurately and concisely, by giving a DC. Or you can make **** up, call this a description, and expect a player to read your mind to decide on a difficulty and figure out what his character should know at a glance.

One of these is better than the other. If you need a lesson in river dynamics, then your POINT should be, "You can't use descriptions of a river to give an accurate gauge of difficulty, and given such a description you also couldn't judge a realistic DC", so just give the DC, because anything else is information starving the character with no good reason other than your belief that ignorance is as good as knowledge.i agree with the this, and should have read the source of this min-debate before chiming in.

If you give players a description, then expect them to decide if they want to try a task on that, they're going to have a bad time. Because there is almost no way your description can accurately convey DC every single time. Miscommunication is garunteed to happen.

If you want to keep specific numbers out of the descriptions because you feel it disrupts story flow, the best thing to do is end your description with 'it's a (trivial/easy/medium/challenging/hard/impossible) task'. Then establish with the players beforehand exactly what that means. Either a fixed DC range for each one that doesn't change relative to character bonus. Or a fixed range of chance of success on the die roll, ie DC relative to character bonus.

Just flat not telling anything about chance of success except your description is going to cause an argument at some point.

[Talakeal]

Doesn't the d20 itself represent enough uncertainty? If there is some unforeseen complication that causes a practiced swimmer to drown, can't you just model that with a low roll?


Also, as for the example of a shallow river with bears chasing you, why would that ever get to a roll? There is no DC to "swim" in knee deep water, so the whole "gauging the swim DC" seems to be a bit of a red herring. In that case I would just tell the PCs "There is a river in front of you and bears behind, do you jump in?" Stating a DC or asking for swim tests would never enter into it.

Also, I don't typically tell the players the DC until they actually declare their actions unless they spend some time sizing up the situation first.

[Safety Sword]

Doesn't the d20 itself represent enough uncertainty? If there is some unforeseen complication that causes a practiced swimmer to drown, can't you just model that with a low roll?


Also, as for the example of a shallow river with bears chasing you, why would that ever get to a roll? There is no DC to "swim" in knee deep water, so the whole "gauging the swim DC" seems to be a bit of a red herring. In that case I would just tell the PCs "There is a river in front of you and bears behind, do you jump in?" Stating a DC or asking for swim tests would never enter into it.

Also, I don't typically tell the players the DC until they actually declare their actions unless they spend some time sizing up the situation first.

Stop being sensible. That clearly isn't wanted here.

Edit: In before: Players have the right to know the DC. No they don't.

[JoeJ]

people who know how to swim drown all the time because of unknown hazards, or misjudging them. I'd even go so far as to posit that when someone drowns, that's almost always *why* it happened. They don't usually accept the risk they might drown. They know how to swim, think it looks safe, then get caught in a rip-tide or undercurrent they can't see and don't know about. Or over-extend themselves and run out of juice in the middle of a lake or too far off the beach.

IMO one way to replicate that That kind of thing is by characters not knowing exact DCs of tasks before you set them. I mean, it's still a good idea to tell a player Easy, Medium, Hard (either static or relative to their ability, and make that clear).

Alternately you can consider that already represented by the chance of failure, and assume that it's pretty obvious when it's far too dangerous or really easy (auto or almost certain failure or vice versa), and assume those 'unexpected danger' failures are covered by failing mid-range success chances. If a character looks at a 10+ success swim and decides to chance it, you can RP it as he was confident of success and expecting no danger. Then fails by 5 and starts to drown ... Undertow!

Alternatively, I can tell them the DC to compensate for the fact that my description of the river will always convey far, far less information than the character gets by standing there looking at it. The possibility of misjudging can be assumed to be a part of the DC, so if the player fails the roll it can be explained as getting caught by something they hadn't seen.

The advantage of that is that there aren't likely to be hard feelings. If I tell the player that it's a DC 15, and they come up with a modified roll of 13, I can make up something about stepping into a hidden pothole, or the current being faster than expected, without the player feeling that I hid important information from them.

[Malifice]

Actually no, skilled swimmers don't drown all that often, much less all the time, small children drown, people who think being in a car makes them safe drown.

Mate; talk to a surf lifesaver at Bondi beach here in Australia.

Their entire days are spent pulling tourists out of the water, many of whom are good swimmers. Undertows and surf are deceptively powerful things that can tire you very quickly; with no nearby edges to swim to (unlike in a normal pool). A LOT of people get caught out. When you get into trouble in the surf you're often 50m+ out from water shallow enough to stand in, and fighting the surfs undercurrent to get back to shore. You get tired VERY fast and if you were already a bit tired from beating the surf on the way out, and the undercurrent starts winning and taking you out deeper (or even tying and youre paddling in one spot and panicking) and you can get in some serious trouble, fast.

By the way; if it happens, suck in your pride and start signalling to the shore.

You really need to me modest in your swimming capabilities in the ocean near surf. You can get tired with surf and untercurrents very fast, misjudge the effects of fatigue and the undercurrent and find yourself exhausted and a few hundred feet from the shore and too knackered to fight the ocean. A short 200' swim back to shore becomes closer to a 1000' swim back due to having to fight the surf the whole way.

[EggKookoo]

Edit: In before: Players have the right to know the DC. No they don't.

I agree that they don't have the right. I still often let them know, especially if they're playing higher-level PCs.

[Heartspan]

In my games, i generally allow Animate Undead to be used on any dead corpse, barring outsiders. (If you can manage to kill it, you deserve it as a minion). Animate dead is a ritual for the purposes of recasting it for control over your undead. Detect Magic is a caantrip

[Talakeal]

I agree that they don't have the right. I still often let them know, especially if they're playing higher-level PCs.

I agree that they don't have the "right," although frankly I am not sure what "rights" even mean in the context of a game.

I do agree it is a style of play, however I personally feel it is the superior one as it allows you to make better informed decisions, makes the game feel more immersive, and removes the lingering feeling that someone at the table might be cheating*.

Also, if there is some hidden factor that makes the task harder without the character's being aware of it, wouldn't that usually be represented by advantage / disadvantage rather than a change in DC? I am not sure how one would hide that information from players unless you are going so far as to reroll their dice in secret behind the screen.



*Yes, I know, in a perfect world everyone would trust one another. But I have played with a lot of people I knew to be dishonest over the years, and a lot of players who think the DM is always out to screw them, and even the best of us gets the urge to fudge something now and again.

[EggKookoo]

I agree that they don't have the "right," although frankly I am not sure what "rights" even mean in the context of a game.

For me, I would take a "right" in the context of the game to mean the player is allowed to know the DC because the rules say so. The rules do not say so, so therefore the player does not have the right to demand to be told the DC. Which isn't to say the player shouldn't know the DC. It just means it's up to the DM. When I DM, I most often choose to let the players know the DCs because it makes the game play better for all of us at our table.

Not really making any kind of argument here. Just clarifying.


Also, if there is some hidden factor that makes the task harder without the character's being aware of it, wouldn't that usually be represented by advantage / disadvantage rather than a change in DC? I am not sure how one would hide that information from players unless you are going so far as to reroll their dice in secret behind the screen.

That's always been a personal preference thing. I'm a big fan of advantage and disadvantage (over shifting DCs or stacking bonuses), so I'd probably throw disadvantage at the character.

[silveralen]

I've used these at my table and never got any negative feedback, and last time I posted on giant feedback was generally positive.

All weapon fighting styles (great weapon, single weapon, archery) give +2 to attack bonus rather than the normal bonus. Two weapon style gives +1 to attack and the normal bonus when duel wielding.

Great weapon master-> power attack. All abilities apply to any melee weapon. The cleave ability deals Str/Dex damage to adjacent targets on kill/crit, not an extra attack.

Polearm master -> quick strikes. All abilities apply regardless of exact melee weapon.

Crossbow mastery-> fast shots. The feat applies to any ranged weapon.

Improved two weapon fighting: applies an additional +1 to attack when in use.

[Tanarii]

Also, I don't typically tell the players the DC until they actually declare their actions unless they spend some time sizing up the situation first.i stand by it being important to give the players an idea of the DC, either static or relative to their abilities, if there character has any reasonable ability to judge the difficulty in the time they have available. That doesn't mean tell them the exact DC, but a range of 5 or so is a good idea. And the time required is going to vary based on the action contemplated and overall situation. But DM description alone doesn't accurately the player to make a judgement the character would be able to judge in-game based on his familiarity with his capabilities and a far more detailed view of the situation, unless you've established key words that will convey apparent difficulty clearly. The player can't read the DMs mind, so when he says a climb 'looks slippery' he can't know if his character, who can see the situation and size up a realistic chance of success, would judge that almost impossible, or something he could probably handle. Whereas letting the players know it's 'very hard' and that being a keyword for DC 15-20, gives them the ability to make a judgment somewhat as the character might.

Obviously for information the character can't have, and the description giving the player the exact information the character has in game, like maybe an NPCs mindset and likelihood they can be persuaded, that wouldn't apply.

[bid]

i stand by it being important to give the players an idea of the DC, either static or relative to their abilities, if there character has any reasonable ability to judge the difficulty in the time they have available.
Definitely, if you only use DC10, 15, 20 it should be obvious to the character. Sure you can say "it looks like DC15" even if it actually is DC20 because you rule that they missed something based on their passive perception or whatever.

[JoeJ]

Definitely, if you only use DC10, 15, 20 it should be obvious to the character. Sure you can say "it looks like DC15" even if it actually is DC20 because you rule that they missed something based on their passive perception or whatever.

That can create a problem if you then say that the action fails after the player rolls an 18.

[bid]

That can create a problem if you then say that the action fails after the player rolls an 18.
Not really: "you get to the middle safely when suddently the undertow pulls you in."
Or: "you're almost to the middle when you feel a whirlpool ahead, do you wish to turn back?"

Notice I said "looks like", because that's what the character evaluated based on his knowledge. The DM's goal is to offer drama to roleplay and challenges to overcome.

[Tanarii]

Notice I said "looks like", because that's what the character evaluated based on his knowledge. The DM's goal is to offer drama to roleplay and challenges to overcome.if a DM told me it "looks like" DC 15, and I got an 18 and failed, and he pointed out he said 'looks like' and not 'is', it'd either result in a game stopping argument (if it was a close friend) or me never playing with that DM again (if he wasn't). Because that's some utter BS. Just because Riddick did it doesn't make it acceptable.

If you want some variability to account for uncertainty of players not knowing, establish that and tell them "looks like DC 15 to 20, it's hard to tell" or establish keywords that cover a range. Don't fake them out with weasel words.

Edit: sorry bid that's all a little harsh. I'll tone it down too: IMO giving the wrong DC is more likely to cause an argument than not giving one at all. On some reflection I understand what you're trying to do ... Introduce the fact that a character has misjudged a situation. But that should already be covered to a large degree by the variability of the roll, and (if desired) giving an unspecific range of possible DCs, or even none at all if appropriate (ie PC has no info). And misleading the player is going to piss off the player. Players have to assume that you as a DM are giving them accurate info when you give them specific rules details, unless there is a rule specific reason not too. (Such as a divination that has a chance to gives false readings if used more than once in a time period.) otherwise it's just a gotcha they had no possible way to see coming.

[bid]

On some reflection I understand what you're trying to do ... Introduce the fact that a character has misjudged a situation.
And misleading the player is going to piss off the player.
Yeah, it depends on the table and the age of the players too. And in all cases this kind of behavior has to be agreed on beforehand. I am a big fan of "failure is success, but with consequences".

I have some co-players who would use those failures 15 minutes later by saying they lost their doodad and we have to go back and find it.

[Naanomi]

A tricky point can be when the part that makes a task difficult is concealed or intentionally difficult to notice (wall with small glass shards to deter climbers, a lock built to look shoddy but really high quality, anything covered with illusions, like a 'still lake' that has magically induced undertow).

I generally don't give DCs without a skill check (perception, investigation, a knowledge skills... It varies) and thus some time (so can't do it in some emergencies) partially to be able to use intentionally deceptive situations without creating animosity by 'lying about the DC' or whatever