The D&D thread

Arbitrary said:

I'm going to need to know exactly how many glass rods and clumps of fur you have on you.

Click to expand...

This is the problem though, people trying to play DnD like an ARPG. The whole premise of DnD being a hyper compressed narrative segue between combat events make it all pointless.

That's why I hate dumb cantrips that break the game in non combat ways. Stuff is made to be failed or not attempted, otherwise there's no real tension or drama, it's just a dice rolling sim. 3.5 started really devaluing narrative and 4 just broke it in half. It's also responsible for untraining a lot of players and DMs. Anyway it's really hard to care about the direction of DnD when there's no stakes to anything the way normal core rules are written and everyone runs their games.

"Make a strength check"
"3"
"You throw your entire weight against the door but it doesn't budge."
"OK I try it again"
"OK make another strength check"
"14"
"You throw your entire weight against the door again but this time it works!"

Just uninteresting yet this seems to be how 90% of people play.

Hoss said:

That seemed wrong to me from the first time I had a strength check to open a door. I was like, I'm allowed to try again? So basically it's roll till it opens? Nah, let the other party members do it, that doesn't seem right. There really should be a penalty when you retry an action right away. Like -1 to your roll for every time you try it.

Click to expand...

Adding a penalty to each successive attempt doesn't address the fundamental problem.

When asking for a check the DM needs to consider two things:

1. With enough time could the player(s) succeed? If yes, then don't ask for a check unless they're pressed for time or a degree of success matters.

2. If additional time has little or no impact on the check then obviously you ask for a check and DO NOT allow further checks. You tried and you failed. It's beyond your current ability. However, if the player somehow change/add an element to the situation then I may allow an additional roll. For example - In the situation Palum gave, the player fails to force open a door, but if they left to go get a crowbar and came back, I think that's enough to warrant an additional roll.

I suppose the third consideration is -- if there is no consequence for a failure, why are you having a player roll?

Also, to avoid those absolutely retarded situations where The 7 Int Barbarian rolls well and decodes the magical script after the 19 int Wizard rolls poorly and fails, I don't allow skill checks in many situations unless the character has proficiency in that field. Some "anyone could do this" skills are exempt but anything that requires experience and/or training is restricted to those with the skill.

DM checks are probably the most mishandled element of the game.

Grabbit Allworth said:

Completely agree on criticals being underwhelming. We use the standard double dice, but the base damage is maxed.

For example -- Your attack does 1d8+5. A crit would do 8+1d8+5. So a minimum of 14 instead of a minimum of 7.

That's a double edged sword because whatever benefits the players also applies to NPCs. I've watched PCs get melted by NPCs with high base damage on a crit.

Click to expand...

Oh cool. We'd have 1d8+5 do 3d8+5 on a crit

Grabbit Allworth said:

lol.

I make my players track spell components that have a gold cost, but that's because it's part of the spells balance and in stock 5e players already struggle to find players to spend their money.

Click to expand...

So we used to track gold. And for years it was a limitation. But then one day they killed a guy who was an evil masked lord of waterdeep. And decided to take his mansion and business holdings. And now gold is like water them.

I so make them roll every quarter for profits and expenses to see how they make out. And if they lose vessels or goods.

bigmark268 said:

Oh cool. We'd have 1d8+5 do 3d8+5 on a crit

Click to expand...

3d8+5 averages 20, but can still end up with some abysmal results (as well as some exceptional ones) about a 1/3 of the time.

1d8+8+5 averages 18 with a lot less feel-bads

Rolling extra dice is super fun, but rolling shit on a crit suuuucks.

Though the only thing that matters is how your players feel about it.

Grabbit Allworth said:

3d8+5 averages 20, but can still end up with some abysmal results (as well as some exceptional ones) about a 1/3 of the time.

1d8+8+5 averages 18 with a lot less feel-bads

Rolling extra dice is super fun, but rolling shit on a crit suuuucks.

Though the only thing that matters is how your players feel about it.

Click to expand...

True. But with 4e you get a lot of modifier damage from feats. So like our paladin rolls 1d10+ 20dam. And our old warden had 1d12+26 for damage

But seeing our wizard crit elemental maw which is 6d6 and having him roll 18d6 is like oh damn!

Grabbit Allworth said:

Adding a penalty to each successive attempt doesn't address the fundamental problem.

When asking for a check the DM needs to consider two things:

1. With enough time could the player(s) succeed? If yes, then don't ask for a check unless they're pressed for time or a degree of success matters.

2. If additional time has little or no impact on the check then obviously you ask for a check and DO NOT allow further checks. You tried and you failed. It's beyond your current ability. However, if the player somehow change/add an element to the situation then I may allow an additional roll. For example - In the situation Palum gave, the player fails to force open a door, but if they left to go get a crowbar and came back, I think that's enough to warrant an additional roll.

I suppose the third consideration is -- if there is no consequence for a failure, why are you having a player roll?

Also, to avoid those absolutely retarded situations where The 7 Int Barbarian rolls well and decodes the magical script after the 19 int Wizard rolls poorly and fails, I don't allow skill checks in many situations unless the character has proficiency in that field. Some "anyone could do this" skills are exempt but anything that requires experience and/or training is restricted to those with the skill.

DM checks are probably the most mishandled element of the game.

Click to expand...

I'm a relatively new DM and this is very helpful. Knowing when and which ability checks to call for is something I have a hard time judging. I should print out your post and hang it on my screen.

I also haven't been good at training my players to stop asking if they can make rolls. We're 9 sessions in and they still do it all the time. Sometimes they even pick up and start shaking their dice before they tell me what their character is trying to do.

How do you guys handle sheathing/drawing weapons? It hadn't come up until today's session when the ranger tried to sheathe his bow, draw two melee weapons, and then attack with both. I told him he couldn't do all that on the same turn and he looked confused. He's played other campaigns so I guess maybe those DMs have allowed this.

Are you guys strict with the object interaction thing? Sheathing or drawing once is okay but doing it again is an action?

Talos said:

How do you guys handle sheathing/drawing weapons? It hadn't come up until today's session when the ranger tried to sheathe his bow, draw two melee weapons, and then attack with both. I told him he couldn't do all that on the same turn and he looked confused. He's played other campaigns so I guess maybe those DMs have allowed this.

Are you guys strict with the object interaction thing? Sheathing or drawing once is okay but doing it again is an action?

Click to expand...

In a word, situationally.

If they got a feat or skill that allows them do it as free action, well then ok. Like artificers using eldritch fusillade expertise. Or our paladin whos sword is part of his spectral arm. So he summons it into his hand with a thought.

But if they dont have something to make drawing/stowing a free action. I look at it as a minor action.

And I usually allow one minor action per round for free as long as it feels right and is within reason.

Ill always look at a round as:
1 move action
1 combat action
1 minor action
1-3 free actions

But then i also let my players sac a move action for a combat action, or vise versa. Or you want to use 10 free actions? Well then thats all your going to be doing. Or sac a combat or move for a few minors.

Mixing and matching really lets them feel free to do what they want and have fun without infringing on other peoples fun.

Now that ive rambled on for a while lol. Drawing/stowing a weapon and attacking, and moving, all in one turn can be alright. If the weapon is on their belt or back, ill let them. If its buried in a bag of holding they have to look through to find it, likely not.

You could also say "In doing so youll be rolling with disadvantage" If they want to do it but its a sketchy situation.

But if its a style of play where they want to be doing it every single turn. Id say youll need to invest into a feat for it. Like Quick Draw, or Speed Loader.

Mind you, i have no idea what the 5e counter parts for any of these feats are lol

Talos said:

How do you guys handle sheathing/drawing weapons? It hadn't come up until today's session when the ranger tried to sheathe his bow, draw two melee weapons, and then attack with both. I told him he couldn't do all that on the same turn and he looked confused. He's played other campaigns so I guess maybe those DMs have allowed this.

Are you guys strict with the object interaction thing? Sheathing or drawing once is okay but doing it again is an action?

Click to expand...

Lmao no way. Drop only in one round. Also what is sheathing a bow? You can make wraps to strap it to a pack or sling it over your chest if it's big enough, but what are they actually doing with it? I'd also work something in where the bow on the floor may get damaged in the combat. Again this is one of these contrived "combat first" things that just obliterates any consequences within the wider scope of the game.

I wouldn't let a guy with a giant 2h sword sheath and draw in one turn either because there isn't a sheath at the waist.

Talos said:

I'm a relatively new DM and this is very helpful. Knowing when and which ability checks to call for is something I have a hard time judging. I should print out your post and hang it on my screen.

I also haven't been good at training my players to stop asking if they can make rolls. We're 9 sessions in and they still do it all the time. Sometimes they even pick up and start shaking their dice before they tell me what their character is trying to do.

Click to expand...

My favorite is every room they carefully search every wall just in case there's a secret passage.

Hoss said:

Someday I'll play a character and get the DM to allow an Iajutsu feat that gives me a bonus of some sort if I draw, move and attack at the same time.

Click to expand...

There is already. If you get a disembodied hand as a familiar. You can stow and retrieve weapons as a free action as many times as you want per round.

Then you get Quickdraw feat to be able to attack with the weapon you just drew this turn.

Then you just charge or bull rush.

So yeah. Samurai quick slash.

And for added fun you play a monk. And use a bunch of the monk attacks that make or let you move as part of the attack.

Then use a bow staff or kendo sword.

Just a basic charge attack that anyone can do. Which is movement speed + basic attack with a +1 bonus to attack roll.

As for mage hand. Nope. That's a totally different set of tricks it can do.

And as for monks. Like almost half of their skills are movement and attack. So you can really ping pong around with no consequences.