D&D 5E The Stupid Rule

5ekyu · Nov 21, 2017

So, I have this rule that has served me well for man years that I call "The Stupid Rule".

"If i will feel stupid explaining this (often a rule) to my players in or out of game, then i will not use or change this."

Given i play with mixed groups of veteran players, new players, roleplayer, number crunchers etc at various times, it has served me well to help keep the games running smoothly.

Now, for the record, "its a genre thing" does not make me feel stupid. chandelier swinging swashbucklers - no problem.

But let me give you an example heading forward that is scratching that "stupid rule itch" - the seemingly arbitrary division between ability checks and attack rolls.

base in point: HEX (1st level spell) or even Guidance (cantrip) (plus class abilities that allow advantage on checks) all allow an adjustment to ability checks - one a disadvantage the other a bonus d4. but they do not affect attack rolls. Likely plenty more examples.

So, for most cases, i can justify this with say "attack roll is quick, short only needing success for an instant thing while ability check is ongoing" and i can cover that something that is a problem or boon to a climb is different than just a quick swing or flurry.

But then there's grapple and shove - the attacks that are not attack rolls but ability checks. Now, grapple obviously can fall under "ongoing" for making sense but shove - not so much.

the game has attack rolls against ability checks - disarm. So there seems to be flexibility in how things can be done, not exclusively attack rolls and ability checks always separate.

It seems the easiest fix would be to change shove into an unarmed attack roll vs ath/acro just like disarm is an attack roll. this flat out changes which type of things would benefit your shove absolutely and thus just swaps around certain ways to optimize it, but it makes the division between attack roll and ability check a bit clearer and leaves me the general division for "stupid rule" between "attack = quick" and "check = complex" kind of fluff - which for sure is not precisely true but is close enough for private sector.

Now, to be clear, i do not have a problem with "but this build combo wont make a good grappler now" or "this combo will now be a good grappler now" and the fact that it switches around your preferred build selections here and there to achieve your goals, but are there other landmines in this approach? it does split shove and grapple into two different types of rolls but at the same time making shove and punch the same type of roll.

Any thoughts on impacts of this change, if you have done it, better explanations for the difference between shove and punch that makes guidance work on one but not the other, on the Stupid Rule itself etc are all appreciated.

Thanks

Charlaquin · Nov 21, 2017

I mean, ultimately the reason attacks, ability checks, and Saving Throws are divided into three different categories is specifically so you can have abilities that affect one but not the others. There really isn’t a good in-universe explaination for it, because it’s a purely mechanical consideration. If you’re not worried about the effect it could have on game balance, go ahead and remove the distinction. I doubt it will break the game, it just might lead to a few wonky interactions. One thing I can think of off the top of my head is that you’ll have to re-work Exhaustion, since “disadvantage on Ability checks” and “disadvantage on attacks and saves” are at the effects of two separate Exhaustion levels.

Satyrn · Nov 21, 2017

I'd say the change is fine. Go ahead and do it.

But I'd also say it's also too small of a change for me to want to bother with, to fix a problem that I think is too small to care about bothering to fix in the first place.

Ganymede81 · Nov 21, 2017

I agree with the notion that it is dumb to tie attack-like maneuvers, such as grappling and shoving, to skill checks as opposed to attack rolls.

Ovinomancer · Nov 21, 2017

5ekyu said:
So, I have this rule that has served me well for man years that I call "The Stupid Rule".

"If i will feel stupid explaining this (often a rule) to my players in or out of game, then i will not use or change this."

Given i play with mixed groups of veteran players, new players, roleplayer, number crunchers etc at various times, it has served me well to help keep the games running smoothly.

Now, for the record, "its a genre thing" does not make me feel stupid. chandelier swinging swashbucklers - no problem.

But let me give you an example heading forward that is scratching that "stupid rule itch" - the seemingly arbitrary division between ability checks and attack rolls.

base in point: HEX (1st level spell) or even Guidance (cantrip) (plus class abilities that allow advantage on checks) all allow an adjustment to ability checks - one a disadvantage the other a bonus d4. but they do not affect attack rolls. Likely plenty more examples.

So, for most cases, i can justify this with say "attack roll is quick, short only needing success for an instant thing while ability check is ongoing" and i can cover that something that is a problem or boon to a climb is different than just a quick swing or flurry.

But then there's grapple and shove - the attacks that are not attack rolls but ability checks. Now, grapple obviously can fall under "ongoing" for making sense but shove - not so much.

the game has attack rolls against ability checks - disarm. So there seems to be flexibility in how things can be done, not exclusively attack rolls and ability checks always separate.

It seems the easiest fix would be to change shove into an unarmed attack roll vs ath/acro just like disarm is an attack roll. this flat out changes which type of things would benefit your shove absolutely and thus just swaps around certain ways to optimize it, but it makes the division between attack roll and ability check a bit clearer and leaves me the general division for "stupid rule" between "attack = quick" and "check = complex" kind of fluff - which for sure is not precisely true but is close enough for private sector.

Now, to be clear, i do not have a problem with "but this build combo wont make a good grappler now" or "this combo will now be a good grappler now" and the fact that it switches around your preferred build selections here and there to achieve your goals, but are there other landmines in this approach? it does split shove and grapple into two different types of rolls but at the same time making shove and punch the same type of roll.

Any thoughts on impacts of this change, if you have done it, better explanations for the difference between shove and punch that makes guidance work on one but not the other, on the Stupid Rule itself etc are all appreciated.

Thanks

Eh, it causes a few new weird things, like why that guy with expertise is really hard to grapple but isn't very good at grappling others, but corrects others like being better at grappling someone when you're invisible. It moves the problem around, but doesn't really break anything. If you like it, go for it, I don't see any huge pitfalls.

77IM · Nov 22, 2017

I've had this same thought for shove and grapple. I'd also make the resistance roll a saving throw rather than an ability check. (Expertise puts ability checks on a different "scale" than attacks and saves.)

It has some neat side effects, like if it's an unarmed attack, then monks can use Dexterity to shove or grapple.

GMMichael · Nov 22, 2017

Charlaquin said:
I mean, ultimately the reason attacks, ability checks, and Saving Throws are divided into three different categories is specifically so you can have abilities that affect one but not the others. There really isn’t a good in-universe explaination for it, because it’s a purely mechanical consideration.

Mostly awesome. Except, the difference isn't purely mechanical. It's game-theoretical, too. An attack roll isn't an ability check or a saving throw because the game designers believe that "attacks" should be a pillar of the game. A saving throw isn't an ability check because the game designers believe that avoiding death from magic and traps should be a pillar of the game.

I happen to agree with the latter.

The Stupid Rule is good, but it's not really needed if you heed Rule Zero.

Charlaquin · Nov 22, 2017

DMMike said:
Mostly awesome. Except, the difference isn't purely mechanical. It's game-theoretical, too. An attack roll isn't an ability check or a saving throw because the game designers believe that "attacks" should be a pillar of the game. A saving throw isn't an ability check because the game designers believe that avoiding death from magic and traps should be a pillar of the game.

I happen to agree with the latter.

The Stupid Rule is good, but it's not really needed if you heed Rule Zero.

Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. It's not purely mechanical, but it is purely a game design consideration, and if one is concerned with world-verisimilitude over game design, then the distinction is ultimately not important. I wouldn't personally unite the three types of rolls, because I agree with the design choice that leads them to being separate, but to each their own.

5ekyu · Nov 22, 2017

DMMike said:
Mostly awesome. Except, the difference isn't purely mechanical. It's game-theoretical, too. An attack roll isn't an ability check or a saving throw because the game designers believe that "attacks" should be a pillar of the game. A saving throw isn't an ability check because the game designers believe that avoiding death from magic and traps should be a pillar of the game.

I happen to agree with the latter.

The Stupid Rule is good, but it's not really needed if you heed Rule Zero.

Out of curiousity, what flavor of Rule Zero are you referencing?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

GMMichael · Nov 30, 2017

Rule zero: the GM is always right.

Which is to say, explaining rules to players isn't necessary, and neither are stupid rules necessary. But the Stupid Rule does assist in Rule Zero's implementation/interpretation.

D&D 5E The Stupid Rule

5ekyu

Hero

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Satyrn

First Post

Ganymede81

First Post

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

77IM

Explorer!!!

GMMichael

Guide of Modos