D&D 5E New Rule of Three is up for 31 Jan. 2014

[DEFCON 1]

Quite frankly, I don't think it matters at all what WotC writes down for "group stealth" rules, because it seems like that's one of those situations where every single table just came up with their own houserule to cover it anyway. Regardless of what gets written, almost every single person is going to think it stinks and is going to change it at their own table. So at the end of the day, it just comes down to an e-peen contest so to be able to be the one that says "Ha! The rules I like are the ones in the book! The other 95% of you can just make your own!"

 

[Warbringer]

The mechanic issue of multiple rolls is something I would like to see address, but in case of stealth I think the whole issue is actually pretty realistic. A stealth operation simply cannot afford a noisy member.

But the whole thing is complicated because of dice swinginess... so on one hand I'm totally fine with a half-orc fighter in noise full plate making it very hard for the party to sneak silently. But on the other hand, I'm not so fine with a party of 5 PCs good at sneaking having much more trouble than a party of 4, because one failure spoils the whole result.

I have similar problems with perception checks. I would like a party of 5 to have more chance at noticing something than a party of 4, but not too much a difference, but I have the feeling that just rolling one perception check each (and needing only 1 success) makes success too easy.

That said, I'd have no idea how to solve this issue...

How about, for each roll over 5 you gain an extra success that can be used to offset a failure by another party member ... at least for Steath

 

[Umbran]

I know you have a minor in business and so this qualifies you to run the entire company, but I don't recall you expressing expertise in the publishing industry as well. What makes you think they would need to be at the printers now if they are going to hit their release date, and what was that release date again?

You know, you could have easily made much the same point without being snarky or dragging around acrimony among various threads.

That you didn't is problematic.

So, next time, leave the baggage behind, please. Thanks much.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While i understand the reasons behind making Two-Weapon Fighting's additional attack a bonus action, i still am not a fan and would rather keep it untouched.

While we're there, i'd prefer using the term "free action" over "bonus action"

 

[Savage Wombat]

*sigh* 40 years in and they still can't get their facts straight, despite being told over and over again that they're wrong. Mail armor is QUIET, leather armor is NOT !!! (Not without a lot of oil and elbow grease, anyway.)

That's real world armor. This is D&D armor. As we all know, leather armor - women's anyway - is basically any outfit that has one or more leather items in it.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html

 

[dd.stevenson]

Yep, this is the real problem. Stealth and Perception, of course, are opposites--Perception is too easy because it only takes 1 success to succeed (take the best result from X d20 rolls), and Stealth is too difficult because it only takes 1 failure to fail (take the worst result from X d20 rolls). It's like super-advantage or super-disadvantage. And it's a pain to roll that many dice (how the hell am I actually supposed to adjudicate 5 bugbears hiding from 5 PCs?).

I think we need a general rule for group skill checks. Something that still makes sense why the clunkers shouldn't go on stealth missions, but doesn't have the nonsensical situation where the super-sneaky assassins can't sneak anywhere. Maybe just roll once, using the best (or worst, depending on which makes sense) modifier of the whole group? The passive perception rules already hint at this (there's only one roll, and only the highest perception modifier matters).

I have toyed around with the idea of using a hack of DW's perceive realities move. So, for example, each party member that rolls high enough on their perception checks can ask one of the following questions:

1) What, if anything, is watching me right now? (closest observer only)
2) What, if anything, did the original architect of this constructed, indoor location wish to keep secret?
3) What recent modifications to this indoor location have been made to keep something secret?
4) What is the most suspicious non-architectural item visible within 30' of my location?
5) What, if anything, are the signs or markings indicating recent passage? (pinpoints tracks but does not permit tracks to be followed)
6) What is the exact location of a hiding OR invisible creature (not both) within my field of vision, of whom I am already aware?

etc.

My hope would be that a well-designed list of specific options would leverage the perception skill to ramp up tension, rather than defuse it. But I'm still very much in the 'toying around with the idea' stage.

 

[Falling Icicle]

1. The problem with the group stealth rules is that it you have to roll multiple times, and that makes the group more likely to fail than if they were to just take the lowest character's stealth and make only one roll.

2. They should just get rid of medium armor altogether. It's just not worth it right now and in the entire time they have had the playtest they haven't found a satisfactory way of making it balanced with light and heavy armor. Since it has no niche of its own, it doesn't have any reason to exist.

3. The argument that TWF should be treated as an extra action, and thus not stack with things like haste, is absurd. They let fighters make 4 attacks every single round (and even double that to eight attacks with action surge), but a rogue making three attacks per turn with TWF and cunning action "takes too much time?" Seriously? Besides, this is a terrible way of trying to balance TWF with single weapons and shields. The answer is so simple. Just give TWF a -hit penalty, which can be reduced or even negated with the feat. I don't know why they seem so afraid of doing that. I think players can handle the tiny amount of basic math involved, especially when it's something you only need to calculate out once and then can just write down on your character sheet.

 

[Mistwell]

2. They should just get rid of medium armor altogether. It's just not worth it right now and in the entire time they have had the playtest they haven't found a satisfactory way of making it balanced with light and heavy armor. Since it has no niche of its own, it doesn't have any reason to exist.

Some people like it. Some classes have medium but not heavy armor proficiency, also. Those are two reasons to exist. It doesn't have to be "balanced".

 

[Blackwarder]

While i understand the reasons behind making Two-Weapon Fighting's additional attack a bonus action, i still am not a fan and would rather keep it untouched.

While we're there, i'd prefer using the term "free action" over "bonus action"

Nah, you can only have a finite number of bonus actions, free actions are infinite (at least from an instinctive POV).

Warder

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yeah it'd be confusing too much may be