D&D 5E Making a 5E Variant I *Want* To Play (+thread)

[CubicsRube]

So far, the simplest thing for AC is just to grant a +1 bonus with each new tier. It shows some skill in avoiding damage, but doesn't out strip armor and other protections. In a game where armor was DR, then I would boost AC equally with proficiency.

I like the AC bump per tier, it makes sense and keeps the numbers low.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like the AC bump per tier, it makes sense and keeps the numbers low.

Cool. We've been using a similar amount for over a year now and like it. The +1 per tier is an even simpler idea but close to the original.

 

[Laurefindel]

Cool. We've been using a similar amount for over a year now and like it. The +1 per tier is an even simpler idea but close to the original.

Maybe base AC could be 8+proficiency+Dex? Adjust for armor.

Then AC goes 1up every time prof. goes up.

 

[Undrave]

Huh... maybe it's my setting but I wasn't pinged when you @'d me... I'll have to read the thread and get back to you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If we try this and the players start rebelling, I am fully prepared to drop it as a failed attempt. So, we'll have to see once this is finalized enough to try in an actual campaign instead of just play-testing.

I'm a little confused, are you saying you refuse to drop this concept just because it play-tests badly? That you'd force people into a campaign even if the play-test went poorly? Or are you just separating play-testing as in playing out encounters etc. to playing an actual session?

And yes, the result is similar to doing 2d10 or 3d6, but it is faster to scan two dice then add them.

It isn't faster than adding 3d6. You can keep saying it is, but it isn't, unless you're using dice with numbers, not pips. I just find it weird that you keep pushing this counterfactual. But I guess if you believe that, well, there's no helping it.

It isn't actually subtraction. That is just, mathematically dice-wise, how it works out. We rolled 4d6 (or 3d6), discarding 6's (essentially you treat them as 0). And there are dice out there that are 0-5 and adding them is even faster than normal d6. One of my issues with 3d6 at first as you can't get the full range of 1-20 as you're missing 1,2,19, and 20. I came up with 4d6-4 as a bell-curve for a range of 0-20. Not only do you get the full 1-20 range, but it allows you to treat 0 as a critical fumble (which a lot of tables use).

There are dice with pips on them, where they have no pips on one side, and 1-5 pips on the other sides? I mean, I can believe it, but do you actually have a bunch of them? Where do you get them from?

The brain-processing time and anti-WYSWYG on 6 = 0 on numbered or normal 1-6 dice will be significant.

Why use 3d6 and have to re-calibrate DCs (I DID look into this BTW) when my way I don't need to? I did it all with 3d6, 2d10, and 4d6-4, FWIW.

That's not what you said earlier - you said you tried out 3d6-3, which is entirely different.

And why? Because it's more efficient and produces a result much more in line with the outcomes you say you want than what you're actually proposing.

True, the flat d20 is still swingy, but I don't want to incorporate one system for one thing (attacking) and use another for a different system (ability checks).

Ryan Reynolds But Why Gif

You're already essentially proposing two different systems with the default disadvantage in combat, which essentially turns combat rolls into 2d20, take the lowest (which does reduce swingy-ness). I'd suggest you'd be fine to use 3d6 for both, and just recalibrate AC numbers and the like. You're already recalibrating a ton of other stuff.

Your example also seems to support my point. I'm confused as to why you think it doesn't. Are you just saying that 3d6 does reduce swingy-ness more, but your 1d20 deal is "close enough"?

It makes it so even with proficiency you are not as likely to hit the higher DCs, making it harder than it should be for someone with proficiency IMO.

Hence why you recalibrate the numbers... what you have here is an approach no-one is suggesting.

5E already has Take 10, doesn't it? I swore I saw it someplace... Allowing only proficient checks to use them would help probably, but it doesn't solve the combat issue. I'll have to think about that some more!

No, it absolutely does not, not even as an optional or variant rule. I am astonished that you're suggesting really huge revisions to 5E when you don't know really basic stuff about 5E. Shouldn't you know the rules backwards before modifying them like this? I was working on the basis that you did. The only instances of something similar to Take 10 in 5E are Reliable Talent for Rogues and similar. Class/subclass abilities where with specific skills where you roll but if it's less than a 10 you treat it as 10 (which is still better than Take 10 because it could be higher).

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd maybe go even farther with the AC problem: like in Dungeon World, remove the ''armor'' table from the game! In DW, armors are mostly cosmetic; a character who is trained to fight in light or heavy armor KNOWS how to defend himself efficiently.

AC: 8 + prof + dex

Equipment:

Light armor
Heavy cloak: Advantage to resist Extreme Heat or Cold

Medium armor
Shield: grant 1/2 cover.
Helm: +1 AC, Disadvantage on perception

Heavy armor
Heavy shield: grant 1/2 cover, can use an Attack to give 3/4 cover until the start of next turn. Disadvantage on stealth
Reinforced padding: Damage Reduction 2, disadvantage on acrobatics

 

[ART!]

Most people who play with dice regularly can instantly add the pips on 3d6. They literally don't have to think about it. You instantly see "13" or "6" or "17" or whatever - this is far faster than an eye-blink even. It's not a hard skill to acquire - even the player in my group who still confuses 1d10 and 1d12 can do it. You know this to be true. And adding is a faster mental function than subtraction, I daresay it's faster than comparison, too.

FWIW, these are definitely not true for me. I'm very visually-oriented, so I first have to consciously convert the pips to numbers, and then add the numbers. I don't instantly see the numbers, and it is definitely not faster than an eye-blink. I'm not alone in this, either.

Looking at 2 dice with actual numbers on them, to determine which result is higher or lower, is much faster for me.

(Also, try to steer away from saying things like "You know this to be true". It comes across as presumptive, bullying, condescending or some combination thereof.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, these are definitely not true for me. I'm very visually-oriented, so I first have to consciously convert the pips to numbers, and then add the numbers. I don't instantly see the numbers, and it is definitely not faster than an eye-blink. I'm not alone in this, either.

Looking at 2 dice with actual numbers on them, to determine which result is higher or lower, is much faster for me.

(Also, try to steer away from saying things like "You know this to be true". It comes across as presumptive, bullying, condescending or some combination thereof.)

Yes, and thanks for the support. I'll be posting more on this later.

You've probably caught my tone is starting to become mocking with @Ruin Explorer precisely because of phases such as you cite. I don't like it when people do it and I tend to retaliate. Thanks for helping keep a more level head since this is supposed to be a constructive thread, not argumentative.

Much appreciated.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Ruin Explorer , I'll address your points tomorrow. I have to get ready for today's session and won't have time since we're starting in less than an hour. Until tomorrow!

 

[TwoSix]

FWIW, these are definitely not true for me. I'm very visually-oriented, so I first have to consciously convert the pips to numbers, and then add the numbers. I don't instantly see the numbers, and it is definitely not faster than an eye-blink. I'm not alone in this, either.

Looking at 2 dice with actual numbers on them, to determine which result is higher or lower, is much faster for me.

(Also, try to steer away from saying things like "You know this to be true". It comes across as presumptive, bullying, condescending or some combination thereof.)

Yea, I've never seen that either. Even using pip-dice, I've never seen other players automatically aggregate the pips into a total. They always say "OK, 6 and 4 is 10, plus 2 makes 12".

Granted, once there's more than 3 dice or so, most players at my tables just make me add the dice, because they know I CAN do it in the proverbial eyeblink. But I play with a total of 15 other people regularly and none of them can subconsciously aggregate pip dice. I know 3 dice keeps people in the normal subitizing range and the pip arrangement creates recognizable patterns, so I imagine for most people pip dice are faster than number dice, but I can't see it being faster than read and compare 2 numbers under 20. Or at least, both are in the few hundred ms range such that worrying about efficiency isn't a concern.