D&D 5E Climbing a tower rules 5e

[Nebulous]

I don't even play 5e, but I understand and respect what the rules are trying to do. Simplifying climbing and jumping to just movement, are great design in my opinion.

I run 3.5 myself, which is very check heavy. But I honestly think these are good 5e rules.

Wow! That's amazing actually. Would your group swap to 5e or do you prefer the nuances of 3e? If it matters, I do wish 5e was more complex with a smattering of 3e details.

 

[Nebulous]

There is a 5e product I showed my players recently, I don't think they actually looked at it yet, but it's called 5e Options and the Skill chapter is 30 pages long, and it really makes 5e feel more like 3e by vastly expanding on the skill descriptions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you really don’t like 5e and you have already made up your mind that advice given here is bad, why bother wasting your time with a 5e thread?

I'm eternally optimistic for better things to happen...

Hope you find the game that better suits your tastes while you wait for 6e to come around.

Thanks! I'm looking, and (frankly) tired of tweaking 5E to try to fit the mold. I am currently running our Frostmaiden game, and by the time it is over I am hoping to have found something more to my tastes.

For me, I’ll continue listening here to improve my 5e experience.

Best of luck!

Simplifying climbing and jumping to just movement, are great design in my opinion.

Which is evident in your responses. But then why haven't you moved to 5E?

Have you followed any of Morrus's Advanced 5e stuff?

Yes. I was interested very much in the beginning, but having seen the direction it is going--not so much now.

There is a 5e product I showed my players recently, I don't think they actually looked at it yet, but it's called 5e Options and the Skill chapter is 30 pages long, and it really makes 5e feel more like 3e by vastly expanding on the skill descriptions.

I only played 3E for about a year... as with 5E, there were elements of it I liked, and things I didn't.

 

[Xetheral]

I think a lot of discontent with a particular system is that people want to run a game a certain way and the system fights them or otherwise doesn't support their vision. Personally, I try to understand the system then build a game around that. As a result, I'm rarely disappointed because, not surprisingly, everything just works.

Personally I think building a game around a system, or building a game and then choosing the system that best supports it, are equally valid approaches to running games.

The former approach is likely to stick closer to the rules, and the latter approach is inevitably going to require more system hacking. The type of advice that is most helpful to any given poster will probably depend a lot on whether they are trying to adapt their game to fit the system or trying to get the system to work for their game.

I agree that trying to get the system to fit one's game is probably more likely to create friction, and thus disappointment. But, particularly since 5e has been presented as a big tent edition, I think it's reasonable for people to express their frustration or disappointment when they have trouble getting the system to work for their game.

 

[Imaculata]

Which is evident in your responses. But then why haven't you moved to 5E?

I like both editions. I appreciate 3.5 for its crunch and character building options, but I appreciate 5e for its streamlined gameplay and simplified rules.

When it comes down to it though, I have a pile of 3.x compatible books that 5e will never match (in part due to the OGL*), plus I really value the crunch in 3.x more. I also realized that I can just bring some of my favourite 5e rules over to 3.5, and improve my favourite edition of D&D.

(* The Open Gaming License, which allowed third party support for 3rd edition.)

 

[Imaculata]

Wow! That's amazing actually. Would your group swap to 5e or do you prefer the nuances of 3e? If it matters, I do wish 5e was more complex with a smattering of 3e details.

I think it might be hard to switch my group to 5e completely, but I think they'd be willing to give it a try. I personally prefer 3e due to all the material available, and the crunch. 5e is a fine system, but it is lacking some of the depth and character building options that I appreciate in 3.x. However, this is one of the reasons I've been following ENworlds LevelUp for 5e with some interest.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But, particularly since 5e has been presented as a big tent edition, I think it's reasonable for people to express their frustration or disappointment when they have trouble getting the system to work for their game.

Oddly enough I have been working with 5E for over two years now, and it tweaks easily.

My issue, at this point, is more with people expressing their comments that how my groups' interpretation of the rules and running the game somehow is not in line with the RAW, which when a rule expresses something to the effect of "At the DM's option," we are within the tenets of the rules--not house-ruling, etc. But, I've expressed that point numerous times--often on deaf ears it seems.

I like both editions. I appreciate 3.5 for its crunch and character building options, but I appreciate 5e for its streamlined gameplay and simplified rules.

When it comes down to it though, I have a pile of 3.x compatible books that 5e will never match (in part due to the OGL*), plus I really value the crunch in 3.x more. I also realized that I can just bring some of my favourite 5e rules over to 3.5, and improve my favourite edition of D&D.

(* The Open Gaming License, which allowed third party support for 3rd edition.)

Sensible enough.

Since my groups are mostly only familiar with 5E, I have been trying more to remove the streamlined aspect by implementing variant rules and the right to use DM options.

Anyway, given your reasons for enjoying elements of 3E, I can fairly say our game styles and desires are nearly polar opposite. Nothing wrong with that of course, and it is great the genre can appeal to us both in different ways.

 

[Charlaquin]

Quick note on jumping: PHB 175 explicitly lists "you try to jump an unusually long distance" in the examples for Strength (Athletics) checks. So if a PC tried to jump farther than their Strength score in feet it would definitely be within the rules for the DM to call for a Strength (Athletics) check.

Strength (Athletics) is indeed the appropriate check to call for when a PC tries to jump an unusually long distance, and the action has a chance of success, a chance of failure, and a cost or consequence for failure. Personally, I don’t find “try” to be an approach with a chance of success at the goal of “jump farther than my Strength allows.” To have a chance of success, the player needs to propose a course of action that could reasonably lead them to covering more ground with the jump (such as using a springboard). Though, I do believe that the way this rule is written does leave it up to the DM’s judgment to make that call.

 

[Nebulous]

I think it might be hard to switch my group to 5e completely, but I think they'd be willing to give it a try. I personally prefer 3e due to all the material available, and the crunch. 5e is a fine system, but it is lacking some of the depth and character building options that I appreciate in 3.x. However, this is one of the reasons I've been following ENworlds LevelUp for 5e with some interest.

5e in my opinion IS too simplistic, and that's just from the DM side. I never make PCs and don't care, that's a whole side of the game I rarely touch, although I do think it needs revamping and more important choices per level.

 

[Xetheral]

Strength (Athletics) is indeed the appropriate check to call for when a PC tries to jump an unusually long distance, and the action has a chance of success, a chance of failure, and a cost or consequence for failure. Personally, I don’t find “try” to be an approach with a chance of success at the goal of “jump farther than my Strength allows.” To have a chance of success, the player needs to propose a course of action that could reasonably lead them to covering more ground with the jump (such as using a springboard). Though, I do believe that the way this rule is written does leave it up to the DM’s judgment to make that call.

Sounds good to me. I personally wouldn't require the extra step that you do, but I think we're both on very solid footing rules-wise.