D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[nevin]

total agreement. Less is more in RPG rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Works fine for me, as well. But I don’t see a problem in using it with skills (as well as just abilities). Tell me what you want to do, and I’ll tell you what ability or skill to roll. And I allow the players to suggest alternative skills if they can justify narratively how it works.

To me, that works much better than trying to fill up pages with lots and lots of tightly defined skills and DCs. But that’s just my experiences.

Yeah, skills work fine as well. My preference is to ask for an ability check and allow the player to select a skill if they think one of theirs is relevant. Basically same as you describe here, I just assume that uf the player thinks a skill is relevant, they must have a narrative justification in mind and don’t require them to walk me through it.

 

[nevin]

Yeah, skills work fine as well. My preference is to ask for an ability check and allow the player to select a skill if they think one of theirs is relevant. Basically same as you describe here, I just assume that uf the player thinks a skill is relevant, they must have a narrative justification in mind and don’t require them to walk me through it.

my problem with skills is a relatively new one. I'm seeing more and more younger players that don't want to roleplay things out to completion. they want to roleplay it and then roll a bluff check, (or some other skill). And get a roll to lock in that they succeeded even in situations like the party arguing out next course of action. It's driving me crazy and I'm beginning to consider just not playing in those game or even running games with people who demandit because the rules say that's how it works.

 

[Reef]

my problem with skills is a relatively new one. I'm seeing more and more younger players that don't want to roleplay things out to completion. they want to roleplay it and then roll a bluff check, (or some other skill). And get a roll to lock in that they succeeded even in situations like the party arguing out next course of action. It's driving me crazy and I'm beginning to consider just not playing in those game or even running games with people who demandit because the rules say that's how it works.

I don’t have a problem with that myself. Some people aren’t comfortable acting in situations like that (I’m one of them). I’m happy to roleplay my character, but I don’t have the ability (or comfort level) to make speeches or convincing long-winded oratory. In those situations I’d much rather describe the arguments or tact that my charcater is using, and then make a roll. As a DM, I take that into account when determine the success. Did they describe a good argument? They get a bonus or a lower DC.

My character might have expertise in persuasion and deception. I certainly don’t .

Obviously, I’m happy if a player wants to hold forth and create a 5 minute long spur of the moment speech. I’m just not going to penalize players who can’t (or force them all to play Charisma 8 characters).

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. 5e really needed to embrace a custom skill list per campaign. Let DMs decide what’s going to be important in the campaign.

As an example, perception sucks for more horror games where the DM introducing horror aspects sets a much better tone and feel when unimpeded by a mechanic that allows players to bypass this.

 

[nevin]

IMO. 5e really needed to embrace a custom skill list per campaign. Let DMs decide what’s going to be important in the campaign.

As an example, perception sucks for more horror games where the DM introducing horror aspects sets a much better tone and feel when unimpeded by a mechanic that allows players to bypass this.

I don't know why anyone would play dnd as their horror game when there are so many better horror game systems. It's the same cognitive disonnance i have about low magic games. so many games built to play in different ways, I don't understand trying to make DND a one size fits all . Gurps is the game for one size fits all.

 

[Incenjucar]

I don’t have a problem with that myself. Some people aren’t comfortable acting in situations like that (I’m one of them). I’m happy to roleplay my character, but I don’t have the ability (or comfort level) to make speeches or convincing long-winded oratory. In those situations I’d much rather describe the arguments or tact that my charcater is using, and then make a roll. As a DM, I take that into account when determine the success. Did they describe a good argument? They get a bonus or a lower DC.

My character might have expertise in persuasion and deception. I certainly don’t .

Obviously, I’m happy if a player wants to hold forth and create a 5 minute long spur of the moment speech. I’m just not going to penalize players who can’t (or force them all to play Charisma 8 characters).

Indeed, one of the reasons D&D is a decent entry point is it allows for both verbose actors and "um, I intimidate them I guess, is that okay?" players to share the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know why anyone would play dnd as their horror game when there are so many better horror game systems. It's the same cognitive disonnance i have about low magic games. so many games built to play in different ways, I don't understand trying to make DND a one size fits all . Gurps is the game for one size fits all.

I guess I don’t understand why you wouldn’t?

 

[nevin]

i don't have a problem with it pc to npc. I agree on the persuasion stuff etc. I just think the PC's who know each other should roll play it out rather than roll a dice and say suck it up buttercup I convinced you.

 

[Incenjucar]

I guess I don’t understand why you wouldn’t?

Especially given there's an entire horror campaign setting.