D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Bluntly, so what? That's exactly the reason I'm saying houserules aren't a useful answer to everyone. I've explained this more than once, so either engage with it or stop responding to me. Acting like I haven't explained my position is ridiculous.

So your position is, " I don't like the traditional GM/player power dynamic and want it to be different"? You should have just said that in the first place. It would have saved a lot of confusion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In which case there's no intrinsic reason you can't do that with houserules players suggest, either.

Sure, if they work for you.

 

[Hussar]

Take a look at our system sometime - it's probably closer-related to TSR-era D&D than you realize.

www.friendsofgravity.com/games then "commons room"; then "blue books" for (very setting-specific) player-side stuff and "DM stuff" for DM-side.

I perused the difference between the two books and your casting system is totally different. You use spell point casting in one system and free floating casting a la 3e sorcerers for the other. IOW, that's a pretty huge departure right there from AD&D.

 

[Lanefan]

I perused the difference between the two books and your casting system is totally different. You use spell point casting in one system and free floating casting a la 3e sorcerers for the other. IOW, that's a pretty huge departure right there from AD&D.

Indeed. My game is the one that uses free-floating slots a la 3e Sorcerers (which is where I stole the idea from), largely because I very long ago came to detest pre-memorization of spells as too much fuss for too little reward. Next time out I'll be tweaking down the number of slots all casters get as they advance; at low levels (up to about 5th) it worked great but it's proven to be overcooked at higher level.

The game that uses spell points is the one I play in, and mage types there still have to pre-mem their highest two levels of spells castable. Problem is, at high levels the mages can spam too many lower-level spells as by then they have loads of spell points and those lower level spells are free-floating (our term for this is 'wild card'). Seeing this in past campaigns is why I went back to slots for this one.

If memory serves, there may at one time have been a spell point option presented for 1e in a Dragon article, so we weren't the only ones to think that way.

 

[FrogReaver]

"I may not state my preference using the exact same wording..."

YES!!! Score one for the frog! View attachment 416470

This town isn’t big enough for 2 frogs

 

[FrogReaver]

You have a problem with mechanical element X that you theoretically need to engage with to make your character work, and the character design twiddles associated with it don't help. A knowledgable player or GM can suggest ways to approximate the effect in another way that may not be obvious. Barring a GM who is actively hostile to the workaround, it may be the best option a player has available.

I normally assume that if we are at the point of talking about rules problems that the possible approximations have been considered and already rejected. If they were accepted then it wouldn’t be much of a rules problem anymore?

One might also suggest refluffing over outright houseruling, though refluffing usually involves some minor houserule to function as well.

In any event the suggesting of some other rules route to achieve something is valid but it’s not a likely to be applicable in most situations.

I think the question is really, what about when there isn’t any other acceptable path to the goal? Isn’t it just houserule/symapthy/or disagreement that such is a problem in the first place? That’s really the only high level paths available right?

 

[AlViking]

Well, to tell the truth, neither is stealth in most versions I've seen. I'm not going to speak specifically about 5e because I don't know it well enough to, but it'd have been a nearly hopeless process in the three versions I know at all well (OD&D, 3e and 4e) because of a combination of inadequate skill, penalties for armor, and just needing to roll individually. That goes well beyond the DC.

Stealth has been important at every level least occasionally in every version of the game that I've played. The rules for a hide check (and invisibility) in 5e 2014 are pretty much the same as in the 2024 version.

This is not an issue with the fact that the fighter in heavy armor isn't going to be great at stealth, it's about the characters that are decent at it or even specialized. It should be easier to sneak past some enemies than others. They changed the rule from being an opposed check to a static DC which I think is a mistake and something I don't want in games I run and, so far, something ignored by the handful of DM's that I've played with (although they may not have been aware of the change).

I'm looking at practical concerns, not philisophical ones here (to be clear, there's nothing wrong with looking at the philisophical problem, but that's even less likely to get a player as compared to a GM anywhere).

I asked for an example of what you would do in the case where I, and the rest of the table if it matters, doesn't like the new stealth rules. You gave an answer that in no way resolves the issue at hand. I can't think of anything more practical than saying your suggestion doesn't address the issue.

And you're a GM so you have that luxury.

If you're a player and there's something you don't like you should bring it up with your GM, preferably outside of time during the session of course. But it's also dodging the question for which you simply don't seem to have an answer. Which is fine but that makes it a strange hill to die on.

Every version of D&D I've ever played* has had house rules or rulings about how to run things that aren't covered. It's part of the DNA of D&D. So I was trying to understand why you seem to take such a hard stand against them.

And when I have evidence the majority of GMs are good at that, I'll consider it more of an answer.

If the DM is consistently implementing house rules the players don't like they likely won't have a group for long. I think the majority of GMs want the rest of the group to have fun and enjoy the game they're playing together. Do you really assume the majority of GM's are power hungry bastards?

The DMG talks about house rules - that you ask the players about it and if it doesn't work change it. I've always assumed that's what most GMs do.

*With the exception, for the most part, of public games. With 4e, there were also limited house rules because of the nature of the way the game worked.

Edit - I was only asking about invisibility because you stated "A workaround uses other extent rules to bypass (to some degree) the problematic ones. It doesn't actually change any rules." I don't need to make a big deal out of this, I just disagree. House rules (and rulings) are part of how almost all D&D games I've played work.

 

[Hussar]

Indeed. My game is the one that uses free-floating slots a la 3e Sorcerers (which is where I stole the idea from), largely because I very long ago came to detest pre-memorization of spells as too much fuss for too little reward. Next time out I'll be tweaking down the number of slots all casters get as they advance; at low levels (up to about 5th) it worked great but it's proven to be overcooked at higher level.

The game that uses spell points is the one I play in, and mage types there still have to pre-mem their highest two levels of spells castable. Problem is, at high levels the mages can spam too many lower-level spells as by then they have loads of spell points and those lower level spells are free-floating (our term for this is 'wild card'). Seeing this in past campaigns is why I went back to slots for this one.

If memory serves, there may at one time have been a spell point option presented for 1e in a Dragon article, so we weren't the only ones to think that way.

Oh, sure. I certainly didn't mean any judgement on the choice. It's cool. But, my point is, your D&D and what is between the covers of the 1e PHB are pretty divergent. Never minding the bajillion table rule choices that affect things too. Things like using weapon vs armor tables. Or how initiative is handled. Or using minis or whatnot. I mean, seriously, if you've been playing the game pretty constantly for thirty or forty years, it's going to drift a considerable distance.

Which is what I meant originally with the idea that RPG's are game creation engines far more than complete games in and of themselves. My AD&D game (and frankly I played a LOT more 2ed than 1e) would barely resemble yours, even though we had the same books on the table. Heck, the fact that I used Unearthed Arcana makes a huge difference. On and on.

 

[Hussar]

With 4e, there were also limited house rules because of the nature of the way the game worked.

That's ... very untrue. 4e was extremely friendly to house ruling and kit bashing because it was so transparent. You KNEW what would happen if you changed X. Want faster combats? Cut monster HP in half. Want more realistic healing? Easy to do. Want a very low magic game with no casters? Easy peasy, martials only. On and on. 4e was quite easily the easiest D&D system to kitbash.

 

[AlViking]

That's ... very untrue. 4e was extremely friendly to house ruling and kit bashing because it was so transparent. You KNEW what would happen if you changed X. Want faster combats? Cut monster HP in half. Want more realistic healing? Easy to do. Want a very low magic game with no casters? Easy peasy, martials only. On and on. 4e was quite easily the easiest D&D system to kitbash.

It was true for every game I played. YMMV.