Search results

Hrm, while I would put more Budget into ... "Origin", I would not put it directly into Species. I know 5e did it to simplify things but they put cultural things into race/Species. Like, really, all Elves, no matter where they are born know how to use a bow? So I would split the whole...

Let's make it more simple ... and create a TTRPG from Scratch. It is very simple. At character creation you choose 2 Feats from ten Feats. Feat 1: You can shove other creatures. Feat 2: You can hit other creatures with your fist. Feat 3: You can kick other creatures with your legs. Feat 4...

Hrm, it is now speculation on what they will actually explain in the encounter building rules. Maybe their pacing advice is better the their explanation of adventuring day. But usually hiding what is actually happening and what the system is designed around (namley the time between two long...

Hrm - I like random boosters for Minis - if I don't know what's in the set. The moment I know the 50 minis, that are supposed to be in there, I loose interest. But I also open a box and make an encounter or adventure out of the content. That's a fun thing to do :). If I need certain Minis for...

Maybe I make that more clear with an example: The general rule for movement trough another hostiles creatures space is, that it is not possible, unless the creature is two sizes larger than you. The specific rule of the Halfing is, that the halfing can do that, even if the creature is only one...

I already established, that several different rules can grant the same ability. Such a rule just closes of the Arnesonian Space - but if you add another rule, you are still in the Gygaxian Space. And the actor feat is just an example. You can also go with casting spells, which is maybe easier...

But you already say it is problematic. You already said yourself, because of the actor feat, now you have to house rule the adjudication of any "mimic speech" a character tries without the feat differently, namley with disadvantage or another penalty. You wouldn't have to do that if the actor...

It is bad game design, that you have a good general rule (do an ability check, apply skills proficiency were applicable), then put in a specific rule that says, you need this feature in order to do X as ability check (skill) (the same as the general rule, now locked behind a feat) and now have...

Maybe that was the case in 1e. I think 5e has solved that. Everybody can try to steal or hide, the Rogue is just better at it. It is about how the Design intend, how the Niche, the archetype is implemented by the rules. You can always discuss, if a specific rule closes of the Arnesonian Space...

Now you added a house-rule, to trying to fix such rules, that put things firmly in the Gygaxian Space. The thing is, that rule is hard to track. It would be easier to fix the Actor Feat then to implement a rule that needs you to know any feature in order to know when to apply disadvantage.

Even if you read it that way, you just changed what is in the Gygaxian Space (proficiency with mimic speech and not the ability to mimic speech itself). What you are doing is fine. You are overriding a silly worded feat that clashes with In-World-Logic. That's what I wrote before, in general...

Yes. If a feature is requires to do X you can't do X without that feature, unless there are additional rules that allow doing X, too. Like for example granting the ability to casting spell- You have the class rules, that Gran that ability, you also have race/Spezies rules and Feats that grants...

The thing is, it depends entirely on the implementation of the rule. The example that was brought up was the Actor Feat, that allows you to Mimic other persons voices. It is worded in a way, that makes it clear that without that feat, you can't mimic the speech of another person. "- You can...

Maybe you as the DM don't realise that in this way, the players get more playtime ;). A win win - In Person/Main - Session gets you adventure and now you get even more playtime outside of the main session.

That's like ... I don't even know we're to start. If you play with the same group for longer than ... like 6 month or so, you know what goes and what not. Like at my table that I DM we never had a problem with any of that kind. But I also never had a player demanding that there are things in...

Now we are in speculative territory, because the Bastion rules are not even out yet and I never had a place in any campaign I DMed that was free of player action consequences. But just from the top of my mind: declaring war on the Kingdom and then go back to the Bastion, where the war is not...

And on that charts what would happen if you kill a retainer for funsies or kick a puppy or something else?

That is just not true. I'm a GM and I use random tables. I usually tailor them to the setting or part of the adventure they are in, but I use random tables. And they are no hassle. If those would be a hassle, any player decision that the DM didn't forsee would be a hassle.

It is not always about abuse - but what players do must matter and if it doesn't matter, the players will notice and start to act accordingly. If encumberance is not enforced over short or long most players will just carry 500+ pounds of equipment- because they just stop caring about removing...

5e has that to a degree. The more important something is, the more you want skill proficiency, your degrees of strength to matter, the more skill checks you need to implement. Because the more skill checks you make, the more statistically relevant become the boni to your skill. So for a simple...