Search results

Just wanted to thank you for that writeup and doing the math. I try to keep rewards somewhat reasonable in my games (e.g. 10 gp from a village, 1000 gp from a town), but I'd never bothered to figure out what was "reasonable" beyond a general gut feeling. I'll defintely use this system in my...

I disagree. Yes, initiative is cyclical, but if someone's dead or disabled before their turn comes up again due to the people that acted before them in a round, how is that not an advantage to going first? That would be much more acceptable - in this case, only the slowest of the bunch would be...

It might not be a TPK, but I'd caution you not to underestimate the advantage of both going first AND having two turns the first round. At least one PC could very easily die in such circumstances, especially if it's not their first fight of the day.

Going first is generally extremely advantageous - not only do you go first on the first round, but every subsequent round as well. This means you are often able to disable / kill one or more opponents before they can act on any given round, which of course leads to much less damage taken by the...

I haven't done the math, but 2 SAs per round as the default seems like it would vastly favor Rogues as the top-tier DPS machine. Why would anyone ever play a fighter?

An amazing feature for an RPG ruleset would be a slider that lets you move along the spectrum of Realistic to Fantastic and beyond, automatically adjusting stat blocks etc. to suit each group's tastes. I bet something like that could be done, though obviously it would be much easier digitally...

You can have one person asking the leading questions and another gauging the reaction - that's covered by the help action, granting advantage on any related ability check. Understanding what the other party in a conversation actually means / what their intentions are is part of communication...

And that's exactly why I tend to use it mostly as a passive score - I assume the PCs are generally pretty savvy and always trying to gauge whether NPCs are dodgy or trustworthy. If a player actually does something, like say they ask a few leading questions to get a better feel for the NPC's...

@Oofta, I think many of us are suggesting that we wouldn't ask the player to roll an ability check, but would use their passive Wisdom (Insight) score to model how observant they are in general. So in your Sherlock Homes example, assuming the character has a decent or high passive Wisdom...

In my experience, at least one player per group will go all in on Perception, often taking the Observant feat especially if their DM is the type to gate a large amount of content and rewards behind Perception checks. I personally don't like playing in games where I have to roll to notice...

Excellent point - by "creative" I meant to include both rule of cool and particularly likely to succeed. This is also where the term "magic words" becomes meaningful, as well as being the source of some of its negative connotations. If you have a DM that is extra permissive / lenient if a...

I'll take a stab at rewording each of the existing poll options, in order: Players can declare an ability check at any time Players can declare an ability check provided they tell you what they are trying to accomplish Players declare what they are trying to accomplish and how they want to...

Oops... I didn't mean "some things" literally. Hope that was clear. :P

I guess we just have different approaches to play, then. DM: The goblin captive seems unwilling to give you any information PC: I roll Persuasion, 17 DM: Okay, he changes his mind and tells you some things I mean, sure, we can infer that the player wants information and that they have chosen...

I don't find it particularly offensive, but where is the option "Players must state what they are trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it (either in character or in game terms, doesn't matter), after which they may suggest a specific skill (ability) check / proficiency...

While I appreciate it may not have worked out very well in 5e, I kind of miss the good old days of living steeds and familiars. If it dies, it's dead, and you have to find a new one (which was either impossible or very difficult for paladins). Nah, who am I kidding. Nostalgia is great, but...

@Ashrym To add to what you've said, it's also a prime time to throw in some repercussions for the players' choices. Ferreting out further information via a few well-worded questions vs. a beat-down interrogation chamber have a very different consequence for their relationship with that NPC and...

In short, because there isn't an option that fits with how I run the game, but if you want specifics: Because "magic words" is a loaded term. Because I don't give a bonus if players use "magic words." Because I don't require "magic words" to make a skill check. Because there are no skill checks...

Agreed with the others - 5e rules are very clear that the players describe their actions and the DM adjudicates the results, calling for an appropriate ability check only when the requested action has a meaningful chance of failure. Saying "I look around" instead of "I roll Perception" isn't...

Insight is one of those that I dislike the idea of the players knowing the result; having the NPC make the check vs. the PCs' passive scores is a suggestion I've seen that I might try at my table. As for the results, a success means the PC gets a good read on the situation, a failure means they...