Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E low level monster skill checks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7793929" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>What a plain reading of the books looks like to me is that there is a baseline approach (call it "basic rules") and then there are a number of variants and options the DM can adopt according to the campaign, adventure, or group. I certainly tweak those dials quite a bit depending on what will best support what I'm going for. But the fundamentals ("How to Play," DM adjudication process, etc.) and core mechanics (attack rolls, ability checks including passive checks, saving throws, etc.) and the approach those things foster as a whole remain the same game to game, even if I've played with resting variants, encumbrance, feats or no feats, multiclassing or no multiclassing, and so on. The DM can then tack on rules additions or house rules of his or her own creation. I do that, too. What I don't do is argue that my rules additions or house rules are actually part of the rules. I'm happy to point out that they are not because that is the truth.</p><p></p><p>I didn't come to D&D 5e <em>wanting </em>to play the game as I play it now. I fought hard against it during the playtest for many of the reason my current detractors state. If those forums survived, you'd be able to read plenty of my posts pushing for D&D Next, as it was called at the time, to be more like D&D 4e which is the game I preferred and still enjoy. I lost those arguments. And I certainly don't run my D&D 4e games like I run my D&D 5e games for the reasons I have stated. I don't have any particular agenda or preference. I change up how I play and run games according to the game. I'm not going to play two different board games the same way either. Why would I do that in D&D? If I don't like the way a version of D&D plays, I'll just play the one I do like. That seems like the right approach to me.</p><p></p><p>But what a plain reading of the books also looks like is that there are what appear to be mistakes in it. This is self-evident simply because of the existence of errata. What is discussed in the DMG's trap section is inconsistent with the baseline approach I mention above and cannot in my view be considered an exception or example of specific overriding general. It isn't impossible to imagine a committee of writers, editors, and producers just not getting this right and then, given as I have stated that it will not ruin your game to play the game more like D&D 4e, not bothering to correct it as they might do with a magic item's text, poison details, or the like.</p><p></p><p>So, if someone wants to say that these inconsistencies in the trap section of the DMG somehow undermines my otherwise coherent positions on what the rules and game fundamentals say and what sorts of approaches naturally arise from those things, that's certainly their right. It just doesn't strike me as a serious argument and more of a defense of how they want to play, when nobody's attacking their way of playing to begin with. People play the game differently for any number of reasons. And that's okay.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7793929, member: 97077"] What a plain reading of the books looks like to me is that there is a baseline approach (call it "basic rules") and then there are a number of variants and options the DM can adopt according to the campaign, adventure, or group. I certainly tweak those dials quite a bit depending on what will best support what I'm going for. But the fundamentals ("How to Play," DM adjudication process, etc.) and core mechanics (attack rolls, ability checks including passive checks, saving throws, etc.) and the approach those things foster as a whole remain the same game to game, even if I've played with resting variants, encumbrance, feats or no feats, multiclassing or no multiclassing, and so on. The DM can then tack on rules additions or house rules of his or her own creation. I do that, too. What I don't do is argue that my rules additions or house rules are actually part of the rules. I'm happy to point out that they are not because that is the truth. I didn't come to D&D 5e [I]wanting [/I]to play the game as I play it now. I fought hard against it during the playtest for many of the reason my current detractors state. If those forums survived, you'd be able to read plenty of my posts pushing for D&D Next, as it was called at the time, to be more like D&D 4e which is the game I preferred and still enjoy. I lost those arguments. And I certainly don't run my D&D 4e games like I run my D&D 5e games for the reasons I have stated. I don't have any particular agenda or preference. I change up how I play and run games according to the game. I'm not going to play two different board games the same way either. Why would I do that in D&D? If I don't like the way a version of D&D plays, I'll just play the one I do like. That seems like the right approach to me. But what a plain reading of the books also looks like is that there are what appear to be mistakes in it. This is self-evident simply because of the existence of errata. What is discussed in the DMG's trap section is inconsistent with the baseline approach I mention above and cannot in my view be considered an exception or example of specific overriding general. It isn't impossible to imagine a committee of writers, editors, and producers just not getting this right and then, given as I have stated that it will not ruin your game to play the game more like D&D 4e, not bothering to correct it as they might do with a magic item's text, poison details, or the like. So, if someone wants to say that these inconsistencies in the trap section of the DMG somehow undermines my otherwise coherent positions on what the rules and game fundamentals say and what sorts of approaches naturally arise from those things, that's certainly their right. It just doesn't strike me as a serious argument and more of a defense of how they want to play, when nobody's attacking their way of playing to begin with. People play the game differently for any number of reasons. And that's okay. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E low level monster skill checks
Top