NOW LIVE! Sickness and Health: New diseases for your 5E game!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8509790" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Advantage & DisadvantageI think this is a fantastic mechanic. I wish sometimes that it were slightly less potent, but I love that it doesn't stack because then you don't have to relentlessly bonus hunt. I hated that in previous editions. It is a little overused or easy to get, however. I like that it's extra dice so it's easy to see that the player remembered it. Honestly, this feels like the ultimate "good enough" mechanic.CriticalsThese are fine. Kind of weak in 5e, but rolling more dice is more fun than max + die roll. I don't really care for critical saves or skill checks, just because in practice they often don't mean anything. I'm not against them as a random beneficial consequence, but... eh.FumblesNot a fan of fumbles. Bad memories of playing a TWF character and randomly dropping a weapon I was specialized in every session, while the Magic User just never had to deal with that kind of thing when casting a spell. Adding "checks" just adds more die rolls and slows the game down. It's just a bad design that punishes players for doing things that require rolling the dice, which is almost everything active. That's silly. Like... you're rolling a die so you're already doing something you have a chance to fail at. Overall the PCs just roll so many more dice than the NPCs, and failure is so much worse for PCs than NPCs. The only time I can imagine fumbles happening is when a PC does something they're not proficient in. Like a modified roll of less than 1. Honestly, the game already punishes that more than enough. Experienced players already avoid doing anything they don't have at least a modest bonus at. I don't think it's worthwhile to have a special rule to make it even more punishing to try something you're already almost certain to fail at.</blockquote>

Verification