Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9398495" data-attributes="member: 7045806">My post was simply an objection to over codification of a system. You, and anyone else, can do as you please at your table to "fix" the issues you find within whatever system you choose to play. Codifying it is a big step from that.Some examples from my personal 5e games. I have my players roll initiative at the start of the session, and we use that order all session. This absolutely should not be codified. But I feel strongly that it speeds up combat in a major way. The ability to duck in and out of combat seamlessly is really nice.I award exhaustion when you go from 0 hp to 1 hp. I only allow the regaining of either hit points or hit die on long rest - not both. I do away with stunned and paralyzed for MCDM's dazed. I adjust DCs depending on if they player puts effort into the description of the action. I give inspiration when a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack or save.I don't ever use a random table, because I feel that my judgement is better then just random dice. I don't have my players roll unless the consequences of failure are meaningful. I won't even enter combat unless there is a chance at defeat, the players can just describe their actions. I never ask for rolls, unless the players prompt one.None of this should be codified because it's specific to the type of game I run, and to the preferences I have. So it always strikes me as odd when people want large changes to the system based on, at best, personal preference. Especially, when the system is 5e, as it is so malleable already. You can literally rip out the skills and the game still functions fine.</blockquote>

Verification