D&D 5E AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e

[hawkeyefan]

I think he says a lot of interesting things. I feel like a lot of it is kind of self evident to a lot of us (which Angry also realizes) but is not made explicit in the rules. For instance, if a skill check is allowed to be retried after failure, then don't bother with a roll, just allow the attempt to succeed. Unless there is a consequence for failure of some sort.

I also like two other things he discusses: separating abilities and skills, and dividing passive and active uses of skills.

For the separation of abilities and skills, Angry gives the example of the intelligent character using reason to persuade someone rather than their personal charisma. I like that example. So in this case, the player may use his Int bonus rather than Cha. This allows for different methods to achieve the same outcome and I think it adds a bit to the skill system, which I think is pretty basic (which I don't mind). This way of doing things will require a little more judgment on the part of the DM, but I think it's a pretty reasonable concept. We already do this at my table, for the most part. I allow different skills to be used for whatever task; i.e. Athletics or Acrobatics to climb, and so on. Splitting things along Ability and Skill lines is probably a more sensible and specific way of doing that.

For the Passive versus Active skills...I really like the concept, but I feel like this adds a whole lot of calculation to the game. The idea is that each skill has a passive score...equal to 8 + Ability Mod + Proficiency Bonus. So, a 1st level character with a 16 Wis and Proficiency in Religion would have a passive score of 13. What this means is that for anything not requiring an action based on religion (for example, performing a religious ritual), the DM can create tiers of knowledge, and then the passive score determines what tier the character knows. For example, the character sees the holy symbol of some other deity, and the DM can set up knowledge tiers along the lines of: DC 10- this is the symbol of Bane, god of tyranny; DC 15- Bane is the patron of the Black Network; DC 17- this particular symbol is actually a specialized version indicating a high ranking member of the church of Bane.

I hope I've explained it clearly. I quite like the idea. I just am not sure that it makes things any easier. But, I'm a big proponent of DM judgment...which I think can essentially accomplish everything he's trying for here. But for those who prefer things to be more codified...or for those DMs who maybe don't quite trust their judgment yet...I really like this.

He then goes on about Reactions (not in the type of action that we know, but more in the Saving Throw variety) and I kind of like how things are described here, but I don't know if I agree with how he handles it. As [MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] mentions above, not allowing a saving throw for Bob because he didn't take a reaction that moves him out of harm's way seems odd. Saving throws are a bit weird in that they work backwards, but I don't really have a huge problem with that given the reasons for that (of which Angry seems to be aware).

So I think all in all he's tinkering with the core bits of the game in a way that was very much intended. Or at least expected. I like some of his ideas, even if I may never use them at my table because I don't feel the need to be so codified. I like running the game loose and abdicating on the fly. His methods would require a significant amount of additional effort, and I don't know if the payoff is quite enough to justify that. But, this seems to be something that e is going to continue to work on, so perhaps with more time and work, these ideas may become more worthwhile for me.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

The "Freezing time when you hit a trap" idea is really compelling. I ran a Star Trek game for a while, and I would present something similar to that to the Captain during some ship encounters. "A massive chunk of debris just appeared in front of the ship- order the helmsman to dodge, have fire control blast through, or boost shields and ram it?" And I'd have a timer going so he'd have to decide fast (or come up with a fourth action.)" Different options had different difficulty levels to success. The players always enjoyed moments like that, but it never occurred to me to bring it to D&D. Good stuff.

In terms of the group saves- right now nothing about it jumps out at me enough to make me interested in running that way, but I'm withholding judgement until I see what sort of things he presents in his mini-game hacks, I wouldn't be surprised if he had some kind of compelling mechanic that intrigues me more. Looking forward to his next article.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I like AngryDM a lot, and I think I agree with a lot of the ideas in this article*, but in this case it really could use a TL;DR version. Just a summary of the specific rule changes he suggests.

*That said, I really don't do much houseruling. It's mostly just interesting game design theory for me.

 

[LexStarwalker]

Yeah, posting a link to a 10+ page long article with no better a summary than "good stuff" and "meaty" isn't doing it for me.

Perhaps if you posted a short seven bullet point summary so we would have something to actually discuss...?

I don't ever find his posts worth the time investment of slogging through the huge noise-to-signal-ratio.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "Freezing time when you hit a trap" idea is really compelling. I ran a Star Trek game for a while, and I would present something similar to that to the Captain during some ship encounters. "A massive chunk of debris just appeared in front of the ship- order the helmsman to dodge, have fire control blast through, or boost shields and ram it?" And I'd have a timer going so he'd have to decide fast (or come up with a fourth action.)" Different options had different difficulty levels to success. The players always enjoyed moments like that, but it never occurred to me to bring it to D&D. Good stuff.

In terms of the group saves- right now nothing about it jumps out at me enough to make me interested in running that way, but I'm withholding judgement until I see what sort of things he presents in his mini-game hacks, I wouldn't be surprised if he had some kind of compelling mechanic that intrigues me more. Looking forward to his next article.

The thing I don't like about AngryDM's suggestion is that it doesn't take into account character instincts/training/skills.

So the players hear "click" and one of them decides to drop prone while the other one holds up his shield. That's 100% guesswork on the part of the players, with no information to base it off of, and no part of the character factoring in. One player guesses completely wrong and gets no saving throw.

This is getting kind of complicated, but maybe each player should get some kind of ability check or saving throw.

First, those who fail are asked what they do.

Then, those who succeed are given a hint ("you hear a whoosh of air" "the floor starts to move" etc.) and then they get to declare their actions.

So those who fail outright might still get lucky, and those who succeed still have to use their noggins.

 

[Satyrn]

The thing I don't like about AngryDM's suggestion is that it doesn't take into account character instincts/training/skills.

So the players hear "click" and one of them decides to drop prone while the other one holds up his shield. That's 100% guesswork on the part of the players, with no information to base it off of, and no part of the character factoring in. One player guesses completely wrong and gets no saving throw.

This is getting kind of complicated, but maybe each player should get some kind of ability check or saving throw.

First, those who fail are asked what they do.

Then, those who succeed are given a hint ("you hear a whoosh of air" "the floor starts to move" etc.) and then they get to declare their actions.

So those who fail outright might still get lucky, and those who succeed still have to use their noggins.

I have been doing this. Although I would never stop at "you hear a click" when describing the trap being set off. I also go beyond "the floor starts to move."

I say, "the floor opens up beneath you, you're over a pit, there are spikes at the bottom 40 feet down. What do you do?"

They can then say anything they like and I adjudicate from there. The perhaps obvious response is "I grab for the ledge" which results in a Dex save to see if the attempt succeeds. But they might also say something ridiculous like "I stab my axe into the wall as I'm falling, hoping to stop myself," which looks like a Strength save to me (and ridiculously cool).

Or they try casting teleport, which I'd rule would automatically work if cast as a reaction, or if casting time is an action they get an Intelligence save to see if they get the spell off in time, although I usually rule that spending a resource - that spell slot - often automatically succeeds at least partially, so even on a failed Int save, the caster would get the spell off before hitting the spikes and just take damage for falling 20 feet.

The biggest points for me are that 1) the players know what's happening so they can make interesting choices, and 2) I never determine a "right" response - anything the players try has a chance to work.

Sometimes, depending on the situation, they choose to do nothing and just suffer the full force of the trap.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

So the players hear "click" and one of them decides to drop prone while the other one holds up his shield. That's 100% guesswork on the part of the players, with no information to base it off of, and no part of the character factoring in. One player guesses completely wrong and gets no saving throw.

This is getting kind of complicated, but maybe each player should get some kind of ability check or saving throw.

Yeah, I'd agree that "You hear a click" is likely too arbitrary to make interesting decisions with. I'd want to either give a bit more detail, or be seeding clues earlier in the dungeon so they can make an informed guess as to the course of action.

I think one interesting thing to take from this is the idea of players getting to choose what sort of save they make. "I brace myself" = con save, vs "I dodge" for dex save (which is essentially just using skill checks as reactions, I suppose). Although I do think the game is balanced around the idea of DMs being able to target saving throws the players are weak in, so it could throw off the game in general if the players get too much power in this respect- they'll just choose the saves they're strong in every time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's another thought: get Advantage if you can invoke a bond/trait/etc.

That could be that your bond is "To protect your friends at any price" so you declare that you're going to use your shield to block the (whatever) and try to get in front of your friends. Con or Str, with Advantage.

Or your flaw might be that you will "Save yourself even if you have to betray your friends" so you declare that you're going to try to sneak away unnoticed. Dex, with Advantage.

Etc.

(Yes, this is inspired by The One Ring's playbook.)

 

[Satyrn]

Here's another thought: get Advantage if you can invoke a bond/trait/etc.

That could be that your bond is "To protect your friends at any price" so you declare that you're going to use your shield to block the (whatever) and try to get in front of your friends. Con or Str, with Advantage.

Or your flaw might be that you will "Save yourself even if you have to betray your friends" so you declare that you're going to try to sneak away unnoticed. Dex, with Advantage.

Etc.

(Yes, this is inspired by The One Ring's playbook.)

Well, that's really just gaining inspiration and spending it immediately. Though I guess if you let this happen even if the character already has inspiration, that's a little boon (although even then that can be explained as using the current inspiration and then gaining a new one).

But a good thing to remember nonetheless when playing and ruling.

 

[texastoast]

I like a lot of his ideas. Aligning all actions, all skills, all reactions, etc. under the same mechanical umbrellas really appeals to my sense of aesthetics (or OCD).

What I worry about if this were implemented is how weird social encounters might get. An NPC is lying to a PC. What, the DM rolls a Deception check against passive Insight, and that's it? If the player says his character doesn't trust the NPC and thinks he's lying, does that grant retroactive advantage, cause a second, active Insight check (against what, the original roll? passive deception?), or what? Maybe it's metagamey, but does the fact that the DM rolled a D20 when the NPC said something tip the player off that a lie is afoot, whereas "can I make an insight check" requires more active participation from the player?

Maybe I'm making too much of it. It just feels like if the players are less responsible for activating their characters' reactions to social encounters, such encounters could drift toward DM solitaire.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using EN World mobile app