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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e
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="Bawylie" data-source="post: 7070141" data-attributes="member: 6776133"><p><strong>AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&amp;D 5e</strong></p><p></p><p>I don't think you should consider the rules tweaks separately. It seems like they have to all be taken together. </p><p></p><p>So for instance when an NPC lies to a PC, you wouldn't automatically just roll against a passive to determine if the lie was successful. You'd consider what rules to apply, determine whether or not the action was possible, etc etc. </p><p></p><p>And, ok, sure. Obviously your judgment comes before the mechanics. </p><p></p><p>But this article and its predecessor are groundwork for whatever subsystems he's going to talk about next. </p><p></p><p>The group check examples were interesting. Because they ask a DM to consider the situation as an "all or nothing" or "first past the post" kind of deal. </p><p></p><p>All or nothing - sneaking past the dozing dragon, can the party get past without waking it and avoid its wrath? Under the standard rules each character would check and if a majority of characters passed the stealth check, the party successfully avoided waking the dragon. Under angry's suggestion, only the person worst at stealth would make the check, and everyone else would take actions that presumably would assist their weakest link in passing. Aiding the stealth action, singing a lullaby, making sure the dragon snuggles its owlbear plushy. </p><p></p><p>Interesting way of looking at a group check. The default rule would be fine, the proposed change would also be fine. It feels a little more character-driven than mechanics-driven and that's interesting to me. </p><p></p><p>The "first past the post deal" asks us to consider a group check where anyone's success benefit's the whole group. Let's say we're cracking a safe before the mob banker gets back. Normally we only have one character make a check. Maybe with an assist. Under angry's proposal, eligible characters could help out on the main action (i.e. Anyone with proficiency in and possession of thieves' tools can get in on the safe cracking itself) while other characters might involve themselves by other activities. Keeping watch for the mob banker, Evan intercepting and stalling the mob. Whatever whatever. All those thing would circumstantially change the DC when it's time to make the check. But so long as it's made, the whole party gets that sweet mob cash. </p><p></p><p>Ok, different takes on involving the party and considering group activities. Not bad. Because look at chases. </p><p></p><p>We're trying to escape the mob boss who is chasing us. That's all or nothing (unless any of you cold blooded characters would leave an ally behind). </p><p></p><p>We have to catch that rat who scampered off with the one ring! Ok, that's first past the post. Everyone's efforts matter, but only one character jumps on the rat. Everyone else is corralling or baiting or shutting doors so it can't leave the room. </p><p></p><p>That's obviously not all, but if you play around with various scenarios in your mind, it gets a bit more interesting and fun than the default "if half you guys make it, you win" rule. </p><p></p><p></p><p>-Brad</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bawylie, post: 7070141, member: 6776133"] [b]AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e[/b] I don't think you should consider the rules tweaks separately. It seems like they have to all be taken together. So for instance when an NPC lies to a PC, you wouldn't automatically just roll against a passive to determine if the lie was successful. You'd consider what rules to apply, determine whether or not the action was possible, etc etc. And, ok, sure. Obviously your judgment comes before the mechanics. But this article and its predecessor are groundwork for whatever subsystems he's going to talk about next. The group check examples were interesting. Because they ask a DM to consider the situation as an "all or nothing" or "first past the post" kind of deal. All or nothing - sneaking past the dozing dragon, can the party get past without waking it and avoid its wrath? Under the standard rules each character would check and if a majority of characters passed the stealth check, the party successfully avoided waking the dragon. Under angry's suggestion, only the person worst at stealth would make the check, and everyone else would take actions that presumably would assist their weakest link in passing. Aiding the stealth action, singing a lullaby, making sure the dragon snuggles its owlbear plushy. Interesting way of looking at a group check. The default rule would be fine, the proposed change would also be fine. It feels a little more character-driven than mechanics-driven and that's interesting to me. The "first past the post deal" asks us to consider a group check where anyone's success benefit's the whole group. Let's say we're cracking a safe before the mob banker gets back. Normally we only have one character make a check. Maybe with an assist. Under angry's proposal, eligible characters could help out on the main action (i.e. Anyone with proficiency in and possession of thieves' tools can get in on the safe cracking itself) while other characters might involve themselves by other activities. Keeping watch for the mob banker, Evan intercepting and stalling the mob. Whatever whatever. All those thing would circumstantially change the DC when it's time to make the check. But so long as it's made, the whole party gets that sweet mob cash. Ok, different takes on involving the party and considering group activities. Not bad. Because look at chases. We're trying to escape the mob boss who is chasing us. That's all or nothing (unless any of you cold blooded characters would leave an ally behind). We have to catch that rat who scampered off with the one ring! Ok, that's first past the post. Everyone's efforts matter, but only one character jumps on the rat. Everyone else is corralling or baiting or shutting doors so it can't leave the room. That's obviously not all, but if you play around with various scenarios in your mind, it gets a bit more interesting and fun than the default "if half you guys make it, you win" rule. -Brad [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e
Top