D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Fields of Lore, Skills and Average Hit Points

[Obryn]

Agreed. I like the approach more and more games seem to take lately where you pick a "background" or "profession" and it doesn't come with a list of skills. Instead, whenever you make a check, you can try to convince the DM that your background makes you better at that check. If you do, you get the bonus. Nice thing is that this is open ended, and allows backgrounds to grant bonuses to minor things (like card games or knitting) without sacrificing important skils like spot or sneak. It also leads to better RP experience I believe.
I wish current backgrounds were like that, at least in relation to fields of knowledge. Instead of having a list of skills, let them have a loose list of topics.

For example, commoner (fisher) background would have
Skills: folklore and geography up to 50 miles of where you live, rivers and lakes (including their inhabitants and monsters), fishing, fish cooking/salting etc., driving carts, swimming, rowing, etc.

I agree with this.

In my ideal world, you'd have a class and background for your "skills." Give open ended examples of what might qualify, being clear that it's not exhaustive. That's it.

-O

 

[1of3]

An example from a discussion we had about how MHRP aspects work (paraphrased):

PC: "So I can add my Devoted Mother aspect to the dice pool because the villain is an indian (native american), right?"
Me: "Um, that doesn't sound connected. What's the connection you're seeing?"
PC: "Well indians have a strong tie to nature."
Me: "And?"
PC: "You know, Mother Earth!" (I can tell when this player is yanking my chain, instead he was completely serious.)
Me: "Devoted Mother is in reference to that hero's young child. It could be invoked in situations where she's protecting a child, or as a complication when having to fight a young villain. Mother Earth is a completely different concept. You do have other aspects that could be appropriate in this situation, like..."
PC: "Why wouldn't mine work? You always say no."

If you had this discussion, you already played the game wrong. Your job as a Watcher is to play the NPCs. It's players job to play the character. If player says that Distinction X works, Distinction X will work. It's not Mother-may-I, it's Mother-I-will-and-you-better-believe-it.

This also works, because you can roll exactly one Distinction. Aspects on the other hand are from FATE. That system also works, because Aspects need to be "invoked" with Fate Points, which are a limited resource.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If you had this discussion, you already played the game wrong. Your job as a Watcher is to play the NPCs. It's players job to play the character. If player says that Distinction X works, Distinction X will work. It's not Mother-may-I, it's Mother-I-will-and-you-better-believe-it.

This also works, because you can roll exactly one Distinction. Aspects on the other hand are from FATE. That system also works, because Aspects need to be "invoked" with Fate Points, which are a limited resource.

Thank you for declaring me to have badwrongfun. Appreciate it.

It's not wrong to suggest uses of Distinctions (thanks) that make sense in the fiction. If the player of Thing said 'I use my 'Thick as a Brick' distinction to win the Monte Clair Junior High Dane Off, I would be remiss to let such a silly use of a Distinction stand. Nowhere in the rules for MHRP does it state that the Watcher must allow the use of Distinctions.

When you’re picking up dice, you can add in one or more Distinctions if they would be appropriate. Pick up a d8 if the Distinction describes some part of your hero that would help the action you’re taking. Pick up a d4 and gain a Plot Point if the Distinction is something that would likely complicate a situation or attract trouble.

Emphasis mine. Guess who determines appropriateness in ANY RPG? The GM. At my table it is the whole table that determines appropriateness and we all help the player find Distinctions that work. Back on topic, even if you are 100% correct, it has no bearing on other games like DDN and was merely meant as an example of how two different people can have different expectations of what is and is not appropriate.

 

[Tuft]

I'd rather the average hit points thing be pushed into DM guidelines. If you give the players the option of taking a slightly above-average result, why would they ever choose to roll?

Depends on how willing the DM is to let the players get away with intentionally and repeatedly putting their low roll result characters in harm's way and getting them killed, until they get a "keeper" with a high roll result....

 

[hbarsquared]

Am I the only one that thinks "rolling average hit points is a non-issue?

Of course you can, and why would you have that spelled out in every single class description?

Outline the choices in the beginning of the chapter or DM guidelines, done. 1) roll hp, 2) minimum hp (gritty!), 3) average, or 4) max hp (super!).

The DM should decide which method, or which methods are available. The "or use average value" is a waste of space and will be confusing for every DM/group that wants to use a different method!

It was not an accidental omission, in my opinion. It was a purposeful cleaning up of the presentation, which I appreciate!

Wow.