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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eriktheguy" data-source="post: 5501652" data-attributes="member: 83662">DM Tricks, a SeriesThis is a new series about incorperating ideas into your campaign without using house-rules. I've been DMing and writing house rules for about 15 years, and have learned a lot. One lesson that 4e taught me is to handle situations with as few rules as possible. Broad, general rules with specific exceptions can cover almost anything. This has led me to develop the philosophy that you should use as few house rules as possible.Introducing house-rules changes the way your game is played. Experience tells me that players are generally less enthusiastic about house-rules than DMs. The best house-rules are those that can be implemented passively and without work from players. The worst type of houserule is the one that requires action on the part of the PCs, or adds a situational change to the rules. These rules bloat bookkeeping.DM Tricks will give you the tools you need to handle many situations while remaining completely within the framework of the rules. Handle exceptions on a situational basis. Handle them with tricks!A Quick Background on Skills In 2e AD&D, you had non-weapon proficiencies. Non-weapon proficiencies were optional rules that described what sort of non-adventuring abilities your character had developed. They included things such as weaving, mining, and gem cutting. They were extraneous. Adventuring skills such as climbing, hiding and spotting were handled by special rules, ability score checks, and class features.In 3e D&D you had skills. This included niche abilities as well as more useful adventuring skills. You could spend resources on gem cutting, weaving , climbing, and sneaking. This was problematic; players who wanted to develop interesting characters, such as gem cutters questing the world for precious stones, found that they had sunken points into a useless skill. Players who spent points on adventuring skills weren't able to describe themselves as gem cutters. This was worst for characters with low Int and classes that gave few skill ranks. It was difficult to build multi-talented characters who were skilled with many instruments or types of performance without gimping your character's adventuring skills completely.In 4e D&D we use skills to describe adventuring tasks only. Extraneous skills aren't covered by the rules. This is (imo) the best way to handle skills. Players can freely describe themselves as gem-cutters, cartographers, and chefs.DM Tricks: Non-weapon proficienciesHow do we apply non-adventuring skills to the game? The best way is to use them as fluff, but occasionally we want to have these non-weapon proficiencies affect game play. It's hard to argue that using your unique proficiencies to gain an advantage isn't fun. How might we apply them without adding new skills or having to remember specific house-rules that won't be used often? There are dozens of posts on enworld about how to house-rule craft and perform into the game system. As always, I recommend how to incorporate them house-rule free.Non-weapon proficiencies as a non-rule: In 4e D&D, non-weapon proficiencies are not a rule. Your character may have a background that describes them as a gem-cutter, a musician, or a cartographer. These are only relevant in how they affect your role-playing and to the extent that you can convince your DM you deserve a situational bonus. You can describe your character as having many or few niche skills.Benefits to players:The DM's best friend: Don't forget that you can always give a player +2 to a skill check for favorable conditions, and a relevant proficiency can definitely count as a favorable condition. A gem-cutter deserves +2 to their thievery check to replace the valuable gems in a tiara with fakes, or to identify fakes added in such a way. Just make sure that these situations are very situational and not repeatable (see below).Giving away skill checks: You can also let players make skill checks to accomplish things. This is no different than a skill check granted under any other circumstance, except that you make it available to a player with an appropriate proficiency.  For example, the players are travelling to an abandoned temple to fight a lich. Unbeknownst to both them and the lich, a lost artifact is buried in the temple's lowest chamber. You could allow the treasure-hunter in the party to make a history check. On a success, inform him of the artifact's existence, maybe dropping a clue as to its whereabouts.Giving away benefits: You can also give players bonuses and benefits without requiring skill checks. If the players are visiting a military camp where soldiers have been living off the same food for weeks, perhaps there is a master chef in the party and they prepare an exquisite meal. They earn the favor of the camp, perhaps a few soldiers accompany them on the next mission, they gain a blessing from a priest, or they get +1 success in an upcoming skill challenge.A Few Things to Keep in Mind:Let the players make offers: If a player comes up with a reasonable way to use a proficiency to gain one of the benefits listed above, let them have it. This may start to happen after using this trick for a few sessions.Keep it situational: When you allow a non-weapon proficiency to give players an advantage, always ask yourself "Is this repeatable? Does this situation come up often?". If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't award the bonus. Common situations are covered by normal skill checks. A cat burglar shouldn't get a bonus to picking locks, that's just a thievery check. A Zoologist shouldn't get a bonus to monster-knowledge checks on natural creatures, that's just a nature check. Only apply bonuses to niche situations that won't come up every session.Looking forward If I get positive feedback I plan to make this a series and release more. Just tips for running things that are often posited as houserules, but doing so within the framework of the core rules. I'm definitely open to criticisms and suggestions.</blockquote>

Verification