D&D 5E DMG excerpt: Carousing!

[AmerginLiath]

Man, some folks on this thread could more constructively spend their time carousing than in trying to nitpick rules language.

I suppose this is why people don't have drinks with contract lawyers who are on the clock, though.

Just put them in jail for 1d4 days until it all gets sorted out...

 

[AmerginLiath]

Papers & Paychecks, you're getting closer every day.

But does the magic item section contain a +2 Backscratcher?

 

[AmerginLiath]

One thing I want to know, however, is what the repercussions of getting arrested are. When it says "You are jailed for 1d4 days at the end of the downtime period," does that mean that the last 1d4 days of your predetermined downtime period are spent in jail, or does it mean that the start of your next adventure is delayed by 1d4 days? And if it's the former, why would any player pay the fine to avoid it -- since it happens "offscreen", and seems to have no effect ruleswise on your character?

Wyvern

Honestly, I think it's deliberately vague so that the DM (and players to a degree) can interpret it. The DM could opt that it's a perfunctory issue and merely effects the roleplay in that particular tavern (for good or ill – and just guess WHICH tavern the next old man with a treasure map will be at!?), or it could cause problems for the PCs in that town. Likewise, a DM could decide that some of the PCs do start the next adventure in jail, while the clock is ticking on something more important than "drunk & disorderly," and you suddenly have the real question of a prison break for the Greater Good!

(BTW, my thoughts on your romance question: I think that it's tied to the level issue. A higher-level character is more likely to have a relationship established already through the campaign or else meet a significant other via campaign-significant events, while a low-level character is more likely to strike up a random romance. Compare a younger versus older adult's expected way of meeting someone – as a single 35-year old myself, I don't go to meet women at the sort of places I did at 25, much like a powerful 10th level character wouldn't do so the same way that he did back at 3rd level...)

 

[BoldItalic]

The construction rules do work, if you think through the implications. There are two different numbers involved:

1) The duration of the project, in calendar days from start to finish
2) The number of downtime days that the PC has to spend on-site, supervising

The PC has to be prepared to spend at least as many downtime days on-site as the days quoted in the table. If not, the project will never finish. That's the minimum cost, in downtime days, to the PC.

If he stays on-site for the whole project, it will be finished in that many days. No problem.

If he takes days out to do other things (either in one block or in odd days here and there - it doesn't matter), both the duration and the cost to him in total downtime days will increase.

For every day out, the duration increases by 3 days and the cost in downtime days increases by 2.

Example

You start to build something with a book cost of 30 days but during construction, you take 5 days out carousing.

The duration of the project increases to 45 days (30+3*5 = 45).

The number of days you must spend on-site increases to 40 days.
You can calculate that as days present = total duration less days absent (45 - 5 =40)
You can also calculate it as original cost + two times the number of days absent (30 + 2*5 =40).

That's how the rules work, as written. Of course, as DMs, we are free to change the rules if we don't like them. For informal play, PCs essentially have an unlimited supply of downtime days and spending them merely delays the next adventure on the campaign calendar, unless we have scheduled timed events to interrupt them. For organised play it's a bit different because downtime days are awarded in limited amounts at the ends of adventures and players may have to save them up until they have enough for whatever project they have in mind.

 

[CapnZapp]

For the love of the gods, rename this thread!

 

[DM_]

For the love of the gods, rename this thread!

"Strongholds: examples of people assuming construction workers will work infinite hours for finite funds."
or
"Strongholds: interpretations may vary."

 

[Miseravum]

A high level wizard or bard can cut the costs and time of building dramatically with spells like control weather, move earth, stone shape, plant grownth, wall of stone(permanent), Fabricate, planar binding etc..
He can also add cool stuff with demiplane, guards and wards, hallow, programmed illusion, true polymorph, sequester, and other permanent spells and effects

 

[SilverfireSage]

The problem is that it demonstrates that the rules writing is half-assed. That no one went through the rules checking that they said what they intended to. If they didn't bother to do it here, we know they haven't' tested at deeper levels.

Actually it demonstrates that RPG fans are happy to tear apart a rule if it's vague, but apparently don't care to pay attention to the ones that are pretty good!
(A generalization of course, but holy cow, all of this on one vague wording of one rule...)

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is that it demonstrates that the rules writing is half-assed. That no one went through the rules checking that they said what they intended to. If they didn't bother to do it here, we know they haven't' tested at deeper levels.

Or they just focused their limited time and money on more relevant things and trusted the grown-ups in the room to be able to figure out what the intent was and maybe even if they can't and they just wing it OH WELL, the game is not resting upon the correct interpretation of this one number, since it is not a fragile princess snowflake.

I mean, it could clearly be better, but no matter how many hours they poured into checking their rules, there's going to be awkward wording and some minor drops in clarity. This is not a slippery slope we've embarked on, it's just a little flaw in something that was destined to have little flaws in it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, so let me see if I have this right now...

Outpost or fort 15,000 gp 100 day

so I have a year off. (365 days) I start the new fort, then another PC needs help, so on day 30, I need to take a little over 2 weeks off. so that 18 days come off the 100, so 48 days used 52 to go, plus the 18x3 more days... 54 days added, so I come back and it would take 106 days to complete... or I could move 50 miles down the road, start from scratch and take 100 day?!?!?

on the other hand if I start it day 1, then take the rest of the time off... it never gets done... each day adds 3?!?!?

please someone explain I am totally lost...

 

[Derren]

Very disappointing.

Strongholds: Apart from the badly worded rules (but hey, its just downtime. No one cares about that...), why does it even matter if the PC is present? It is automatically assumed the PC is in some way competent and necessary for the construction to complete.
And what do those strongholds do? What do they represent in the game world? I hope the DMG talks a bit more about what it means to own a stronghold somewhere else. But I have my doubts that it does.

Carousing: Roll dice to earn money or have an automatically resolved romance. Neither has the player a say in what happens during carousing, nor does it matter who the PC is and what he can do.

In the end all this "downtime activities" boil down to "some tables to roll dice on before you get back to the real game". But what about downtime as game itself? As session not involving hacking through hordes of generic monsters for loot? Such things are apparently missing.

 

[guachi]

GMforPowergamers, there are those in this thread who will state you are stupid for so obviously misreading the rules. But, yes, your reading (either of them) are the only two I can come up with that match with the text of the rules. And both of them end up with ludicrous results. I can't even figure out what the RAI is supposed to be beyond construction taking longer if you aren't there.

If that is the case, the easiest rule to have written is to double/triple/quadruple the construction times listed in the book and say each day supervised by the PC counts as 2/3/4 days of construction. The spirit of the rules is maintained and a rule that actually makes sense is put in its place.

 

[steeldragons]

If I unsubscribe from a thread do I still acquire XP and laughs from it?

 

[Wyvern]

Honestly, I think it's deliberately vague so that the DM (and players to a degree) can interpret it.

Fair enough. I was mainly wondering what the downside of *not* paying the fine was, but I guess "DM decides" is as good an answer as any.

(BTW, my thoughts on your romance question: I think that it's tied to the level issue. A higher-level character is more likely to have a relationship established already through the campaign or else meet a significant other via campaign-significant events, while a low-level character is more likely to strike up a random romance.

Heh. That brings up an interesting possibility I hadn't noticed before. Since there's a 50% chance that the romance is "ongoing", what happens if you roll the romance result again on a later occasion? Answer: sparks fly!

Wyvern

 

[Tormyr]

ok, so let me see if I have this right now...

Outpost or fort 15,000 gp 100 day

so I have a year off. (365 days) I start the new fort, then another PC needs help, so on day 30, I need to take a little over 2 weeks off. so that 18 days come off the 100, so 48 days used 52 to go, plus the 18x3 more days... 54 days added, so I come back and it would take 106 days to complete... or I could move 50 miles down the road, start from scratch and take 100 day?!?!?

on the other hand if I start it day 1, then take the rest of the time off... it never gets done... each day adds 3?!?!?

please someone explain I am totally lost...

My post at the beginning was to point out that the literal interpretation cannot actually be what they meant. I was originally thinking they were talking about three times the original time. After looking at other people's posts, I think they were right and the intention was 4 times the original time. The easiest way to calculate how far along construction is would be for each day without the PC to only count for 1/4 day. Alternatively, you could multiply the original time by 4 and have each day with the PC equal to 4 days. Either of these methods seems to be the best way to keep track of how far along the construction is and keeping the intent of what is written in the DMG.

 

[BoldItalic]

please someone explain I am totally lost...

You have to put the effort in. There's a minimum amount of effort you have to put in, to complete the project. To get a fort built, you have to put in a minimum of 100 days of personal effort (= downtime days) supervising the construction. Okay, it's not very heroic and you'd rather be doing something more exciting but how badly do you want this fort?

If you start a build and then take your eye off the ball, things will start to go wrong. In a single day, so much will go wrong that it will take you two days extra work just to haul the project back on track. Then you still have to finish the project. The more you let things slide, the worse it gets.

Let's take an example. Suppose today is the day the masons are going to put the windows into your castle. The carpenters made all the windows yesterday while the masons were preparing the apertures, and now the masons can put them in, today, while the carpenters are working on the roof. Now, you decide to take the day off carousing and leave them to it. What's going to happen? Murphy's Law applies. The masons will put in the windows upside down (so the rain runs in instead of running off) then cement them in. You come back tomorrow and it's all gone pear-shaped. You tell them to rip out the windows (which takes a day) then the carpenters have to make a new set of windows (which takes another day, and you'd better be there to see they do it right) while the masons have nothing to do, then the day after that, the masons can fit the new windows (and you'd better be there to see they don't put them in back to front this time) while the carpenters go back to making pieces of roof, which they have to start all over again because it's been raining. Net result? Two extra days of your time spent getting the mistakes ironed out, just so you can get back to where you would have been several days ago if you hadn't been carousing.

If you think the windows example is absurd, there's a building not a million miles from where I live where the self-cleaning windows, which have spray nozzles on the outside to wash the glass, were put in back to front and no-one noticed until the people inside the new offices and their brand new furniture were liberally sprayed with water the first time the cleaners turned on the window washers. The owners baulked at the cost of refitting all the windows, so they decided to abandon the self-washing system and use mobile gantries and men with sponges. But the gantries were too heavy for the walkway around the building so the walkway had to be dug up to lay stronger foundations. Which meant digging up all the service ducts that were laid under the walkway. And so it went on.

You can't just order a fort and come back when it's finished. You have to be there all the time making sure it's done right, otherwise it won't be.

 

[Wyvern]

Carousing: Roll dice to earn money or have an automatically resolved romance. Neither has the player a say in what happens during carousing, nor does it matter who the PC is and what he can do.

Um, no. The table explicitly states that the player gets to choose the identity of their love interest. Also, the paragraph before the table says "or you choose". "You" seems to mean the DM rather than the player, but it still indicates that you're not a slave to the whims of the die roll.

Finally, there's this line at the top of the page: "Depending on the style of your campaign and the particular backgrounds and interests of the adventurers, you can make some or all of the following additional activities available as options." (emphasis added) If you'd rather roleplay out the PC's carousing as a series of social encounters, go for it. For those who can't be bothered to spend the time, the table provides a shortcut.

If carousing was a major focus of the game, maybe it would be nice to have an algorithm that factored in the class, race, alignment and background of the PC to determine the results. Since they didn't, the solution is: Use your imagination.

Wyvern

 

[Wyvern]

If you think the windows example is absurd, there's a building not a million miles from where I live where the self-cleaning windows, which have spray nozzles on the outside to wash the glass, were put in back to front and no-one noticed until the people inside the new offices and their brand new furniture were liberally sprayed with water the first time the cleaners turned on the window washers. The owners baulked at the cost of refitting all the windows, so they decided to abandon the self-washing system and use mobile gantries and men with sponges. But the gantries were too heavy for the walkway around the building so the walkway had to be dug up to lay stronger foundations. Which meant digging up all the service ducts that were laid under the walkway. And so it went on.

[video=youtube;mOA_SUKEZRE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOA_SUKEZRE[/video]

 

[steeldragons]

Um, no. The table explicitly states that the player gets to choose the identity of their love interest. Also, the paragraph before the table says "or you choose". "You" seems to mean the DM rather than the player, but it still indicates that you're not a slave to the whims of the die roll.

Excellent point. We all have to keep it in mind. For all of these previews, that this is coming from the DMG. All of the references to "You" refer to the DM who is presumably reading it, not the players, as we've all gotten used to, reading the "you"s in the PHB.

 

[Wyvern]

Excellent point. We all have to keep it in mind. For all of these previews, that this is coming from the DMG. All of the references to "You" refer to the DM who is presumably reading it, not the players, as we've all gotten used to, reading the "you"s in the PHB.

Not all of them. In the carousing table, for instance, "you" clearly refers to the PC/player. As always, context is important.

Wyvern