D&D 5E Everyone Should Play Custom Lineage by Default

[TwoSix]

When I play, I roll in front of me and unless I get a crit or fumble, I just call out my total to whoever is DMing, so unless another player is looking over my shoulder there is no reason for them to know what I rolled, either.

Personally, as DM, as long as I trust the player knows what they are doing, I just want the totals called out. Once an AC or DC is known, then they can just tell me hit/damage/fail/etc.

Again, exactly what my numbers are or what my rolls are aren't anyone's business but mine (and the DM if they ask).

But people can't see your rolls? Maybe we just play in a different physical environment.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But people can't see your rolls? Maybe we just play in a different physical environment.

We sit far enough apart (4 feet or so) that they really have to be "looking" to see my rolls. Most of the other players roll in dice trays, so I never see their rolls, either. When I DM, I sit behind my laptop so don't see rolls, either. I roll on a small side-table next to where I sit, so no one sees my rolls, then, as well.

If you are all sitting around a small table and rolling in a common tray, then sure people will see your rolls, but that is rarely the case in all my years of gaming--we've always had more "space" in that sense.

 

[TwoSix]

We sit far enough apart (4 feet or so) that they really have to be "looking" to see my rolls. Most of the other players roll in dice trays, so I never see their rolls, either. When I DM, I sit behind my laptop so don't see rolls, either. I roll on a small side-table next to where I sit, so no one sees my rolls, then, as well.

If you are all sitting around a small table and rolling in a common tray, then sure people will see your rolls, but that is rarely the case in all my years of gaming--we've always had more "space" in that sense.

We just roll in the area in front of us, most of us don’t use trays. And at least in my experience, placing your rolls where people can’t see the die is considered a bit gauche. Amazing how such a trivial difference affects our perception of how the rules work.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I've had players deliberately put a 12 in their prime attributes which lead to a TPK.

I don't care if you get yourself killed,I do care if you get others killed.

Mearls also said that was the assumption vs powergamers wanting a 20.

If you build a crap PC you're effectively trolling the rest of the party.

I call hyperbole on this. Setting aside the "jerk player" argument, one PC having a +1 modifier instead of a +2 (or higher) in their prime attribute should not have that dramatic effect on your typical 5e game where you have 4 adventurers. TPKs are the result of the party as a whole not realizing that they are in over their head despite the best efforts of the DM to telegraph the extreme peril. And/or overall bad tactical decisions by multiple members of the party and/or tremendous bad luck with PC/DM rolls.

 

[Olrox17]

Nope, it doesn't. Being a cleric is still pretty much different from being a wizard -- it's not like the only difference between them is items they are able to attune to.

Like, y'know, reskinning is a thing. Playing a cleric of Mystra as a wizard is a pretty frequent occurrence, and if you are for some stupid reason so opposed to reskinning, then question whether can cleric-not-quite-cleric attune to cleric-only item is pointless. If you aren't, then this question is pretty pointless too -- there's no single reason to not allow said character to attune to the item.

Careful now. Someone here might actually be strongly opposed to reskinning, and you have no right to call them (or their reasons) stupid.

Personally, I like and allow reskinning, but only on a case by case basis. You gotta work with the DM.

 

[Remathilis]

Careful now. Someone here might actually be strongly opposed to reskinning, and you have no right to call them (or their reasons) stupid.

Personally, I like and allow reskinning, but only on a case by case basis. You gotta work with the DM.

I'm opposed to reskinning on principle except in specific situations (that being when there are no rules that exist for that concept) but I am very against using X to represent Y when Y is already a supported concept in the rules. For example, using a "crossbow" to represent a "firearm" (the rules for guns are in DMG) or "wizard" to represent a "cleric" (you want a wizard who is a priest? Take the acolyte background). I prefer the various elements to have tangible (if not concrete) meanings in game, a wizard is a concept in the game world, an elf comes with some certain assumptions, and bow is a bow, not a gun.

So yeah, I'll keep out of reskinning arguments for the remainder of this thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

I call hyperbole on this. Setting aside the "jerk player" argument, one PC having a +1 modifier instead of a +2 (or higher) in their prime attribute should not have that dramatic effect on your typical 5e game where you have 4 adventurers. TPKs are the result of the party as a whole not realizing that they are in over their head despite the best efforts of the DM to telegraph the extreme peril. And/or overall bad tactical decisions by multiple members of the party and/or tremendous bad luck with PC/DM rolls.

I had 3 players deliberately make crap characters. One was strength based with 12 strength.

All 3 also played like morons and in effect trolled the group. All 3 got kicked out. Two went to another group got kicked out then went to play Pathfinder and got kicked out of that as well.

Hence why I actually started using rules and a session 0. Don't undermine the party, no excessive cowardice/pacifists, D&D is a team based game etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hence why I actually started using rules and a session 0. Don't undermine the party, no excessive cowardice/pacifists, D&D is a team based game etc.

Sure, that makes complete sense.

But this:

One was strength based with 12 strength.

leading to any sort of a TPK seems a bit of a stretch. shrug If ultimately it came down to one PC and a +1 or more difference in a roll, it is just as much bad luck I would think.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I had 3 players deliberately make crap characters. One was strength based with 12 strength.

All 3 also played like morons and in effect trolled the group. All 3 got kicked out. Two went to another group got kicked out then went to play Pathfinder and got kicked out of that as well.

Hence why I actually started using rules and a session 0. Don't undermine the party, no excessive cowardice/pacifists, D&D is a team based game etc.

Ah, jerk players are an entirely different story. That issue truly has nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with the social contract. Good for you for booting them and making sure everyone is on the same page for future campaigns.

That said, my point still stands: a 12 prime stat is not going to cause major issues in 5e if the players are playing in good faith.

 

[Olrox17]

I'm opposed to reskinning on principle except in specific situations (that being when there are no rules that exist for that concept) but I am very against using X to represent Y when Y is already a supported concept in the rules. For example, using a "crossbow" to represent a "firearm" (the rules for guns are in DMG) or "wizard" to represent a "cleric" (you want a wizard who is a priest? Take the acolyte background). I prefer the various elements to have tangible (if not concrete) meanings in game, a wizard is a concept in the game world, an elf comes with some certain assumptions, and bow is a bow, not a gun.

So yeah, I'll keep out of reskinning arguments for the remainder of this thread.

Agreed, I'll gladly partake in reskinning to make things that do not yet exist in the game possible. Wanna play a kobold rogue and reskin it as a gunslinging cactuar? Cool, let's do it.
Wanna play an elven paladin and reskin it as a orcish druid? I'll hear you out, but I'll probably just ask you to play an orcish druid.