D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

Status
Not open for further replies.

pukunui

Legend
In 2014 you basically needed to dash in order to get something out of the jump and then its main usefulness is dealing with exploration which becomes less important as the party levels up.

The new version essentially increases your move speed to 50' which is very good in combat.
Fine. You win. The whole "sets your speed to 30 feet" is still pretty useless now that all PC species have a base speed of 30 feet anyway.

And now for something completely different: Madness is still in the DMG, but it's been renamed Mental Stress and has been greatly simplified. Mostly it deals psychic damage, but you can still do short-term, long-term, or indefinite effects. Instead of the nifty tables to roll on, short-term just imposes the Frightened, Incapacitated, or Stunned condition for 1d10 minutes, while long-term imposes Disadvantage on "some or all" ability checks for 1d10 x 10 hours, and indefinite is just a long-term effect that lasts until removed by the Greater Restoration spell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Tazawa

Adventurer
On a different note, it's interesting to see that, in the Group Checks section, they explicitly state not to use a group check for stealth: "Group checks aren’t appropriate when one character’s failure would spell disaster for the whole party, such as if the characters are creeping across a castle courtyard while trying not to alert the guards. In that case, one noisy character will draw the guards’ attention, and there’s not much that stealthier characters can do about it, so relying on individual checks makes more sense."

The examples they give for appropriate occasions to use a group check are: research tasks, roped together, and social situations. The first is where the whole party is searching a library for information; the second is where the party is climbing or crossing a rickety bridge while tied together with rope; and the third is where the whole party has to contribute to convincing an offended noble to reconsider kicking them out.

Wow. That’s an approach I really disagree with. Anytime everyone in a group goes up against a static DC (passive perception of the observer), someone is likely to fail just due to the wide variability of the d20. This means that players will be incentivized to split the party and leave the characters in plate armor behind.

I like group stealth checks because it gets the party to work together. I will often let a really stealthy character help a less stealthy character by taking disadvantage on their check. It keeps the party together and lets them share tension and consequences.

I also don’t like using group checks in social interactions (talking to the noble). Social interactions aren’t much fun when they’re resolved by a single roll or group roll. I like my social interactions to be a little more complex than that—similar to 4e skill challenges. The goal is to draw all of the characters in, so multiple individual rolls are useful—characters can see the results of other characters interactions and build on them or adjust their approach.
 
Last edited:

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Wow. That’s an approach I really disagree with. Anytime everyone in a group goes up against a static DC (passive perception of the observer), someone is likely to fail just due to the wide variability of the d20. This means that players will be incentivized to split the party and leave the characters in plate armor behind.

I like group stealth checks because it gets the party to work together. I will often let a really stealthy character help a less stealthy character by taking disadvantage on their check. It keeps the party together and lets them share tension and consequences.

I also don’t like using group checks in social interactions (talking to the noble). Social interactions aren’t much fun when they’re resolved by a single roll or group roll. I like my social interactions to be a little more complex than that—similar to 4e skill challenges. The goal is to draw all of the characters in, so multiple individual roles are useful—characters can see the results of other characters interactions and build on them or adjust their approach.
It was the perfect time to introduce the nearly ubiquitous idea of clocks to D&D. But no.
 

I'm reading through the Bastions chapter, and it's interesting that, despite all the threads and posts here assuming that they are 100% player-only and completely hands-off by the DM, it doesn't specifically state that. Notably, in the "Fall of a Bastion" section, it lists three ways that a player can lose their Bastion, but it doesn't say a player can only lose a Bastion in those ways. Granted, it would take a real jerk DM to exploit that loophole, and anyway, given the events system, that wouldn't work anyway while the player is absent (at best there can be a failed attack or some hirelings leave). But, in a far more positive manner, this does leave the door open for the DM and player to cooperate on something like a monster or foe attacking while the character (and possibly the party) is there for an exciting battle where they actually get to use those walls and defenses they've been paying for! Basically set up a "Failed Attack" action while the player or players are present, with the damage at most being equal to that event.
 


pukunui

Legend
Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

In other words: "No, DMs, you're not allowed to punish a wayward cleric PC by having their god revoke their clerical powers."
 

ad_hoc

(she/her)
Wow. That’s an approach I really disagree with. Anytime everyone in a group goes up against a static DC (passive perception of the observer), someone is likely to fail just due to the wide variability of the d20. This means that players will be incentivized to split the party and leave the characters in plate armor behind.

I like group stealth checks because it gets the party to work together. I will often let a really stealthy character help a less stealthy character by taking disadvantage on their check. It keeps the party together and lets them share tension and consequences.

I also don’t like using group checks in social interactions (talking to the noble). Social interactions aren’t much fun when they’re resolved by a single roll or group roll. I like my social interactions to be a little more complex than that—similar to 4e skill challenges. The goal is to draw all of the characters in, so multiple individual rolls are useful—characters can see the results of other characters interactions and build on them or adjust their approach.

I very much agree.

Stealth checks are the best example of a group check. In most cases the stealthier characters can still assist. They can make a distraction, dampen sounds, tell the character where to step, etc.

I think we agree on social interactions. They are a sort of group check to me but I ask everyone what they are doing and then we resolve them one at a time which changes the narrative as we go. This way multiple people can still talk as well, not just the one with the highest charisma. But also someone can study the noble's body language and another can study to remember something useful about the noble's house.
 

ad_hoc

(she/her)
Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

In other words: "No, DMs, you're not allowed to punish a wayward cleric PC by having their god revoke their clerical powers."

Hmmm...That's good for when they are cut off from the gods too.

I would do something similar but if they have fallen out with their god would say they need to pick a new one to continue levelling.

A bit weird with divine intervention.
 

TiQuinn

Registered User
Wow. That’s an approach I really disagree with. Anytime everyone in a group goes up against a static DC (passive perception of the observer), someone is likely to fail just due to the wide variability of the d20. This means that players will be incentivized to split the party and leave the characters in plate armor behind.

I like group stealth checks because it gets the party to work together. I will often let a really stealthy character help a less stealthy character by taking disadvantage on their check. It keeps the party together and lets them share tension and consequences.

I also don’t like using group checks in social interactions (talking to the noble). Social interactions aren’t much fun when they’re resolved by a single roll or group roll. I like my social interactions to be a little more complex than that—similar to 4e skill challenges. The goal is to draw all of the characters in, so multiple individual rolls are useful—characters can see the results of other characters interactions and build on them or adjust their approach.

On the other hand, getting the entire party to move stealthily becomes hand-waved rather than becoming a challenge. There are ways the party can improve their odds of stealthing along, from Pass Without Trace or Guidance to removing armor. Part of the game is making those choices to wear heavy armor and then not being good at sneaking by a guard. If the call instead is for the rogue or ranger to scout ahead, that too is a call they can make, and it can either give those PCs a chance to shine, or get into trouble as well.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top