D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[Reynard]

Modern D&D isn't really risky, but generally "more chance of character death" should equal "better loot".

Sure, but since loot isn't really much of a reward these days, I would say that if you are willing to take on greater risks, your XP rewards should be bigger.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but since loot isn't really much of a reward these days, I would say that if you are willing to take on greater risks, your XP rewards should be bigger.

Believe me, if you want to talk about D&D's rewards cycles being totally borked, you'd be preaching to the choir.

 

[Oofta]

All those of you who have said you ignore free hand(s) requirements for casting had better not be on the "casters are too powerful" wagon, as you're causing your own headaches here.

I'm not on the "casters are too powerful bandwagon", but I am solidly in the "it's dumb that a paladin could drop their weapon, cast a spell and then pick it back up" wagon.

It virtually never affects wizards, who are the "overpowered caster" poster child.

 

[Oofta]

Practially speaking, in 5e at least, action economy is the big limiter. RAW, a character could already drop a shield wielded in one hand, attack with their two-handed weapon, and then use their free item interaction to pick up their shield again. I'm just not bothering to make someone account for each stage of that process. The net effect is still that you get the benefits of both the big weapon and the shield. And casting a spell is of course an action you need to take instead of attacking - stowing your sword and retrieving your staff in my games is just part of using the staff (and vice versa).

If you actually use the rules, it takes an action to don or dof a shield. It's not drop it and pick it up (unlike weapons). So if you want to spend 3 actions to get one attack action with your greatsword, go for it.

 

[GrimCo]

If you actually use the rules, it takes an action to don or dof a shield. It's not drop it and pick it up (unlike weapons). So if you want to spend 3 actions to get one attack action with your greatsword, go for it.

Yes, but 5e doesn't have different shield types. Shield is a shield, doesn't matter if it's a buckler or roman scutum or kite shield. So yes, you can explain in game dropping and picking shield similar to weapon, depending on the type of shield character uses (some are strapped to your arm, some are held).

 

[payn]

Experience points. Gone for years now. No unnecessary book keeping. PCs level up when appropriate.

Alignment - gone. It has no mechanical influence, even Protection spell doesn't target alignment but specific type of creatures. Also, i strongly prefer shades of grey morality.

Alignment doesn't prevent grey morality.

 

[payn]

For anything other than a linear, plotted adventure path, this is my least favorite modern rule /culture change. First of all, why does the GM just get to decide when it is appropriate? Send, why can't I as a player choose my level of risk versus reward?

Turns role playing into a min max decision game that moves from interesting development into inorganic caricature play. YMMV

 

[Reynard]

Turns role playing into a min max decision game that moves from interesting development into inorganic caricature play. YMMV

I'm not sure how that would be. We all know we are playing a game, and your characters know they get more powerful over time. At least for the PCs, XP is a thing that happens for real. So if they are in the world trying to gain fame, fortune, glory, and power, they are going to choose things that get them there. That is still "in character" for them, because it is a function of the fiction they live in.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is way too complicated a means of saying 'absolutely not'.

Heh... well, I assumed your question was actually rhetorical and that you already knew the answer, so I just played along. LOL.

 

[payn]

I'm not sure how that would be. We all know we are playing a game, and your characters know they get more powerful over time. At least for the PCs, XP is a thing that happens for real. So if they are in the world trying to gain fame, fortune, glory, and power, they are going to choose things that get them there. That is still "in character" for them, because it is a function of the fiction they live in.

So, lets back it up for a moment. You mentioned leveling shouldnt be in the GMs hands, but heres the thing, its always in the GMs hands. You are still putting the options in front of the players and they are making the decisions based on XP. Its really no different with milestone leveling in concept. However, with the mechanics under the hood, you can avoid decisions made based solely on mechanical benefit for the player's sake.

For example, I have had players avoid interesting adventures and quests because they were perceived to be either too hard or too easy and not worth doing based on XP alone. Not based on the particulars of what is happening in the setting and/or adventure. I dont want this kind of intrusion into the character play of my games. Which is why the characters understand power differences, but dont understand things like "level 7 wizard" because level mechanics are under the hood. This allows a more organic play that develops based on character interest beyond getting money and attaining power.