D&D 5E Mostly Useless Things in 5E?

[Ancalagon]

I used to do that here and there, but ran into the same trouble as with "spot" or "perception" type checks. Often adventures or GM's have plot clues and stuff that end up hinging on finding these clues. If someone makes the check, cool; they feel like their character contributed and was useful. If everyone fails, you can't really stop the adventure and call it a day, so some other means of getting the clue are needed.

Oh it's the kind of hint that makes their lives easier, not plot shaking stuff

 

[discosoc]

Should an otherwise uneducated barbarian be less apt to be able to climb/swim, intimidate, befriend animals, or have sharp senses? Cuz not all skills are book learnin'.

That being said, we have a houserule that, on top of everything as normal, you get your INT mod +1 additional languages. Like Europe (or Star Wars), we think our setting is cool when it commonly has people and cultures mixing and speaking each others languages.

I gave an off the cuff example, but you do highlight a potential problem. For another off the cuff response, I'd probably do something like give each background a few extra skills to cover it. So the barbarian would only lack proficiency in stuff like athletics if he chose a background that also lacked it (perhaps a barbarian "elder" type character that had a scholar background). That barbarian would would certainly still be able to handle most athletics checks by virtue of high strength, but not as well as one who took, say, the outlander background.

Something like that. Still, good point.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I find the Ranger class to generally be 3-5 levels of Fighter you should have taken instead.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I find the Ranger class to generally be 3-5 levels of Fighter you should have taken instead.

...with the caveat that you've played neither, amIright?

 

[feartheminotaur]

We do something of the sort - you know INT bonus languages beyond Common/racials.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

...with the caveat that you've played neither, amIright?

So you're saying "Rangers suck"/"Rangers are the weakest class in 5E" isn't a thing? That would be news to me, as I hear it a lot.

 

[Eubani]

So you're saying "Rangers suck"/"Rangers are the weakest class in 5E" isn't a thing? That would be news to me, as I hear it a lot.

I think he simply can't be part of a discussion where he disagrees with something without taking a shot at the other person. This somewhat weakens his points.

 

[Gradine]

We do something of the sort - you know INT bonus languages beyond Common/racials.

Yeah, my table also includes INT = bonus languages as a house rule. I never really understood why this was removed; I can at least justify tossing bonus skills as a consequence of vastly consolidating the skill list, even if I don't necessarily like it. But losing bonus languages seems unnecessary. Maybe to make Linguist more attractive as a feat? Or to make a language a more attractive background bonus? Would INT bonus = bonus language or tool be too broken?

5E can be measurably improved by removing the Disengage action from the game entirely as a variant rule. The way this works:

You can move at full speed forward or half speed backward on your turn. If you move out of someone's threat range backward, you don't take an opportunity attack. If you move out of someone's threat range without going backward, you are turning your back on them, and they get an opportunity attack.

Consequences:
(1) Thieves that want to use Disengage will now Dash backward instead.
(2) The whole issue with "does an incorporeal creature that moves through a wall trigger an opportunity attack or not?" disappears.
(3) Opportunity attacks (kind of) make sense.
(4) Because of #3, a DM can now easily determine whether, for example, you ought to get an opportunity attack against a paralyzed creature. (The answer is obvious: 'yes.')

This would assume you're already using the variant facing rules, correct? The issue I foresee with this comes from penalizing backwards movement, because now you've suddenly made turning a big deal. Does turning cost movement? If no, what's to stop me from spending 10 move to back-up and "disengage", then turn around and move the rest of the way at my full movement. If yes, does this mean if I move my full speed to reach a space along side an enemy, I cannot turn to face the enemy to attack it this round? Is "backwards movement" a specific action that takes up my movement for the round that only allows half-speed movement directly backwards? Can I back up at an angle?

I can see where you're going with this and done right could certainly create more tactical decision-making than the Disengage option currently provides, if that is your goal, but it might require some more trouble-shooting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This would assume you're already using the variant facing rules, correct? The issue I foresee with this comes from penalizing backwards movement, because now you've suddenly made turning a big deal. Does turning cost movement? If no, what's to stop me from spending 10 move to back-up and "disengage", then turn around and move the rest of the way at my full movement. If yes, does this mean if I move my full speed to reach a space along side an enemy, I cannot turn to face the enemy to attack it this round? Is "backwards movement" a specific action that takes up my movement for the round that only allows half-speed movement directly backwards? Can I back up at an angle?

I can see where you're going with this and done right could certainly create more tactical decision-making than the Disengage option currently provides, if that is your goal, but it might require some more trouble-shooting.

Nope. Use abstract facing, just like AD&D. You just need to keep track of whether you're moving at full speed or half speed this turn, and that will tell you whether or not you're going to take opportunity attacks.

If someone says, "Why can't I just back up 10 feet and then turn around and move at full speed," the answer is, "We're not using facing rules. You can try that, but if you do it's equivalent to moving forward, and you take an opportunity attack when you back up. (You're distracted planning your movement.)"

However, you can back up 10 feet, turn around, and attack another guy five feet away, if the first opponent didn't follow you when you moved. To me, that's a plus and perfectly realistic. The system is working as intended.

Edit: I should mention that this is not really so much about which direction your physical torso is facing, more about what you're paying attention to. I don't see any problem with the fact that under these rules, being surrounded but "unmoving" doesn't grant opportunity attacks.

Edit2: I also like the fact that under these rules, creatures with all-round attention such as black puddings and beholders will not take any opportunity attacks no matter how fast they move, because they have eyes all over. Everything just fits together and makes in-world sense, without needing to add finicky abilities like Nimble Escape to those creatures as special cases.

 

[Gradine]

Nope. Use abstract facing, just like AD&D. You just need to keep track of whether you're moving at full speed or half speed this turn, and that will tell you whether or not you're going to take opportunity attacks.

If someone says, "Why can't I just back up 10 feet and then turn around and move at full speed," the answer is, "We're not using facing rules. You can try that, but if you do it's equivalent to moving forward, and you take an opportunity attack when you back up. (You're distracted planning your movement.)"

However, you can back up 10 feet, turn around, and attack another guy five feet away, if the first opponent didn't follow you when you moved. To me, that's a plus and perfectly realistic. The system is working as intended.

Edit: I should mention that this is not really so much about which direction your physical torso is facing, more about what you're paying attention to. I don't see any problem with the fact that under these rules, being surrounded but "unmoving" doesn't grant opportunity attacks.

Edit2: I also like the fact that under these rules, creatures with all-round attention such as black puddings and beholders will not take any opportunity attacks no matter how fast they move, because they have eyes all over. Everything just fits together and makes in-world sense, without needing to add finicky abilities like Nimble Escape to those creatures as special cases.

Makes sense to me. Feels fiddlier than I prefer (liked a slightly souped-up and fiddlier version of the 5'-step, which I actually find Disengage to be a more elegant solution to; and in particular a neat tool in the Rogue's toolbox) but sounds like it works a lot better than I initial perception of it.