D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Faolyn]

Honest question, so in good faith here, did you think I meant the use of the word "house" literally?

Nah. I was being silly there.

 

[kermit4karate]

Nah. I was being silly there.

Haha! I thought so. Please be as silly as you want. I'm a huge fan.

Isn't it ironic how these threads get so heated when the acronym itself has the word "game" in it? RPG?

Maybe the "G" stands for Gunfight now.

 

[AlViking]

Sometimes it won't. It depends on the specific problem area. Its most useful when its addressing a special case that applies to a character concept one has, where if there's another way to get there, that's the thing to do.



This isn't a great solution to that one, but its a functional one: get an Invisibility item so you don't have to deal with it. It sidesteps the whole stealth system. (Note, again, this is for cases when someone isn't going to have the option of just declaring a houserule, such as the case where its a player who thinks the extent stealth rules are just dandy).




See above. I'm talking cases where its "Put up with it, leave, or find a workaround". The invisibility example is far from ideal but it still might be better than dealing with it or leaving.

Being invisible
A) Isn't a reasonable solution for an entire party, especially at lower levels.
B) Does not make you automatically hidden in either the 2014 or 2024 rules . Enemies can still hear you and potentially detect interactions with your environment. They may not know your exact location but if or when they do they.
C) In no way addresses the issues I have with the new rules. I don't want it to be the same difficulty to sneak past a drunken sailor as an alert enemy with slight high perception.

So I don't see this as a worthwhile answer. On the other hand, I've had minor tweaks for every version of D&D so I also don't see what the issue is. I think the ease of making small (or even large) changes is a strength of 5e.

 

[AlViking]

On the other hand I've seen GMs get an idea of a houserule that seemed good on paper, but created serious problems in play because they didn't see all the implications and interactions. They may be somewhat less likely to be tunnel-visioned to their own fun (note, however, the "may") but they don't necessarily understand rules interactions better than a player who's really into rules.

Which is why a DM needs to listen to feedback and be willing to change when things don't work. It's not a reason to not try, even if there may be others depending on the group.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Being invisible
A) Isn't a reasonable solution for an entire party, especially at lower levels.

Well, to tell the truth, neither is stealth in most versions I've seen. I'm not going to speak specifically about 5e because I don't know it well enough to, but it'd have been a nearly hopeless process in the three versions I know at all well (OD&D, 3e and 4e) because of a combination of inadequate skill, penalties for armor, and just needing to roll individually. That goes well beyond the DC.

C) In no way addresses the issues I have with the new rules. I don't want it to be the same difficulty to sneak past a drunken sailor as an alert enemy with slight high perception.

I'm looking at practical concerns, not philisophical ones here (to be clear, there's nothing wrong with looking at the philisophical problem, but that's even less likely to get a player as compared to a GM anywhere).

So I don't see this as a worthwhile answer. On the other hand, I've had minor tweaks for every version of D&D so I also don't see what the issue is. I think the ease of making small (or even large) changes is a strength of 5e.

And you're a GM so you have that luxury.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is why a DM needs to listen to feedback and be willing to change when things don't work. It's not a reason to not try, even if there may be others depending on the group.

And when I have evidence the majority of GMs are good at that, I'll consider it more of an answer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Come on, man, I've explained that multiple times: because players don't get to just declare houserules. Heck, under a few situations, even GMs may not get to.

And I've explained it to you more than once: that's how it works in trad games. The GM does not have to abide by player demands for houserules (though they should listen to their players and work with to find a compromise). That's just how it is. You think you wouldn't have to talk to your GM about any "workarounds" you want as a player? I'm still not even sure what you mean by that. Can you provide a concrete example?

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the other hand I've seen GMs get an idea of a houserule that seemed good on paper, but created serious problems in play because they didn't see all the implications and interactions. They may be somewhat less likely to be tunnel-visioned to their own fun (note, however, the "may") but they don't necessarily understand rules interactions better than a player who's really into rules.

Hence, the discussion. If the houserule isn't working, you talk and work out a better one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I've explained it to you more than once: that's how it works in trad games.

Bluntly, so what? That's exactly the reason I'm saying houserules aren't a useful answer to everyone. I've explained this more than once, so either engage with it or stop responding to me. Acting like I haven't explained my position is ridiculous.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hence, the discussion. If the houserule isn't working, you talk and work out a better one.

In which case there's no intrinsic reason you can't do that with houserules players suggest, either.