D&D 5E Variant 5e?

[dave2008]

It's fun, I'm in an online PBP game using it. it's a VERY different feeling play style.

First: What is "PBP"
2nd: Which options or "Mode" are you using?

 

[Salthorae]

First: What is "PBP"
2nd: Which options or "Mode" are you using?

PBP = Play by Post

We're using a bunch of them:

• Random character generation (a super fun way to get an overweight human female wizard with the sailor background and a 7 Charisma!)
• Some of the Feature changes: Initiative, Languages
• Racial Changes
• Class Changes (+ the "beta" ones that aren't in the full version yet)
  • Beta class changes
• Inventory Slots
• Wear & Tear
• Ammunition Die
• Spell Burnout Die
• Degrees of Success
• Stress
• All the Rest stuff & Leveling up.
• Active XP

There might be some I'm missing...

 

[Harzel]

I don’t see this having any impact on play patterns. Players are just going to retreat to the nearest safe location and spend the amount of in-game time they need to go back to 0 exhaustion levels. Whether that’s a day, two weeks, a month, the only time it really takes is enough time for the players to adjust the numbers on their sheets.

That's only true if the world waits for the PCs. If the state of the world is advancing even if the PCs choose to rest, then the PCs may have to choose between resting and losing opportunities.

(I'm behind on the thread, so someone may have already said this.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's only true if the world waits for the PCs. If the state of the world is advancing even if the PCs choose to rest, then the PCs may have to choose between resting and losing opportunities.
(I'm behind on the thread, so someone may have already said this.)

I think someone may have pointed that out earlier - like in the 70s - yeah.

Seriously, though, pacing is under the control of the DM in both an absolute sense ("We make camp and take a long rest" "Somebody's teasing a Shrieker in another part of the dungeon, you gain only short rest benefits.") and in the sense of the situations he devises - time pressure or the lack thereof, power & behavior of potential enemies, etc. Since the game "needs" a certain pacing, the DM's job* is to keep his campaign averaging around that pace. So a rule that makes party's need to rest more often is helpful if they're going too long (10+ encounter days all the time), while one that forces them to rest less often is good if they're getting lazy

The idea of imposing levels of exhaustion as a penalty for failed death saves is a rest-more-often pressure from the DM. It encourages player to avoid PCs being reduced to 0 hps, which means being more proactive with in-combat healing (and/or more aggressive with spells to end encounters faster), thus blowing through slots and long-resting sooner, and to take more short rest to keep topped off on hps via HD. It's ideal for a game where the players keep insisting on pressing on through double-digit numbers of encounters/day.






* OK, among the DMs' jobs, along with "surprise & fear," of course.

 

[Garthanos]

I think someone may have pointed that out earlier - like in the 70s - yeah.

Yeah a couple people on A&E I think pointed out how that artificially constrained the story that far back too.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's only true if the world waits for the PCs. If the state of the world is advancing even if the PCs choose to rest, then the PCs may have to choose between resting and losing opportunities.

(I'm behind on the thread, so someone may have already said this.)

True, but

a.) then you’re relying on the DM to give resting a meaningful cost instead of making it part of the system. And that’s fine, but the DM can already do that without having to make resting times longer - if you want to make the game more challenging on a system level rather than on a DM level, increasing rest times doesn’t really do that. And

b.) When the choice is between lose opportunities and lose your character, players will always choose to lose opportunities. It’s not really meeting the stated goal of making the game more challenging, it’s just making the game more punishing by making the players miss opportunities when their resources run low. Which will also happen more often if you decrease base HP. Swingier doesn’t equal more challenging.

 

[dave2008]

b.) When the choice is between lose opportunities and lose your character, players will always choose to lose opportunities. It’s not really meeting the stated goal of making the game more challenging, it’s just making the game more punishing by making the players miss opportunities when their resources run low. Which will also happen more often if you decrease base HP. Swingier doesn’t equal more challenging.

that doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the people on the PF2e forums, they see the increased swingyness of the that edition as an asset.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Variant 5e:

With the recent threads on 6e (here) and 5e on hard mode (here), I’ve been think about ways to alter 5e to create a different feel. So I wondered, what was the least I could do to the rules, and make the game feel significantly different.

EDIT: To clarify I am thinking about small changes to the existing game. So the existing books a generally usable as is.

Here is what I came up with (for a more custimizable hard mode variant of 5e):

• PC HP: 1st lvl - no change; each level after you only gain your hit die (rolled or average) in HP (no CON mod)
• Max ability score: 18
• Death saves: each time you make a death save you gain one level of exhaustion.
• Resting.
  • Short rest: spend 1 HD max and must use healer’s kit
  • Long Rest: regain all spent HD; spend 2 HD with a healer’s kit, or 1 HD without
  • Extended Rest: 1 week of bed rest, remove one level of exhaustion
• Feats only, no ASI.
  • Up get additional skill, racial, tool (weapon) feats: you get 2-4 (not sure how many or at what levels yet) on top of the general feats your class allows
• No multi-classing

What I think this does is make the game more challenging, while also giving players more customization options. I think this should expand the “sweet” spot as PCs will continue to be threatened as they have less HP and real consequences for dying without having to revamp all of the monsters. I just might try this in my next campaign.

What do you think? What ideas do you have to make small changes with big impacts?

Since I'm already disinclined to play a Berserker in a regular game of 5e without changes to the Berserker I'd be very disinclined to play one here.

Not that that matters much as it's just one subclass.

 

[3catcircus]

True, but

b.) When the choice is between lose opportunities and lose your character, players will always choose to lose opportunities.

Then your DM is doing it wrong... You have to maintain the certainty of death for stupid play and the possibility of death for the other 10% of the time. Making a choice that "saves" your PC ought to result in consequences. Maybe your heroic PC doesn't save the village, resulting in a love interest or business partner being killed or kidnapped. Choosing to heal up to full hp results in the rival NPC party beating them to an objective or the BBEG's minions getting closer to their goal. The PCs need to be put into "honey badger don't give a s&#t" situations far more often than most DMs put them into.

 

[Charlaquin]

that doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the people on the PF2e forums, they see the increased swingyness of the that edition as an asset.

I’m not a fan of swingyness, but even to those who like it, I would think it would be clear that it is not the same thing as difficulty.