D&D 5E What requested rules change have you refused to change?

Digdude@1970

Just a dude with a shovel, looking for the past.
I started using a 2 minute sand timer and now I use table initiative. If any of the players beat my rolls they get to chose a side of the table and those players go in order until half of them gone. Then half my monsters go, then the rest of the party and then the last half of the monsters. If I win the initiative, I get to use half the monsters and then chose which half of the table will go. The results were surprisingly much faster with the party knowing when they were going. I ran a 5 vs 5 combat of pcs vs zombies in like 30 minutes total.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Where does it say that?

It sounds like a very odd interpretation of "The GM has the creatures’ statistics."

I mean technically if you really only got to choose " One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower" as the option and not the actual beast summoned, the GM could summon one CR 0 Frog and still meet your request.

You pick the actual beast you want, and the GM just has those statistics because they have the MM.
The Conjure * spells state that the thing the caster is picking is one of the options, like X Beasts of CR Y. Intent is there, but it can be misleading, especially to players of other editions where you could pick the result. So they clarified in the official Sage Advice document on the Wizard's site. This is the one as official as errata, not the twitter.

When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.
Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.
Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:
• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower
The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.
A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.
 

Bagpuss

Hero
The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option.


They were looking for an examples of "Mother May I?" design choices in another thread, if you want to know why it is a problem look no further.

Player (thinking): Hmm at 5th level I can select "One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower" and get double the number appear.
Player: I cast 5th level Conjurer Animals, can I have a pair of Saber-toothed Tigers?
DM: No you can have a Frog riding a Camel and be happy about it.
 
Last edited:


Laurefindel

Legend
As a player, or as the DM?

If the latter, that severely restricts your monster choices.
I’m pretty sure I only used MM creatures only, but many opponents were built using PC rules.

[edit] Thinking of it, I didn’t have the MM anymore in the end, so it would have been SRD monsters only
 


As a DM, what request for a house or varient rule (or use of RAW instead of your home rule) by one or more players have you refused to change? Are there any rule changes that even if the entire group of players wanted changed, you would instead rather not run the game?
I didn't want to allow gestault in a campagin, even though 3 out of the 5 of us wanted it. I said I would play but not run that game.
I didn't want to allow (although was talked into trying) a game with 2 houserules... 1) no caps on stats, and 2)extra attunement slots equal to your prof or your cha mod what ever was higher... that game didn't last long even the players that wanted it found it wasn't fun.
As a Player, what DM-proposed rules change have you refused to go along with? Are they any rule changes that would bother you enough to walk out on a campaign?
I have 3 examples that coome to mind
1) gender based stat mods (women get +4 cha +2dex -4 str -2int men get +2 to any 1 stat but have to take a -2 to the same 'type' either physical or mental) that not only effected starting stats but maxes.... and race stat mods effected max stat as well (so a half elf woman would have +6cha and a max of 26 cha without magic) I did joke about making a hexblade warlock half elf woman... but the DM didn't allow 'cross gender play' so I dipped out in session 0

2) critical fumbles.... this is actually many times because I have 2 friends that don't get why it sucks. I have yet to find one that didn't implode before level 5 though

3)A game where we all started with 10's and 11;s (3 of each place as you want) then apply race mods, then take the commoner stat from MM so 1d8 (rolled not maxed) HD/hp and no prof in any skills.... and you have to find a teacher to take a class and get 0xp until you find a teacher
 

There's really only been one rules change request I've consistently refused (generally I operate fairly close to RAW/RAI anyway note in 4E and 5E, not so in earlier editions).

Critical Fumbles - I've players ask for critical fumbles a ton over the years, and because I've had experience with them, and it's been purely negative, I've always said no, and will continue to say no. Rolling a 1 is too common for something dreadful to happen, and I have never, in my life see a critical fumble table that didn't either turn the game into straight-up Three Stooges-type slapstick, or some kind of weird gory festival of broken bones and so on. Or I guess, into the episode of Supernatural with the Rabbit's Foot, which is like, hilarious for that episode, but I don't want D&D to permanently be like that. With critical fumbles it pretty much is. A combat might very easily feature 10+ attack rolls a round, maybe twice that sometimes. That basically means half to most of all rounds include a critical fumble with a four-five person party and a few monsters.

Critical hit tables - For similar reasons. I conceptually liked the idea back in the '90s, but every implementation I saw was total arse, like simultaneously too specific and repetitive, and not specific enough.

EDIT oh and:

Rolling for HP - You think you want it, but you don't.

Every time people are like "Oh rolling for HP is cool" (except, notably, the one guy who was consistently burned by it back in 2E), "Can we roll for HP Ruin?" "No. You know what'll happen." "But this time we'll just live with it instead of moping because we kept rolling really badly and now have less HP than the Wizard!" "No.".

It's just a great way to make so your character might be absolutely unplayablely bad (and yes, a frontliner like a Fighter or Barb rolling 1-3 on HP consistently is unplayable levels of bad, esp. if the did put CON secondary). Yeah everyone dreams that they'll just roll 12s but that doesn't happen.

we have a requirement to resolve your turn in 30 seconds
Christ, I think most of the people I play with would literally have a heart attack and die if put under than kind of time pressure. 30 seconds is barely long to even describe the effects of most spells, let alone to resolve stuff like multiple attacks and grapples and so on.
 
Last edited:


dave2008

Legend
Christ, I think most of the people I play with would literally have a heart attack and die if put under than kind of time pressure. 30 seconds is barely long to even describe the effects of most spells, let alone to resolve stuff like multiple attacks and grapples and so on.
That is working as intended. You don't have a lot of time to think, you just have to go, go, go! It feels more combat-like to us, and is just more exciting, then our old way of discussing and debating every choice.
 

There was a critical hit system in Dragon Magazine (reprinted in Best of Dragon) that I used for a little while that's definitely not repetitive. It's just ridiculous, lol. Nothing like having a leg severed by a piercing attack and losing half my hit points each turn due to blood loss. :rolleyes:
in 2e I had a DM carry around a binder (bigger then my high school trapper keeper) full of role master charts, and if you rolled a 1 or a 20, or if you hit the AC by more then 10 (keep in mind that was hard cause ac only had a 20pt swing) you had to break out D100s and roll on multi charts...
 



Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
They were looking for an examples of "Mother May I?" design choices in another thread, if you want to know why it is a problem look no further.

Player (thinking): Hmm at 5th level I can select "One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower" and get double the number appear.
Player: I cast 5th level Conjurer Animals, can I have a pair of Saber-toothed Tigers?
DM: No you can have a Frog and riding a Camel and be happy about it.
You may be right, I'm just letting you know what the actual rules are. If you have a problem with it, put it on a Wizard's survey when they get around to redoing spells with One D&D. In the meantime, the rules are the DM picks.
 

You may be right, I'm just letting you know what the actual rules are. If you have a problem with it, put it on a Wizard's survey when they get around to redoing spells with One D&D. In the meantime, the rules are the DM picks.
when was that clarified... I though we didn't know the intent?
 


Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
when was that clarified... I though we didn't know the intent?
That's been on their for years. Hmm, let me see if I can find it. Here's a list of all the Sage Advice Compendiums, linked in the Wayback Machine.

It looks like it was added back in 1.03, recorded on Feb 22 of 2016. So that was clarified about eight and a half years ago.

I don't know the intent. The other poster was talking about Mother May I and I said that if they have a problem for it that there are surveys sure to be coming up for spells for the 2024 Anniversary edition they can provide their feedback for.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top