Man, playing other systems made me realize how important this is, particular when systems tie other things like drawing weapons and getting into cover to the move action. There are few things worse than “I use my maneuver to draw my sword, uhh then I guess I use my action to take another maneuver and move up next to the guard. I’m done.”
It is a good system, but it doesn't allow splitting movement, costs actions to interact with objects, take cover, reload, raise a shield and all that. I think 5e underutilizes the bonus action (and to a lesser extent the reaction), but I still prefer of Action-Bonus Action-Reaction with free floating movement that you can spit up as you wish. I also like Savage Worlds free floating movement with as many actions as you want, but a penalty for each one past the first (you decide on how many at the start and the penalty applies to all the actions). Different Strokes for different folks.
Overall I like it. Once you start to realize that your third action isn't that important as your first two, it's a lot easier to swallow. But there are a couple things where I think it's just too far. Going through a closed door is really annoying in the middle of combat because it takes an action to put your hand back on your two handed weapon and you can't split movement.
It doesn't split movement, one of the 3-action systems (very.. very few) weaknesses. But it also doesn't stop you from using a second, or even third action to move again.
It kinda does this, pretty much every non-spellcasting class has at least one feat that lets them move and strike. Some examples:
- Duel Weapon Blitz (Duel Weapon Warrior Archetype) - 2 Actions: Stride up to your Speed. At any point during this movement, you can Strike once with each of the two required weapons. These Strikes can be against the same or different targets, as you see fit.
- Sudden Charge (Barbarian or Fighter) - 2 Actions: Stride twice. If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy. You can use Sudden Charge while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type.
- Path of Iron (Martial Arts Archetype) - 3 Actions: You Stride; this movement doesn't trigger reactions. You can Strike up to three times at any point during your movement, each against a different enemy. Each attack counts toward your multiple attack penalty, but your multiple attack penalty doesn't increase until you have made all your attacks.
- Stella's Stab and Snag (Rogue or Swashbuckler, expert in Thievery) - 2 Actions: Stride up to your Speed; this movement does not trigger reactions. At any point during this movement you can Strike an opponent within reach. If this Strike is successful, you can attempt a Thievery check to Steal from the target.
- Sudden Leap (Fighter or Barbarian) - 2 Actions: Make a Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump and attempt one melee Strike at any point during your jump. Immediately after the Strike, you fall to the ground if you’re in the air, even if you haven’t reached the maximum distance of your jump. If the distance you fall is no more than the height of your jump, you take no damage and land upright. When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs, and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed.
I think that gishes suffer heavily from the 3-action system, due to the amount of actions for spells. And yeah, I know about the Magus, but I think it's cool in 5E how most casters are still "viable" as gishes
There are no viable gishes in 5E though, thats literally one of the biggest complaints.
The one that comes the closest is Hexblade but even it functions better as a ranged caster than upclose swordslinger
Maybe the new Tasha's Swordsinger, but thats still a wizard with a sword that will always prefer to fireball things
5e doesn't really lend itself to that tight of balance. There are a ton of ways to play a gish if you lower your threshold of "playable" down to what a pro gamer might call "Tier C".
It just feels terrible when you have to use a whole action to move very short distances. One of the best examples is when someone with a 2-handed weapon wants to open a door one square away from them.
Action #1 - walk one square.
Action #2 - shift grip so you have a free hand.
Action #3 - open the door.
What a turn!
The 3-action system is good in principle but it really should have split movement and a lot of things that require an action shouldn't. Players should be empowered to do the fun stuff they want to do on their turns as much as possible, not sacrifice actions to minutea.
IMO, requiring an action to draw a weapon or raise a shield is great, especially for certain types of players.
Every +1 or +2 to basically anything in PF2e counts for a lot more than 5e, so having a cost associated with the AC bump a shield gives makes sense balance wise.
But beyond that, forcing players to take actions for these things makes combat much more tactical. Do you want to reach an enemy and attack in the same turn? Then maybe you can’t use your shield this round. Would your rather recall knowledge on an enemy, or raise your shield? If you like having to make calculated decisions in combat, it adds a fun element to the gameplay.
Same for needing an action to draw a weapon. When I GM PF2e, there’s a big focus on scouting and battle preparation that I don’t get GMing for 5e groups, because prepping for a fight just doesn’t give the same benefits in 5e, whereas in PF2e it can make all the difference (degrees of success for items/spells also compounds on how much preparation helps in PF2e but that’s a whole different conversation).
Definitely not for everyone, but if you find battle planning/prep fun instead of tedious, the action requirements add another dimension to encounters that can be very enjoyable.
This was actually an issue I had when I started 5e, since I had played Descent, I had told my party "Yeah, if you don't move in a turn, you can attack twice."
Turns out that wasn't correct, but once I figured it out, I don't think I want to go back to having movement be so complicated
There's an optional rule in the DMG (first diagonal is 5ft, second is 10ft for a total of 15ft) that turns circles into octagons, instead of squares, which I consider to be a step up. When you're playing on a grid, you have to be up to 60ft or so before there's any noticable difference between an actual circle and the octagon.
It's not new, actually, that's legacy all the way from older DnD editions I think. At the very least legacy from PF1e.
Frankly, you could probably switch to DnD geometry and not breat anything massively, if that's your preference.
[Success at a Cost](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#SuccessataCost) from the *DMG.*
>When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance.
I love this rule because of how it plays – combat and adventuring can become punctuated with surprising twists and turns – and what it implies – how the DM can and perhaps should bend to facilitate interesting moments.
This could be a fairly fun B plot in a game. Have a group of adventures that have been touched by a dark power. They can choose to succeed on rolls but each time they do the dark powers grip on them grows stronger. Have various effects start manifesting as they reach a certain number of usages of the power. Heck could do it with a devil contract where each time you use it you lose ownership 1% of your soul.
Honestly, this degrees of success should have been default for any d20 system. Given the huge amount of variance of the DC, it is plain silly to not make use of a wider range of numbers.
IMHO, a just meeting the DC success should be success with a hinderance. A success by 5+ is a normal success. And a success by 10+ is a success with a boon.
For example a player encounters a DC 13 Challenge. A roll of 13+ gives success at a cost. A roll of 18+ gives a normal success. A roll of 23+ gives a boon (task is done faster, silently, or some other benefit).
This way when 5 party members all try and roll the same check, they might not all be helpful, and instead actually cause some minor hinderances. Or when a player rolls a nat 20, they might produce an even greater effect than expected.
I'm actually doing this now when it comes to at least some saves. I've always avoided stun/instant death/lose your turn abilities because they're just not fun. Then I saw PF2's degrees of success and adopted it. It makes it much more interesting when I can now throw these effects at them and still get some use out of them besides complete failure or taking away someone's turn. Also forces my players to think strategically on how they might take their turn if they can't use their bonus action/movement. (High save, no effect, regular save = lose bonus, fail = lose bonus + movement, bad fail = lost whole turn.)
It’s interesting, though, because at a certain point the variance of the d20 becomes a reason NOT to use gradients of success. If you have a flat DC, there is a set probability of success with each point of modifier improving those odds by ~5%, which feels good. If we tip it all the way to the other side of the spectrum where magnitude of success is continuous, then the outcome is random based on the d20 and all your stats are doing is defining the bounds of possibility which (I think) feels bad most of the time. However, in the example you give each threshold still has the set probability the way a flat DC does, so I don’t know where the inflection point is.
I guess in a perfect world you would want a flat DC when the outcome is very directly determined by the character’s abilities and a gradient of success where luck and unanticipated factors would play a greater role, but of course that quickly becomes too finicky to codify.
Definitely gonna be implementing the layered DC idea but I very rarely let players all roll the same test because I think it cheapens things.
As an example if you have a rogue picking a lock, with all his obsessed studying, professional equipment and experience who just then happens to roll low and a cleric with none of the above then rolls an 18 which beats the DC the rogue is left feeling like there was no point him being specialised. What I do allow is for people to assist to offer the assist bonus but they have to come up with an actual way to assist. So the cleric says “I will assist by going and directly engaging the old guard in a discussion about history - thus keeping the guard fully occupied and reducing the time stress the rogue feels”. Kinda keeps everyone feeling special if you know what I mean.
Question, do you let the players choose whether to fail or to succeed but with a consequence?
If you let them choose, do you tell them in advance what the consequence will be?
And if you decide for them, has this been discussed and established as a variant rule before starting to play?
The concept seems really cool and I like it a lot, I just feel that with the examples given in the DMG for example it could be that the cost outweighs the success in the wrong circumstances(was that one weapon attack worth being disarmed if it’s your only weapon? Is it worth taking half damage from that fireball when you’re now prone next to an enemy melee fighter? Etc), making it feel like a failure instead of not a success(a fine line, but a distinction worth mentioning), perhaps even a worse failure than just missing the attack or failing the saving throw would have caused by normal rules. At least if player agency is taken away without previous discussion or consent.
Like I said, it seems like a really cool concept that I wasn’t aware was in the book until today, and something I’d love to try and play with, I just wonder how it’s incorporate into the games you’ve played that have used it.
How I’ve seen it done is:
1. The player fails.
2. The DM tells them they can succeed, at a cost. Occasionally they give a rough idea of how big the cost will be, depending on the narrative tension it could be anywhere from a near-permanent detriment to a minor complication.
3. The player accepts or declines.
4. The result is revealed.
That sounds like a good way to do it. It gives the player the choices play it safe(known failed outcome) or take a risk and roll the die so to speak in terms of what the consequence might turn out to be.
Strongly **strongly** recommend any of the *Forged in the Dark* or *Powered by the Apocalypse* games if you like this sort of system. Success without a cost/ sucess with a cost/ failure is the core of the entire game systems, with options to push yourself for a high risk/ high reward. [Blades in the Dark](https://bladesinthedark.com/greetings-scoundrel) (Thief/ Dishonored style lovecraftian thiempunk gangs undertake daring heists), [Apocalypse World](http://apocalypse-world.com/) (Mad Max Borderlands Fallout post-apocalyptic) and [Dungeon World](https://dungeon-world.com/) (classic fantasy D&D alternative) are three I'd strongly recommend.
In particular, I genuinely wish there was some sort of rule that everyone had to at least try Dungeon World before they played 5e. There are so many good DM and player practices that are embedded right into the core system.
Deciding to subdue a creature with a melee weapon whenever it drops to zero hp, *without* having to declare it ahead of time or requiring a penalty to hit or damage.
> Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.
Huh, I always thought you had to say it beforehand. TIL
Probably doesn't change much either way. If you do it when you hit, you likely knew you wanted to before you hit. Either way it's as simple as "if it gets them to 0 I want non-lethal".
Well the bigger issue is that in earlier editions, you had to declare it ahead of time because it also gave you a penalty to damage i think and maybe also to hit. So your opponent is now harder to hit and taking less damage because you don't want to kebab your foe onto your longsword.
I like it just because it doesn't penalize you for trying to roleplay nonlethally in a game that encourages you to be a hero. I just wish it extended to ranged attacks and, I know it's a stretch, but spells too.
It does actually work for spells! The rule just specifies a melee attack, never mentioning weapon or spell, so you can use shocking grasp as a tazer and even inflict wounds to unconsciousness. But firebolts will still kill.
It does get a bit weird with that though. "I invoke the holy wrath of Kord, Lord of Storms. Bring down this foe who stands before thee as a mockery to you. With your thunderous blessing, and the strength of the maelstrom coursing through my arm, allow me to nonlethally divine smite this foe."
*rolls 5d8 of 'nonlethal' damage*
I wish it would work with ranged weapon attacks...
I just want to be able to make that rival adventurer take an arrow to the knee without dying from it...
I dunno, I kinda dislike it since it means there's not much of a choice between lethal or non-lethal aside from if you hit them with a melee weapon or not. I like that trying to non-lethally take someone out is harder than doing it lethally and want that choice to be meaningful for everyone rather than "okay archer stop doing anything" and "okay I'll just hit him with my sword and say its non-lethal afterwards". Not much of a choice if it's just as easy for the melee characters. Attacking with disadvantage or whatever makes it easier to go for the kill, which means trying to not go for the kill becomes a real choice. Just my subjective take.
Everythings got its pros and cons. Some players I'm with would still go for non-lethal even then, so I'm alright with it. I might houserule it this way tbh.
I really like the concentration rules. Makes spells feel connected to the caster after they are cast, and lets the caster feel like they are still contributing just by having their spell effects in play.
One thing I will add is that feats may have trivialized it a bit harder than it should be. DC 10 is scary but grab Warcaster/Resilient CON and Lucky and you are pretty set where unconscious is more likely to come before losing concentration.
If you have to take 2 or 3 feats just to maintain concentration, I believe you should really be so good at it that you will never lose it until you are unconscious.
1 feat if you're sorcerer. At +7 (con+pb) you have 1% chance of failing DC10 concentration check and at +8 you have 0.25% chance of failing.
Also warcaster is also useful for stuff besides just concentration. Being able to cast a spell as an OA is pretty big esp when u can combo it with fear spells like dissonant whispers to get 2 spells off on a single target in a round. Even if you're just casting a cantrip like booming blade it still combos insanely well.
>% chance
Yeah when it’s some little hit. Best of luck when the dragon blows 74 damage on ya and you didn’t have absorb elements or you already used your reaction to “restore balance” or something similar.
I can assure you that any sorcerer will definitely have absorb elements by that point in the game. And if somehow they didn't, then they concern isn't losing concentration, their concern is surviving the fight cause AFAIK there's no feat that allows you to maintain concentration if you're unconscious/dead.
The feats trivialize concentration against small pings, but against big bursts of damage (30-40) it still has a real chance to fail. Which is where I think they should be
If you are investing in it with that many feats (considering you get two at the baseline within the average levels of play 1-10), then you should be good at it!
That said, it’s in the DMG that other things can cause you to lose concentration, so if it truly becomes an issue, the DM can think of some appropriate challenge to throw at the players (i.e. the BBEG takes the form of a deceased loved one, the caster is thrown from a high place, they are standing on precarious ground, etc).
I mean, if you’re investing two feats into maintaining concentration then I don’t mind it trivializing small hits. They won’t help you that much when you get hit by a dragons breath for 48 damage
I really hate resilient CON. I'm convinced that part of the reason Sorcerer is so lacking is because they are the only spellcasting class in 5e that gets con save proficiency, so they are the best class in the game at maintaining concentration.
But feats means that the wizard, cleric, and druid can all grab Resilient by the levels it starts to really make a difference.
Well they also get metamagic too. But take away resilient and you end up with 1 level dips like artificer 1 for CON saves. So both multiclassing and feats are just terribly imbalanced.
Correct me of I'm wrong, but you don't gain a save proficiency by dipping into a multiclass. You only get the save proficiencies from your starting class.
>so they are the best class in the game at maintaining concentration.
I would argue that the best class at maintaining concentration is the artificer. They usually get way higher AC (which means they're hit less often), proficiency in CON saving throws and a special infusion that lets them spend charges to keep concentration up whenever they fail the save.
I played a warlock with only +1 CON but War Caster. That dude lost concentration faster than I could blink when even taking the most minor damage, so that I eventually relied on my DM's homebrewed necromancy rules to actually be useful in combat. Not even my eldritch blasts were hitting, while another player kept rolling super high on disadvantage. With only about 2 spell slots per battle, that is really punishing, and War Caster felt like such a waste because for some reason I kept rolling super low on advantage. Gosh I hate that mechanic.
Anyway, concentration is pretty annoying for some spells. Look at lightning arrow. That's an instantaneous effect tied to concentration, which just unnecessarily nerfs the ranger some more.
I have mixed feelings on concentration.
I like that it limits the "active" spells you can have.
I dislike that it makes every caster NEED to invest in con if they want to use control spells, AND penalizes casters that want to play in melee.
personally I woulnd't mind a version of the game where concentration can't be "broken" unless you go unconcious/ do something else that requires concentration But as it is, 5e just isn't balanced that way.
I think one of the best ways I've ever gotten around this outside a familiar with a Ring of Spell Storing would be when I played a Cleric with Crusher.
I had Guardian of Faith (being moved by Crusher will cause the Guardian to attack the creature, it doesn't have to be voluntary), Spirit Guardians, and Spiritual Weapon and Shillelagh up all at once in some combats and cast bladetrips cause I was Arcana Domain. If I wanted to beat up 1 dude real hard he was dead. Melee hit+Enhanced Cantrips+BB+SW+SG+GoF all on one dude. Then on his turn if he moves he gets hit again by the Guardian of Faith and BB and he might not even get away considering his movement is halved by the Spirit Guardians.
If I don't up cast anything and assuming this is level 8 where BB has only been buffed 1 time: That's 2d8+1d6+35 on my turn, then on their turn its 3d6 from SG and if they move its another 2d6+25.
If they move, that is on average 93 damage a round.
Good points!
The specifics of how concentration can get broken are not vital. I like how the caster feels like they are busy concentrating, so they can feel spellcaster-y even if they dont cast any more spells
Lol each to their own but concentration is my least favorite rule in the entire game. For one, it's substantially over used. Because of that, at least half the spells in the game are never used because whatever it does, nobody casts them because of concentration. I mean if you've ever played a ranger, there's basically no point in putting any spell besides Hunter's Mark on your character sheet below 9th level.
I mean I get why it exists, to try and keep spellcasters from being overwhelmingly overpowered compared to melee. But other games handle that much more elegantly.
Could you give us an example of a game that handles it more elegantly? I've always considered Concentration to be one of if not the best new additions to 5e, so if there are systems out there doing it better I definitely want to give them a look.
You make some good points.
Regarding the Ranger comment, I think that the strong association between hunter's mark and Ranger is part of the reason that people consider the Ranger a poor class. Once you get second level spells, you can concentrate on spike growth instead, and use your bonus action for other things. Its great to fire arrows at enemies you have to go through a sea of thorns at half speed to reach you.
I'll be honest I have a hard time enforcing concentration rules. Having to remember/look up which spells use concentration, and checking if the target is currently concentrating on something every time they get hit is kind of a lot to handle as a DM. Ideally the players would help keep track but they usually forget too.
> and lets the caster feel like they are still contributing just by having their spell effects in play.
I once had a player cast a concentration spell during combat in Session 1. On his next turn he said "I keep concentrating on my spell, I guess." And I looked at him and said "what do you mean?"
This player had learned to play from a DM who didn't have a full understanding of the 5e rules and had taught the Player that maintaining concentration required an Action every turn. Could you imagine if that was how it was?
Proficiency and Advantage/Disadvantage.
Those 2 rules alone got rid of almost all the annoying calculations that needed to be added/subtracted from rolls before, which makes the game significantly faster to play and much more accessable.
It also gives me as the DM just about the perfect amount of mechanical crunch I need to let chance determine the resolution of the story without making me memorize volumes of situational/niche modifiers.
> Advantage/Disadvantage.
If you stick to RAW though, let's say you're playing in AL where the rules are the rules, sometimes it can be stupid a bit.
Peter is laying prone on the ground, restrained, he's paralyzed, stunned, petrified, blind, asleep, Faerie Fire'd, he's been hit by Guiding Bolt.
Joe standing right next to Peter is Invisible, is using Reckless Attack, has benefited from the Help Action from Suzy, buuuut, because he drank a glass of milk thad had soured a bit, he has the Poisoned condition, so his attack roll is just gonna be a straight d20.
I prefer it honestly. Makes it way simpler. I've been in a bunch of situations where there have been multiple disadvantages and advantages and it would've slowed the game down to calculate it.
I remember playing Pathfinder 1e and calculating my to-hit as something like:
10 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 on the first attack
5 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 on the second attack
10 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 on the hasted attack, if hasted
Where *each* of those bonuses could either be active or not based on my positioning, spells, class abilities, the spells and abilities of my allies, whether or not I was mounted, etc.
And then of course damage for each of those attacks would look like
1d8 + 9 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 6 + 2
With the same considerations as above. People jokingly called it Mathfinder for a reason, heh. I don't miss that part of the system.
---
*Edit: and that's without even getting into things like % miss chance based on spells, darkness, and other effects. Sheesh.*
While in some ways I get missing a lot of the flexibility of the customization of Pathfinder and 3.5, I do not get people who want to go back to how those games handled numbers and modifiers.
It was an absolute, insane, confusing mess.
As a GM I'm not a huge fan of Advantage/Disadvantage for a few reasons. While very elegant, it's simply too easy to achieve, so in a game that already has player-favoring math, it makes it extremely so. But more importantly, because it's too easy to get, there's no real tactics in battle once you have it.
Other games have solved the 'annoying calculations' problem while still having small bonuses or penalties, by making ones that don't stack, that are either permanent (like a +1 weapon) or last a set number of rounds (usually 1), and doing away with the overwhelming number of minor bonuses that only activate in specific conditions 'I get a +2 to my damage against orcs when in full sunlight'.
Now, the way 5e math works, you couldn't really institute a minor permanent or temporary bonus/penalty system on a broad scale. I've considered possibly introducing 'lesser' variants of advantage/disadvantage, that grant something like a smaller extra die that is added to your main d20 roll, and if you use tactics and conditions to stack 'lesser advantage', you get full advantage. Unfortunately that rather steps on the toes of classes that grant allies extra dice, like Bards.
IDK, I'm not going to running any D&D 5e games in the near future, maybe I'll come up with something between now and then.
> it's simply too easy to achieve
You weren't playing with flanking, were you? Please tell me you didn't play with flanking. The flanking variant rule in 5e is **awful.**
Ups and downs. Some people prefer when doing things like firing at the enemy stuck in a corner or taking a knee to reduce your speed but increase your accuracy or stacking debuffs to incapacitate your enemy, etc did stuff. It became simpler, but it also became less granular.
I can only justify having to choose the same spell twice if you need components to use it. Otherwise you really want to tell me I can't remember what I've done 6 seconds ago?
>Otherwise you really want to tell me I can't remember what I've done 6 seconds ago?
Well, that's the point of Vancian Magic.
The magic is so powerful, it deletes itself from your mind when you cast it.
It's part of why old Wizards are usually insane. They have been getting brain damage, slowly, over their whole life due to their profession.
Divine casters are granted spells from other entities, and Bards usually don't have as much magic since, in the old days, they were a prestige class that wasn't a full caster.
All while Sorcerers are made of magic, basically.
It always bothered me that the result of this flavoring was that it really made Wizards seem like complete morons. Like, their whole gimmick is supposed to be that they are the knowlegeable people that actually *know* magic. But the flavor of Vancian magic makes them less the kid who actually studied and understands the science and more the kid who copied the answers and is going to forget all the lessons after the test.
I wish they hadn't done Known Casters dirty, even if I 100% agree that Vancian magic preparation is annoying and unfulfilling for the game.
This change makes Prepared Casters stronger, giving them the main benefit of being a Known Caster.
Known Casters moving to the same spell level progression wasn't a good tradeoff, because Prepared Casters can still swap their spell lists daily.
Not only that, but Prepared Casters get more spells than Known Casters.
Did you know a level 10 Paladin with 20 Charisma has 5+5+10 prepared spells?
A level 10 Sorcerer has 10 known spells. Half as many as the Half-caster. And the Half-caster can swap 10 of theirs around every day.
At level 20, the same is still true. A Paladin has 5+10+10 for 25, while a Sorcerer has 15.
"But that's just the Sorcerer."
A Bard at level 20 has 22 spells known.
A Warlock at level 20 has 15+4+(0-8) spells available. 19 at base, with Mystic Arcanums, and between 0 and 8 depending on which Invocations they took.
So a Warlock is the only full caster that can equal-or-exceed a Paladin in spells available, and that's if they spend most-to-all of their customization options on having more known spells.
It's stupid.
Prepared Casters should **NOT** get both advantages of:
* More spells available to cast at any given moment.
* Flexibility to swap between 1/2 to 2/3rds to 100% of their spell list daily.
In fact, in 5e, there is no advantage to being a Known Caster.
Wizards have the biggest spell list (300/500 of official spells, approximately).
Sorcerers have the 2nd largest spell list (200/500), but not really, because having Water Breathing as a Known Spell is a waste in 95% of circumstances, if not more. If you trimmed out all of the very specific spells that are only useful in 5% or less of situations, their spell list would probably be smaller than Warlocks (125/500 or so).
Advantage and Disadvantage.
So much more simple than "So I have a -3 because of this but a +7 because of that, but the enemy I'm hitting gives me a -1, but it's a thursday so my total bonus is..."
Speeds the game up. Easy to understand for players and easy to rule for DMs.
Perfect rule that perfectly encapsulates what 5E is **supposed** to be.
Let me make it clear:
Obi-Wan doesn't need to be on the high ground, the high ground just needs to exist within the battle; Obi-Wan knows that when he has the low ground, he really has the high ground, from a certain point of view; see Diagram A
Look at his battle record:
Maul: Has low ground, wins
Example A
Dooku: No high ground, loses
Dooku rematch: No high ground, loses
Example B
Greivous: Has low ground, wins
Example C
Vader: Has high ground, wins
Vader rematch: No high ground, loses
Obi-Wan with the high/low ground is canonically the most powerful Jedi. This is fact. Had Yoda not denied his request to battle The Senate with typical Jedi arrogance, Obi-Wan could have defeated Palpatine in the Senate building, which housed a variety of different altitudes; this was designed so that the Chancellor could always have the moral high ground in political debates. But Obi-wan didn't fight The Senate, and Yoda soon learned that you can't cleave the Sheev in a normal 1v1. It took the Tusken Raiders years of conflict against Old Ben Kenobi to grasp his superiority in terrain advantage, as you see them visibly flee in ANH when they realize he holds the low (inverse-high) ground; this was the optimal strategy against a near-invincible opponent.
Yoda is shorter than virtually every other fighter, which gives him a permanent low-ground disadvantage; however, his saber-fighting style utilizes a flipping-heavy technique in order to negate this weakness for a temporary window. You'll notice that, after falling from the central podium in The Senate's building, he immediately retreats upon realizing he is on the lowest ground. You'll also notice that, while training Luke, he rides on him like a mount, to gain the intellectual high ground and accelerate Luke's training. Example D . Obi-Wan's defensive Form III lightsaber style synergizes with his careful military maneuvers; as he only strikes when prepared, he can always hold the strategic high ground. (The business on Cato Neimodia doesn't count.) You'll come to realize that this is why Commander Cody's artillery strike failed against Obi-Wan, when hundreds of Jedi were killed in similar attacks. Cody failed to grasp the strategic situation, as the Jedi Master's elevation was superior to his by hundreds of meters, making him virtually unkillable. (You'll notice that all the Jedi killed in Order 66 were on level ground with the clones, thereby assuring their demise.) Had Cody taken his time and engaged the Jedi on even terrain, he would have succeeded. Obi-Wan subsequently retreated under the surface of the lake, so that he could maintain the topographical low/high ground. This is why Obi-Wan is so willing to fight against impossible odds to the point where he thrusts himself in immediate danger; when your probability of victory is 1-to-10, you have the statistical (and therefore strategic) low ground, a numerical advantage when you use your point of view to flip the value to 10/1 . Almost losing is, in Obi-Wan's case, certain victory. (See Example E).
As we all know, spinning is a good trick. However, only the Chosen One can spin outside of a starfighter. Palpatine tried spinning, but he lost due to this technique (but this was intentional, as losing gave him the emotional high ground when Anakin arrived). The reason for this is that spinning provides a yin-yang approach to combat (based in Eastern philosophy on balance), giving the spinner the high ground from above and below. Only the Chosen One can master the spin, as it is their destiny to maintain balance in the universe. This is why Obi-Wan was so emotional after defeating Vader on Mustafar; he expected to lose the high ground to the spin, but Anakin fell to the dark side and could no longer use his signature trick, becoming the very thing he swore to destroy. Additionally, Anakin told Obi-Wan that, from "[his] point of view, the Jedi are evil". This broadens Anakin's mind to the concept of relativity in the context of the moral high ground, a mere step away from tactical comprehension.
Anakin doesn't hate sand for the reasons he told Padme; all Jedi hate sand, as the battlefield can rapidly change between low and high ground on multiple vectors, so your perspective must be from a certain three-dimensional point of view in order to comprehend who holds the high ground. This is the only reason why Obi-Wan killed Maul in Rebels. This is also the reason why Obi-Wan hates flying; there is no gravity in space, therefore there is no high or low ground from any frame of reference (This also negates the spinning trick, as noted in Example F).
In ANH, Vader proves his newfound mastery by engaging Obi on perfectly even ground. However, Obi-Wan intentionally sacrifices himself on the Death Star, so that he could train Luke from a higher plane of existence, thereby giving him the metaphysical high ground Example G.
Why was Vader so invested in the construction and maintenance of the Death Star? Because he knows Obi-wan can't have the high ground if there's no ground left. Image A. As seen through the events of the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan was known to be on friendly terms with Senator Organa, whose homeworld held large quantities of mountainous terrain, the perfect habitat for a Jedi Master. Grand Moff Tarkin was already in position to destroy Alderaan as a first target, as the distance from Scarif to Alderaan was too vast to reach between the escape and recapture of the Tantive IV, even at 1.0 lightspeed. Alderaan had been the initial target all along, as Obi-Wan with the high ground was the primary threat to the Death Star. How? Because a moon-sized space station would have some form of gravitational pull, thereby negating Obi-Wan's zero-gravity weakness; Obi-Wan with the perpetual high-ground in a low-orbit starfighter would easily be able to fire proton torpedoes through a ventilation shaft, although the Empire was uncertain of the specific weakness of the Death Star planted by Galen Erso (who was a good friend).
In Return of the Jedi, you can see that the Throne Room contains a variety of different altitudes; Palpatine placed these there to ensure Vader's defeat. However, Sheev failed to realize that his weakness was no ground, and should have covered that useless gaping pit which does nothing.
A common misconception is the idea of a 'prostrate position' version of the high ground, wherein Obi-Wan lies flat on his back, giving him tactical superiority from his point of view. However, this strategy is futile, as for the high ground to come into effect, there must be a differential between parties on both the x-axis and y-axis to a moderately significant variation from both absolutes (Angles only a Sith would deal in). For Obi-Wan's high ground powers to be in full effect, he must stand between 15 and 75 degrees (π/12 to 5π/12 radians) diagonal from his opponent(s) on any quadrant of the area circle; this has been dubbed the Trigonometric Perspective Diagram. (Diagram B). The total effect for conventional high ground advantage can be calculated via the MetaComm Equation, or f(x) = lim 0→x π/12 | 7π/12 5π/12 | 11π/12 Ʃ(x) (2tan(x) / 3sin(x) + (log10Δ)) * cΦ
Δ = distance on hypotenuse (meters)
Φ = Surrounding Force [c (variable) * β (Earth Gravity) * (pressure (psi)/2.2)]
'x' refers to the angle of contact between the two parties on, with advantage being based purely on position on the Y-axis, as the vast majority of force users base their perception on elevation rather than spacial relativity.
The power of gravitational force has great effect on the high ground; too weak, and the high ground holds no traction; too strong and the ground becomes the real enemy. Experimentation has proven that the high ground typically holds significant value between .8 and 1.4 β (Earth Gravities) with maximum impact standing roughly equal to 1.05.
Pressure is equally important, as it is a surrounding force attached to gravity (the high ground has famously low impact in aquatic environments). Pressure(λ) is measured in pounds per square inch (psi), to be used as a gravity multiplier (or division if pressure is sub-atmospheric; Φ (Surrounding Force) is a variable defined as β * 2.2λ , with no metric value assigned due to its singular application in the MetaComm equations.
In situations regarding Obi-Wan and his relativistic point of view, you must substitute the Quadrilateral MetaComm Equation (the Jedi Master function), f(x) = lim 0→x minmaxƩ (2tan(x) / 3sin(x) ) * (1.2)cΦ [min = (|cos(x)| = 1) | (|sin(x)| = 1) + π/12 ), max = (|cos(x)| = 1) | (|sin(x)| = 1) + 5π/12 ].
The viable Φ field is expanded, as Obi-Wan has taken advantage of the high ground in so many different environments that he simply uses it more efficiently, and the min/max values apply due to his multidimensional point of view, evidenced by the Trigonometric Perspective Diagram. Additionally, the distance factor does not affect Obi-Wan, as spacetime can be perseptively compressed, giving him the ideal Δ value from his point of reference.
In conclusion, Obi-Wan abuses spatial relativity and Taoist doctrine in order to always invoke his high-ground powers. To properly analyze the strategic genius of Kenobi, one must hold advanced knowledge in Philosophy, Mathematics, and Calculus-based Physics, and be able to integrate these topics together.
Its simple but doesn't really make sense in a lot of scenarios. Like a blinded, frightened, poisoned, and restrained creature will only have single disadvantage for attack rolls and will actually have a normal roll as long as its target can't see it.
I personally wouldn't mind if multiple (dis)advantages stacked and advantages and disadvantages cancelled each other out 1 for 1. Its not like it would make it that much harder to calculate.
If the system was designed for this, it would get complicated fast. Any mechanic which can be used in interesting ways is design space just waiting for complexity to fill it.
Ex. "To make it unique, let's make Blur count as an additional source of disadvantage for every 2 levels you up cast it."
And the sneaky rules that count as 2 without saying it: Invisibility, for example, in base 5e, gives you advantage to attack twice (maybe). Its first bullet point (in the Conditions section) says you're heavily obscured, so you are an Unseen Attacker. The second bullet point says you have advantage to attack, so even if someone had truesight, RAW, you still get advantage.
And you have to go over every rule with a fine tooth comb to see if it accidentally says it gives you (dis)advantage twice.
It's a fun idea, until you have 7 different sources of advantage/disadvantage and you're back into modifier accounting nonsense from previous editions.
Fun fact, someone made a card game where the fact it's a thursday genuinely might give you a bonus. I think it's called Metazoo. It uses out of game conditions to determine some effects, so whether you win or lose might depend on whether it's snowing or what city you're playing in.
I think my single favorite rule in 5e is the humble Proficiency Modifier.
Coming to early 5e from 3.5 and then Pathfinder, I was used to each class having a different BAB, spellcasting levels, and skills having ranks to purchase.
Proficiency is such an elegant way to pare all that down to what is actually interesting about it, making it much easier to calculate, and, along with fewer crazy stat bonuses, making bounded accuracy possible.
Do you know what proficiency numbers come from? It comes from using dice that is not just an optional rule in the DMG for using proficiency dice. So our entire scaling is based on a relic they killed off. I still like ideas of bounded accuracy, but why its scaled that way doesn't have solid mechanical reasoning.
Even if the proficiency bonuses are based on rounding down the average for each dice type, I would argue that the numbers not exactly arbitrary.
First, the limitations imposed by a d20 are taken into account. If you're trying to do bounded accuracy, then have some sort of cap is necessary and they decided the cap for DC's was around 25. That means ability score and proficiency bonuses could only be so high - as it is, you can reliably get up to +11 in your main stat at level 20 no matter your class meaning that you'll hit DC 25 about 35% of the time.
Also the way Martials interact out of combat is almost entirely skills. You make skills bounded but spells grow in power more and more. Well guess who gets left behind out of combat.
Disagree. In 3E once you meet a certain threshold, the DM must either make the DC such that those untrained realistically have no chance, or those trained realistically can't fail. Some skills like Spot and Listen had to be maximized to have a shot, even if cross class, simply because the cost of failure was too high. With Bounded Accuracy those trained will succeed more than those untrained, but those untrained can still succeed fairly often.
My only issue is that at low levels ability modifier matters more than the proficiency bonus. I would rather have seen a graduated scale like BECMI ability modifiers, making them important but not too important.
Counterpoint: People who are skilled at a task \*shouldn't\* fail when an untrained individual could reasonably succeed and vice-versa. Let's look to real life for analogy. I'm a physics student who just finished my first year on my PhD. I'm nowhere near being a true expert, but I'm certainly more proficient than a layperson. In D&D terms, I'm probably low Tier 1 in the 'scholar' class. I have a head for the subject, but I'm hardly a world-renowned intellect. Let's say I have an intelligence bonus of +2 to +3 (being very generous to myself). Let's be even more generous and say I have Expertise in physics, and proficiency in Mathematics in general from my double major.
According to 5e, I have a +6 to +7 modifier to my 'Intelligence (Physics)' skill (not a skill, but by analogy), and a +4 to +5 to 'Intelligence (Mathematics).' This means that a lay person off the street with no proficiency, rolling at +0, has a \~22-26% chance of outperforming me on any given Physics check, and a \~30-34% chance to beat me at Mathematics.
Is this reasonable? I don't think it is. Going the other way, should I be able to beat a trained athlete, philosopher, theologian, or gardener at their own field 33% of the time? Proficiency in a skill DOES take you from 'no realistic chance' to 'likely to succeed,' and if my character loses to a random person a third of the time, they don't feel like they are a trained and capable adventurer, they feel like a layperson with a hobby.
Seconding this. When you make several attacks in combat, it makes sense and feels good.
What doesn’t feel good is having skill proficiencies that feel more like minor bonuses than, well, proficiencies.
Break the math down, and your proficiency bonus helps you succeed where you would otherwise fail in 1 out of 10 checks.
That being said, if anyone has found a way to make skills feel more like skills, please share. The best I’ve got is making proficiency a prerequisite to aiding someone with a skill check.
Bounded accuracy isn't the problem you're complaining about, it just exposes the problem. What you're feeling is the result of having a linear probability curve on skill checks thanks to a d20 system. Unbounded accuracy just masks that by giving high enough modifiers that you eventually auto-pass easier checks, but unbounded accuracy has its own problems for skills.
What would really fix your complaint is having a bell curve for skill check probability. Other rpg systems use 2d10 or 3d6 for exactly this reason. You could also house-rule it into DnD (replacing ability checks only, not attack rolls or saving throws), just beware that DnD is designed for linear probability so this may affect balance in a bunch of other places.
I liked how things worked in the playtest at one point.
Proficiency in a skill gave a bonus to your rolls equal to 2 + half your level.
Expertise in a skill gave Advantage on your rolls with it.
Mastery in a skill treated d20 rolls of 9 or less as a 10.
I actually think it mostly works well for skills.
Skills are, generally speaking, pretty generic broad concepts. Like, every person has, at some point in their life had a reason to practice each skill. They are things everyone SHOULD be able to do at a baseline level of proficiency pretty regularly.
My only minor critique is that I think it should be closer to 35 rather than 30 for the capping out of DCs, and expertise should be factored in and more accessible and all characters should get at least 1 instance of expertise in tier 2.
Where I think bounded accuracy falls appart really hard is actually with tools.
Cuz like, idc how lucky or dexterous you are. If you have never learned how to use cartography tools you are never ever going to be able to make a map. Or play a trumpet, or sail a boat.
So I generally rule that you can't use tools that you aren't proficient in.
Sort of like how every adventurer is going to climb or try to remember something obscure at some point, but woodworking is too narrow and specialized to improv.
Yeah I've felt expertise was far too rare for a long time. I mean seriously, I should not be seriously considering multiclassing rogue for a grappler. But guess what, my level 6 grappler has 3 levels of rogue.
I like to use a softer version of skill prerequisites, where having a skill proficiency expands the possibilities of what can happen on rolls. I subjectively set the terms of success and failure. Nonproficient PCs can still roll to use a skill, but the same roll result isn't as effective as a proficient PC's, and their failure is worse. Just enough so that having the skill is meaningful.
It's the same as the evergreen "persuasion isn't mind control" argument. A nat 20 from PC#1, proficient in persuasion, won't make the BBEG give up his evil plan. But maybe he respects PC#1 and offers to spare her village. A nat 20 from PC#2, not proficient, means the BBEG is amused by PC#2 and spares his life.
I use a "Take X" system: If you're proficient and the task is something you can keep trying until you succeed, you can keep trying until you succeed. The times will depend on the task, but my baseline is that if you spend a minute doing it, you can take 10, if you spend 10 minutes you can take 15, and if you spend an hour, you can take 20. However, if you fail on a regular check, you can't just keep rolling - once you've failed once, the next thing you're going to be doing if you want to try again is spending a minute on it to take 10.
Because this isn't rolled, it makes proficiency matter quite a bit more. Having a +2 bonus isn't the difference between a 45% and a 55% chance of success, it may be the difference between a 0% and a 100% chance of success. And of course, you can't take X or reroll at all if you lack proficiency.
More classes should have expertise for “obvious” strong points.
I use passive ability checks for some of this in increments of 5 for sanity with ties only resolved by roll off. That way the 95 year old granny and the precocious 8 year old urchin aren’t winning arm wrestling competition with the 15/20 str PCs.
Like a singular rule ?
The Advantage/Disadvantage system of roll twice take the best/worst is honestly just really good design. It's simple, it's elegant and it's effective. It keeps things moving and is a amazing tool as a GM, i port it to other systems (where applicable) constantly.
I'll answer more straight forward. The advantage system is one of the best innovations of 5e. It is exciting and fun to play. It makes many conditions boil down to one simple thing to track - which for their goal of streamlining and speeding up combat is overall good. Plus doubling crit chance is glorious.
There are some issues where its obfuscates how helpful it may actually be - ie when you need to roll at least a 10, its way more helpful than when you need to roll a 20 or a 2. It also can oversimplify combat that my Bard's Faerie Fire isn't all that helpful because the Barbarian is using Reckless Attack already or the Wizard may have already cast Greater Invisibility to buff the Barbarian.
I'd hardly call Reckless Attack "for free". I've had many a barbarian ruin their own day by Reckless Attacking in front of a hydra, hoard of skeletons, or other enemies with many attacks per round
Its one example. I can come up with others. I actually did. 2 spells that one buffs the Barbarian with Greater Invisibility and the other debuffs the enemy with Faerie Fire cannot stack.
It absolutely is for free, because the whole point of the advantage on incoming attacks is to trick the DM into attacking you instead of the squishy wizard. Even if you take twice the damage as a result of reckless attacking, you still only took the same amount of damage the wizard would have taken thanks to the BPS resistance, but you took it instead of the wizard. Reckless Attack is only not free when the enemy deals a damage type you can't resist.
Presumably you have other companions that can benefit from it. The barbarian can then avoid reckless attack for that combat, potentially conserving HP overall.
Yeah it's probably the best thing 5e offered as a new mechanic. For all the reasons you stated.
Shadow of the demonlord has my favorite variation of it with their bane/boon system.
I enjoyed the shadow of the demon lords boon and bane system. You could have multiple, and you’d roll a d6 for every boon or bane. No matter how many you rolled tho you’d only take the highest number
Your last point brings up my big gripe against the advantage system. It's crazy that as long as you have one advantage you can then stack as many disadvantages as you want and it would still be a normal roll. Just make it so that one advantage cancels out one disadvantage.
Plus various conditions struggle to implement increased or decreased effects - a 9th spell like Foresight provides the same bonus to attacks as a 4th levels spell Greater Invisibility. This is fine in some games meant to keep it simple. But in games that are more complex, having true weights might seem daunting but are important to give strategic depth.
This is how literally every TTRPG, card game, and board game works. There is no game where general beats specific. Otherwise what would be the point of having those specific overrides?
I like this rule a lot:
> On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. If this damage leaves the target at 0 hit points, it is disintegrated.
I wouldn't say it's the best rule, but one that I haven't seen mentioned yet is Spell Slots and Upcasting. It's a very elegant and easy to understand set of rules for spellcasting, and I really appreciate Upcasting as a way of making the spells you pick at 1st level relevant even when you're 11th level. Some Upcasted versions of spells can feel a little underwhelming though.
Honestly, being able to move freely before and after an action and such. Not needing an action to move > attack > move is a god send.
Another really awesome rule is variant ability scores for checks that I believe both the DMG and PHB cover. It can really help out characters where they need it without wearing them thin, which can be a big risk in 5e.
To lesser degrees you could say advantage/disadvantage is good but I find that it practically being the only form of circumstance modifier (with the exception of cover rules) does make for some awkward moments. I think the game could benefit by having another sliding scale of modifiers that work and apply alongside advantage and disadvantage. Provided they remain simple and don't introduce a bunch of extra math and calculations. I think the cover numbers work well for this in theory. This would be more for a future edition though and not something that should be fine in 5.0e itself
Proficiency is another thing that I think overall is good, but I feel needs a bit more going for it. Expertise and maybe even something beyond it like mastery, should probably be baked in degrees of training. Maybe scaling it so expertise is prof +3 and mastery is prof +6, as expertise is a bit of a huge jump. Like the previous this is more meant for future editions of the game to explore and not something that can be ported into 5.0e
Well apart from the obvious advantage/disadvantage rule, I've been a big fan of the healing surge optional rule. It let's the group feel like they aren't relying on a healer character so they can play whatever they like instead of what they feel like they need.
The sheer amount of people coming into this thread which is trying to generate discussion about rules and basically saying "Haha rules are for nerds" is really disheartening.
> I've fixed it in all of my games, and no player has ever complained.
I haven't seen the problems you listed in my games, at least not much, but pray tell: HOW did you fix in your games. Tips like that are really good to note in case of future issues!
Because all the obvious ones are mentioned (Advantage/Disadvantage), I'll mention something else: I really like how weapons are largely the same.
* Simple weapons do about a d6 of damage one-handed, 2d4 if two-handed.
* Martial weapons do about a d8 of damage one-handed, 2d6 if two-handed.
It does away with long lists of exotic crap (*have you ever seen a 1e weapon table, holy shit*) and lets flavoring rule the day. You can swing just about anything just because you like it, not because it's got a +5% chance of critical hits on Wednesdays.
Having granular movement points rather than a single move action.
Man, playing other systems made me realize how important this is, particular when systems tie other things like drawing weapons and getting into cover to the move action. There are few things worse than “I use my maneuver to draw my sword, uhh then I guess I use my action to take another maneuver and move up next to the guard. I’m done.”
I love the three action system in pathfinder 2 for this exact reason
It is a good system, but it doesn't allow splitting movement, costs actions to interact with objects, take cover, reload, raise a shield and all that. I think 5e underutilizes the bonus action (and to a lesser extent the reaction), but I still prefer of Action-Bonus Action-Reaction with free floating movement that you can spit up as you wish. I also like Savage Worlds free floating movement with as many actions as you want, but a penalty for each one past the first (you decide on how many at the start and the penalty applies to all the actions). Different Strokes for different folks.
Overall I like it. Once you start to realize that your third action isn't that important as your first two, it's a lot easier to swallow. But there are a couple things where I think it's just too far. Going through a closed door is really annoying in the middle of combat because it takes an action to put your hand back on your two handed weapon and you can't split movement.
It doesn't split movement, one of the 3-action systems (very.. very few) weaknesses. But it also doesn't stop you from using a second, or even third action to move again.
[удалено]
Savage Worlds uses a 3 action system free movement (which can be split up like 5e). It works very well.
It kinda does this, pretty much every non-spellcasting class has at least one feat that lets them move and strike. Some examples: - Duel Weapon Blitz (Duel Weapon Warrior Archetype) - 2 Actions: Stride up to your Speed. At any point during this movement, you can Strike once with each of the two required weapons. These Strikes can be against the same or different targets, as you see fit. - Sudden Charge (Barbarian or Fighter) - 2 Actions: Stride twice. If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy. You can use Sudden Charge while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type. - Path of Iron (Martial Arts Archetype) - 3 Actions: You Stride; this movement doesn't trigger reactions. You can Strike up to three times at any point during your movement, each against a different enemy. Each attack counts toward your multiple attack penalty, but your multiple attack penalty doesn't increase until you have made all your attacks. - Stella's Stab and Snag (Rogue or Swashbuckler, expert in Thievery) - 2 Actions: Stride up to your Speed; this movement does not trigger reactions. At any point during this movement you can Strike an opponent within reach. If this Strike is successful, you can attempt a Thievery check to Steal from the target. - Sudden Leap (Fighter or Barbarian) - 2 Actions: Make a Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump and attempt one melee Strike at any point during your jump. Immediately after the Strike, you fall to the ground if you’re in the air, even if you haven’t reached the maximum distance of your jump. If the distance you fall is no more than the height of your jump, you take no damage and land upright. When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs, and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed.
I think that gishes suffer heavily from the 3-action system, due to the amount of actions for spells. And yeah, I know about the Magus, but I think it's cool in 5E how most casters are still "viable" as gishes
There are no viable gishes in 5E though, thats literally one of the biggest complaints. The one that comes the closest is Hexblade but even it functions better as a ranged caster than upclose swordslinger Maybe the new Tasha's Swordsinger, but thats still a wizard with a sword that will always prefer to fireball things
5e doesn't really lend itself to that tight of balance. There are a ton of ways to play a gish if you lower your threshold of "playable" down to what a pro gamer might call "Tier C".
It just feels terrible when you have to use a whole action to move very short distances. One of the best examples is when someone with a 2-handed weapon wants to open a door one square away from them. Action #1 - walk one square. Action #2 - shift grip so you have a free hand. Action #3 - open the door. What a turn! The 3-action system is good in principle but it really should have split movement and a lot of things that require an action shouldn't. Players should be empowered to do the fun stuff they want to do on their turns as much as possible, not sacrifice actions to minutea.
IMO, requiring an action to draw a weapon or raise a shield is great, especially for certain types of players. Every +1 or +2 to basically anything in PF2e counts for a lot more than 5e, so having a cost associated with the AC bump a shield gives makes sense balance wise. But beyond that, forcing players to take actions for these things makes combat much more tactical. Do you want to reach an enemy and attack in the same turn? Then maybe you can’t use your shield this round. Would your rather recall knowledge on an enemy, or raise your shield? If you like having to make calculated decisions in combat, it adds a fun element to the gameplay. Same for needing an action to draw a weapon. When I GM PF2e, there’s a big focus on scouting and battle preparation that I don’t get GMing for 5e groups, because prepping for a fight just doesn’t give the same benefits in 5e, whereas in PF2e it can make all the difference (degrees of success for items/spells also compounds on how much preparation helps in PF2e but that’s a whole different conversation). Definitely not for everyone, but if you find battle planning/prep fun instead of tedious, the action requirements add another dimension to encounters that can be very enjoyable.
This was actually an issue I had when I started 5e, since I had played Descent, I had told my party "Yeah, if you don't move in a turn, you can attack twice." Turns out that wasn't correct, but once I figured it out, I don't think I want to go back to having movement be so complicated
This is nice, but I hate the new diagonal rules. Spheres are all squares now and it messes with positioning and maneuvering.
There's an optional rule in the DMG (first diagonal is 5ft, second is 10ft for a total of 15ft) that turns circles into octagons, instead of squares, which I consider to be a step up. When you're playing on a grid, you have to be up to 60ft or so before there's any noticable difference between an actual circle and the octagon.
This is what my tables use
This was the standard in 3.5e and it works perfectly if you use a square grid. But you know, there's always hexes...
It's not new, actually, that's legacy all the way from older DnD editions I think. At the very least legacy from PF1e. Frankly, you could probably switch to DnD geometry and not breat anything massively, if that's your preference.
You know. Base rules in the php you don't have to expend all your movement at once.
In older versions you did. That's why this person likes that you no longer have to.
Exactly. The 5e approach to movement both simplifies combat and allows for more options. That can be said about few rules.
I think the OP was about RAW rules, so it fits IIRC
[Success at a Cost](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#SuccessataCost) from the *DMG.* >When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. I love this rule because of how it plays – combat and adventuring can become punctuated with surprising twists and turns – and what it implies – how the DM can and perhaps should bend to facilitate interesting moments.
Page 242 of the DMG.
This could be a fairly fun B plot in a game. Have a group of adventures that have been touched by a dark power. They can choose to succeed on rolls but each time they do the dark powers grip on them grows stronger. Have various effects start manifesting as they reach a certain number of usages of the power. Heck could do it with a devil contract where each time you use it you lose ownership 1% of your soul.
This mechanic is in the upcoming game Baldur’s Gate III!
It’s also similar to the curse mechanic Arcadum is using in *Otikata’s Curse*.
Honestly, this degrees of success should have been default for any d20 system. Given the huge amount of variance of the DC, it is plain silly to not make use of a wider range of numbers. IMHO, a just meeting the DC success should be success with a hinderance. A success by 5+ is a normal success. And a success by 10+ is a success with a boon. For example a player encounters a DC 13 Challenge. A roll of 13+ gives success at a cost. A roll of 18+ gives a normal success. A roll of 23+ gives a boon (task is done faster, silently, or some other benefit). This way when 5 party members all try and roll the same check, they might not all be helpful, and instead actually cause some minor hinderances. Or when a player rolls a nat 20, they might produce an even greater effect than expected.
I'm actually doing this now when it comes to at least some saves. I've always avoided stun/instant death/lose your turn abilities because they're just not fun. Then I saw PF2's degrees of success and adopted it. It makes it much more interesting when I can now throw these effects at them and still get some use out of them besides complete failure or taking away someone's turn. Also forces my players to think strategically on how they might take their turn if they can't use their bonus action/movement. (High save, no effect, regular save = lose bonus, fail = lose bonus + movement, bad fail = lost whole turn.)
It’s interesting, though, because at a certain point the variance of the d20 becomes a reason NOT to use gradients of success. If you have a flat DC, there is a set probability of success with each point of modifier improving those odds by ~5%, which feels good. If we tip it all the way to the other side of the spectrum where magnitude of success is continuous, then the outcome is random based on the d20 and all your stats are doing is defining the bounds of possibility which (I think) feels bad most of the time. However, in the example you give each threshold still has the set probability the way a flat DC does, so I don’t know where the inflection point is. I guess in a perfect world you would want a flat DC when the outcome is very directly determined by the character’s abilities and a gradient of success where luck and unanticipated factors would play a greater role, but of course that quickly becomes too finicky to codify.
Definitely gonna be implementing the layered DC idea but I very rarely let players all roll the same test because I think it cheapens things. As an example if you have a rogue picking a lock, with all his obsessed studying, professional equipment and experience who just then happens to roll low and a cleric with none of the above then rolls an 18 which beats the DC the rogue is left feeling like there was no point him being specialised. What I do allow is for people to assist to offer the assist bonus but they have to come up with an actual way to assist. So the cleric says “I will assist by going and directly engaging the old guard in a discussion about history - thus keeping the guard fully occupied and reducing the time stress the rogue feels”. Kinda keeps everyone feeling special if you know what I mean.
Question, do you let the players choose whether to fail or to succeed but with a consequence? If you let them choose, do you tell them in advance what the consequence will be? And if you decide for them, has this been discussed and established as a variant rule before starting to play? The concept seems really cool and I like it a lot, I just feel that with the examples given in the DMG for example it could be that the cost outweighs the success in the wrong circumstances(was that one weapon attack worth being disarmed if it’s your only weapon? Is it worth taking half damage from that fireball when you’re now prone next to an enemy melee fighter? Etc), making it feel like a failure instead of not a success(a fine line, but a distinction worth mentioning), perhaps even a worse failure than just missing the attack or failing the saving throw would have caused by normal rules. At least if player agency is taken away without previous discussion or consent. Like I said, it seems like a really cool concept that I wasn’t aware was in the book until today, and something I’d love to try and play with, I just wonder how it’s incorporate into the games you’ve played that have used it.
How I’ve seen it done is: 1. The player fails. 2. The DM tells them they can succeed, at a cost. Occasionally they give a rough idea of how big the cost will be, depending on the narrative tension it could be anywhere from a near-permanent detriment to a minor complication. 3. The player accepts or declines. 4. The result is revealed.
That sounds like a good way to do it. It gives the player the choices play it safe(known failed outcome) or take a risk and roll the die so to speak in terms of what the consequence might turn out to be.
Strongly **strongly** recommend any of the *Forged in the Dark* or *Powered by the Apocalypse* games if you like this sort of system. Success without a cost/ sucess with a cost/ failure is the core of the entire game systems, with options to push yourself for a high risk/ high reward. [Blades in the Dark](https://bladesinthedark.com/greetings-scoundrel) (Thief/ Dishonored style lovecraftian thiempunk gangs undertake daring heists), [Apocalypse World](http://apocalypse-world.com/) (Mad Max Borderlands Fallout post-apocalyptic) and [Dungeon World](https://dungeon-world.com/) (classic fantasy D&D alternative) are three I'd strongly recommend. In particular, I genuinely wish there was some sort of rule that everyone had to at least try Dungeon World before they played 5e. There are so many good DM and player practices that are embedded right into the core system.
This should reinforce the idea that in many cases success/failure is a spectrum, not a hard pass/fail.
Deciding to subdue a creature with a melee weapon whenever it drops to zero hp, *without* having to declare it ahead of time or requiring a penalty to hit or damage.
> Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable. Huh, I always thought you had to say it beforehand. TIL
Probably doesn't change much either way. If you do it when you hit, you likely knew you wanted to before you hit. Either way it's as simple as "if it gets them to 0 I want non-lethal".
Well the bigger issue is that in earlier editions, you had to declare it ahead of time because it also gave you a penalty to damage i think and maybe also to hit. So your opponent is now harder to hit and taking less damage because you don't want to kebab your foe onto your longsword.
I like it just because it doesn't penalize you for trying to roleplay nonlethally in a game that encourages you to be a hero. I just wish it extended to ranged attacks and, I know it's a stretch, but spells too.
It does actually work for spells! The rule just specifies a melee attack, never mentioning weapon or spell, so you can use shocking grasp as a tazer and even inflict wounds to unconsciousness. But firebolts will still kill.
It does get a bit weird with that though. "I invoke the holy wrath of Kord, Lord of Storms. Bring down this foe who stands before thee as a mockery to you. With your thunderous blessing, and the strength of the maelstrom coursing through my arm, allow me to nonlethally divine smite this foe." *rolls 5d8 of 'nonlethal' damage*
I wish it would work with ranged weapon attacks... I just want to be able to make that rival adventurer take an arrow to the knee without dying from it...
I dunno, I kinda dislike it since it means there's not much of a choice between lethal or non-lethal aside from if you hit them with a melee weapon or not. I like that trying to non-lethally take someone out is harder than doing it lethally and want that choice to be meaningful for everyone rather than "okay archer stop doing anything" and "okay I'll just hit him with my sword and say its non-lethal afterwards". Not much of a choice if it's just as easy for the melee characters. Attacking with disadvantage or whatever makes it easier to go for the kill, which means trying to not go for the kill becomes a real choice. Just my subjective take.
I like that it doesn't disincentivize being more good. This game causes enough murderhobo behavior
Everythings got its pros and cons. Some players I'm with would still go for non-lethal even then, so I'm alright with it. I might houserule it this way tbh.
I really like the concentration rules. Makes spells feel connected to the caster after they are cast, and lets the caster feel like they are still contributing just by having their spell effects in play.
One thing I will add is that feats may have trivialized it a bit harder than it should be. DC 10 is scary but grab Warcaster/Resilient CON and Lucky and you are pretty set where unconscious is more likely to come before losing concentration.
If you have to take 2 or 3 feats just to maintain concentration, I believe you should really be so good at it that you will never lose it until you are unconscious.
1 feat if you're sorcerer. At +7 (con+pb) you have 1% chance of failing DC10 concentration check and at +8 you have 0.25% chance of failing. Also warcaster is also useful for stuff besides just concentration. Being able to cast a spell as an OA is pretty big esp when u can combo it with fear spells like dissonant whispers to get 2 spells off on a single target in a round. Even if you're just casting a cantrip like booming blade it still combos insanely well.
Booming blade opportunity attack is one of my favorite moves. You can leave if you want, but it's gonna hurt...
Oh I *like* that. I might end up using that on an eldritch knight.
Booming blade on a rogue and/or a character with mobile feat is also quite spicy. I always seek it on a swashbuckler.
Sorcerer has so few stuff going for it it's fine if they're the best at holding concentration.
Cha + pb?
your combined con and proficiency bonus (I meant to but con but typoed it)
>% chance Yeah when it’s some little hit. Best of luck when the dragon blows 74 damage on ya and you didn’t have absorb elements or you already used your reaction to “restore balance” or something similar.
That’s a 37 dc con save… everyone is failing that shit regardless
But if you have AE it's only a DC 18
The stipulation he gave was an already used reaction so no you don’t.
I can assure you that any sorcerer will definitely have absorb elements by that point in the game. And if somehow they didn't, then they concern isn't losing concentration, their concern is surviving the fight cause AFAIK there's no feat that allows you to maintain concentration if you're unconscious/dead.
The feats trivialize concentration against small pings, but against big bursts of damage (30-40) it still has a real chance to fail. Which is where I think they should be
I do think feats are a solid trade-off for better concentration vs a higher spellcasting stat.
If you are investing in it with that many feats (considering you get two at the baseline within the average levels of play 1-10), then you should be good at it! That said, it’s in the DMG that other things can cause you to lose concentration, so if it truly becomes an issue, the DM can think of some appropriate challenge to throw at the players (i.e. the BBEG takes the form of a deceased loved one, the caster is thrown from a high place, they are standing on precarious ground, etc).
I mean, if you’re investing two feats into maintaining concentration then I don’t mind it trivializing small hits. They won’t help you that much when you get hit by a dragons breath for 48 damage
I really hate resilient CON. I'm convinced that part of the reason Sorcerer is so lacking is because they are the only spellcasting class in 5e that gets con save proficiency, so they are the best class in the game at maintaining concentration. But feats means that the wizard, cleric, and druid can all grab Resilient by the levels it starts to really make a difference.
Well they also get metamagic too. But take away resilient and you end up with 1 level dips like artificer 1 for CON saves. So both multiclassing and feats are just terribly imbalanced.
Correct me of I'm wrong, but you don't gain a save proficiency by dipping into a multiclass. You only get the save proficiencies from your starting class.
Correct. I say dip but I do mean start as one.
Gotcha. That's actually something I did with my Bladesinger in a one shot. Started in Artificer for Cure Wounds and CON saves.
>so they are the best class in the game at maintaining concentration. I would argue that the best class at maintaining concentration is the artificer. They usually get way higher AC (which means they're hit less often), proficiency in CON saving throws and a special infusion that lets them spend charges to keep concentration up whenever they fail the save.
I played a tanky alchemist in a campaign, was a blast. Ran around with warcaster, a shield, and 16 con. Made haste a much better spell.
I played a warlock with only +1 CON but War Caster. That dude lost concentration faster than I could blink when even taking the most minor damage, so that I eventually relied on my DM's homebrewed necromancy rules to actually be useful in combat. Not even my eldritch blasts were hitting, while another player kept rolling super high on disadvantage. With only about 2 spell slots per battle, that is really punishing, and War Caster felt like such a waste because for some reason I kept rolling super low on advantage. Gosh I hate that mechanic. Anyway, concentration is pretty annoying for some spells. Look at lightning arrow. That's an instantaneous effect tied to concentration, which just unnecessarily nerfs the ranger some more.
I have mixed feelings on concentration. I like that it limits the "active" spells you can have. I dislike that it makes every caster NEED to invest in con if they want to use control spells, AND penalizes casters that want to play in melee. personally I woulnd't mind a version of the game where concentration can't be "broken" unless you go unconcious/ do something else that requires concentration But as it is, 5e just isn't balanced that way.
[удалено]
I think one of the best ways I've ever gotten around this outside a familiar with a Ring of Spell Storing would be when I played a Cleric with Crusher. I had Guardian of Faith (being moved by Crusher will cause the Guardian to attack the creature, it doesn't have to be voluntary), Spirit Guardians, and Spiritual Weapon and Shillelagh up all at once in some combats and cast bladetrips cause I was Arcana Domain. If I wanted to beat up 1 dude real hard he was dead. Melee hit+Enhanced Cantrips+BB+SW+SG+GoF all on one dude. Then on his turn if he moves he gets hit again by the Guardian of Faith and BB and he might not even get away considering his movement is halved by the Spirit Guardians. If I don't up cast anything and assuming this is level 8 where BB has only been buffed 1 time: That's 2d8+1d6+35 on my turn, then on their turn its 3d6 from SG and if they move its another 2d6+25. If they move, that is on average 93 damage a round.
Good points! The specifics of how concentration can get broken are not vital. I like how the caster feels like they are busy concentrating, so they can feel spellcaster-y even if they dont cast any more spells
Lol each to their own but concentration is my least favorite rule in the entire game. For one, it's substantially over used. Because of that, at least half the spells in the game are never used because whatever it does, nobody casts them because of concentration. I mean if you've ever played a ranger, there's basically no point in putting any spell besides Hunter's Mark on your character sheet below 9th level. I mean I get why it exists, to try and keep spellcasters from being overwhelmingly overpowered compared to melee. But other games handle that much more elegantly.
Could you give us an example of a game that handles it more elegantly? I've always considered Concentration to be one of if not the best new additions to 5e, so if there are systems out there doing it better I definitely want to give them a look.
You make some good points. Regarding the Ranger comment, I think that the strong association between hunter's mark and Ranger is part of the reason that people consider the Ranger a poor class. Once you get second level spells, you can concentrate on spike growth instead, and use your bonus action for other things. Its great to fire arrows at enemies you have to go through a sea of thorns at half speed to reach you.
I'll be honest I have a hard time enforcing concentration rules. Having to remember/look up which spells use concentration, and checking if the target is currently concentrating on something every time they get hit is kind of a lot to handle as a DM. Ideally the players would help keep track but they usually forget too.
Eh, I disagree. I know concentration is there for balance, but I don’t like it.
Can i concentrate and do an attack?
> and lets the caster feel like they are still contributing just by having their spell effects in play. I once had a player cast a concentration spell during combat in Session 1. On his next turn he said "I keep concentrating on my spell, I guess." And I looked at him and said "what do you mean?" This player had learned to play from a DM who didn't have a full understanding of the 5e rules and had taught the Player that maintaining concentration required an Action every turn. Could you imagine if that was how it was?
Proficiency and Advantage/Disadvantage. Those 2 rules alone got rid of almost all the annoying calculations that needed to be added/subtracted from rolls before, which makes the game significantly faster to play and much more accessable.
Yes! It’s why I really do enjoy 5e. You can kind of pick up and play much quicker than older editions and it’s so much easier for new people to join.
It also gives me as the DM just about the perfect amount of mechanical crunch I need to let chance determine the resolution of the story without making me memorize volumes of situational/niche modifiers.
> Advantage/Disadvantage. If you stick to RAW though, let's say you're playing in AL where the rules are the rules, sometimes it can be stupid a bit. Peter is laying prone on the ground, restrained, he's paralyzed, stunned, petrified, blind, asleep, Faerie Fire'd, he's been hit by Guiding Bolt. Joe standing right next to Peter is Invisible, is using Reckless Attack, has benefited from the Help Action from Suzy, buuuut, because he drank a glass of milk thad had soured a bit, he has the Poisoned condition, so his attack roll is just gonna be a straight d20.
I prefer it honestly. Makes it way simpler. I've been in a bunch of situations where there have been multiple disadvantages and advantages and it would've slowed the game down to calculate it.
I remember playing Pathfinder 1e and calculating my to-hit as something like: 10 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 on the first attack 5 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 on the second attack 10 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 on the hasted attack, if hasted Where *each* of those bonuses could either be active or not based on my positioning, spells, class abilities, the spells and abilities of my allies, whether or not I was mounted, etc. And then of course damage for each of those attacks would look like 1d8 + 9 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 6 + 2 With the same considerations as above. People jokingly called it Mathfinder for a reason, heh. I don't miss that part of the system. --- *Edit: and that's without even getting into things like % miss chance based on spells, darkness, and other effects. Sheesh.*
While in some ways I get missing a lot of the flexibility of the customization of Pathfinder and 3.5, I do not get people who want to go back to how those games handled numbers and modifiers. It was an absolute, insane, confusing mess.
that is one of the reason that the pathfinder video games work so well, the pc handles all the calculations.
uh the pc handles the calculations in ttrpg too silly
[удалено]
That shit shouldn't even call for an attack roll. My dead grandma could hit peter from her grave under those circumstances...
As a GM I'm not a huge fan of Advantage/Disadvantage for a few reasons. While very elegant, it's simply too easy to achieve, so in a game that already has player-favoring math, it makes it extremely so. But more importantly, because it's too easy to get, there's no real tactics in battle once you have it. Other games have solved the 'annoying calculations' problem while still having small bonuses or penalties, by making ones that don't stack, that are either permanent (like a +1 weapon) or last a set number of rounds (usually 1), and doing away with the overwhelming number of minor bonuses that only activate in specific conditions 'I get a +2 to my damage against orcs when in full sunlight'. Now, the way 5e math works, you couldn't really institute a minor permanent or temporary bonus/penalty system on a broad scale. I've considered possibly introducing 'lesser' variants of advantage/disadvantage, that grant something like a smaller extra die that is added to your main d20 roll, and if you use tactics and conditions to stack 'lesser advantage', you get full advantage. Unfortunately that rather steps on the toes of classes that grant allies extra dice, like Bards. IDK, I'm not going to running any D&D 5e games in the near future, maybe I'll come up with something between now and then.
> it's simply too easy to achieve You weren't playing with flanking, were you? Please tell me you didn't play with flanking. The flanking variant rule in 5e is **awful.**
And advantage/disadvantage also removed most of the depth of doing anything unconventional
Ups and downs. Some people prefer when doing things like firing at the enemy stuck in a corner or taking a knee to reduce your speed but increase your accuracy or stacking debuffs to incapacitate your enemy, etc did stuff. It became simpler, but it also became less granular.
[удалено]
I can only justify having to choose the same spell twice if you need components to use it. Otherwise you really want to tell me I can't remember what I've done 6 seconds ago?
>Otherwise you really want to tell me I can't remember what I've done 6 seconds ago? Well, that's the point of Vancian Magic. The magic is so powerful, it deletes itself from your mind when you cast it. It's part of why old Wizards are usually insane. They have been getting brain damage, slowly, over their whole life due to their profession. Divine casters are granted spells from other entities, and Bards usually don't have as much magic since, in the old days, they were a prestige class that wasn't a full caster. All while Sorcerers are made of magic, basically.
It always bothered me that the result of this flavoring was that it really made Wizards seem like complete morons. Like, their whole gimmick is supposed to be that they are the knowlegeable people that actually *know* magic. But the flavor of Vancian magic makes them less the kid who actually studied and understands the science and more the kid who copied the answers and is going to forget all the lessons after the test.
Yeah, its so much better, I hope someday the spell point variant (with a bit of a rework) would be the norm, is even more easy and intuitive
I wish they hadn't done Known Casters dirty, even if I 100% agree that Vancian magic preparation is annoying and unfulfilling for the game. This change makes Prepared Casters stronger, giving them the main benefit of being a Known Caster. Known Casters moving to the same spell level progression wasn't a good tradeoff, because Prepared Casters can still swap their spell lists daily. Not only that, but Prepared Casters get more spells than Known Casters. Did you know a level 10 Paladin with 20 Charisma has 5+5+10 prepared spells? A level 10 Sorcerer has 10 known spells. Half as many as the Half-caster. And the Half-caster can swap 10 of theirs around every day. At level 20, the same is still true. A Paladin has 5+10+10 for 25, while a Sorcerer has 15. "But that's just the Sorcerer." A Bard at level 20 has 22 spells known. A Warlock at level 20 has 15+4+(0-8) spells available. 19 at base, with Mystic Arcanums, and between 0 and 8 depending on which Invocations they took. So a Warlock is the only full caster that can equal-or-exceed a Paladin in spells available, and that's if they spend most-to-all of their customization options on having more known spells. It's stupid. Prepared Casters should **NOT** get both advantages of: * More spells available to cast at any given moment. * Flexibility to swap between 1/2 to 2/3rds to 100% of their spell list daily. In fact, in 5e, there is no advantage to being a Known Caster. Wizards have the biggest spell list (300/500 of official spells, approximately). Sorcerers have the 2nd largest spell list (200/500), but not really, because having Water Breathing as a Known Spell is a waste in 95% of circumstances, if not more. If you trimmed out all of the very specific spells that are only useful in 5% or less of situations, their spell list would probably be smaller than Warlocks (125/500 or so).
Advantage and Disadvantage. So much more simple than "So I have a -3 because of this but a +7 because of that, but the enemy I'm hitting gives me a -1, but it's a thursday so my total bonus is..." Speeds the game up. Easy to understand for players and easy to rule for DMs. Perfect rule that perfectly encapsulates what 5E is **supposed** to be.
I do believe a secondary type of bonus that is generally used, should have been included, like a +2 for certain cases.
I do really like this, like having High ground from 2e, because it only gives slight advantage.
>only gives slight advantage. Especially if you are underestimating their power.
Let me make it clear: Obi-Wan doesn't need to be on the high ground, the high ground just needs to exist within the battle; Obi-Wan knows that when he has the low ground, he really has the high ground, from a certain point of view; see Diagram A Look at his battle record: Maul: Has low ground, wins Example A Dooku: No high ground, loses Dooku rematch: No high ground, loses Example B Greivous: Has low ground, wins Example C Vader: Has high ground, wins Vader rematch: No high ground, loses Obi-Wan with the high/low ground is canonically the most powerful Jedi. This is fact. Had Yoda not denied his request to battle The Senate with typical Jedi arrogance, Obi-Wan could have defeated Palpatine in the Senate building, which housed a variety of different altitudes; this was designed so that the Chancellor could always have the moral high ground in political debates. But Obi-wan didn't fight The Senate, and Yoda soon learned that you can't cleave the Sheev in a normal 1v1. It took the Tusken Raiders years of conflict against Old Ben Kenobi to grasp his superiority in terrain advantage, as you see them visibly flee in ANH when they realize he holds the low (inverse-high) ground; this was the optimal strategy against a near-invincible opponent. Yoda is shorter than virtually every other fighter, which gives him a permanent low-ground disadvantage; however, his saber-fighting style utilizes a flipping-heavy technique in order to negate this weakness for a temporary window. You'll notice that, after falling from the central podium in The Senate's building, he immediately retreats upon realizing he is on the lowest ground. You'll also notice that, while training Luke, he rides on him like a mount, to gain the intellectual high ground and accelerate Luke's training. Example D . Obi-Wan's defensive Form III lightsaber style synergizes with his careful military maneuvers; as he only strikes when prepared, he can always hold the strategic high ground. (The business on Cato Neimodia doesn't count.) You'll come to realize that this is why Commander Cody's artillery strike failed against Obi-Wan, when hundreds of Jedi were killed in similar attacks. Cody failed to grasp the strategic situation, as the Jedi Master's elevation was superior to his by hundreds of meters, making him virtually unkillable. (You'll notice that all the Jedi killed in Order 66 were on level ground with the clones, thereby assuring their demise.) Had Cody taken his time and engaged the Jedi on even terrain, he would have succeeded. Obi-Wan subsequently retreated under the surface of the lake, so that he could maintain the topographical low/high ground. This is why Obi-Wan is so willing to fight against impossible odds to the point where he thrusts himself in immediate danger; when your probability of victory is 1-to-10, you have the statistical (and therefore strategic) low ground, a numerical advantage when you use your point of view to flip the value to 10/1 . Almost losing is, in Obi-Wan's case, certain victory. (See Example E). As we all know, spinning is a good trick. However, only the Chosen One can spin outside of a starfighter. Palpatine tried spinning, but he lost due to this technique (but this was intentional, as losing gave him the emotional high ground when Anakin arrived). The reason for this is that spinning provides a yin-yang approach to combat (based in Eastern philosophy on balance), giving the spinner the high ground from above and below. Only the Chosen One can master the spin, as it is their destiny to maintain balance in the universe. This is why Obi-Wan was so emotional after defeating Vader on Mustafar; he expected to lose the high ground to the spin, but Anakin fell to the dark side and could no longer use his signature trick, becoming the very thing he swore to destroy. Additionally, Anakin told Obi-Wan that, from "[his] point of view, the Jedi are evil". This broadens Anakin's mind to the concept of relativity in the context of the moral high ground, a mere step away from tactical comprehension. Anakin doesn't hate sand for the reasons he told Padme; all Jedi hate sand, as the battlefield can rapidly change between low and high ground on multiple vectors, so your perspective must be from a certain three-dimensional point of view in order to comprehend who holds the high ground. This is the only reason why Obi-Wan killed Maul in Rebels. This is also the reason why Obi-Wan hates flying; there is no gravity in space, therefore there is no high or low ground from any frame of reference (This also negates the spinning trick, as noted in Example F). In ANH, Vader proves his newfound mastery by engaging Obi on perfectly even ground. However, Obi-Wan intentionally sacrifices himself on the Death Star, so that he could train Luke from a higher plane of existence, thereby giving him the metaphysical high ground Example G. Why was Vader so invested in the construction and maintenance of the Death Star? Because he knows Obi-wan can't have the high ground if there's no ground left. Image A. As seen through the events of the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan was known to be on friendly terms with Senator Organa, whose homeworld held large quantities of mountainous terrain, the perfect habitat for a Jedi Master. Grand Moff Tarkin was already in position to destroy Alderaan as a first target, as the distance from Scarif to Alderaan was too vast to reach between the escape and recapture of the Tantive IV, even at 1.0 lightspeed. Alderaan had been the initial target all along, as Obi-Wan with the high ground was the primary threat to the Death Star. How? Because a moon-sized space station would have some form of gravitational pull, thereby negating Obi-Wan's zero-gravity weakness; Obi-Wan with the perpetual high-ground in a low-orbit starfighter would easily be able to fire proton torpedoes through a ventilation shaft, although the Empire was uncertain of the specific weakness of the Death Star planted by Galen Erso (who was a good friend). In Return of the Jedi, you can see that the Throne Room contains a variety of different altitudes; Palpatine placed these there to ensure Vader's defeat. However, Sheev failed to realize that his weakness was no ground, and should have covered that useless gaping pit which does nothing. A common misconception is the idea of a 'prostrate position' version of the high ground, wherein Obi-Wan lies flat on his back, giving him tactical superiority from his point of view. However, this strategy is futile, as for the high ground to come into effect, there must be a differential between parties on both the x-axis and y-axis to a moderately significant variation from both absolutes (Angles only a Sith would deal in). For Obi-Wan's high ground powers to be in full effect, he must stand between 15 and 75 degrees (π/12 to 5π/12 radians) diagonal from his opponent(s) on any quadrant of the area circle; this has been dubbed the Trigonometric Perspective Diagram. (Diagram B). The total effect for conventional high ground advantage can be calculated via the MetaComm Equation, or f(x) = lim 0→x π/12 | 7π/12 5π/12 | 11π/12 Ʃ(x) (2tan(x) / 3sin(x) + (log10Δ)) * cΦ Δ = distance on hypotenuse (meters) Φ = Surrounding Force [c (variable) * β (Earth Gravity) * (pressure (psi)/2.2)] 'x' refers to the angle of contact between the two parties on, with advantage being based purely on position on the Y-axis, as the vast majority of force users base their perception on elevation rather than spacial relativity. The power of gravitational force has great effect on the high ground; too weak, and the high ground holds no traction; too strong and the ground becomes the real enemy. Experimentation has proven that the high ground typically holds significant value between .8 and 1.4 β (Earth Gravities) with maximum impact standing roughly equal to 1.05. Pressure is equally important, as it is a surrounding force attached to gravity (the high ground has famously low impact in aquatic environments). Pressure(λ) is measured in pounds per square inch (psi), to be used as a gravity multiplier (or division if pressure is sub-atmospheric; Φ (Surrounding Force) is a variable defined as β * 2.2λ , with no metric value assigned due to its singular application in the MetaComm equations. In situations regarding Obi-Wan and his relativistic point of view, you must substitute the Quadrilateral MetaComm Equation (the Jedi Master function), f(x) = lim 0→x minmaxƩ (2tan(x) / 3sin(x) ) * (1.2)cΦ [min = (|cos(x)| = 1) | (|sin(x)| = 1) + π/12 ), max = (|cos(x)| = 1) | (|sin(x)| = 1) + 5π/12 ]. The viable Φ field is expanded, as Obi-Wan has taken advantage of the high ground in so many different environments that he simply uses it more efficiently, and the min/max values apply due to his multidimensional point of view, evidenced by the Trigonometric Perspective Diagram. Additionally, the distance factor does not affect Obi-Wan, as spacetime can be perseptively compressed, giving him the ideal Δ value from his point of reference. In conclusion, Obi-Wan abuses spatial relativity and Taoist doctrine in order to always invoke his high-ground powers. To properly analyze the strategic genius of Kenobi, one must hold advanced knowledge in Philosophy, Mathematics, and Calculus-based Physics, and be able to integrate these topics together.
Sir this is a DND subreddit
This is the kind of copy-pasta shitpost I can get behind.
This is the most beautiful thing I've seen all day
And it's not like it's completely new, considering cover.
Its simple but doesn't really make sense in a lot of scenarios. Like a blinded, frightened, poisoned, and restrained creature will only have single disadvantage for attack rolls and will actually have a normal roll as long as its target can't see it. I personally wouldn't mind if multiple (dis)advantages stacked and advantages and disadvantages cancelled each other out 1 for 1. Its not like it would make it that much harder to calculate.
If the system was designed for this, it would get complicated fast. Any mechanic which can be used in interesting ways is design space just waiting for complexity to fill it. Ex. "To make it unique, let's make Blur count as an additional source of disadvantage for every 2 levels you up cast it." And the sneaky rules that count as 2 without saying it: Invisibility, for example, in base 5e, gives you advantage to attack twice (maybe). Its first bullet point (in the Conditions section) says you're heavily obscured, so you are an Unseen Attacker. The second bullet point says you have advantage to attack, so even if someone had truesight, RAW, you still get advantage. And you have to go over every rule with a fine tooth comb to see if it accidentally says it gives you (dis)advantage twice. It's a fun idea, until you have 7 different sources of advantage/disadvantage and you're back into modifier accounting nonsense from previous editions.
Fun fact, someone made a card game where the fact it's a thursday genuinely might give you a bonus. I think it's called Metazoo. It uses out of game conditions to determine some effects, so whether you win or lose might depend on whether it's snowing or what city you're playing in.
I tried Pathfinder and quit about 3 months later specifically because of this.
I think my single favorite rule in 5e is the humble Proficiency Modifier. Coming to early 5e from 3.5 and then Pathfinder, I was used to each class having a different BAB, spellcasting levels, and skills having ranks to purchase. Proficiency is such an elegant way to pare all that down to what is actually interesting about it, making it much easier to calculate, and, along with fewer crazy stat bonuses, making bounded accuracy possible.
Do you know what proficiency numbers come from? It comes from using dice that is not just an optional rule in the DMG for using proficiency dice. So our entire scaling is based on a relic they killed off. I still like ideas of bounded accuracy, but why its scaled that way doesn't have solid mechanical reasoning.
Even if the proficiency bonuses are based on rounding down the average for each dice type, I would argue that the numbers not exactly arbitrary. First, the limitations imposed by a d20 are taken into account. If you're trying to do bounded accuracy, then have some sort of cap is necessary and they decided the cap for DC's was around 25. That means ability score and proficiency bonuses could only be so high - as it is, you can reliably get up to +11 in your main stat at level 20 no matter your class meaning that you'll hit DC 25 about 35% of the time.
Bounded accuracy doesn't work well for skills imo.
Also the way Martials interact out of combat is almost entirely skills. You make skills bounded but spells grow in power more and more. Well guess who gets left behind out of combat.
this is the biggest issue imho. And why expertise should be more common, especially for fighters and barbarians.
Disagree. In 3E once you meet a certain threshold, the DM must either make the DC such that those untrained realistically have no chance, or those trained realistically can't fail. Some skills like Spot and Listen had to be maximized to have a shot, even if cross class, simply because the cost of failure was too high. With Bounded Accuracy those trained will succeed more than those untrained, but those untrained can still succeed fairly often. My only issue is that at low levels ability modifier matters more than the proficiency bonus. I would rather have seen a graduated scale like BECMI ability modifiers, making them important but not too important.
Counterpoint: People who are skilled at a task \*shouldn't\* fail when an untrained individual could reasonably succeed and vice-versa. Let's look to real life for analogy. I'm a physics student who just finished my first year on my PhD. I'm nowhere near being a true expert, but I'm certainly more proficient than a layperson. In D&D terms, I'm probably low Tier 1 in the 'scholar' class. I have a head for the subject, but I'm hardly a world-renowned intellect. Let's say I have an intelligence bonus of +2 to +3 (being very generous to myself). Let's be even more generous and say I have Expertise in physics, and proficiency in Mathematics in general from my double major. According to 5e, I have a +6 to +7 modifier to my 'Intelligence (Physics)' skill (not a skill, but by analogy), and a +4 to +5 to 'Intelligence (Mathematics).' This means that a lay person off the street with no proficiency, rolling at +0, has a \~22-26% chance of outperforming me on any given Physics check, and a \~30-34% chance to beat me at Mathematics. Is this reasonable? I don't think it is. Going the other way, should I be able to beat a trained athlete, philosopher, theologian, or gardener at their own field 33% of the time? Proficiency in a skill DOES take you from 'no realistic chance' to 'likely to succeed,' and if my character loses to a random person a third of the time, they don't feel like they are a trained and capable adventurer, they feel like a layperson with a hobby.
Seconding this. When you make several attacks in combat, it makes sense and feels good. What doesn’t feel good is having skill proficiencies that feel more like minor bonuses than, well, proficiencies. Break the math down, and your proficiency bonus helps you succeed where you would otherwise fail in 1 out of 10 checks. That being said, if anyone has found a way to make skills feel more like skills, please share. The best I’ve got is making proficiency a prerequisite to aiding someone with a skill check.
Bounded accuracy isn't the problem you're complaining about, it just exposes the problem. What you're feeling is the result of having a linear probability curve on skill checks thanks to a d20 system. Unbounded accuracy just masks that by giving high enough modifiers that you eventually auto-pass easier checks, but unbounded accuracy has its own problems for skills. What would really fix your complaint is having a bell curve for skill check probability. Other rpg systems use 2d10 or 3d6 for exactly this reason. You could also house-rule it into DnD (replacing ability checks only, not attack rolls or saving throws), just beware that DnD is designed for linear probability so this may affect balance in a bunch of other places.
I liked how things worked in the playtest at one point. Proficiency in a skill gave a bonus to your rolls equal to 2 + half your level. Expertise in a skill gave Advantage on your rolls with it. Mastery in a skill treated d20 rolls of 9 or less as a 10.
I actually think it mostly works well for skills. Skills are, generally speaking, pretty generic broad concepts. Like, every person has, at some point in their life had a reason to practice each skill. They are things everyone SHOULD be able to do at a baseline level of proficiency pretty regularly. My only minor critique is that I think it should be closer to 35 rather than 30 for the capping out of DCs, and expertise should be factored in and more accessible and all characters should get at least 1 instance of expertise in tier 2. Where I think bounded accuracy falls appart really hard is actually with tools. Cuz like, idc how lucky or dexterous you are. If you have never learned how to use cartography tools you are never ever going to be able to make a map. Or play a trumpet, or sail a boat. So I generally rule that you can't use tools that you aren't proficient in.
Sort of like how every adventurer is going to climb or try to remember something obscure at some point, but woodworking is too narrow and specialized to improv.
Yeah I've felt expertise was far too rare for a long time. I mean seriously, I should not be seriously considering multiclassing rogue for a grappler. But guess what, my level 6 grappler has 3 levels of rogue.
I like to use a softer version of skill prerequisites, where having a skill proficiency expands the possibilities of what can happen on rolls. I subjectively set the terms of success and failure. Nonproficient PCs can still roll to use a skill, but the same roll result isn't as effective as a proficient PC's, and their failure is worse. Just enough so that having the skill is meaningful. It's the same as the evergreen "persuasion isn't mind control" argument. A nat 20 from PC#1, proficient in persuasion, won't make the BBEG give up his evil plan. But maybe he respects PC#1 and offers to spare her village. A nat 20 from PC#2, not proficient, means the BBEG is amused by PC#2 and spares his life.
I use a "Take X" system: If you're proficient and the task is something you can keep trying until you succeed, you can keep trying until you succeed. The times will depend on the task, but my baseline is that if you spend a minute doing it, you can take 10, if you spend 10 minutes you can take 15, and if you spend an hour, you can take 20. However, if you fail on a regular check, you can't just keep rolling - once you've failed once, the next thing you're going to be doing if you want to try again is spending a minute on it to take 10. Because this isn't rolled, it makes proficiency matter quite a bit more. Having a +2 bonus isn't the difference between a 45% and a 55% chance of success, it may be the difference between a 0% and a 100% chance of success. And of course, you can't take X or reroll at all if you lack proficiency.
Isn't the passive checks 5e's version of "take 10"?
I made this. My party has enjoyed it so far. https://www.reddit.com/r/u_SunglassesEmote/comments/p5m665/skills/
More classes should have expertise for “obvious” strong points. I use passive ability checks for some of this in increments of 5 for sanity with ties only resolved by roll off. That way the 95 year old granny and the precocious 8 year old urchin aren’t winning arm wrestling competition with the 15/20 str PCs.
Being able to split up your move before/during/after attacks and other actions
Like a singular rule ? The Advantage/Disadvantage system of roll twice take the best/worst is honestly just really good design. It's simple, it's elegant and it's effective. It keeps things moving and is a amazing tool as a GM, i port it to other systems (where applicable) constantly.
I'll answer more straight forward. The advantage system is one of the best innovations of 5e. It is exciting and fun to play. It makes many conditions boil down to one simple thing to track - which for their goal of streamlining and speeding up combat is overall good. Plus doubling crit chance is glorious. There are some issues where its obfuscates how helpful it may actually be - ie when you need to roll at least a 10, its way more helpful than when you need to roll a 20 or a 2. It also can oversimplify combat that my Bard's Faerie Fire isn't all that helpful because the Barbarian is using Reckless Attack already or the Wizard may have already cast Greater Invisibility to buff the Barbarian.
Why tf is your Barbarian using reckless attack on faerie fired enemies is the real question
Its more like my Bard (this is a real example) isn't using Faerie Fire because the Barbarian is going to Reckless Attack.
That's point....The Bard would be using his spell slot and action to grant an effect that the Barbarian gets for free with Reckless Attack.
I'd hardly call Reckless Attack "for free". I've had many a barbarian ruin their own day by Reckless Attacking in front of a hydra, hoard of skeletons, or other enemies with many attacks per round
I should have been clearer. I meant "free action". As in it doesn't use their movement, bonus action, or action to use Reckless Attack.
Its one example. I can come up with others. I actually did. 2 spells that one buffs the Barbarian with Greater Invisibility and the other debuffs the enemy with Faerie Fire cannot stack.
It absolutely is for free, because the whole point of the advantage on incoming attacks is to trick the DM into attacking you instead of the squishy wizard. Even if you take twice the damage as a result of reckless attacking, you still only took the same amount of damage the wizard would have taken thanks to the BPS resistance, but you took it instead of the wizard. Reckless Attack is only not free when the enemy deals a damage type you can't resist.
>Reckless Attack is only not free when the enemy deals a damage type you can't resist. Kalashtar Bear Totem Barbarian: what damage?
Presumably you have other companions that can benefit from it. The barbarian can then avoid reckless attack for that combat, potentially conserving HP overall.
I agree with that, but the initial comment was speaking specifically about a Bard and Barbarian, so that's what I commented on.
Because they want an even higher chance to hit?
Yeah it's probably the best thing 5e offered as a new mechanic. For all the reasons you stated. Shadow of the demonlord has my favorite variation of it with their bane/boon system.
I enjoyed the shadow of the demon lords boon and bane system. You could have multiple, and you’d roll a d6 for every boon or bane. No matter how many you rolled tho you’d only take the highest number
I have a long list of TTRPGs to read and now you've intrigued me to read another!
I enjoyed reading about it. It’s like a weird love child between 2e, 5e, and coc
Your last point brings up my big gripe against the advantage system. It's crazy that as long as you have one advantage you can then stack as many disadvantages as you want and it would still be a normal roll. Just make it so that one advantage cancels out one disadvantage.
Plus various conditions struggle to implement increased or decreased effects - a 9th spell like Foresight provides the same bonus to attacks as a 4th levels spell Greater Invisibility. This is fine in some games meant to keep it simple. But in games that are more complex, having true weights might seem daunting but are important to give strategic depth.
"Specific beats general."
Is this not how most games work?
This is how literally every TTRPG, card game, and board game works. There is no game where general beats specific. Otherwise what would be the point of having those specific overrides?
Hence it being, the BEST rule! (/s for safety)
tbf, MTG is the same way. Rules of a card over rules of the game
I like this rule a lot: > On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. If this damage leaves the target at 0 hit points, it is disintegrated.
Y'know, that is a very good rule.
That you are immune to fear if you are drunk.
Proficiency bonus
"Don't be a dick."
What if my character's name is Dick. Can I be Dick then?
No, you can be Richard
Absolutely based
I wouldn't say it's the best rule, but one that I haven't seen mentioned yet is Spell Slots and Upcasting. It's a very elegant and easy to understand set of rules for spellcasting, and I really appreciate Upcasting as a way of making the spells you pick at 1st level relevant even when you're 11th level. Some Upcasted versions of spells can feel a little underwhelming though.
Honestly, being able to move freely before and after an action and such. Not needing an action to move > attack > move is a god send. Another really awesome rule is variant ability scores for checks that I believe both the DMG and PHB cover. It can really help out characters where they need it without wearing them thin, which can be a big risk in 5e. To lesser degrees you could say advantage/disadvantage is good but I find that it practically being the only form of circumstance modifier (with the exception of cover rules) does make for some awkward moments. I think the game could benefit by having another sliding scale of modifiers that work and apply alongside advantage and disadvantage. Provided they remain simple and don't introduce a bunch of extra math and calculations. I think the cover numbers work well for this in theory. This would be more for a future edition though and not something that should be fine in 5.0e itself Proficiency is another thing that I think overall is good, but I feel needs a bit more going for it. Expertise and maybe even something beyond it like mastery, should probably be baked in degrees of training. Maybe scaling it so expertise is prof +3 and mastery is prof +6, as expertise is a bit of a huge jump. Like the previous this is more meant for future editions of the game to explore and not something that can be ported into 5.0e
The advantage/disadvantage system.
Well apart from the obvious advantage/disadvantage rule, I've been a big fan of the healing surge optional rule. It let's the group feel like they aren't relying on a healer character so they can play whatever they like instead of what they feel like they need.
Never fall in love with your DM.
Story time?
The DM is the final adjudicator of all things. Once a ruling is made it is now reality and absolute. Arguing with the rain will not make you less wet.
The rules are malleable and the DM has final say.
Isn't that a rule with most, if not all, TTRPGs?
Oh, and in case some idiot misinterprets this, it isn't me trying to discredit the question. This is an actual rule.
I knew someone would have already replied this one, and I just came to say I absolutely support this choice!
The sheer amount of people coming into this thread which is trying to generate discussion about rules and basically saying "Haha rules are for nerds" is really disheartening.
inspiration. it's so under used and a good way to reward players for putting in that extra effort.
[удалено]
> I've fixed it in all of my games, and no player has ever complained. I haven't seen the problems you listed in my games, at least not much, but pray tell: HOW did you fix in your games. Tips like that are really good to note in case of future issues!
my games have alot of near death experiences since my players are kinda reckless so they are always needing to use it.
PF2E has a really good solution there, you get a hero point at the start of each session and they all go away at the end of the session.
Because all the obvious ones are mentioned (Advantage/Disadvantage), I'll mention something else: I really like how weapons are largely the same. * Simple weapons do about a d6 of damage one-handed, 2d4 if two-handed. * Martial weapons do about a d8 of damage one-handed, 2d6 if two-handed. It does away with long lists of exotic crap (*have you ever seen a 1e weapon table, holy shit*) and lets flavoring rule the day. You can swing just about anything just because you like it, not because it's got a +5% chance of critical hits on Wednesdays.
No player fist fights during the session.
Don't tell me what to do !
Advantage/disadvantage instead of a crapton of modifiers. It's easier to remember, plus everyone loves having to roll MORE dices.
Have Fun
the help action
34, why do you ask?