|
Dragonatrix posted:Inspiration is not at all the same thing as giving a Fighter carte blanche Advantage on all Charisma checks because they want to be charistmatic but also not useless in combat Y'all should check out Strike, where you have to invent your own setting but there are multiple viable martial classes and your out-of-combat capabilities are completely divorced from your combat class/role lifehack: you can use one of your leftover dnd settings!
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Y'all should check out Strike, where you have to invent your own setting but there are multiple viable martial classes and your out-of-combat capabilities are completely divorced from your combat class/role Yes the entire arc of this discussion is that "some poo poo D&D does isn't well thought-out, and sometimes it's done better by a different game, and it tends to involve less work to switch to a game whose improvements over D&D are already written for you rather than you trying to rectify D&D by yourself"
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Inspiration is not at all the same thing as giving a Fighter carte blanche Advantage on all Charisma checks because they want to be charistmatic but also not useless in combat He didn't say that, he said "Give him advantage on his +0 persuasion roll when he gets really into it." Getting really into it sure sounds like "otherwise portraying your character in a compelling way" to me, as a DM that wants his players to have fun.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Delete the charisma score and social skills and move on
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
What are the good lv 1 paladin spells, btw? I finally got to play another ToA session and Bolf Grudger leveled up i'm using maul + great weapon fighting, so I figured Divine Favor would be good, and then.. what, thunderous smite or compelled duel for some control? Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 15:34 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:TL;DR 1 Rogue dip with levels in a class with multiple attacks, such as Barbarian, Fighter (Battle Master), or Monk (Open Hand). Or levels in straight Bard. Thank you. And thank you for the link to the handbook. I've forgotten the specific level (either 4 or 5, it's part of an anthology series of one-shots running whenever the full group cannot make the game), but Rouge 01/Fighter 03 or 4 should be relatively viable without much trouble, right? Because one of the problems I run into when building characters with optimization and gimmicks in mind is that I'm always way under powered compared to where the rest of the party ends up, meaning I drag the group down. I'm hoping that this build can avoid that. (Ask me about having a real fun Chaos Mage using Wild Magic features only for my spell slots to all be really situational buffs/social deals at low levels so I can't chain Tides of Chaos at all.) Gharbad the Weak posted:If you don't know to take levels in bard or rogue to make a barehanded grappler then maybe put in an iota of effort you apparent fuckin' simpleton, you literal plebeian Thank you. I appreciate this. gradenko_2000 posted:Yes the entire arc of this discussion is that "some poo poo D&D does isn't well thought-out, and sometimes it's done better by a different game, and it tends to involve less work to switch to a game whose improvements over D&D are already written for you rather than you trying to rectify D&D by yourself" We must imagine Sisyphus is happy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Delete the charisma score and social skills and move on Ignore the skill system entirely, allow automatic success when reasonable or when the player adequately describes the steps they take accomplish the desired objective, and promote the aesthetic that player action trumps rolls.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Baby T. Love posted:He didn't say that, he said "Give him advantage on his +0 persuasion roll when he gets really into it." Getting really into it sure sounds like "otherwise portraying your Elfgames posted:What happens if you have a player who's playing a bard who in backstory is just as charismatic as your "fixed" fighter only he has the stats to back it up? do you give him advantage for when he gets into it? What if the guy playing the "charismatic" fighter isn't a good roleplayer but he wants to play someone more eloquent than himself?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Ignore the skill system entirely, allow automatic success when reasonable or when the player adequately describes the steps they take accomplish the desired objective, and promote the aesthetic that player action trumps rolls. Works for me. Either have them roleplay it out or if they aren't comfortable with that just describe the steps like you said. Problem solved
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Ignore the skill system entirely, allow automatic success when reasonable or when the player adequately describes the steps they take accomplish the desired objective, and promote the aesthetic that player action trumps rolls.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Its a double edged sword, frankly. Part of the point of skills like Investigation and Perception is to notice the bed is a little off-kilter, and there's a shimmering glint from underneath it. If the party is proactive and takes the initiative they should be rewarded, because you don't need to roll investigation if you already are looking where you need to be. However, general exploration should be reinforced, because otherwise players will get frustrated when they were arbitrarily told they didn't succeed.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Same question: Our initial problem was that we can't make a charismatic fighter. The Inspiration rule can solve that problem. This separate problem of "I have a player that, as a fighter, is upset that they can't be as effective as the bard whose specialty in the RPG is being charismatic, despite the Inspiration system allowing them to roleplay as a relatively charismatic person" is one you'd have to solve yourself at the table, as it seems like an issue with the players not reconciling their conflicting interests. I don't think the rulebook can be expected to find a way to fix that kind of problem.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Real thing that happened: "I look at the lake." "It's clear all the way to the bottom." "Ok, I go into the lake." "All right, you're attacked by (some number over 100) piranhas." "You didn't say there were piranhas in the lake!" "Ah, you said you looked AT the lake, not IN the lake!" So I'm generally on the side that general perception checks should give you useful information, even if the player is not specific. But, no system can defend against the bad gm. Edit: Using inspiration to compensate for the fighter's mechanical weakness that they will be less capable when they focus on charisma removes the, what I assume is, primary goal of inspiration, which is a reward mechanism. It doesn't solve the problem, and it's either used consistently (which means it's not really a reward but expected, and will possibly create bad feelings when NOT given out), or inconsistently (now the ____ class wants inspiration on ______ checks, and claims favoritism otherwise). It also means that this fighter doesn't have a way to be rewarded for good roleplay beyond the mechanical crutch inspiration is being used as, unless you create some other system specific to the fighter. Or the game could make charisma potentially useful to core fighter elements and everything else works as intended. Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 15:50 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Baby T. Love posted:Our initial problem was that we can't make a charismatic fighter. The Inspiration rule can solve that problem. This separate problem of "I have a player that, as a fighter, is upset that they can't be as effective as the bard whose specialty in the RPG is being charismatic, despite the Inspiration system allowing them to roleplay as a relatively charismatic person" is one you'd have to solve yourself at the table, as it seems like an issue with the players not reconciling their conflicting interests. I don't think the rulebook can be expected to find a way to fix that kind of problem.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Baby T. Love posted:Our initial problem was that we can't make a charismatic fighter. The Inspiration rule can solve that problem. This separate problem of "I have a player that, as a fighter, is upset that they can't be as effective as the bard whose specialty in the RPG is being charismatic, despite the Inspiration system allowing them to roleplay as a relatively charismatic person" is one you'd have to solve yourself at the table, as it seems like an issue with the players not reconciling their conflicting interests. I don't think the rulebook can be expected to find a way to fix that kind of problem. you're wrong
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
I'm confused, is the fighter supposed to earn inspiration by attempting charisma-linked skills with the wrong stats and then use those points to roll better at fighting, or is he supposed to earn inspiration by attempting combat with the wrong stats and then use it to roll better on charisma-linked skills?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Skills aren't intrinsically linked to any stat. There's even a sidebar (I think it's in the DMG?) that suggests the DM be open to letting players make interesting rolls like Persuasion (Strength) if they make a good argument for it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
SettingSun posted:Skills aren't intrinsically linked to any stat. There's even a sidebar (I think it's in the DMG?) that suggests the DM be open to letting players make interesting rolls like Persuasion (Strength) if they make a good argument for it. I feel like this exists pretty much only for the social skills, which is another sign that maybe they shouldn't exist in their current form.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Yeah I mostly-explicitly make a lot of social situations just like, explicitly tests of the player's ability to within-character persuade or use leverage against whatever character they're talking to, just like I prefer actual thoughtful investigation from the player over rolling insight or investigation or whatever. Mental skills are weird and addressing the conundrum by explicitly putting some tasks in the hands of the player instead of their character sheet seems better than attempting to mechanically balance them using the same system that decides whether your attacks hit or miss. You're free to roleplay and adjust for your character but I'd rather the group brainstorms about what seems important in any given place than roll a check and tell them. This is especially true when searching a room. What gameplay value is there in rolling a check to search a room? Sure when there's time pressure it could be interesting, but even if someone fails, they're going to know they failed and then the next guy will be like "I search, as well", and someone will pass. This way, your character's charisma is the stat for casting charisma spells, and doing charisma saves (whatever the gently caress those are). The player's charisma is used in social situations. Same for int except recalling information about the world I'm happy to have a check for. (Though again, same issue, does everyone get to roll?) Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
I agree with some of what you're saying, but not all of it. I think if someone wants to play a suave charmer, but is shy and unconfident in real life, putting them in the spot like that is unfair. It isn't like to make an athletics roll, you have to do a Double Dare physical challenge. I think at minimum, a player should describe what they are doing instead of just grunting out a skill name and rolling. But I'd rather reward that thoughtfulness with bonuses than further penalize people.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This is especially true when searching a room. What gameplay value is there in rolling a check to search a room? Sure when there's time pressure it could be interesting, but even if someone fails, they're going to know they failed and then the next guy will be like "I search, as well", and someone will pass. If you're going to houserule things anyway, the "one and done" is a useful crutch: players can only ever roll on a thing once, even if they're free to volunteer whoever in the party would be best suited to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah I mostly-explicitly make a lot of social situations just like, explicitly tests of the player's ability to within-character persuade or use leverage against whatever character they're talking to, just like I prefer actual thoughtful investigation from the player over rolling insight or investigation or whatever. Mental skills are weird and addressing the conundrum by explicitly putting some tasks in the hands of the player instead of their character sheet seems better than attempting to mechanically balance them using the same system that decides whether your attacks hit or miss. You're free to roleplay and adjust for your character but I'd rather the group brainstorms about what seems important in any given place than roll a check and tell them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Do you also make your strong guys bench press before you let them muscle a door open, or require your rogue to pluck the d20 from your hand before she can make a stealth check?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Rogue has to successfully win at a game of Hide and Seek for every attempted Stealth check. Party stealth is a game of sardines instead.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Do you also make your strong guys bench press before you let them muscle a door open, or require your rogue to pluck the d20 from your hand before she can make a stealth check? I mean, mandating it is bad, but I think you could get some fun out at like some sort of summer camp deal with the option of changing a failure into a success on the completion of a Physical Challenge.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Relatively new to this thread, how long does it usually take for this endless shitshow nightmare to peter out?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:Relatively new to this thread, how long does it usually take for this endless shitshow nightmare to peter out? I'm afraid I've got some bad news.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:Relatively new to this thread, how long does it usually take for this endless shitshow nightmare to peter out?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
I generally do skill stuff like Jeffrey of Yospos does it too but we kind of already ignore the terrible skill system in my group when we play D&D (which is very rarely).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I agree with some of what you're saying, but not all of it. I think if someone wants to play a suave charmer, but is shy and unconfident in real life, putting them in the spot like that is unfair. It isn't like to make an athletics roll, you have to do a Double Dare physical challenge. I don't need to test their ability to benchpress because they have a strength score for that. I'm explicitly making charisma scores govern some things, and player's speech choices govern others. Player intelligence and charisma are something I want to explicitly reward at the table in a way bench pressing is not because I want a table full of players pushing themselves to demonstrate those things. I don't think ability scores are a good way to do that while I think they work fine for "do you lift the heavy thing?".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Like my hypothesis is "Mental skills are strange because humans only have one mind and its not really possible to accurately imagine yourself inside another one, physical skills are entirely conceivable and lifting a heavy thing that you personally can't lift is easy enough to imagine. Rather than trying to jam mental skills into the same square hole as physical ones, explicitly cordon them off as something different, use the numerical scores for in-game mechanics like spells, recalling knowledge, noticing latent sensory information and the player's mind for conscious mental tasks."
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:Relatively new to this thread, how long does it usually take for this endless shitshow nightmare to peter out?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Like my hypothesis is "Mental skills are strange because humans only have one mind and its not really possible to accurately imagine yourself inside another one, physical skills are entirely conceivable and lifting a heavy thing that you personally can't life is easy enough to imagine. Rather than trying to jam mental skills into the same square hole as physical ones, explicitly cordon them off as something different, use the numerical scores for in-game mechanics like spells, recalling knowledge, noticing latent sensory information and the player's mind for conscious mental tasks." 1) D&D is primarily an escapist fantasy, and someone that wants to imagine being a suave charmer is unable to do so unless they can back it up at the table. 2) If there's a score on your character sheet for "Charisma", you should probably be very clear what it is and isn't used for and how that's different from the score that says "Strength" IMO. Again, if that's all cool with you and your group, then play on.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
I'd argue the act of writing as a whole disproves that. Sure, you can't 100% divorce your mind from your writing, but you can definitely protray someone different from yourself. If you're DMing aren't you already doing that by definition? I do agree its just more fun and dynamic to have people choose their angles and set up plans, but I'd want that for physical skills too. I'd handle a player shoulder checking a door, smashing its hinges off with an axe, or prying it open with his bare hands quite differently, and that could influence difficulty, consequences of failure, and how success plays put quite differently. I won't ask the nitty gritty of which muscle groups you put into your boulder lifting, because that's silly, but I'd find it equally silly to do that for "I listen at the door as a watchman." That said, every group is different, and if yours are happy you're doing your job as a DM perfectly.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Being able to "write" (whatever that means in the context of "being a player who wants to have a high Charisma stat") and mandating that a player has to be a confident public speaker in order to play a character that is a confident public speaker is not remotely the same thing. There are skill rolls that exist for a reason; if you make the player convincing you, the GM, a mandatory requirement to be able to use their talking skills then you're just being a dick for no reason. And an inconsistent one at that. You do that, the person who plays the Fighter better demolish the room, knock your living room door off its hinges, wrestle a dragon and benchpress all sorts of insanely heavy poo poo. The player who plays a Wizard better actually cast the spells he wants to etc. etc. To say nothing of how different people in a group can have different levels of comfort with regards to talking in character at all and just narrating third-person. Expecting everyone to immediately be able to run with the former and telling them they're not allowed to play if they can't is hella bullshit. Lotus Aura fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:Relatively new to this thread, how long does it usually take for this endless shitshow nightmare to peter out? new thread title
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Being able to "write" (whatever that means in the context of "being a player who wants to have a high Charisma stat") and mandating that a player has to be a confident public speaker in order to play a character that is a confident public speaker is not remotely the same thing. There are skill rolls that exist for a reason; if you make the player convincing you, the GM, a mandatory requirement to be able to use their talking skills then you're just being a dick for no reason. And an inconsistent one at that. You do that, the person who plays the Fighter better demolish the room, knock your living room door off its hinges, wrestle a dragon and benchpress all sorts of insanely heavy poo poo. The player who plays a Wizard better actually cast the spells he wants to etc. etc. Bringing up writing was more my take on the mindset hypothesis. I find it hard to believe that people can't put themselves in another's shoes in when we've had authors writing through other perspectives besides their own for centuries. Its why I disagree that social skills shouldn't be a thing. Axing mental and social skills also means people comfy with improv get drastically more character options than people who aren't, and you can never play a character smarter than you in any meaningful fashion. Which, yeah, not really cool.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:I think that's fine as long as you're up front about it, though doing it that way potentially misses two things: Listening at a door is something I *would* roll a skill for(or just tell them if anything comes, depending on the stakes) because there's no actual sound for the player to hear. They'd have to say "I listen at the door" and not "I roll perception" at least but yeah. Dragonatrix posted:Being able to "write" (whatever that means in the context of "being a player who wants to have a high Charisma stat") and mandating that a player has to be a confident public speaker in order to play a character that is a confident public speaker is not remotely the same thing. There are skill rolls that exist for a reason; if you make the player convincing you, the GM, a mandatory requirement to be able to use their talking skills then you're just being a dick for no reason. And an inconsistent one at that. You do that, the person who plays the Fighter better demolish the room, knock your living room door off its hinges, wrestle a dragon and benchpress all sorts of insanely heavy poo poo. The player who plays a Wizard better actually cast the spells he wants to etc. etc. It does mean, if you want to play a character that is socially apt, you must be to some degree. It's definitely not a way to run things if your players aren't comfortable with that but that kinda goes without saying. It's not an issue at my table though because my players are down.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Hey, if you're GMing D&D for Tom Cruise then gently caress it, go nuts. I don't think you are though, and expecting people to "pretend" to be professional gymnasts but requiring them to be professional actors is insanely hosed up. You're playing imaginary elf-games, not shooting a movie. If you can suspend your disbelief enough for magic to be able to exist, dragons and owlbears and poo poo to be able to own dudes, and the 7 year old girl to be pretend to be a giant swole Goliath who can piledrive a whale then Gary should be allowed to play someone who's confident Lotus Aura fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Hey, if you're GMing D&D for Tom Cruise then gently caress it, go nuts. I don't think you are though, and expecting people to "pretend" to be professional gymnasts but requiring them to be professional actors is insanely hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 17:44
|
|