d&d 5th edition

[dmw71]

To be perfectly honest my opinion has changed on 5e quite a bit from my initial replies to this topic.... I have a lot of love for 5e compared to my stubborn closed minded initial ways.

[GreyWolfVT]

To be perfectly honest my opinion has changed on 5e quite a bit from my initial replies to this topic.... I have a lot of love for 5e compared to my stubborn closed minded initial ways.

That's a good thing Dave I love 5e

[dmw71]

That's a good thing Dave I love 5e

Oh, I know it's a good thing. My shock is that you've taken to it as much as you have.

[Alethan]

Dave,

Thought this Hack & Slash post might be of some interest to you...

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/201 ... s-and.html

(But NOBODY ELSE can click on that link. Sorry...)

Al

[Rex]

Looks cool.
Sorry I looked.

[dmw71]

Thought this Hack & Slash post might be of some interest to you...

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/201 ... s-and.html

I looked, too.

I've referred to the Hack & Slash site in the past, and Courtney, the author of said blog, has some really useful posts. The thing is, and I realize this is going to come off as sounding blasphemous to many, but after playing 5e for the past 1.5 years or so, I kind of prefer the "new" way of doing things.

Don't get me wrong, in theory I like a lot of the old school approaches. I've always been big on resource management, for instance. And enforcing things like darkvision. However, those more "realistic" rules are a pain in the arse to manage, and the cost (e.g. staying on top of players to manage these details on their own, or outright managing them yourself; bickering over discrepancies; etc...) seems to outweigh the benefit (e.g. forcing a player to decide if/when their character is going to use their last arrow, or eat their last ration).

Using Roll20 for my maps. It's great in how it's able to enforce light and vision by character. Those that have darkvision can see in the dark. Those without, can't. In a live game, where each player can only see what their character can see -- it's great, kind of. In a play-by-post game, where the DM is painting a picture for the group as a whole, it kind of breaks down. Yes, the DM could create and share two version of the same map -- one for those with darkvision and one for those without it -- but, again, it's a pain.

He also introduced ways to make the game more deadly (e.g. eliminating death saves, lengthening rests, etc...). Those are things that can easily be house ruled, and he does present some interesting ideas on ways to do it, but requiring a week of rest to recover from being knocked unconscious, as is the rule in AD&D, is something that is house ruled out of play more times than not, at least in most/all games I'm aware of.

The goal of D&D, I think, is to tell a collaborative story and have fun. For some groups, maybe that does involve a more gritty and realistic game? For others (including most newer D&D players), the realism is a bore, and isn't fun, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game.

The style of play is really a decision to be made between the DM and their players before the game even starts.

I know I'd be happy to run a grittier 5e game at some point if there were enough players that wanted to try it, but I'm also perfectly happy running the game very close to rules as written, because they've done a pretty good job of keeping the game simple... while also being extremely complex.


Thanks for sharing, man. I've bookmarked that for if/when the time comes.

[dmw71]

I've been debating a rule since the last time I ran a 5e game (the Roll20 game for a few guys here on the boards):

• Do you allow a character to use a skill (e.g. Intimidation) during the same turn they make another action (e.g. attack)?

At the table, I ruled that they couldn't both attack and use the Intimidate skill in the same turn.

I've done a bit of digging, and it seems a majority of responses tend to support how I ruled the situation, but not all:

• Talking in combat. Allow intimidate AND attacks in same turn?
• Do ability checks in combat require an action?
• Intimidation During Combat

I may have just missed it, but I didn't see this specific question asked on Sage Advice which is a bit surprising.



What does everyone else think?

[Quonundrum]

A round is what, 6 seconds in 5e? I'd rule that one can't attempt intimidation and attack in a mere 6 seconds. Maybe with a new custom feat, but intimidation is more than hurling invectives and braggadocio, it requires a bit of concentrated intent. Could also be argued Fighters can do it as a class benefit seeing as how the class itself focuses on melee combat.

[dmw71]

A round is what, 6 seconds in 5e?

Correct.

I don't know why I'm second-guessing myself (and why this question has been nagging me for so long), but it's nice to have some support of my decision.

[Scott308]

As far as I can recall, every table I've played at has ruled that if you are using a skill and rolling a die, that is generally going to be your action. Now, some classes have abilities that allow them to do additional things, such as a rogue using their cunning action to disengage, dash, or hide as a bonus action, or fighter using an action surge, monk spending ki, etc. Having said that, I'm sure there are unusual situations that may come up where you make a skill check without taking your action. For example, say a character is on the second floor balcony and she wants to leap out at an enemy below and attack. I might rule that they can make an Acrobatics check, and if successful, they land on their feet and may attack. This is in effect using their move action, but it is more dramatic so calls for a check. If they fail the check, you could rule that they either landed next to the enemy, but in order to stick the landing, they had to fight to maintain balance and can take no further action, or if they fail horribly on their Acrobatics check, maybe they fall when they land, so they are now prone. If you swing for the fences, you might hit it out of the park, or you may strike out. By failing the check, it eliminates the attack, whereas a successful check allows them to complete the attack sequence.

As for your original question, I think if allowed to Intimidate (capitalized for the skill) every time they are going to attack, it becomes abusive. They may try to intimidate each round, but not for effect (the enemy can be intimidated while not being Intimidated). Maybe they spend the first couple rounds telling the enemy things like, I'll rip your spleen out! or, When I'm through with you, even your mother won't recognize you! as they attack. Then, after they have inflicted harm on enemies and begun terrorizing them for a few rounds, they may decide to see if their character can walk the walk now that they've talked the talk, and try an Intimidation check. Spend your action making sure the enemies see the damage you have caused already, and will likely continue to cause and try to get them to cower or flee. But it becomes overpowered if the barbarian tries Intimidation first, then if that fails, backs it up with an attack. Perhaps make a custom Feat that allows this once a combat, or, after a critical hit, it allows them to Intimidate as a bonus action if they wish.

[dmw71]

Great! I gotta agree 5e is pretty good. At its core it's simple for the player, then there are lots of modular options for fleshing out a character mechanically and even in terms of background. The administrative load to run is moderate compared to some other systems.

I didn't want to derail the 'Our favorite rules' topic with 5e discussion, so I will reply to this here.

I felt the need to house rule in previous editions quite heavily. Oftentimes because how one edition did something and another edition did something were similar, but different. And sometimes I didn't agree with how either edition handled that "something."

5e is the first edition where I feel I could run a game with zero house rules and be perfectly happy. I still choose to do some tinkering, but it's not because I feel the actual rules are lacking or confusing or incomplete in some way, but because I just feel compelled to at least add a little customization and try different things.


I totally agree on the administrative part! I have been the DM in exactly one live 5e game. It was with a group here, played on Roll20. It was... rough. The biggest issue was my complete lack of familiarity with the characters being used. I think I allowed the group to start at 4th or 5th level so they had a bunch of features and abilities at their disposal, which I wasn't familiar with. Not having a solid understanding of what could be done, when, and how often was a big handicap to running the game.

Struggling to actually run the game on Roll20 (which, before that night I had only done once or twice before, and never with 5e) didn't make running the game any easier.

[tibbius]

I felt the need to house rule in previous editions quite heavily. Oftentimes because how one edition did something and another edition did something were similar, but different. And sometimes I didn't agree with how either edition handled that "something."

5e is the first edition where I feel I could run a game with zero house rules and be perfectly happy. I still choose to do some tinkering, but it's not because I feel the actual rules are lacking or confusing or incomplete in some way, but because I just feel compelled to at least add a little customization and try different things.


I totally agree on the administrative part! I have been the DM in exactly one live 5e game. It was with a group here, played on Roll20. It was... rough. The biggest issue was my complete lack of familiarity with the characters being used. I think I allowed the group to start at 4th or 5th level so they had a bunch of features and abilities at their disposal, which I wasn't familiar with. Not having a solid understanding of what could be done, when, and how often was a big handicap to running the game.

It's a lot easier to run 5e if you start with 1st level characters and then watch the players tack on modules as the characters progress. Building a higher level character or NPC is fun but can be a little time consuming (though quicker than 3e, for sure). As a DM, I'm ok with Xanathar's Guide to Everything but not a fan of additions to the core beyond that; the permutations of player characters get too complex for me.

[dmw71]

It's a lot easier to run 5e if you start with 1st level characters and then watch the players tack on modules as the characters progress.

Absolutely. I cut myself a bit of slack for my rusty knowledge of all their features because they were all literally brand new.

As a DM, I'm ok with Xanathar's Guide to Everything but not a fan of additions to the core beyond that; the permutations of player characters get too complex for me.

I agree here for the most part as well. It reminds me 2e in a way, where expansion and all the splat books just pushed things too far. I might, however, be willing to consider a couple of the new races from Volo's Guide to Monsters; and possibly some of the extra race or class additions from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
But I don't blindly accept any of them.

I quickly soured on Adventure League play, but the one thing I did like from their organized play was their "PHB +1" rule. If a player wants to dip into Xanathar's, they can't also pick-and-choose components from SCAG, or any other sources. Capping the sources like that does really help prevent too much creep.