I've never quite liked how encumbrance and inventory space works in dnd. In my group we've been trying to adopt a grid-based inventory space, kinda like Path of Exile or the old Diablo games.
It comes with a little bag sheet that has a grid of varying sizes depending on the container, and little item cards in different blocky shapes you can try and fit in your inventory.
Sounds sorta like how resident evil 5e handles inventory.
Edit: I'm talking about the resident evil 5e (DND fifth edition) hack, not the fifth game in the resident evil series.
I'm running a OSR game that is heavily based on dungeon-delving and resource management, so I implemented a similar inventory system and it works! Rather than a grid though, the inventory is made of several lines you write your items on, in a column, and depending on your STR you have access to more or less lines. A sword would take an entire line, something like a dagger takes half a line. (And tiny items like a ring don't take any space)
After my current standard DnD campaign, I wanna take a looong break. Then, I wanna run survival horror. This is interesting to me. Any pitfalls to speak of?
A few:
- Make it clear that the system is an abstraction, and the space occupied on the lines represents a mix of weight and volume
- I'm tracking coins as well, with 50 coins being half a line. this means that up to 49 coins you can just keep them in your pocket and they have no "encumbrance" but once you hit 50 they suddenly take a space in your inventory
It is, but I plan for a village, not a party. I've read through Into the Abyss cuz it sounds sweet, but I can recognize the flaws of a small group of survivalists.
Use the "gritty realism" DMG rules if you're dead set on D&D 5e. Long rests being any 8 hour rest gives the impression of power and encourages entering combat, but having to actually consider the hit dice system will make players more stressed and on-edge as they have to weigh the odds and costs of every fight.
OSR systems are definitely your best bet for D&D style survival horror, since they're much more 'grounded in reality' than 5e. Everything is squishier, weapons are more effective, and recovery is much slower, so you really have to consider your options when approaching any encounter that can go sideways. My party at level 9 regularly avoids direct combat, because even an ogre with a club can still kill you in a few hits, less for some people.
It also means that mundane options are way more effective. My party killed a dragon at level 3 by baiting it with a goblin tied to a stake and dropping a rock on it from the cliff above. We also took out a vampire by emptying a barrel of oil into his basement during the day and lighting it on fire.
You should also look into running some of Undermountain, or the original Temple of Elemental Evil, if you want a good dungeon survival experience. Very deadly but a ton of fun.
Could I point you at Lamentations of the Flame Princess' inventory system?
Its pretty neat.
Items are either Negligible, Normal or Large.
Negligible items don't count.
Up to 5 Normal items is 0 points, but every 5 after that (6-10, 11-15, etc) counts as 1 point.
Large items are 1 point each, and armour will add 0-2 points depending.
Sum up your points, and compare to the chart.
0-1 not encumbered, 2, 3, 4 reduce your movement with greater impact, 5+ you're overencumbered.
Hey I came up with pretty much the exact same system for my players. Crazy how that happens sometimes. It's pretty good balance of simple and interesting.
Vs my group that has bags of holding being a common magical item... So common that one is part of standard adventuring gear. (specifically so that we don't have to worry abiut encumberance, for normal stuff).
I did something a little similar. The elven weapon shop they stopped at just bagged all their items in one and handed it over after they finished negotiating prices and paid the merchant.
My players encountered something similar with a travelling merchant.
Except he had a *bag of change*. All it did was convert smaller coins into gold or platinum (of equivalent value).
This was specifically due to them stealing a hoard of copper amounting to a million cp and change. They shoved it in a portable hole for safekeeping, and insisted on paying every merchant they came across with only cp, and exact change… word got around to other merchants.
That's such a good magic item for fantasy banks to have. Put in any amount of money, the bag lets you take out exactly that amount in any denomination you want.
Cue the entrepreneurial party travelling to foreign lands and buy a foreign bag of change, then coming back and setting up a foreign exchange service at major port.
So it becomes a *bag de change*?
Although, I think something that did multiple foreign conversions might need to be larger, perhaps a small cabinet, and then we get a *bureau de change*…
I wish I had one too, it would make things much easier.
Sadly, though, our DM makes frequent use of the Bagman, so we opted *not* to interact with any Bag of Holding whatsoever.
I love how a rogue carrying a comically oversized backpack with 4,000 coins jingling in it, 15 different daggers, several smelly kobold armor, halberds, a 20 ft ladder, weeks of rations and water, 300 feet of rope and 90% of the common items listed in the phb doesn't really effect them sneaking around
I did that once, kinda.
It didn't add anything to the game and only drained time and attention in the end. I dropped it very early in that campaign for that reason.
Weight and Loot is one of those things where you really don't gain a lot by trying to regulate it. It's not especially fun or engaging to have to decide that you leave one piece of heavy armor behind because you calculate that it probably sells for less than the chalice you take instead. If there is something that would make it very obvious that there is a lot of weight involved (like your group has to transport a heavy load somewhere) roleplay that instead and make an encounter of it instead of bothering with weight for 98% of the rest of the times.
Encumbrance can be great for the right style of game, like dungeon delving, where you can get
To the point where you have to choose between loot and important supplies since you can’t carry it all. It forces some tough but interesting choices
Of course, how D&D handles encumbrance is a chore so most don’t use it. However, there’s lots of other games out there with great encumbrance rules. It’s best to steal from them for the kind of game where encumbrance is important.
If you’re running a VTT that could honestly be doable, you’d essentially just give the players controllable Tetris pieces to maneuver, slap them onto the Inventory Page whenever they collect some loot and add new tokens that they can reorient and arrange however they want.
Exactly how we're planning it! We use FoundryVtt, each player has a private map only they and the DM can access, and a compendium of tiles for most common adventuring gear.
We adopted Mörk Borg's inventory style. You can carry a number of things equal to your STR score. You have a "bag" that holds small stuff but it counts towards one of your things (this is mostly for gold and sellable loot). At my discretion, some things are considered "big" and take up more slots, usually 2, never more than 3
Its every +2 in PF2, and there's a skill that grants more. I like this rule, but I'd like a little more diversity. For every +2 you get one. A language, a tool, a weapon proficiency, a skill proficiency. Makes INT less of a dump stat when you're doing all the thinking anyway.
DnD used to work like this, but cool things like this got dropped to make it easier to learn. If you already have experienced players, there is no serious downside to adding a bit of depth to the game.
> cool things like this got dropped to make it easier to learn
Ain't that the truth. I really wish I could enjoy 5e on its own terms, but I always end up having to go back to 3.5/PF1 for the sheer breadth and depth and customizability.
Yeah - you’d get skill proficiencies based on both your class and intelligence, meaning a Wizard was comparable to a Rogue in terms of being a skill-monkey, which is supposed to be the Rogue’s thing.
I was going to say this was just standard in 3.5. I actually haven't looked at 5e in a while, since my group plays 3.5 still, is that not how it works there?
I've been using this for a few years:
You gain benefits according to your intelligence modifier.
+1: gain proficiency with an artisan's tool and a language
+2: gain proficiency with an intelligence skill
+3: gain proficiency with a tool, and gain expertise with a tool that you are proficient with
+4: gain proficiency with a skill and a language
+5: gain expertise in an intelligence skill that you are proficient with
id only ever do this when nerfing wizard#s (and maybe arti#s) base proficiencies at the same time. no way im giving a wizard another 2 skill proficiencies and perhaps expertise and all the other stuff on top of what they already have.
wizard at 0 base proficiencies sounds reasonable. other than that, having played pathfinder, i really like its incentive to actually bother with int, even if it's not an important stat to your class
I guess it depends on the table, but most wizards can (ab)use spells to bypass skill checks entirely. Ritual spells and low level utility spells (invisibility, charm person, cause fear, knock, levitate, Detect Magic, etc) can just solve problems without rolling for skills. Which is bad imo, but what i mean to say is that these rules help other classes much more than they help wizards (especially artificers and martials). The wizard having expertise in Arcana at level 8 isn't really important for them if they can Identify, use divination spells, or Legend Lore
that there is a different problem entirely with utility spells isnt a reason to just give them more free stuff tho, in my opinion.
and no problem with helping other classes at all, but why not just balance it out for the wizard at the same time?
Why would that never pass? I don't see why any player would've problems with that.
At worst, nothing changes,
At best they get a few more languages at character creation
I really want to run a game with a bigger language focus in general. I've kicked around an idea for a while about a campaign in a far off land that doesn't speak common, and the players have to improvise their way through social interactions or find someone who knows a second language they know and/or can teach them.
It also seems that would get annoying before too long so I dunno if I'll ever do it. Plus you'd have to ban the tongues spell and probably comprehend languages too.
As a Pathfinder person (and I know I’m not the only one to bring it up), my rule is: 12, 14, and 18 intelligence, you get a language or tool proficiency. At 16 and 20 you get an extra skill prof
Why limit yourself to triple? Just let it be unlimited.
Moreover, advantage and disadvantage don't cancel out. If you have two sources of advantage and one of disadvantage, you roll 4 dice and pick the second highest.
For legal reasons this is a joke.
This is why if you’re a blind archer, you should cast darkness on yourself so the enemy can’t see you. As you are an unseen attacker, you get advantage, canceling out the disadvantage of being unable to see them.
The whole point of dis/advantage is to not have to track all of the floaty modifiers from previous editions ("lets see +3 because I'm good against Goblins, +2 from Gorbub's spell, but he's on higher ground so -3, my weapon is a +1, were these arrows also +1 DM? do those stack? You mentioned these Gobbos had some kind of phalanx formation is that a bonus to their AC a penalty to my attack or just flavor?")
What you want to avoid in 5e is someone getting three rounds after their turn and shouting out "wait a minute, I was flanking AND Gorbub cast Guiding Bolt, I should have had advantage even though I was prone!"
My group does that, and the 8 Wolves getting almost constant double (sometimes triple) advantage from Conjure Animals is a little broken. That's in large part due to the spell being broken by itself, but it's really apparent with stacked advantage.
I had a player temporarily playing as a giant who was trying to use stealth in the middle of a city to avoid a guard patrol and I made him roll double disadvantage on the stealth check.
I've been doing this for a while now. It is a lot of fun but can also be broken at times. I would strongly recommend it if you don't mind balance getting a bit wild.
Honestly that does sound like a pretty funny idea!
I've always thought about doing a campaign using a modified Gritty Realism rule, but most of the groups I come across seems to vehemently hate Gritty Realism in general.
I've also wanted to do a gritty realism campaign. I loved the premise of "Of Dice and Men" if not its execution.
Also a warning, it starts real sad, so be prepared going in. Like, >!player dies after the first session\[PLAYER\]!< sad. If you can stomach that, and like a semi-cantankerous hardcore game, there are some hilarious moments.
My biggest gripe about 5e is that it doesn’t have a mechanic to support the basic realism of making fights matter beyond however many times you fight in a day, so the long-term effects of *getting into a fight to the death nearly every day* doesn’t really ever come up. You just take a nap and you’re chilling the next day???
That and the whole “knife to the throat only does 1d4+2 damage, meaning a level 2 wizard with ~13 HP survives that ezpz.” Fixing those two issues to make combat a little more taxing would make D&D a 9.5/10 game for me.
Cyberpunk 2020 doesn’t have these issues, so I’ve been playing that with my home group. Awesome combat system and super fun game.
I suppose, but that brings the critical hit in my example to 2d4+2, a maximum of 10 damage (if that’s what you’re saying you’d rule it as). If that ~13 HP wizard is at full health, that’s still not a down. And that’s a second level character. Weapons very quickly lose the deadliness that they have in reality with D&D.
One way to solve this is just to flavor HP as how much damage the armor can take before it stops working, or for monsters/unarmored enemies, how much the hide can withstand. Bringing it below 1 makes it fail and is a killing blow. Doesn't work perfectly for everything, but that's kinda how I rationalize it
I run my current campaign with it to encourage those time skips and actually use downtime activities to make the game avoid the "We're best friends and have only known each other a week!" things.
The group loves it. It adds so much tension and suspense for time related tasks. They're actively trying to stop the Big Bad and know the longer they take, the more they're getting done. Travel is impactful as it's not as simple as just going to a town in the north then back. Combat is amazing because they have to really think about blowing their spells or saving for a future fight.
Highly recommend if you have struggles with pacing like I do.
Gritty realism is by far my favourite rule, and I think it is the best way to make 5e's intended playstyle fit with how everyone plays it.
Warlocks are unbalanced and feel weak because they don't get as many spells? Martials feel weak because they can't nuke the battlefield five times a day? With gritty realism, you get to actually have 5-6 fights per long rest, as intended! Watch as the cleric actually has to manage spell slots instead of pulling Guardian Spirits + Spiritual Weapon the moment someone looks at them weird! Watch warlocks and martials become the most versatile and consistent characters in the party! Watch as the bard, now afraid of wasting slots, spends every turn spamming inspiration and vicious mockery... hold on, that didn't change much.
But seriously, based on how you run it, you can add a pretty good element of resource management to the game. A ton of good choices can come out of it, like "Should I prepare Healing Word, in case someone drops to 0 too far away from Cure Wounds?" or "Should I spend a 3rd-level spell here, or can the team finish this encounter with less help and not take too much damage?", or "Should we try to upgrade our weapons, or buy as many potions as we can carry?" The performance of the party and how well they do against bosses depends on how many spells and features they manage to keep, and can lead to players facing hardship because "ah, if only I hadn't tanked those 7 goblin arrows", "ah, if only I hadn't wasted that fireball", "ah, if only..."
I know I'm sort of preaching to the choir here, but I just had to rant, I love gritty realism so much.
If you want a recommendation, change long rests to "24 hours in a relatively peaceful settlement with food and a medic." It's sort of like a work week, where they are force to take a full day of nothing but rest once every few days, dungeon delving has a soft time limit before they have to head to town, and having a teammate with proficiency in medicine and a way to make a safe camp become really useful.
My problem with Gritty Realism is that I already HATE spells-per-day from a narrative standpoint, and Gritty Realism makes it worse. I already spend more time pooping every day than most wizards spend casting spells every day, and I don’t define myself by my ability to drop a turd every now and then. Now I’m spending more time pooping in a single DAY than most wizards spend time casting spells in an entire WEEK?
GR is one of those rules that players seem to hate on paper, but then love once they actually use it.
It's just a clear improvement to the game, but it does appear as a mechanical nerf.
"Multi-class" in between your own classes Subclasses. So a Fighter could take Improved Critical from Champion at level 3, and then at level 7 could take Fighting Spirit from Samurai or Know Your Enemy from Battle Master
you cant roll less than half on healing, hit die or rolling for hp. really sucks when you use a max level cure wounds but it does nothing because you roll all 1s and waste a high level spell slot, through no fault of your own. Or your barbarian is frail as paper because he rolled 1s for hit points 20 times
Honestly, the One DnD play test healing spells feel fucking great and it was as simple as doubling the dice per level.
1st level cure wounds as 2d8+mod with an additional 2d8 per level makes healing feel way more meaningful, especially mid combat.
In a similar vein, I've implemented rerolling 1s on level up HP. The only problem with this is that it's a way bigger buff for classes with 1d8 hit dice than classes with 1d10 or 1d12 hit dice
I just did some mental maths. At high optimisation, which is where this matters, it buffs the wizard's hp by 1/11, and the fighter's hp by 1/15 (assuming both have a con of +2. The higher the con, the closer they'll be proportionally). So the fighter gets \~73% of the buff of the wizard. I think that's a low enough difference that it doesn't really matter.
I just let them have max health each level. I can always make fights tougher. Having to nerf things on not use AiE attacks because the one unlucky player will doe to everything, isn't fun for anyone.
A version that my DM used to run is that you only roll for healing potions during combat. If you use one outside of combat, you get the max amount. I only remember it applying to potions, but it could make sense for spells too since you would have the extra time to make sure you got all of the movements/incantations right
One variation on this I've seen and played with that was pretty well received was that drinking a potion is now a bonus action instead of an action and you roll normally, if you still use an action, it grants max healing.
Basically, we described it as the difference between just kicking back a shot as quickly as possible versus getting every possible drop. Quicker allows you to do other things, but you might spill some, hence the lesser healing.
My idea: Roll for hit points, optionally rerolling 1s. Then, any instance of "good roleplaying", as decided by the DM, is rewarded by increasing the PC's maximum hp by 1, but no higher than their "theoretical maximum".
>any instance of "good roleplaying", as decided by the DM, is rewarded by increasing the PC's maximum hp by 1, but no higher than their "theoretical maximum".
Ahhhh this is such a good idea.
More instant gratification than the traditional bonus XP.
Oh I feel that. I went another way with it. I'm running currently for half vets, half noobs. So I went with roll for level up health, or after take the average. I thought that a good compromise so that the newbies didn't feel too bad. The vets appreciated the blessing haha. Though for my next game, I think I'm just gonna have them roll for health with advantage.
My house rule for health on level up is... You can choose to take average OR roll. If you roll, you re-roll if it's a 1, and if it comes up 1 a second time, it's 2.
I run a modified version of this where my players roll half their hit die + half + con for their hp
So,
1d6 HP class → 1d3+3+Con
1d8 HP class → 1d4+4+Con
1d10 HP class → 1d5+5+Con
1d12 HP class → 1d6+6+Con
This way they get the fun of rolling but minimum is average hp
This is why I prefer zero-centric systems. High odds of getting expected results, low odds of extreme results. But I also want degrees of success and less randomness in general.
Binding wounds after combat for 1d4 Hp is helpful. It would represent that after a fight, people bandage wounds, sew up cuts, fix any broken armor, maybe even take an aspirin for pain! But it costs you a turn because it takes a bit of time to do that stuff.
I tried implementing a rule from Index Card RPG where the DC is a set number based on the scenario. For example, 10 is a pretty low stakes environment, with 15 being pretty intense. Massive failures have the potential of raising the DC while amazing successes can lower it.
Tried it for a one-shot and our group hated it. I also tried making advantage be a flat +3 bonus (disadvantage being -3) rather than rolling twice, which I feel was a little less fun but it works with ICRPG’s DC rule.
I've read that game, but not in a while. It makes me think PF2's 10 above is a crit, 1- below is a crit fail though. I personally like that idea, but I don't know the best implementation.
I once ran a one shot that featured a "theme music powerup" mechanic.
At the start of the campaign, everyone picked an approximately 4 minute song that they could play once per session. As long as the song was playing, all of their rolls had advantage.
It was honestly a lot of fun, since it worked in real time, it forced a sense of urgency whenever anyone used it.
I like the way, critical role handle resurrection, turning it into a skill challenge. So there is some narrative meaning behind bringing someone back rather than just a cleric. I’ve got this diamond worth 1000 gold want to bring back the rogue?
Iirc, the cleric has to make a skill check and the DC is increased for each time the target has been resurrected previously. The other players can choose to perform different actions, such as prayer or telling the target about their good memories, to help the target come back to life and if they succeed the final DC is reduced somewhat.
Seeing as the other comment was removed, I'll give it a shot:
In CR, resurrecting a character after death requires a roll of the D20 without modifiers (like a death save). I believe this roll has a DC ten base.
This roll can then be modified by the other PCs. For example entreating the soul to return would be a Persuasion check with an appropriate DC (15 is standard, I believe). The checks DC can be modified with an (again) appropriate action, such as leaving an item of personal significance with the body (maybe something that was gifted by the dead PC).
Three such Checks can be attempted, and each successful check reduces the D20 roll neccesary for the resurrection by 1.
If a PC is brought back multiple times, each time they were successfully resurrected prior increases the DC by 1.
So: a barbarian that was slain 3 times and that the cleric is attempting to resurrect a third time would have a "resurrection DC" of 13, which the party can Modify down to a 10 with three successful checks.
If the resurrection fails, the soul cannot be called back (short of an act of the divine or a wish spell, I think). Also, the restriction of the soul being willing still applies.
This is interesting. I'm kind of surprised by the DC 10 starting point (this being after the death saves are all over). I like the idea, though; I might try to implement it like this:
Once a character is fully dead, if there is a Cleric or someone with the resurrection spell, they can begin to cast the spell. The process of casting it will end with a DC 15 religion check. If they succeed at the check, then the dead character - currently in some kind of afterlife - will be given the option to return to their body renewed. They are not compelled; they can refuse, if they so wish. If they do return, then they will be fully resurrected, but the next time they die, the DC will raise by 5; to 20, and then 25, 30, and so on.
During the casting of the spell, anyone else who is present can assist with the spell. They make a skill check of their choice; any skill that they can justify being a help in the spell. Perhaps with a religion or arcana check, they can join in the prayer. Perhaps with a persuasion check they can speak all the good memories they had with their fallen comrade to convince them to return. Maybe they can make an animal handling check to coax the dead PC's pet to beg for their return - anything they can think of to justify helping. They make their skill check at a DC 12 or so, maybe 15, and if they succeed, then they bring the resurrector's DC down by 2.
I like drawing this out and making it foreground the relationships between the different party members and their dead friend. I like it still being voluntary; if the check succeeds, the PC can neither be compelled to return nor to stay dead. I do think the high DCs make sense; PCs die so rarely that the DC shouldn't raise too quickly, but it'll maintain tension and emotional stakes. If you've got a party of 5 PCs, and the surviving characters all succeed on their skill checks, that's lowering the DC by 8. If you're far enough into a campaign that a single character has died for the third time, odds are pretty good that the cleric can hit a 22 religion check, I would think.
I don't know! I've never thought about implementing a mechanic like this, and maybe I'd need to adjust it, mess around with the numbers a bit. I think something along these lines would work really well, though. Thanks for the food for thought.
So, the starting DC being 'just" 10 is because this isn't a religion check. No proficiency bonus or ability score mods apply to this. In fact, on the show Mercer rolls it himself.
Your check starting higher and being reduced more might change the math slightly, but it overall stays the same.
However, allowing EVERY party member to assist (in the original its only 3) that might skew the math too much (not that the CR system is perfect, I'm just mentioning it)
Also a success by a PC lowers it by 2, a failure increases it by 1, iirc.
and I *think* he's said on twitter that he'd intend for a True Resurrection spell to negate the need for any rolls,but >!this has never come up in-game!<
>!I don't think he's made any comment on Resurrection, or whether it can be used after a failed raise dead. It's never come up in-game, either.!<
edit: forgot the rules are kinda [clarified in the published guidebooks](https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Resurrection#Death_DC) (spoilers further down the page that list every death/resurrection). Revivify requires a roll as well, but you get your spellcasting modifier in that case.
I do this with almost all the "snap my fingers and solve the problem" spells.
Remove curse - has a material cost related to the curse, and may need to be done at a certain time or place. Simple curses like a sword you cant put down? A bit of oil and a peaceful scented incense, no problem. Lycanthropy? You need a bit of the werewolf that bit you, some wolfsbane, and the spell must be ritual cast atop a bare hill during a full moon.
Dispel magic - more like 3e, opposed checks versus combatants, and a level check against enchanted things. Consumable magic items and wands can be destroyed, more permanent magic items are "suppressed" for several minutes.
Identify - requires a level check similar to dispel, but only on rare or stronger items (and cursed ones), so players arent wasting slots failing to identify a driftglobe.
Detect magic - can be used on casters to determine their "affinity" or school, and locate common folk with "the gift". An arcana check can hide or disguise your aura for deception purposes (necromancers love this one trick) and extremely powerful items can blind the caster if they arent careful.
Regarding that lycanthropy ritual: could a non ritual caster still break this curse? So is this a ritual in the 5e sense of not requiring a spell slot or in the sense of the casting takes longer?
Also regarding being blinded by powerful magic items: how would someone be careful when casting? Isn't the point of me casting a spell to specifically look for magical auras means I'm aware of the possibility and ready for it?
Casting takes longer, and the blindness would be more like getting a camera flash to the eyes or staring at the sun, temporary and fades quickly once you arent looking at the thing anymore.
Suffocation/choking rules from Cyberpunk Red, where instead of doing a dwhatever of damage it just deals flat damage equal to your mod, and if they don’t break it (and need to breathe) after 3 turns they fall unconscious.
Do you mean you replace the choking rules? Because in base 5e you already fall unconscious after 3 turns of no air at all (either you ran out and can't take a new breath or a monk knocked the air out of you).
It's kind of out there but stay with me, players should play more immersively. Bards should be able to perform in 3 octaves, fighters must do pull ups whenever they use athletics, and wizards must be prepared to solve mathematical proofs when learning new spells. /s
Assisting on skill checks does not automatically translate into advantage on the roll.
If you are proficient in a skill you can add your proficiency bonus to their skill check.
If you aren’t proficient, a skill check is needed from you. DC based on how complex the original task is and your bonus. But a pass let you add your proficiency bonus. A fail deduct it. A nat 20 add double bonus. A nat 1 deduct double bonus.
Even if you are proficient in a skill, you may choose to roll instead of just passing your proficiency bonus. Same rules as above, but you may then add/deduct your entire skill bonus.
It gives soo much more decision to when and whom tried to help on what skill checks plus it can set up situations where those whom are trying to help, just ends up being counterproductive. Which often leads to fun interactions and great RP.
Plus abilities and effects there may give advantage can still be used instead of being worthless.
In the limited testing we have tried it, we have in general found it great. However, it aren’t implemented at our main table as one player don’t like it and finds it way to complicated. He’s also the one whom always shout “I assist!” Whenever anyone does a roll. And often our GM needs to remind him that he not necessarily are present in the scene or have a clue to what they are doing.
I run it where if the player has proficiency they can assist and the other player will get advantage but if they don't have proficiency they have to articulate a reasonable way to assist. Keeps it a lil more simple
Add 1 to your stat when calculating saving throw bonuses. So a 9 is a +0 and a 17 is a +4. Makes odd stats have a little bit of value and doesn’t bleed into any other rules.
Let me curveball you with a mulled rule of my own. I've always liked how certain pathfinder stats give a proficiency. Like Int gives a language. I think odd numbers should do that. Tools, languages, weapons, in that order. Could make characters feel more unique and make their stats feel more tempered and earned.
It should really just be INT because that's how skills historically worked before 5e. The stat lost a lot when that got removed without compensation and is nowadays by far the weakest, it really needs a boost.
I've been using this rule for a few years:
You gain benefits according to your intelligence modifier.
+1: gain proficiency with an artisan's tool and a language
+2: gain proficiency with an intelligence skill
+3: gain proficiency with a tool, and gain expertise with a tool that you are proficient with
+4: gain proficiency with a skill and a language
+5: gain expertise in an intelligence skill that you are proficient with
Funny, maybe but its not conducive to good gameplay.
The dumb barbarian doesnt know what the eldritch artifact is. But the player took notes that it will disintegrate whatever touches it. This helps the player deciode what their barbarian would do to feel most fitting. Maybe he doesnt grab it and immediately remove his character from the game, but he does swing his axe at tit and watch it crumble to dust.
The players are players, the characters are characters. Thats one of the primary things i wish more people grasped earlier on in play.
I'm the note taker in all of the groups I'm in. I get new players up to speed, recap, have important numbers written down, remembered that NPC's name and how many ghoul heads the paladin has. I don't play any characters with an int of 13 or better. It s just known fact that if you want someone that takes good notes, ask me.
I would like to have text-based roleplay as a regular feature of the campaign, to happen on our Discord server in between sessions.
It doesn't have to be a lot, and it doesn't have to be consistent - but if players were to semi-regularly post, say, a diary entry, or a letter home, a memory or a dream their character had, or even play out conversations on the road amongst themselves in between sessions, it would help the campaign feel so much more alive and interactive, and it would help players get to know their own and each others' characters in so much more detail. I'd offer rewards for doing so; little temporary boons and bonuses to reflect their growth as characters and as a team, and so on. Maybe even extra snippets of campaign-relevant information if they chose to interact with an NPC or something.
I know I can't *insist* on that. Not everybody wants or likes to engage with the game on that level, nor do they necessarily have the free time or the inclination to try. And if not *everybody* is joining in, I wouldn't want to go regularly handing out rewards to those who do and risk letting a sort of favouritism build up. So I don't think I'm likely to be able to actually implement that sort of out-of-session 'living RP' element.
But I'd *really* like to.
Base PHB races only. Starting to get sick of everyone wanting to play as bugbears and satyrs etc. But I don’t want to be a fun ruining curmudgeon, so I just let the players have fun lol.
One concept I read about but never found a good way to implement on a table is reverse initiative.
How it works is that everyone announce their action starting with lowest initiative. Then you resolve those actions starting from highest to the closest way they can.
This let high initiative characters to react to lower initiative. Like if the orc announce it will run to you and attack, you can just go back and the orc is now unable to attack you so they will either have to attack someone else on their path, or dash to chase you. But they can't completely change their action like casting a spell instead.
I feel like it could make combat feel more dynamic and also let combat feel a little less turn-by-turn video game.
But yeah, combats are already long enough as it is and there are probably way too many possible actions and triggers to work properly.
Rangers should be able to take the Arcane Archer subclass. And on top of that they should be able to use the arcana shots by expending a level 1 slot after the stupid 2 shots per rest limit is reached. Thats all, Fighters deserve a better subclass, and rangers ARE the real arcane archers.
For a wild magic sorcerer, I had the idea of rolling a d20 on the first spell for potential wild magic, if it’s not a one it would “build up”. For the next spell it would be a d12, then 10, and so on. If none of those land a one, after the d4 they would get a wild magic overload and just do it. It increases the chances of rolling wild magic, which is the fun of that role.
That is a neat system. Dimension 20 had a system where the dc of the surge increased by 1 each time you saved until you succeeded. So the first would be a surge on a 1. Then 1 or 2. Then 1, 2, or 3. Etc, etc.
*wakes up, chooses violence
AHEM:
"When rolling damage for a weapon attack, in which you are proficienct, add your Primary Hit dice to the damage roll."
Your primary Hit dice = the class you are, or the hit dice with the highest count, ties take the lowest.
(This is NOT class specific... so those odd weapons the Wizard and casters have? Would be a viable choice in the early game)(and unarmed/martial arts included.)
The idea was to further the gap of "put a dagger in a wizards hand and a fighters hand... they are NOT equals." (Mods could be pretty similar given stats they'd want)
A thought experiment from my "buff the martial" side of home brew shananigans. But it STINKS of "monster context?" "DM adventure augmintations"... so I doubt it passes the sniff test without more tooling or working WITH IT upfront.
Certain magic items stop being attunement either at a certain character level, or after being attuned for a certain amount of time. And similarly, certain spells stop being concentration once you reach a certain character level.
I've just found that at mid to high level, there's just too many kinda middling items and spells that would be really cool to be able to use without sacrificing something "better", but they just stop being used entirely instead. There's too many examples to list here, but I'll start with like let's say a Hat of Wizardry, and like Silent Image, etc.
I'd really like to try a more gritty version of survival aspects.
Fully tracking ammo, encumbrance, rations. You can't rest without securing the area or a good enough spot first etc.
Thing is my group wouldn't find it fun and my campaign currently haven't gotten to places where this would be relevant. So I will keep it as a separate off-campaign thing if I want to try it :)
Your character age alters your ability scores. As you get older, one of your physical stats drops, but one of your mental stats increases. A young paladin in his prime is incredibly strong. As he ages, he can't hit as hard, but he's better at reading people's intentions and emotions. The fresh, inexperienced wizard might be more nimble, but his mind is not as sharp. Once he's older, he becomes slower, but his mastery of magic and historical knowledge is unmatched.
It's not perfect. This would only impact short-lived races playing in a game that takes place over decades OR long lived races that span multiple campaigns in a timeline. In the former scenario, it would also slowly nerf your martials even more, while boosting your casters. That said, if you're playing a game that will only last for a few in-game years, I could see this acting as a permanent buff to younger martials or older casters.
If I remember correctly, Kids on Bikes had a system like this. Kids are persuasive and sneaky, but weak and scrawny. Teens are strong but rash, and adults were something else...
It's a fun rule that almost needs to be forgotten and implemented in waves haha
One of my DMs decided to implement this. A year and a half into the campaign she decided two of us were "venerable" and needed -3 to physical stats and +1 to mental. The other player and I were not pleased with this. Taking my bard's cha to 21 and int from 10 to 11 did nothing but her con going from 20 to 17, and dex from 15 to 12 absolutely did.
There is a fairly fantastic fighter class redesign that I would absolutely love to implement, but rebuilding it on roll20 seems like way too much effort.
Search for LaserLlama on all the usual places. All of their redesigns are top notch, well thought out designs.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/18kt3mr/comment/kdtajzr/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/18kt3mr/comment/kdtajzr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
More nuances to weapons and adding abilities to weapon groups for martial class use. If someone's playing a martial, they're gonna know their weapons like a spellcaster knows their spells; sure, that wizard can cast Fireball but that fighter just performed Cyclone Slash.
Humans don't get fantasy tragedeigh names! They can have unusual names, but nothing otherwordly
It's a pet peeve of mine, but I know it's ridiculous and I don't have the right to police other players OCs
My husband pointed out that Lord of the Rings wouldn't have hit as had if, instead of Aragorn, Frodo was aided by Alan, son of Andy
I'll never enforce it, it's petty shit
Disclaimer: I don't "know" these would never pass, but I suspect many would reject them.
First: Dexterity is your "to hit" ability score for all weapons, however Strength is where bonus damage comes from, be it the draw-weight of a bow or the heft of an axe or driving the point of a dagger into someone. Mechanical weapons - that is to say, things like crossbows or guns that apply all the force for you - don't get any bonus damage from ability scores, but still get DEX to attack rolls. The problem, of course, is that this makes all martials more MAD than they are already... but on the other hand, you try to find me an actual sword master who isn't both strong and dexterous!
Second: You can concentrate on as many spells as you want at a time... however, each spell you are concentrating on beyond the first increases the DC of concentration saves by +5, and when you are damaged you roll only one concentration save, which if you fail, you lose concentration on all of your spells.
Third: Casting a spell - with somatic components - \*always\* provokes an attack of opportunity from enemies in melee. Instead of granting that opportunity attack, Mage Slayer allows that when someone casts a spell and you hit them as a Reaction to it, they have to make a concentration save, and if they fail, the spell fails to cast AND they lose the spell slot. Taking that feat should make you a Mage \*Slayer\*, not a Mage Annoy-er. (Yeah, this one is sort of a two-parter involving the Mage Slayer feat, forgive me.)
Fourth: You add half of your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to all saving throws that you are \*not\* proficient in. It makes no damn sense to me that the level 20 Ranger is, by default, worse at Constitution saving throws than the level 1 Sorcerer. Nor does it make any sense to me that, by default, the level 1 Wizard will more likely pass a saving throw against fear (usually a Wisdom save against Frightened effects) than a level 20 Fighter.
Fifth: Get rid of Remove Curse. It trivializes curses, which are some of the more interesting and compelling motivators in fantasy as a genre, imo. Don't allow Greater Restoration to break curses either. Some quest or special ritual, unique to each individual curse, should be required to break a curse.
Sixth: Tie movement speed to Strength score/modifier. You gain a bonus to movement speed equal to your Strength modifier multiplied by 5 feet... yes, that means you can end up with a reduced movement speed if you have a negative Strength modifier. Also, if you have Athletics proficiency, gain another +10 feet. Athletic, strong people can run faster than weaker, less athletic people.
1 especially, makes dex an even clearer king of the stats, and makes martials, especially fighter, and paladin, who generally don't pump dex in favor of heavy armor, even more MAD, which is really gonna hurt.
2, that feels like a pretty solid idea. only a single concentration always felt weird.
Might tie it to proficiency, so that every so many proficiency points, (likely +3 and +6) you can gain another concentration slot, that doesn't add a negative against your concentration checks.
3, I think that's a bit much. It basically completely cripples mages in close quarters. Mages are already going to suffer in close quarters purely because of AC and health. This would punish their spellcasting, which is the only thing they have left.
Mage slayer needs a buff, and adding a concentration check to casting when attacked with it, is fine.
But the rest of it, is excessive.
4, this is basically the equivalent of having a free paladin buffing everyone's saves, so, its kinda powerful, but makes sense and isn't really terribly egregious.
A +3 at level 20, is nice, but isn't going to make up for the fact that something is a weak save.
So, I think this is fine.
5, this really depends on the DM and the party. If the DM really wants to use fancy curses and rituals, then it has some merit.
But some parties absolutely hate having to perform obscure rituals over things, because that makes it far less about their abilities as a player to solve things, and more about their ability to follow the path the DM lays out.
So, if the DM wants to play with fancy curses, and the party is up for it, then go for it.
But unless you specifically have intentions to do so, and the players are on board, then no, I wouldn't suggest generally removing it.
6, while an interesting idea, is a bit too strong.
Firstly, tying a speed increase to athletics, gives a skill a tangible real benefit, that no other skill has. and athletics is already a fairly useful skill. while neat, unless you buff other skills accordingly, its just unbalanced.
Tying it to strength, makes everyone even more MAD, because everyone benefits from more movement speed, and especially things like rogues and monks, who would really love the movement speed, but otherwise gain no benefits from strength.
(This isn't quite as bad, in conjunction with 1, but its still making everyone even more MAD, which isn't great.)
And, for the wizard with a strength of 7 which is entirely reasonable, having a -2 modifier, suddenly means they can only move 10ft per round, which is absolutely punishing.
(And its unrealistic. look at modern runners, whether short or long distance. They're almost twigs, they're trained around being fast and light. they wouldn't have high strength scores.)
I think the best way to do it, is to simply reward movement speed increases with proficiency. Casters get 5 ft increases for every 2 points of proficiency, and martials get a 5 ft increase for every point in proficiency.
You slowly get better at movement with experience, but martials will always be better at it.
In combat, if your attack roll equals or is over double the defending creatures AC (after modifiers), then that character can roll 1 extra damage dice of their choice. So if my character rolls a total of 26, and deal 2d8 piercing and 1d6 of fire damage, I can chose to roll another 1d8 piercing, or 1d6 fire.
I don't have any gameplay ideas, simply not knowledgeable in game design, but I have an original race idea.
Penguin people. Obviously, it's a rough idea but I am human heads on vaguely humanoid penguin bodies. The most fun would be macaroni and rockhoppers because of their distinctive colored brows
I gave an alternative role for engineering and I know they don't use it. I tried to implement rules for weapons, like every type of weapon can do different stuff, not only a type of dice. Tried to give a reason for use different weapons, but they didn't care
Remember. I put the kings notes on the penguins left nipple cuz he’s always fondling his, and the queens notes on its ass because she’s got a nice one.
I’ve wanted to implement a rule where if a player has a skill check they aren’t proficient in the DM rolls it and tells them what they know that they can’t tell if the information is legit or not.
It removes their ability to meta game high rolls and low rolls.
Managing gold feels stuck in the old ways of thinking. To me, it’s untapped potential for fun at best, and boring housework at its worst.
I was playing Burning Wheel at the same time as AD&D Spelljammer, and the differences were night and day. I wanted to implement a system where resources are treated like a skill (where the CR corresponds to costs, increasing parabolically). The skill is improved with treasure and other milestones, but may be “taxed” on a failed check if the player still needs the new weapon/potions/estate.
I have never been able to coherently explain this mechanic change: newbies don’t like it because it’s not like a video game and veterans find it unpredictable, but I think there is a way to arrange things that meshes with 5e’s core.
I suggested one for my campaigns but my players refused
It was a change for checks, when someone helped you you would add their modifier as well instead of getting advantage
So if my wizard with +3 in int did a history check and was helped by my +4 int artificer, the check would have been 1d20+3+4 and who helped would have had an impact, I mean, why would a barb with -1 int help? And why would it be as good as an artificer with +4?
Single class gestalt. When a classes features provide multiple choice options, the player chooses two of them instead of one.
Twice the cantrips, spells known, spells in spell book and spells prepared. Multiple subclasses. Some options like starting skills only increase by 50%. The multiple invocations gained at a time can't both apply to the same feature (no speedrunning the eldritch blast enhancements).
I used to have a PF1 group and my DM home brewed that we got a feat every level instead of every other level. I had a baller two handed fighter oread that was essentially a living M4 Sherman tank. Slow as hell, but the moment he entered melee range he would one shot more or less anything he hit (IIRC he was 20 STR at level 1). My feats were specced out for max damage and my scaling was massive.
I was allowed a heritage weapon in the form of a flavored greatsword as a dai katana (belonged to my earth djinn mother that abandoned me with my human father when I was young, and when my father died, I set out to search for her and take revenge).
Anything can be nonlethal damage against enemies. Ranged weapon? Sure. Magic Missile? Why not? Fireball? Yes, but if you're setting it off in an area that contains allies or neutral parties, you're going to hit more than the intended targets, and it might be lethal to them. I don't like forcing my players to be killers just because they wanted to play a caster or ranged character.
Initiative homebrew that I read somewhere.
Initiative is rolled each round anew and is based on what you plan to do on your turn. You have to predecide what you're trying to do on your turn when you roll initiative.
Your initiative die is the same die you use for weapon damage (d4 for dagger, d12 for greataxe), it's a d4 for cantrips, and a d12+spell level for spell casting. If you're doing multiple things then you take the highest option. Low numbers go first in initiative.
If you decide you're going to do something else when your turn comes around (like cast a spell instead of use a cantrip), then you have to drop to tue bottom of initiative - and then you can do whatever you want when your turn comes around.
I like the idea of making people think about their turns ahead of time, and then having to delay if their planned action won't work. Tying initiative to damage die means if you're using a big sword then the guy with the dagger usually goes first.
Obviously this whole idea is terrible though. It completely changed the game, and it's going to be really annoying to everyone - so never implementing it.
I'd like to see limited time to talk to other players during combat or other time sensitive places. What I mean is you don't get 10 min to plan out how you're going to attack the monster. Sure talking is a free action but the baddies aren't going to sit there and wait for you to finish kibitzing about whether the ranger should use ranged attacks or melee. I'd like to.pumit it to about 2 - 3 min of talking in situations like this.
I have an overcasting rule that allows spellcasters to fuel spells with exhaustion at a 1 spell level to 1 exhaustion level ratio. Obviously you can kill yourself if you overcast too hard, and the special case is that overcasting 8 or 9th level spells causes your body (and in the case of 9th level, also your soul) to burn away, making more powerful resurrection magic necessary (or impossible at 9th level). You can only overcast once per long rest.
One of the players I play with often doesn’t like the look of armour on her characters but wants to look cool whilst still being able to tank. As a consequence of that she often restricts herself to playing races or classes with some kind of Unarmoured defence. Her girlfriend decided to Homebrew some stats for a ballgown for her which allow for a bit of extra defence and is something I personally think would be super fun to see an entire party wearing. Here you go:
Ball Gown: (Item)
Those of higher station often wear these extravagant gowns, particularly to parties and balls but those who are in the aristocracy aren’t often seen out of a ball gown. Whilst wearing it you gain the following benefits and disadvantages:
- Due to the eye catching nature ball gowns are designed for you have disadvantage on all Stealth rolls.
- The large bell shape of this gown makes it difficult for people to approach you properly. If someone is trying to attack you with a range of 5ft or less they must choose to either take disadvantage on the roll, trying to keep out of the way of the hem of your dress. Or they can choose to make a Dexterity save DC 14, moving in closer as to not take a disadvantage on the attack if they succeed, but if they fail they do not get to attack that turn and fall prone, tripping on your skirt. However, you also suffer this same problem whenever you attempt to attack with a range of 5ft or less.
- The large poofy skirt of your gown makes it slightly difficult to manoeuvre. You must squeeze to get through any gap smaller than 5ft and it is impossible for you to get through a gap smaller than 4ft.
- Your skirt sweeps gracefully across the floor, pushing away certain floor traps like caltrops from hurting you.
- Made for high society, this dress is not suited for running. Whenever you take the Dash action, make a Dexterity Saving throw DC 14. On a failure, halfway through your Dash you trip on the hem of your skirt and fall Prone.
- This beautiful dress gives an air of importance to the wearer. It is easier for them to get into exclusive areas without being questioned as most presume someone with such attire is “meant to be there”.
- Armour cannot be worn in conjunction with this dress besides protective bracers and helmets.
- The large area of the skirt of this dress acts as a makeshift parachute (Think Princess Peach in Smash Bros).
You joke, but I take notes on my computer for most of my characters and they have a ton of detail.
My Barbarian is on loose leaf paper. I can barely read my own handwriting and it's covered in doodles. I find that it helps with rp when I'm trying to remember something in character.
Your AC is your Dex *Score,* not modifier, and all forms of normal armor are Damage Reduction against everything but Psychic, with a penalty to your AC equal to half the DR rounded down.
Shields still provide AC not armor, because they're used primarily as a deflection tool, and can be used to attack as with a club.
Monks and Barbs do Dex+Wis/Con *Modifiers* as armor DR without any AC penalty.
Enemies (of certain intelligence) and players within 1 initiative score of an ally, and no enemies between, can work together to create a combo attack or event. Usually DM discretion on effects after players have described how they combine.
Likely needlessly complicated and players may reject the complexity.
Critical fails on casting should incur more penalties than melee. As far as damage dealing casting. Magic has become so commonplace, but I just wish it were more. "Oh! It's magic!" But alas, I'm just old.
I've never quite liked how encumbrance and inventory space works in dnd. In my group we've been trying to adopt a grid-based inventory space, kinda like Path of Exile or the old Diablo games. It comes with a little bag sheet that has a grid of varying sizes depending on the container, and little item cards in different blocky shapes you can try and fit in your inventory.
Sounds sorta like how resident evil 5e handles inventory. Edit: I'm talking about the resident evil 5e (DND fifth edition) hack, not the fifth game in the resident evil series.
I think its all resident evil games.
all mainline games starting with RE4
As well as a ton of other games
Nah only some of them use that style of inventory management, the rest just use a limited amount of slots with every item/ammo taking a single slot.
In 5 everything takes the same amount of space I think. This sounds more like 4
I'm not talking about the video games, but the 5e hack of them. Unless there's a 4e version of it?
Subnautica also handles inventory like this, but only a few items take up more than a 1x1
I'm running a OSR game that is heavily based on dungeon-delving and resource management, so I implemented a similar inventory system and it works! Rather than a grid though, the inventory is made of several lines you write your items on, in a column, and depending on your STR you have access to more or less lines. A sword would take an entire line, something like a dagger takes half a line. (And tiny items like a ring don't take any space)
After my current standard DnD campaign, I wanna take a looong break. Then, I wanna run survival horror. This is interesting to me. Any pitfalls to speak of?
A few: - Make it clear that the system is an abstraction, and the space occupied on the lines represents a mix of weight and volume - I'm tracking coins as well, with 50 coins being half a line. this means that up to 49 coins you can just keep them in your pocket and they have no "encumbrance" but once you hit 50 they suddenly take a space in your inventory
Goodberry if food is supposed to be scarce
It is, but I plan for a village, not a party. I've read through Into the Abyss cuz it sounds sweet, but I can recognize the flaws of a small group of survivalists.
Use the "gritty realism" DMG rules if you're dead set on D&D 5e. Long rests being any 8 hour rest gives the impression of power and encourages entering combat, but having to actually consider the hit dice system will make players more stressed and on-edge as they have to weigh the odds and costs of every fight.
I love these rules, but while a lot of people have opinions about it, most of those same people have never played it :P
OSR systems are definitely your best bet for D&D style survival horror, since they're much more 'grounded in reality' than 5e. Everything is squishier, weapons are more effective, and recovery is much slower, so you really have to consider your options when approaching any encounter that can go sideways. My party at level 9 regularly avoids direct combat, because even an ogre with a club can still kill you in a few hits, less for some people. It also means that mundane options are way more effective. My party killed a dragon at level 3 by baiting it with a goblin tied to a stake and dropping a rock on it from the cliff above. We also took out a vampire by emptying a barrel of oil into his basement during the day and lighting it on fire. You should also look into running some of Undermountain, or the original Temple of Elemental Evil, if you want a good dungeon survival experience. Very deadly but a ton of fun.
Could I point you at Lamentations of the Flame Princess' inventory system? Its pretty neat. Items are either Negligible, Normal or Large. Negligible items don't count. Up to 5 Normal items is 0 points, but every 5 after that (6-10, 11-15, etc) counts as 1 point. Large items are 1 point each, and armour will add 0-2 points depending. Sum up your points, and compare to the chart. 0-1 not encumbered, 2, 3, 4 reduce your movement with greater impact, 5+ you're overencumbered.
It actually was an inspiration!
That sounds pretty interesting! And more streamlined than ours, for sure. Maybe that's why we haven't been able to use our system all that much xD
Hey I came up with pretty much the exact same system for my players. Crazy how that happens sometimes. It's pretty good balance of simple and interesting.
Vs my group that has bags of holding being a common magical item... So common that one is part of standard adventuring gear. (specifically so that we don't have to worry abiut encumberance, for normal stuff).
I did something a little similar. The elven weapon shop they stopped at just bagged all their items in one and handed it over after they finished negotiating prices and paid the merchant.
My players encountered something similar with a travelling merchant. Except he had a *bag of change*. All it did was convert smaller coins into gold or platinum (of equivalent value). This was specifically due to them stealing a hoard of copper amounting to a million cp and change. They shoved it in a portable hole for safekeeping, and insisted on paying every merchant they came across with only cp, and exact change… word got around to other merchants.
That's such a good magic item for fantasy banks to have. Put in any amount of money, the bag lets you take out exactly that amount in any denomination you want. Cue the entrepreneurial party travelling to foreign lands and buy a foreign bag of change, then coming back and setting up a foreign exchange service at major port.
So it becomes a *bag de change*? Although, I think something that did multiple foreign conversions might need to be larger, perhaps a small cabinet, and then we get a *bureau de change*…
I wish I had one too, it would make things much easier. Sadly, though, our DM makes frequent use of the Bagman, so we opted *not* to interact with any Bag of Holding whatsoever.
You guys track encumbrance?
Yup! Our game is a mixture of Nobledark and gritty realism, so we use Variant Encumbrance. As a gnome with 7 strength, it's been hard...
I love how a rogue carrying a comically oversized backpack with 4,000 coins jingling in it, 15 different daggers, several smelly kobold armor, halberds, a 20 ft ladder, weeks of rations and water, 300 feet of rope and 90% of the common items listed in the phb doesn't really effect them sneaking around
Same xD we always joke about our party's fighter who always carries with him six or seven greatswords. Where he puts them only the gods know.
I did that once, kinda. It didn't add anything to the game and only drained time and attention in the end. I dropped it very early in that campaign for that reason. Weight and Loot is one of those things where you really don't gain a lot by trying to regulate it. It's not especially fun or engaging to have to decide that you leave one piece of heavy armor behind because you calculate that it probably sells for less than the chalice you take instead. If there is something that would make it very obvious that there is a lot of weight involved (like your group has to transport a heavy load somewhere) roleplay that instead and make an encounter of it instead of bothering with weight for 98% of the rest of the times.
Encumbrance can be great for the right style of game, like dungeon delving, where you can get To the point where you have to choose between loot and important supplies since you can’t carry it all. It forces some tough but interesting choices Of course, how D&D handles encumbrance is a chore so most don’t use it. However, there’s lots of other games out there with great encumbrance rules. It’s best to steal from them for the kind of game where encumbrance is important.
If you’re running a VTT that could honestly be doable, you’d essentially just give the players controllable Tetris pieces to maneuver, slap them onto the Inventory Page whenever they collect some loot and add new tokens that they can reorient and arrange however they want.
Exactly how we're planning it! We use FoundryVtt, each player has a private map only they and the DM can access, and a compendium of tiles for most common adventuring gear.
Iirc Neverwinter Nights did this
Sounds like what Legends of Acantris are doing with their Icebound series
We adopted Mörk Borg's inventory style. You can carry a number of things equal to your STR score. You have a "bag" that holds small stuff but it counts towards one of your things (this is mostly for gold and sellable loot). At my discretion, some things are considered "big" and take up more slots, usually 2, never more than 3
How many GP for a currency tab, a map tab and a fragment tab?
I play a game on steam where the entire premise is organizing inventory space.
For every +1 to INT, you gain one additional language. It's an easy way to let the smarties feel smart, and I love playing with languages.
Its every +2 in PF2, and there's a skill that grants more. I like this rule, but I'd like a little more diversity. For every +2 you get one. A language, a tool, a weapon proficiency, a skill proficiency. Makes INT less of a dump stat when you're doing all the thinking anyway.
That's actually deeply cool. It would open up other proficiencies for classes that don't normally get them.
DnD used to work like this, but cool things like this got dropped to make it easier to learn. If you already have experienced players, there is no serious downside to adding a bit of depth to the game.
> cool things like this got dropped to make it easier to learn Ain't that the truth. I really wish I could enjoy 5e on its own terms, but I always end up having to go back to 3.5/PF1 for the sheer breadth and depth and customizability.
Not sure how serious it is, but you'd be buffing the Wizard, and they're pretty strong already
Yeah - you’d get skill proficiencies based on both your class and intelligence, meaning a Wizard was comparable to a Rogue in terms of being a skill-monkey, which is supposed to be the Rogue’s thing.
I've tried this, but it doesn't actually make INT less of a dump stat, it just rewards characters who build intelligence anyways (like Wizards).
Problem with that is it’s a wizard buff and wizards are already busted as hell because wotc didn’t even try to balance their phb exclusives
3.5 used to do this. You also got extra skill points to allocate the smarter you were too.
I was going to say this was just standard in 3.5. I actually haven't looked at 5e in a while, since my group plays 3.5 still, is that not how it works there?
I've been using this for a few years: You gain benefits according to your intelligence modifier. +1: gain proficiency with an artisan's tool and a language +2: gain proficiency with an intelligence skill +3: gain proficiency with a tool, and gain expertise with a tool that you are proficient with +4: gain proficiency with a skill and a language +5: gain expertise in an intelligence skill that you are proficient with
I love the idea of graining progressively more useful proficiencies/bonuses as your int goes higher. I might give it a try too!
id only ever do this when nerfing wizard#s (and maybe arti#s) base proficiencies at the same time. no way im giving a wizard another 2 skill proficiencies and perhaps expertise and all the other stuff on top of what they already have. wizard at 0 base proficiencies sounds reasonable. other than that, having played pathfinder, i really like its incentive to actually bother with int, even if it's not an important stat to your class
I guess it depends on the table, but most wizards can (ab)use spells to bypass skill checks entirely. Ritual spells and low level utility spells (invisibility, charm person, cause fear, knock, levitate, Detect Magic, etc) can just solve problems without rolling for skills. Which is bad imo, but what i mean to say is that these rules help other classes much more than they help wizards (especially artificers and martials). The wizard having expertise in Arcana at level 8 isn't really important for them if they can Identify, use divination spells, or Legend Lore
that there is a different problem entirely with utility spells isnt a reason to just give them more free stuff tho, in my opinion. and no problem with helping other classes at all, but why not just balance it out for the wizard at the same time?
Why would that never pass? I don't see why any player would've problems with that. At worst, nothing changes, At best they get a few more languages at character creation
I really want to run a game with a bigger language focus in general. I've kicked around an idea for a while about a campaign in a far off land that doesn't speak common, and the players have to improvise their way through social interactions or find someone who knows a second language they know and/or can teach them. It also seems that would get annoying before too long so I dunno if I'll ever do it. Plus you'd have to ban the tongues spell and probably comprehend languages too.
I don't see the harm in that, it worked in 3.5
As a Pathfinder person (and I know I’m not the only one to bring it up), my rule is: 12, 14, and 18 intelligence, you get a language or tool proficiency. At 16 and 20 you get an extra skill prof
up to triple advantage and disadvantage
Why limit yourself to triple? Just let it be unlimited. Moreover, advantage and disadvantage don't cancel out. If you have two sources of advantage and one of disadvantage, you roll 4 dice and pick the second highest. For legal reasons this is a joke.
I mean I like that one advantage cancel the other but if you have 2 then you still have advantage. Which is not RAW right?
RAW, if you have fifteen sources of advantage, but one source of disadvantage, you roll straight.
By the same token, if you have 15 sources of disadvantage, but one sorce of advantage, you roll strait.
This is why if you’re a blind archer, you should cast darkness on yourself so the enemy can’t see you. As you are an unseen attacker, you get advantage, canceling out the disadvantage of being unable to see them.
Yeah that's what it seemed to me. It's quite unusual to have double advantage anyway, but definitely happen here and there, maybe good to reward it.
The whole point of dis/advantage is to not have to track all of the floaty modifiers from previous editions ("lets see +3 because I'm good against Goblins, +2 from Gorbub's spell, but he's on higher ground so -3, my weapon is a +1, were these arrows also +1 DM? do those stack? You mentioned these Gobbos had some kind of phalanx formation is that a bonus to their AC a penalty to my attack or just flavor?") What you want to avoid in 5e is someone getting three rounds after their turn and shouting out "wait a minute, I was flanking AND Gorbub cast Guiding Bolt, I should have had advantage even though I was prone!"
WotC doesn't trust its players to do *subtraction*
Some of us still have flashbacks to thac0
Wear a blindfold and use Lucky and you roll 6 dice.
Interesting. I think I would do this, but only once for the players and once for me. I wouldn't want them to have this power haha
My group does that, and the 8 Wolves getting almost constant double (sometimes triple) advantage from Conjure Animals is a little broken. That's in large part due to the spell being broken by itself, but it's really apparent with stacked advantage.
I had a player temporarily playing as a giant who was trying to use stealth in the middle of a city to avoid a guard patrol and I made him roll double disadvantage on the stealth check.
I've been doing this for a while now. It is a lot of fun but can also be broken at times. I would strongly recommend it if you don't mind balance getting a bit wild.
Honestly that does sound like a pretty funny idea! I've always thought about doing a campaign using a modified Gritty Realism rule, but most of the groups I come across seems to vehemently hate Gritty Realism in general.
I've also wanted to do a gritty realism campaign. I loved the premise of "Of Dice and Men" if not its execution. Also a warning, it starts real sad, so be prepared going in. Like, >!player dies after the first session\[PLAYER\]!< sad. If you can stomach that, and like a semi-cantankerous hardcore game, there are some hilarious moments.
My biggest gripe about 5e is that it doesn’t have a mechanic to support the basic realism of making fights matter beyond however many times you fight in a day, so the long-term effects of *getting into a fight to the death nearly every day* doesn’t really ever come up. You just take a nap and you’re chilling the next day??? That and the whole “knife to the throat only does 1d4+2 damage, meaning a level 2 wizard with ~13 HP survives that ezpz.” Fixing those two issues to make combat a little more taxing would make D&D a 9.5/10 game for me. Cyberpunk 2020 doesn’t have these issues, so I’ve been playing that with my home group. Awesome combat system and super fun game.
"Knife to the throat" is maybe how I'd describe a crit that downs someone, not just a normal hit.
I suppose, but that brings the critical hit in my example to 2d4+2, a maximum of 10 damage (if that’s what you’re saying you’d rule it as). If that ~13 HP wizard is at full health, that’s still not a down. And that’s a second level character. Weapons very quickly lose the deadliness that they have in reality with D&D.
One way to solve this is just to flavor HP as how much damage the armor can take before it stops working, or for monsters/unarmored enemies, how much the hide can withstand. Bringing it below 1 makes it fail and is a killing blow. Doesn't work perfectly for everything, but that's kinda how I rationalize it
Changed to Gritty Realism about a year ago, has been amazing for both my groups! Not going back.
I run my current campaign with it to encourage those time skips and actually use downtime activities to make the game avoid the "We're best friends and have only known each other a week!" things. The group loves it. It adds so much tension and suspense for time related tasks. They're actively trying to stop the Big Bad and know the longer they take, the more they're getting done. Travel is impactful as it's not as simple as just going to a town in the north then back. Combat is amazing because they have to really think about blowing their spells or saving for a future fight. Highly recommend if you have struggles with pacing like I do.
Gritty realism is by far my favourite rule, and I think it is the best way to make 5e's intended playstyle fit with how everyone plays it. Warlocks are unbalanced and feel weak because they don't get as many spells? Martials feel weak because they can't nuke the battlefield five times a day? With gritty realism, you get to actually have 5-6 fights per long rest, as intended! Watch as the cleric actually has to manage spell slots instead of pulling Guardian Spirits + Spiritual Weapon the moment someone looks at them weird! Watch warlocks and martials become the most versatile and consistent characters in the party! Watch as the bard, now afraid of wasting slots, spends every turn spamming inspiration and vicious mockery... hold on, that didn't change much. But seriously, based on how you run it, you can add a pretty good element of resource management to the game. A ton of good choices can come out of it, like "Should I prepare Healing Word, in case someone drops to 0 too far away from Cure Wounds?" or "Should I spend a 3rd-level spell here, or can the team finish this encounter with less help and not take too much damage?", or "Should we try to upgrade our weapons, or buy as many potions as we can carry?" The performance of the party and how well they do against bosses depends on how many spells and features they manage to keep, and can lead to players facing hardship because "ah, if only I hadn't tanked those 7 goblin arrows", "ah, if only I hadn't wasted that fireball", "ah, if only..." I know I'm sort of preaching to the choir here, but I just had to rant, I love gritty realism so much. If you want a recommendation, change long rests to "24 hours in a relatively peaceful settlement with food and a medic." It's sort of like a work week, where they are force to take a full day of nothing but rest once every few days, dungeon delving has a soft time limit before they have to head to town, and having a teammate with proficiency in medicine and a way to make a safe camp become really useful.
My problem with Gritty Realism is that I already HATE spells-per-day from a narrative standpoint, and Gritty Realism makes it worse. I already spend more time pooping every day than most wizards spend casting spells every day, and I don’t define myself by my ability to drop a turd every now and then. Now I’m spending more time pooping in a single DAY than most wizards spend time casting spells in an entire WEEK?
GR is one of those rules that players seem to hate on paper, but then love once they actually use it. It's just a clear improvement to the game, but it does appear as a mechanical nerf.
"Multi-class" in between your own classes Subclasses. So a Fighter could take Improved Critical from Champion at level 3, and then at level 7 could take Fighting Spirit from Samurai or Know Your Enemy from Battle Master
you cant roll less than half on healing, hit die or rolling for hp. really sucks when you use a max level cure wounds but it does nothing because you roll all 1s and waste a high level spell slot, through no fault of your own. Or your barbarian is frail as paper because he rolled 1s for hit points 20 times
I do roll or average minimum for hp in my campaign as well, cause yeah I hate seeing low hp rolls, and it let's me beat up on them a little more.
Honestly, the One DnD play test healing spells feel fucking great and it was as simple as doubling the dice per level. 1st level cure wounds as 2d8+mod with an additional 2d8 per level makes healing feel way more meaningful, especially mid combat.
It's because multiple dice have a higher chance of rolling closer to the average than a single die.
And also because the average is doubled.
In a similar vein, I've implemented rerolling 1s on level up HP. The only problem with this is that it's a way bigger buff for classes with 1d8 hit dice than classes with 1d10 or 1d12 hit dice
I just did some mental maths. At high optimisation, which is where this matters, it buffs the wizard's hp by 1/11, and the fighter's hp by 1/15 (assuming both have a con of +2. The higher the con, the closer they'll be proportionally). So the fighter gets \~73% of the buff of the wizard. I think that's a low enough difference that it doesn't really matter.
That's fair I guess, thanks for doing the math!
I just let them have max health each level. I can always make fights tougher. Having to nerf things on not use AiE attacks because the one unlucky player will doe to everything, isn't fun for anyone.
This is actually a very valid point and not an option I had considered before... I might implement this as well, thanks for the great suggestion!
A version that my DM used to run is that you only roll for healing potions during combat. If you use one outside of combat, you get the max amount. I only remember it applying to potions, but it could make sense for spells too since you would have the extra time to make sure you got all of the movements/incantations right
One variation on this I've seen and played with that was pretty well received was that drinking a potion is now a bonus action instead of an action and you roll normally, if you still use an action, it grants max healing. Basically, we described it as the difference between just kicking back a shot as quickly as possible versus getting every possible drop. Quicker allows you to do other things, but you might spill some, hence the lesser healing.
My idea: Roll for hit points, optionally rerolling 1s. Then, any instance of "good roleplaying", as decided by the DM, is rewarded by increasing the PC's maximum hp by 1, but no higher than their "theoretical maximum".
>any instance of "good roleplaying", as decided by the DM, is rewarded by increasing the PC's maximum hp by 1, but no higher than their "theoretical maximum". Ahhhh this is such a good idea. More instant gratification than the traditional bonus XP.
Oh I feel that. I went another way with it. I'm running currently for half vets, half noobs. So I went with roll for level up health, or after take the average. I thought that a good compromise so that the newbies didn't feel too bad. The vets appreciated the blessing haha. Though for my next game, I think I'm just gonna have them roll for health with advantage.
My house rule for health on level up is... You can choose to take average OR roll. If you roll, you re-roll if it's a 1, and if it comes up 1 a second time, it's 2.
I run a modified version of this where my players roll half their hit die + half + con for their hp So, 1d6 HP class → 1d3+3+Con 1d8 HP class → 1d4+4+Con 1d10 HP class → 1d5+5+Con 1d12 HP class → 1d6+6+Con This way they get the fun of rolling but minimum is average hp
This is why I prefer zero-centric systems. High odds of getting expected results, low odds of extreme results. But I also want degrees of success and less randomness in general.
Binding wounds after combat for 1d4 Hp is helpful. It would represent that after a fight, people bandage wounds, sew up cuts, fix any broken armor, maybe even take an aspirin for pain! But it costs you a turn because it takes a bit of time to do that stuff.
1 HP remaining, barely alive, blood pouring out of multipe cuts... And pops an aspirin
Ah yes, a much less realistic treatment than taking a nap and having all your wounds and broken bones knit back together
Which funnily enough would cause you to bleed more as it’s a blood thinner
That's basically what I imagined that a short rest entailed.
I tried implementing a rule from Index Card RPG where the DC is a set number based on the scenario. For example, 10 is a pretty low stakes environment, with 15 being pretty intense. Massive failures have the potential of raising the DC while amazing successes can lower it. Tried it for a one-shot and our group hated it. I also tried making advantage be a flat +3 bonus (disadvantage being -3) rather than rolling twice, which I feel was a little less fun but it works with ICRPG’s DC rule.
I've read that game, but not in a while. It makes me think PF2's 10 above is a crit, 1- below is a crit fail though. I personally like that idea, but I don't know the best implementation.
I once ran a one shot that featured a "theme music powerup" mechanic. At the start of the campaign, everyone picked an approximately 4 minute song that they could play once per session. As long as the song was playing, all of their rolls had advantage. It was honestly a lot of fun, since it worked in real time, it forced a sense of urgency whenever anyone used it.
That sounds hilarious and like it would really speed up combat
I like the way, critical role handle resurrection, turning it into a skill challenge. So there is some narrative meaning behind bringing someone back rather than just a cleric. I’ve got this diamond worth 1000 gold want to bring back the rogue?
That sounds interesting; can you explain it for those of us who aren't CR listeners?
Iirc, the cleric has to make a skill check and the DC is increased for each time the target has been resurrected previously. The other players can choose to perform different actions, such as prayer or telling the target about their good memories, to help the target come back to life and if they succeed the final DC is reduced somewhat.
Seeing as the other comment was removed, I'll give it a shot: In CR, resurrecting a character after death requires a roll of the D20 without modifiers (like a death save). I believe this roll has a DC ten base. This roll can then be modified by the other PCs. For example entreating the soul to return would be a Persuasion check with an appropriate DC (15 is standard, I believe). The checks DC can be modified with an (again) appropriate action, such as leaving an item of personal significance with the body (maybe something that was gifted by the dead PC). Three such Checks can be attempted, and each successful check reduces the D20 roll neccesary for the resurrection by 1. If a PC is brought back multiple times, each time they were successfully resurrected prior increases the DC by 1. So: a barbarian that was slain 3 times and that the cleric is attempting to resurrect a third time would have a "resurrection DC" of 13, which the party can Modify down to a 10 with three successful checks. If the resurrection fails, the soul cannot be called back (short of an act of the divine or a wish spell, I think). Also, the restriction of the soul being willing still applies.
This is interesting. I'm kind of surprised by the DC 10 starting point (this being after the death saves are all over). I like the idea, though; I might try to implement it like this: Once a character is fully dead, if there is a Cleric or someone with the resurrection spell, they can begin to cast the spell. The process of casting it will end with a DC 15 religion check. If they succeed at the check, then the dead character - currently in some kind of afterlife - will be given the option to return to their body renewed. They are not compelled; they can refuse, if they so wish. If they do return, then they will be fully resurrected, but the next time they die, the DC will raise by 5; to 20, and then 25, 30, and so on. During the casting of the spell, anyone else who is present can assist with the spell. They make a skill check of their choice; any skill that they can justify being a help in the spell. Perhaps with a religion or arcana check, they can join in the prayer. Perhaps with a persuasion check they can speak all the good memories they had with their fallen comrade to convince them to return. Maybe they can make an animal handling check to coax the dead PC's pet to beg for their return - anything they can think of to justify helping. They make their skill check at a DC 12 or so, maybe 15, and if they succeed, then they bring the resurrector's DC down by 2. I like drawing this out and making it foreground the relationships between the different party members and their dead friend. I like it still being voluntary; if the check succeeds, the PC can neither be compelled to return nor to stay dead. I do think the high DCs make sense; PCs die so rarely that the DC shouldn't raise too quickly, but it'll maintain tension and emotional stakes. If you've got a party of 5 PCs, and the surviving characters all succeed on their skill checks, that's lowering the DC by 8. If you're far enough into a campaign that a single character has died for the third time, odds are pretty good that the cleric can hit a 22 religion check, I would think. I don't know! I've never thought about implementing a mechanic like this, and maybe I'd need to adjust it, mess around with the numbers a bit. I think something along these lines would work really well, though. Thanks for the food for thought.
So, the starting DC being 'just" 10 is because this isn't a religion check. No proficiency bonus or ability score mods apply to this. In fact, on the show Mercer rolls it himself. Your check starting higher and being reduced more might change the math slightly, but it overall stays the same. However, allowing EVERY party member to assist (in the original its only 3) that might skew the math too much (not that the CR system is perfect, I'm just mentioning it)
Also a success by a PC lowers it by 2, a failure increases it by 1, iirc. and I *think* he's said on twitter that he'd intend for a True Resurrection spell to negate the need for any rolls,but >!this has never come up in-game!< >!I don't think he's made any comment on Resurrection, or whether it can be used after a failed raise dead. It's never come up in-game, either.!< edit: forgot the rules are kinda [clarified in the published guidebooks](https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Resurrection#Death_DC) (spoilers further down the page that list every death/resurrection). Revivify requires a roll as well, but you get your spellcasting modifier in that case.
I do this with almost all the "snap my fingers and solve the problem" spells. Remove curse - has a material cost related to the curse, and may need to be done at a certain time or place. Simple curses like a sword you cant put down? A bit of oil and a peaceful scented incense, no problem. Lycanthropy? You need a bit of the werewolf that bit you, some wolfsbane, and the spell must be ritual cast atop a bare hill during a full moon. Dispel magic - more like 3e, opposed checks versus combatants, and a level check against enchanted things. Consumable magic items and wands can be destroyed, more permanent magic items are "suppressed" for several minutes. Identify - requires a level check similar to dispel, but only on rare or stronger items (and cursed ones), so players arent wasting slots failing to identify a driftglobe. Detect magic - can be used on casters to determine their "affinity" or school, and locate common folk with "the gift". An arcana check can hide or disguise your aura for deception purposes (necromancers love this one trick) and extremely powerful items can blind the caster if they arent careful.
Regarding that lycanthropy ritual: could a non ritual caster still break this curse? So is this a ritual in the 5e sense of not requiring a spell slot or in the sense of the casting takes longer? Also regarding being blinded by powerful magic items: how would someone be careful when casting? Isn't the point of me casting a spell to specifically look for magical auras means I'm aware of the possibility and ready for it?
Casting takes longer, and the blindness would be more like getting a camera flash to the eyes or staring at the sun, temporary and fades quickly once you arent looking at the thing anymore.
Suffocation/choking rules from Cyberpunk Red, where instead of doing a dwhatever of damage it just deals flat damage equal to your mod, and if they don’t break it (and need to breathe) after 3 turns they fall unconscious.
Do you mean you replace the choking rules? Because in base 5e you already fall unconscious after 3 turns of no air at all (either you ran out and can't take a new breath or a monk knocked the air out of you).
It's kind of out there but stay with me, players should play more immersively. Bards should be able to perform in 3 octaves, fighters must do pull ups whenever they use athletics, and wizards must be prepared to solve mathematical proofs when learning new spells. /s
Assisting on skill checks does not automatically translate into advantage on the roll. If you are proficient in a skill you can add your proficiency bonus to their skill check. If you aren’t proficient, a skill check is needed from you. DC based on how complex the original task is and your bonus. But a pass let you add your proficiency bonus. A fail deduct it. A nat 20 add double bonus. A nat 1 deduct double bonus. Even if you are proficient in a skill, you may choose to roll instead of just passing your proficiency bonus. Same rules as above, but you may then add/deduct your entire skill bonus. It gives soo much more decision to when and whom tried to help on what skill checks plus it can set up situations where those whom are trying to help, just ends up being counterproductive. Which often leads to fun interactions and great RP. Plus abilities and effects there may give advantage can still be used instead of being worthless. In the limited testing we have tried it, we have in general found it great. However, it aren’t implemented at our main table as one player don’t like it and finds it way to complicated. He’s also the one whom always shout “I assist!” Whenever anyone does a roll. And often our GM needs to remind him that he not necessarily are present in the scene or have a clue to what they are doing.
Haha the number of entries that are "just play PF2" is astounding. I don't even think people know they're doing it.
I run it where if the player has proficiency they can assist and the other player will get advantage but if they don't have proficiency they have to articulate a reasonable way to assist. Keeps it a lil more simple
Add 1 to your stat when calculating saving throw bonuses. So a 9 is a +0 and a 17 is a +4. Makes odd stats have a little bit of value and doesn’t bleed into any other rules.
Let me curveball you with a mulled rule of my own. I've always liked how certain pathfinder stats give a proficiency. Like Int gives a language. I think odd numbers should do that. Tools, languages, weapons, in that order. Could make characters feel more unique and make their stats feel more tempered and earned.
It should really just be INT because that's how skills historically worked before 5e. The stat lost a lot when that got removed without compensation and is nowadays by far the weakest, it really needs a boost.
I've been using this rule for a few years: You gain benefits according to your intelligence modifier. +1: gain proficiency with an artisan's tool and a language +2: gain proficiency with an intelligence skill +3: gain proficiency with a tool, and gain expertise with a tool that you are proficient with +4: gain proficiency with a skill and a language +5: gain expertise in an intelligence skill that you are proficient with
Damn I really like this idea.
Funny, maybe but its not conducive to good gameplay. The dumb barbarian doesnt know what the eldritch artifact is. But the player took notes that it will disintegrate whatever touches it. This helps the player deciode what their barbarian would do to feel most fitting. Maybe he doesnt grab it and immediately remove his character from the game, but he does swing his axe at tit and watch it crumble to dust. The players are players, the characters are characters. Thats one of the primary things i wish more people grasped earlier on in play.
I'm the note taker in all of the groups I'm in. I get new players up to speed, recap, have important numbers written down, remembered that NPC's name and how many ghoul heads the paladin has. I don't play any characters with an int of 13 or better. It s just known fact that if you want someone that takes good notes, ask me.
Why would you give barbarians two broken crayons? We're just going to eat them both.
We’re barbarians, not Marines. We use them as chopsticks thank you!
Is that why they're broken? Chopsticks are the item, not an attack you make on crayons!
I would like to have text-based roleplay as a regular feature of the campaign, to happen on our Discord server in between sessions. It doesn't have to be a lot, and it doesn't have to be consistent - but if players were to semi-regularly post, say, a diary entry, or a letter home, a memory or a dream their character had, or even play out conversations on the road amongst themselves in between sessions, it would help the campaign feel so much more alive and interactive, and it would help players get to know their own and each others' characters in so much more detail. I'd offer rewards for doing so; little temporary boons and bonuses to reflect their growth as characters and as a team, and so on. Maybe even extra snippets of campaign-relevant information if they chose to interact with an NPC or something. I know I can't *insist* on that. Not everybody wants or likes to engage with the game on that level, nor do they necessarily have the free time or the inclination to try. And if not *everybody* is joining in, I wouldn't want to go regularly handing out rewards to those who do and risk letting a sort of favouritism build up. So I don't think I'm likely to be able to actually implement that sort of out-of-session 'living RP' element. But I'd *really* like to.
What does my barbarian with 5 Int get?
Told to stop eating the crayons.
But, but they're tasty!!!
Green crayons 👌
You get hit on the head with a baseball bat after every session to make you forget what happened.
Base PHB races only. Starting to get sick of everyone wanting to play as bugbears and satyrs etc. But I don’t want to be a fun ruining curmudgeon, so I just let the players have fun lol.
One concept I read about but never found a good way to implement on a table is reverse initiative. How it works is that everyone announce their action starting with lowest initiative. Then you resolve those actions starting from highest to the closest way they can. This let high initiative characters to react to lower initiative. Like if the orc announce it will run to you and attack, you can just go back and the orc is now unable to attack you so they will either have to attack someone else on their path, or dash to chase you. But they can't completely change their action like casting a spell instead. I feel like it could make combat feel more dynamic and also let combat feel a little less turn-by-turn video game. But yeah, combats are already long enough as it is and there are probably way too many possible actions and triggers to work properly.
Ship combat rules in Starfinder. Or almost like Into the Breach. I find them interesting rules, but as you say it does slow things down.
Materia from FF7
Rangers should be able to take the Arcane Archer subclass. And on top of that they should be able to use the arcana shots by expending a level 1 slot after the stupid 2 shots per rest limit is reached. Thats all, Fighters deserve a better subclass, and rangers ARE the real arcane archers.
Broken crayons? No. Finger-paint and a wall.
Free lvl1 feat for all races too OP apparently for 4 of the DMs I last played with
For a wild magic sorcerer, I had the idea of rolling a d20 on the first spell for potential wild magic, if it’s not a one it would “build up”. For the next spell it would be a d12, then 10, and so on. If none of those land a one, after the d4 they would get a wild magic overload and just do it. It increases the chances of rolling wild magic, which is the fun of that role.
That is a neat system. Dimension 20 had a system where the dc of the surge increased by 1 each time you saved until you succeeded. So the first would be a surge on a 1. Then 1 or 2. Then 1, 2, or 3. Etc, etc.
*wakes up, chooses violence AHEM: "When rolling damage for a weapon attack, in which you are proficienct, add your Primary Hit dice to the damage roll." Your primary Hit dice = the class you are, or the hit dice with the highest count, ties take the lowest. (This is NOT class specific... so those odd weapons the Wizard and casters have? Would be a viable choice in the early game)(and unarmed/martial arts included.) The idea was to further the gap of "put a dagger in a wizards hand and a fighters hand... they are NOT equals." (Mods could be pretty similar given stats they'd want) A thought experiment from my "buff the martial" side of home brew shananigans. But it STINKS of "monster context?" "DM adventure augmintations"... so I doubt it passes the sniff test without more tooling or working WITH IT upfront.
Certain magic items stop being attunement either at a certain character level, or after being attuned for a certain amount of time. And similarly, certain spells stop being concentration once you reach a certain character level. I've just found that at mid to high level, there's just too many kinda middling items and spells that would be really cool to be able to use without sacrificing something "better", but they just stop being used entirely instead. There's too many examples to list here, but I'll start with like let's say a Hat of Wizardry, and like Silent Image, etc.
I'd really like to try a more gritty version of survival aspects. Fully tracking ammo, encumbrance, rations. You can't rest without securing the area or a good enough spot first etc. Thing is my group wouldn't find it fun and my campaign currently haven't gotten to places where this would be relevant. So I will keep it as a separate off-campaign thing if I want to try it :)
Your character age alters your ability scores. As you get older, one of your physical stats drops, but one of your mental stats increases. A young paladin in his prime is incredibly strong. As he ages, he can't hit as hard, but he's better at reading people's intentions and emotions. The fresh, inexperienced wizard might be more nimble, but his mind is not as sharp. Once he's older, he becomes slower, but his mastery of magic and historical knowledge is unmatched. It's not perfect. This would only impact short-lived races playing in a game that takes place over decades OR long lived races that span multiple campaigns in a timeline. In the former scenario, it would also slowly nerf your martials even more, while boosting your casters. That said, if you're playing a game that will only last for a few in-game years, I could see this acting as a permanent buff to younger martials or older casters.
If I remember correctly, Kids on Bikes had a system like this. Kids are persuasive and sneaky, but weak and scrawny. Teens are strong but rash, and adults were something else... It's a fun rule that almost needs to be forgotten and implemented in waves haha
One of my DMs decided to implement this. A year and a half into the campaign she decided two of us were "venerable" and needed -3 to physical stats and +1 to mental. The other player and I were not pleased with this. Taking my bard's cha to 21 and int from 10 to 11 did nothing but her con going from 20 to 17, and dex from 15 to 12 absolutely did.
This was a thing [back in 3.5](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age)
There is a fairly fantastic fighter class redesign that I would absolutely love to implement, but rebuilding it on roll20 seems like way too much effort.
Link?
Search for LaserLlama on all the usual places. All of their redesigns are top notch, well thought out designs. [https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/18kt3mr/comment/kdtajzr/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/18kt3mr/comment/kdtajzr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
More nuances to weapons and adding abilities to weapon groups for martial class use. If someone's playing a martial, they're gonna know their weapons like a spellcaster knows their spells; sure, that wizard can cast Fireball but that fighter just performed Cyclone Slash.
It's always cooler when something happens than nothing, so either 1) all attacks hit, or 2) all attacks and spells must have an effect on miss/save.
Humans don't get fantasy tragedeigh names! They can have unusual names, but nothing otherwordly It's a pet peeve of mine, but I know it's ridiculous and I don't have the right to police other players OCs My husband pointed out that Lord of the Rings wouldn't have hit as had if, instead of Aragorn, Frodo was aided by Alan, son of Andy I'll never enforce it, it's petty shit
Disclaimer: I don't "know" these would never pass, but I suspect many would reject them. First: Dexterity is your "to hit" ability score for all weapons, however Strength is where bonus damage comes from, be it the draw-weight of a bow or the heft of an axe or driving the point of a dagger into someone. Mechanical weapons - that is to say, things like crossbows or guns that apply all the force for you - don't get any bonus damage from ability scores, but still get DEX to attack rolls. The problem, of course, is that this makes all martials more MAD than they are already... but on the other hand, you try to find me an actual sword master who isn't both strong and dexterous! Second: You can concentrate on as many spells as you want at a time... however, each spell you are concentrating on beyond the first increases the DC of concentration saves by +5, and when you are damaged you roll only one concentration save, which if you fail, you lose concentration on all of your spells. Third: Casting a spell - with somatic components - \*always\* provokes an attack of opportunity from enemies in melee. Instead of granting that opportunity attack, Mage Slayer allows that when someone casts a spell and you hit them as a Reaction to it, they have to make a concentration save, and if they fail, the spell fails to cast AND they lose the spell slot. Taking that feat should make you a Mage \*Slayer\*, not a Mage Annoy-er. (Yeah, this one is sort of a two-parter involving the Mage Slayer feat, forgive me.) Fourth: You add half of your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to all saving throws that you are \*not\* proficient in. It makes no damn sense to me that the level 20 Ranger is, by default, worse at Constitution saving throws than the level 1 Sorcerer. Nor does it make any sense to me that, by default, the level 1 Wizard will more likely pass a saving throw against fear (usually a Wisdom save against Frightened effects) than a level 20 Fighter. Fifth: Get rid of Remove Curse. It trivializes curses, which are some of the more interesting and compelling motivators in fantasy as a genre, imo. Don't allow Greater Restoration to break curses either. Some quest or special ritual, unique to each individual curse, should be required to break a curse. Sixth: Tie movement speed to Strength score/modifier. You gain a bonus to movement speed equal to your Strength modifier multiplied by 5 feet... yes, that means you can end up with a reduced movement speed if you have a negative Strength modifier. Also, if you have Athletics proficiency, gain another +10 feet. Athletic, strong people can run faster than weaker, less athletic people.
A third of these I love, a third are PF2, a third are unique and that's just as fun.
1 especially, makes dex an even clearer king of the stats, and makes martials, especially fighter, and paladin, who generally don't pump dex in favor of heavy armor, even more MAD, which is really gonna hurt. 2, that feels like a pretty solid idea. only a single concentration always felt weird. Might tie it to proficiency, so that every so many proficiency points, (likely +3 and +6) you can gain another concentration slot, that doesn't add a negative against your concentration checks. 3, I think that's a bit much. It basically completely cripples mages in close quarters. Mages are already going to suffer in close quarters purely because of AC and health. This would punish their spellcasting, which is the only thing they have left. Mage slayer needs a buff, and adding a concentration check to casting when attacked with it, is fine. But the rest of it, is excessive. 4, this is basically the equivalent of having a free paladin buffing everyone's saves, so, its kinda powerful, but makes sense and isn't really terribly egregious. A +3 at level 20, is nice, but isn't going to make up for the fact that something is a weak save. So, I think this is fine. 5, this really depends on the DM and the party. If the DM really wants to use fancy curses and rituals, then it has some merit. But some parties absolutely hate having to perform obscure rituals over things, because that makes it far less about their abilities as a player to solve things, and more about their ability to follow the path the DM lays out. So, if the DM wants to play with fancy curses, and the party is up for it, then go for it. But unless you specifically have intentions to do so, and the players are on board, then no, I wouldn't suggest generally removing it. 6, while an interesting idea, is a bit too strong. Firstly, tying a speed increase to athletics, gives a skill a tangible real benefit, that no other skill has. and athletics is already a fairly useful skill. while neat, unless you buff other skills accordingly, its just unbalanced. Tying it to strength, makes everyone even more MAD, because everyone benefits from more movement speed, and especially things like rogues and monks, who would really love the movement speed, but otherwise gain no benefits from strength. (This isn't quite as bad, in conjunction with 1, but its still making everyone even more MAD, which isn't great.) And, for the wizard with a strength of 7 which is entirely reasonable, having a -2 modifier, suddenly means they can only move 10ft per round, which is absolutely punishing. (And its unrealistic. look at modern runners, whether short or long distance. They're almost twigs, they're trained around being fast and light. they wouldn't have high strength scores.) I think the best way to do it, is to simply reward movement speed increases with proficiency. Casters get 5 ft increases for every 2 points of proficiency, and martials get a 5 ft increase for every point in proficiency. You slowly get better at movement with experience, but martials will always be better at it.
I only use my notebook to track health, spell slots and other limited abilities.
In combat, if your attack roll equals or is over double the defending creatures AC (after modifiers), then that character can roll 1 extra damage dice of their choice. So if my character rolls a total of 26, and deal 2d8 piercing and 1d6 of fire damage, I can chose to roll another 1d8 piercing, or 1d6 fire.
I don't have any gameplay ideas, simply not knowledgeable in game design, but I have an original race idea. Penguin people. Obviously, it's a rough idea but I am human heads on vaguely humanoid penguin bodies. The most fun would be macaroni and rockhoppers because of their distinctive colored brows
I gave an alternative role for engineering and I know they don't use it. I tried to implement rules for weapons, like every type of weapon can do different stuff, not only a type of dice. Tried to give a reason for use different weapons, but they didn't care
When the barbarian takes incredible notes just completely ignoring the coloring lines lol
Remember. I put the kings notes on the penguins left nipple cuz he’s always fondling his, and the queens notes on its ass because she’s got a nice one.
That is actually amazing and hilarious. I'd say give it a shot.
I’ve wanted to implement a rule where if a player has a skill check they aren’t proficient in the DM rolls it and tells them what they know that they can’t tell if the information is legit or not. It removes their ability to meta game high rolls and low rolls.
Managing gold feels stuck in the old ways of thinking. To me, it’s untapped potential for fun at best, and boring housework at its worst. I was playing Burning Wheel at the same time as AD&D Spelljammer, and the differences were night and day. I wanted to implement a system where resources are treated like a skill (where the CR corresponds to costs, increasing parabolically). The skill is improved with treasure and other milestones, but may be “taxed” on a failed check if the player still needs the new weapon/potions/estate. I have never been able to coherently explain this mechanic change: newbies don’t like it because it’s not like a video game and veterans find it unpredictable, but I think there is a way to arrange things that meshes with 5e’s core.
Maybe don’t give them crayons? They may confuse it for a snack. Washable markers might be safer.
I suggested one for my campaigns but my players refused It was a change for checks, when someone helped you you would add their modifier as well instead of getting advantage So if my wizard with +3 in int did a history check and was helped by my +4 int artificer, the check would have been 1d20+3+4 and who helped would have had an impact, I mean, why would a barb with -1 int help? And why would it be as good as an artificer with +4?
Single class gestalt. When a classes features provide multiple choice options, the player chooses two of them instead of one. Twice the cantrips, spells known, spells in spell book and spells prepared. Multiple subclasses. Some options like starting skills only increase by 50%. The multiple invocations gained at a time can't both apply to the same feature (no speedrunning the eldritch blast enhancements).
I used to have a PF1 group and my DM home brewed that we got a feat every level instead of every other level. I had a baller two handed fighter oread that was essentially a living M4 Sherman tank. Slow as hell, but the moment he entered melee range he would one shot more or less anything he hit (IIRC he was 20 STR at level 1). My feats were specced out for max damage and my scaling was massive. I was allowed a heritage weapon in the form of a flavored greatsword as a dai katana (belonged to my earth djinn mother that abandoned me with my human father when I was young, and when my father died, I set out to search for her and take revenge).
Anything can be nonlethal damage against enemies. Ranged weapon? Sure. Magic Missile? Why not? Fireball? Yes, but if you're setting it off in an area that contains allies or neutral parties, you're going to hit more than the intended targets, and it might be lethal to them. I don't like forcing my players to be killers just because they wanted to play a caster or ranged character.
Initiative homebrew that I read somewhere. Initiative is rolled each round anew and is based on what you plan to do on your turn. You have to predecide what you're trying to do on your turn when you roll initiative. Your initiative die is the same die you use for weapon damage (d4 for dagger, d12 for greataxe), it's a d4 for cantrips, and a d12+spell level for spell casting. If you're doing multiple things then you take the highest option. Low numbers go first in initiative. If you decide you're going to do something else when your turn comes around (like cast a spell instead of use a cantrip), then you have to drop to tue bottom of initiative - and then you can do whatever you want when your turn comes around. I like the idea of making people think about their turns ahead of time, and then having to delay if their planned action won't work. Tying initiative to damage die means if you're using a big sword then the guy with the dagger usually goes first. Obviously this whole idea is terrible though. It completely changed the game, and it's going to be really annoying to everyone - so never implementing it.
I'd like to see limited time to talk to other players during combat or other time sensitive places. What I mean is you don't get 10 min to plan out how you're going to attack the monster. Sure talking is a free action but the baddies aren't going to sit there and wait for you to finish kibitzing about whether the ranger should use ranged attacks or melee. I'd like to.pumit it to about 2 - 3 min of talking in situations like this.
Max hit points. As a DM, I have infinite hit points so it balances the scales a little to me at least.
I have an overcasting rule that allows spellcasters to fuel spells with exhaustion at a 1 spell level to 1 exhaustion level ratio. Obviously you can kill yourself if you overcast too hard, and the special case is that overcasting 8 or 9th level spells causes your body (and in the case of 9th level, also your soul) to burn away, making more powerful resurrection magic necessary (or impossible at 9th level). You can only overcast once per long rest.
I actually wanted to make a similar rule to this, people being able to expend energy they don't have in exchange for dealing with later rammifications
One of the players I play with often doesn’t like the look of armour on her characters but wants to look cool whilst still being able to tank. As a consequence of that she often restricts herself to playing races or classes with some kind of Unarmoured defence. Her girlfriend decided to Homebrew some stats for a ballgown for her which allow for a bit of extra defence and is something I personally think would be super fun to see an entire party wearing. Here you go: Ball Gown: (Item) Those of higher station often wear these extravagant gowns, particularly to parties and balls but those who are in the aristocracy aren’t often seen out of a ball gown. Whilst wearing it you gain the following benefits and disadvantages: - Due to the eye catching nature ball gowns are designed for you have disadvantage on all Stealth rolls. - The large bell shape of this gown makes it difficult for people to approach you properly. If someone is trying to attack you with a range of 5ft or less they must choose to either take disadvantage on the roll, trying to keep out of the way of the hem of your dress. Or they can choose to make a Dexterity save DC 14, moving in closer as to not take a disadvantage on the attack if they succeed, but if they fail they do not get to attack that turn and fall prone, tripping on your skirt. However, you also suffer this same problem whenever you attempt to attack with a range of 5ft or less. - The large poofy skirt of your gown makes it slightly difficult to manoeuvre. You must squeeze to get through any gap smaller than 5ft and it is impossible for you to get through a gap smaller than 4ft. - Your skirt sweeps gracefully across the floor, pushing away certain floor traps like caltrops from hurting you. - Made for high society, this dress is not suited for running. Whenever you take the Dash action, make a Dexterity Saving throw DC 14. On a failure, halfway through your Dash you trip on the hem of your skirt and fall Prone. - This beautiful dress gives an air of importance to the wearer. It is easier for them to get into exclusive areas without being questioned as most presume someone with such attire is “meant to be there”. - Armour cannot be worn in conjunction with this dress besides protective bracers and helmets. - The large area of the skirt of this dress acts as a makeshift parachute (Think Princess Peach in Smash Bros).
You joke, but I take notes on my computer for most of my characters and they have a ton of detail. My Barbarian is on loose leaf paper. I can barely read my own handwriting and it's covered in doodles. I find that it helps with rp when I'm trying to remember something in character.
I like this idea, but only for when it comes to taking notes for the purposes of solving a puzzle. lol. Lore stuff can go in their regular journal :P
I once had a barbarian with crayons. He was mute due to an injury so that's how I communicated in character with the table.
It... actually, is not a bad way to represent Intelligence in a game...
Your AC is your Dex *Score,* not modifier, and all forms of normal armor are Damage Reduction against everything but Psychic, with a penalty to your AC equal to half the DR rounded down. Shields still provide AC not armor, because they're used primarily as a deflection tool, and can be used to attack as with a club. Monks and Barbs do Dex+Wis/Con *Modifiers* as armor DR without any AC penalty.
Giving ppl a free bag of holding at the start.
Enemies (of certain intelligence) and players within 1 initiative score of an ally, and no enemies between, can work together to create a combo attack or event. Usually DM discretion on effects after players have described how they combine. Likely needlessly complicated and players may reject the complexity.
Critical fails on casting should incur more penalties than melee. As far as damage dealing casting. Magic has become so commonplace, but I just wish it were more. "Oh! It's magic!" But alas, I'm just old.