Lessons Learned

[DM_Trick]

WARNING: Long read. Reader discretion is advised.


Hello!

I'm what you would call a "veteran" DM. Put it this way, I've DM'd for so long that I refuse to call it "GM" or any other such nonsense regardless of what game system I'm playing. :smallcool: Anyway, I'm not saying this to brag but rather make a point.

I recently stepped out from behind the screen to sit in front of it as a friend of mine ran Princes of the Apocalypse. It took awhile. I want to say 7 or 8 months. Laughs were had. Drinks were drunk. If you're a long time DM like myself then I highly recommend doing what we did and spend some time as a player. I would like to think there are other DM's out there like me. You spend so much time running the game that you forget what it's like to play it. You forget the things that are annoying and cumbersome but you also forget the things that are fun and work well.

Well, during my time playing I realized there were two things that REALLY annoyed me sitting in front of the screen that didn't seem to register when I was behind it. They were:


The relative slow pace of combat.
The incessant need to rest.
Now I understand that game pacing varies from table to table. Anyone who's ever been to a convention where multiples of groups were all playing in the same room can attest to this as some groups will finish up long before others. Anyway, there are a lot of factors to figure in: player proficiency with the system is one, group size is another and of course if your DM likes to throw multiples of monsters at you more often than not. And that's just off the top of my head. There are dozens of other factors to equate but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

So when it was time for me to get back behind the screen I wanted... no, I needed to try to fix these problems, as I saw them, in order to make a better game experience for everyone involved.


Rolling To Defend/Afflict

So the first task was to speed up combat. I saw this problem from two angles. Firstly, the DM's turn is, more often than not, far longer than that of any player. So, I needed to DECREASE the amount of time I was spending rolling on my end and INCREASE the amount of time my players were rolling on theirs. That seemed simple enough: just make the players roll for the monsters.

The original idea was to simply do that, "'X' monster has +7 to hit, roll and see if he hits you." No. That won't work. Because the player is now hoping to roll low, instead of high. Since 5e is predicated on the premise that high is always good and low is always bad it creates a bit of dissonance in the player's mind. Plus it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Ok, so why not just have the player across from you roll as the monster? While this thought seemed fun at first I started thinking about how it would feel if I was rolling as a monster trying to hit my teammate. Sure, there's some sadist pleasure to be had in that thought but it also made me feel kinda guilty. So that's off the table.

Then I started thinking, "Well, I could hide the math mentally and just have them roll a straight d20." That's when I came up with the idea of "Rolling to Defend". So if 'X' monster has +7 to hit and the character's AC is 15 that means the monster has to roll an 8 or higher to hit that character and a 1-7 will miss. So have the player roll a d20 and if he rolls 8 or higher the monster hits! No, won't work. Again, 5e is all about high is good. This makes high bad. Ok, we'll invert the roll. 20 is now always a miss (for the monster) and 1 is always a crit (for the monster). I invert the 1-7 into a 14-20 and now we have a proper 5e Roll to Defend. BRILLIANT!

Mathematically it's the exact same thing but psychologically, in the player's mind, it's not about the monster trying to hit him but him trying to avoid the monster. I mean, really it's the same thing but psychologically it's not.

So, we tried it out. Everyone liked it. I rolled less, they rolled more. Mission accomplished.

Nooooope.

So, I started thinking again. Part of 5e's appeal are the bonuses. You rarely just roll a d20 straight. I mean, your "to hit" increases as you become more powerful. Your bonuses to damage increase, the number of die you use for damage increase. Your spell DC increases. Your AC, usually, increases. Everything gets better. And again, the bonuses with "Rolling to Defend" are still there. They're not gone. The player's just aren't SEEING them. But that act of SEEING is compelling and part of the fun.

Wait... AC increases? Spell DC increases? Ok, how am I going to make this work. How do I make AC and Spell DC part of the roll the player makes?

A little bit of math later...

Ok, a lot later...

MonsterToHitBonus + 12 Vs. d20 + ACBonus

Bam. Mission accomplished. I now have a proper "Roll to Defend". Here's an example:


Goblin has +4 to hit
Character has 19 AC

Normally that means the goblin has to roll 15 or higher in order to hit the character. That equates to a 30% chance to hit and a 70% chance to miss. Now, let's do a "Roll to Defend": 4+12=16. So the DC to defend is 16. The character has +9 to AC. So the player has to roll a 6 or better to Defend the goblin's attack. That's a 70% chance to Defend and a 30% chance to get hit. The math is identical.

And we can do the same thing with Spell DC.

MonsterSaveBonus + 12 Vs. d20 + SpellDCBonus

For example, the player's character casts Infestation on a Frost Giant. The character's Spell DC is 18. Normally that would mean, with a Frost Giant's +8 Con Save, the giant has to roll a 10 or higher in order to save or a 55%/45% chance to succeed/fail. With "Roll to Afflict" (that's what I'm calling it) it works out to be: 8+12=20 Vs. d20+8. So the player has to roll a 12 or higher. That's a 45% chance to "Afflict" the giant with a 55% chance that it will fail. Again, mathematically the same.

SUCCESS!

I now have a mechanic that puts the power in the hands of the players that gives them both a sense of agency and advancement. I don't have to roll as much, they roll more (meaning they're being proactive when it's not their turn instead of just sitting there) and it doesn't break the game in any way shape or form. The only down side is I can't "fudge" numbers buuuuuuuut the upshot is the players KNOW FOR A FACT that I'm not "fudging" numbers. Which is how I typically play anyway. I can count on one hand how many times I've had to "fudge" a roll in the last 20+ years. Actually, I lied. I can't count on one hand because I honestly can't remember the last time I did. It's more fun that way. IMO.


Combat Phases

So "Rolling to Defend/Afflict" was a great start but I figured there was room to improve. So I came up with the idea of "Combat Phases". The idea being, as combat is unfolding, this all takes place simultaneously and within 6 seconds. The battlefield isn't actually just sitting there waiting turn by turn. That goblin isn't just standing there waiting for the character to run up and punch it in the face and the Frost Giant isn't just hanging out waiting for the wizard to cast Infestation. Anyone who's been in a fight or, at the very least, watched a fight/combat scene on TV knows that's not how it works.

So I figured why not divvy it all up into phases? Just like every Round is divided into Turns, every Turn will be divided into Phases. And you take as many phases as is necessary before all action economy is spent thus ending the Turn and subsequently the Round. Each phase you can do exactly one "thing". You can either spend Movement or you can take an Action, but you can't do both. Reactions and Bonus Actions can be taken at any time. So it would work something like this:

Round 1 Begins:
- FIGHT!
- Player1 wins initiative and elects to move 2 spaces to engage Goblin1.
- Goblin1 spends action to attack Player1 and hits!
- Goblin2, sensing things are about to get bad, moves 3 spaces to get behind cover.
- Player2 is in a good position and wanted to shoot Goblin2 but since he's now in cover elects to shoot goblin1. He hits and Goblin1 goes down!
- Player1, annoyed that Player2 just killed Goblin1, spits a curse at Player2 and moves 4 spaces to engage Goblin2 behind cover.
- Goblin2, Eeep! Knowing that he's cornered, Goblin2 spends his action to attack Player1 and misses! Dangs it!
- Player2 spends 6 movement to get into position to attack Goblin2.
- Player1 eagerly spends his action to attack Goblin2... he hits! Felling the goblin with one mighty stroke!
- FATALITY!
- Combat /ends

Everyone takes a phase, it lasts like only 20 seconds, and combat is fast. You, what do you do? Ok. You, what do you do? Ok, monsters do this. Now you again, what do you do? On and on and on until no one has any action economy left and the Turn is over. It's great! Player's don't have to wait 10 minutes before they can do something, they stay engaged with what's happening on the battlefield and aren't tempted to putz around on their phones. It's a win/win! At least that's how I imagined it to work. But in reality it worked more like this:

Round 1 Begins:
- FIGHT!
- Goblin1 Wins initiative and closes 4 spaces to Player2.
- Player2, "I disengage and run over..."
- DM interrupts and says, "You can't disengage AND move in the same phase."
- Player2, "Then why would I ever take the disengage action?"
- DM, "Uhhhhhhh..."
- FATALITY!

It wasn't awful but it wasn't great. My players liked that it was fast. They liked that part. They were always doing something and they didn't get bored at all. Even my narcoleptic player was paying attention to everything that was going on. But a lot of things clearly didn't work. They didn't like that they couldn't move and attack. For example, my ranged guy couldn't out maneuver a goblin that kept circling a rock in order to maintain cover. He'd move to gain line of sight and the goblin would move to break it. And this just kept going on and on. I thought it was hilarious but he didn't. Likewise the goblin couldn't shoot AND maintain cover so it would have been a stalemate until someone else stepped in. Flaws were identified and compromises were made. Ok, you can attack if you engage in the same movement. But what about ranged? They still have to wait. Well that's not fair. What about disengaging? Ok, you can disengage and move at the same time. What about helping? I can move in and help the rogue get his backstab but the monster will just disengage and out maneuver him? How does that work?

It was a good idea in theory but doesn't work in practice. There would be no easy way to implement this idea without changing action economy and how certain actions functioned completely. One player suggested doing 2 turns per round, one normally and then the 2nd where you go back around and any unspent movement/bonus actions could take place. That's at least something to think about.

Does anyone have any suggestions outside of gimmicks like clocks, stopwatches and the like? I don't want to pressure the players. The intent was to make a more engaging combat not a stressful one.

Anyway... see next post for details on how I removed the incessant need for resting.

[DM_Trick]

Changing the Healing System

So the problem I have with the proliferation of Resting is that it simply doesn't FIT narratively. In the vast majority of situations it simply doesn't make sense.

"You mean to tell me that the party wants to take an hour long rest expecting the bad guys in the next room, WHO KNOW YOU'RE HERE, to just... what? Chill?"

I recall reading somewhere (don't ask me where because I simply don't remember) that WoTC expected the average game session to consist of 5-6 encounters and 3 or more Rests. That... BOGGLES... my mind. When we were playing Princes of the Apocalypse we needed to rest after almost every encounter. Or at least every other encounter. And some combat encounters lasted hours. That's plural by the way. Hours. Granted, one of our players was new, and two of the others are notoriously a bit slow and the DM had tons of opponents to manage. But still, I simply can't wrap my mind around doing 5-6 encounters. Anyway, that's not the point.

The point is they're EXPECTED to rest over and over and over again. Now, I get that character's need time to rest. I get that. But when you're doing a dungeon crawl it doesn't process in my mind that character's are going to just pop into an unoccupied room and just squat for an hour or, heavens forbid, EIGHT hours and no one is gonna notice. You *know* someone's gonna notice. I mean, no self respecting evil cult leader is going to run an evil temple where every square inch isn't patrolled at any given point in time. Nor is said temple going to suffer an incursion without going on full high alert after the first fight breaks out. Let alone 2nd, 3rd or 4th. That just doesn't make any sense. And to design a story that way, with the expectation that resting in dangerous areas is NORMAL (albeit possibly dangerous, granted) is just bad story telling. Not IMO. I'm not compromising or trying to prevent an argument by saying "IMO". That's just bad bad story telling. Through and through. If you disagree then you're wrong. I will not compromise on this point.

Anyway...

I set to task on how to get rid of the constant need of resting. Now, I'm sure most people who read this (if you've gotten this far... bravo!) will undoubtedly disagree with what I'm about to present. "That's OP as ****!" will probably be thrown about but just bear with me on this one.

The idea I eventually came up with was to change how Cure Wounds and subsequently Resting worked. The premise is to not have a healer *required* but still provide an advantage to parties if so chosen and in doing so free spell slots for other spell casting options. The idea is simple, make Cure Wounds a Cantrip and have it consume Hit Die. It's that easy. Well, not really. I had to play with a lot of numbers to get it to balance out with the current system. However, with what I came up with it's comparable to the current iteration.

So Cure Wounds is a Cantrip. If cast without consuming any Hit Die it will serve the same function as Spare the Dying. If however it is cast and consumes Hit Die it will heal for 1d8+SpellCastingMod per Hit Die consumed. The caster cannot consume more Hit Die then spell levels he/she is able to cast and it cannot be cast as a bonus action.

For example, a 5th level Cleric could cast Cure Wounds and restore up to 3d8+12 (assuming 18 Wis) HP, costing the *PLAYER BEING HEALED* 3 Hit Die (HD).

This method creates a finite pool of healing per individual but a comparable potential healing pool for the entire party overall. Let's go over some math to see how this works.


____________________


Assuming 20 CastingStat (+5) Bonus.
18th lvl caster for max lvl 1-5 healing potential since spells post lvl 5 out heal Cure Wounds.
5 man 18th lvl party, Average HD: d8 & Average Con of 14 (+2) bonus.


CURRENT SYSTEM:

Using All Spell Slots to cast Cure Wounds:

46d8 = Min 46 / Max 368
Bonus (+5 per spell cast) = 80
Total = Min 126 / Max 448
Avg = 264

In addition to Cure Wounds we have Healing provided by Resting:

18d8 = Min 18 / Max 144
Bonus (+2 per die) = 36
Total = Min 54 / Max 180
Avg = 108 per Member or 540 for the entire Party
________

Grand Total = Avg 804 healing per day and Cure Wounds consists of 33% of total healing done.


PROPOSED SYSTEM:

18d8 = Min 18 / Max 144
Bonus (+5 per die) = 90
Total = 108 to 234
Avg = 162 per Member or 810 for the entire Party
____________________


As I said, the total healing potential is comparable between the two. Now, the bonus behind this system is two fold: first, it frees up all those spell slots for "healers" and second, "Resting" isn't REQUIRED. This hits home for me particularly because when we were playing Princes of the Apocalypse we had a druid in our group. This druid basically had to save all of his spells slots in order to keep the party afloat. So he was pigeonholed into what amounts to, essentially, a heal bot. Whenever he would want to cast something other than a heal you could see him doing the mental gymnastics of whether or not it was worth losing that potential healing reserve. Most of the time it wasn't.

When Xanathar's came out and Healing Spirit became a thing, now the Ranger's felt like they couldn't cast DPS/Utility oriented spells because that's one less Healing Spirit available to the party. Where Healing Spirit should have alleviated the problem it only exasperated it. And so we would fight conservatively, heal up and then rest almost immediately after since the next encounter just drained us dry of resources regardless. This was a continuing cycle and it became extreeeemely tiresome. And it just wrecked the story narratively. I mean, I can't speak for the other players but I know for a fact our DM shared my opinion as he straight out told me so after I shared this proposed system with the group once I got back behind the screen.

Anyway, the question then arises: if there's no need to rest then why rest? Well, outside of class related bonuses for Short Resting I felt like I needed a little something extra to incentivize the group to rest. Nothing game breaking, just a little something. Something that meatier classes would enjoy while frailer classes wouldn't necessarily NEED if there was a Healer in the group. I got it, maximize HD healing rolls when resting. Those classes with good Con scores and high HD values (d10 or d12) would benefit from a rest more than they would from a Healer's healing (barring options like Life Domain of course) and the frailer classes would get their benefits from Short Rests (ie Warlocks etc). The math works out thusly (assuming same factors as previous example):


____________________

18d8 = 144

Bonus (+2 per die) = 36

Total = 180 per Member or 900 for the entire Party
____________________


With this system players that are playing "healing" classes don't feel like, "Everyone else gets to do cool sh*t except me" and Resting is no longer a necessity but a convenience. And for those groups that just don't elect to take a "healer" or a class that has a cantrip option to afford Cure Wounds as a healing resource, well, you're still gonna have to rest but at least you get max rolls when you decide to rest. Now, there are a couple house rules that are going to be necessary for this system to work.


Healing Spirit will need to be removed.
Any class, feat or item feature that affects or restores HP while resting will need to be errata'd to instead restore 1x HD of healing (while resting) in order to provide value. This is the simple way I'm doing it anyway.
Spell Slots cannot exceed current maximum values listed in the PHB under their respective class tables. No Warlock/Sorcerer shenanigans.
Cure Wounds is exempt from Magic Initiate or similar feats and/or class abilities. We can't have fighters walking around healing people left and right.


I'm sure there are other loopholes but those are the ones I've thought about off hand. I'll just have to plug those leaks as I come across them. Also, it bears noting that at lower levels the math will favor the current system by over 25%. It's not until like lvl 18 that it evens out and then by lvl 20 surpasses. For example:


____________________


Assuming 18 CastingStat (+4) Bonus. Perfectly reasonable for lvl 9.
9th lvl caster
5 man 9th lvl party, Average HD: d8 & Average Con of 14 (+2) bonus.


CURRENT SYSTEM:


Using All Spell Slots to cast Cure Wounds:

36d8 = Min 36 / Max 288
Bonus (+4 per spell cast) = 56
Total = 92 to 344
Avg = 200

In addition to Cure Wounds we have Healing provided by Resting:

9d8 = Min 9 / Max 72
Bonus (+2 per die) = 18
Total = 27 to 90
Avg = 54 per Member or 270 for the entire Party
________

Grand Total = Avg 470 healing per day and Cure Wounds consists of 42% of total healing done.

PROPOSED SYSTEM:

9d8 = Min 9 / Max 72
Bonus (+4 per die) = 36
Total = 45 to 108
Avg = 72 per Member or 360 for the entire Party

Or assuming no healing and all HD are spent via Rest:

9d8 = Min/Max 72
Bonus (+2 per die) = 18
Total = 90 per Member or 400 for the entire Party
____________________

It's not a perfect solution. After all, nothing is. When I first came up with this I was toying with the idea of restoring a character's Con bonus worth of HD during a Short Rest (limit one per Long Rest) but I felt that was going a little too far. I could be wrong and maybe I'll implement it if I feel it's needed. We'll see. But overall I think it's a step in the right direction and my players and I are excited to get some play time under our belts to see how it performs.

So yeah, congratulations to those who read through this entire monstrosity. You get a well earned e-cookie. Enjoy!

:smile:

[Unoriginal]

So the problem I have with the proliferation of Resting is that it simply doesn't FIT narratively. In the vast majority of situations it simply doesn't make sense.

"You mean to tell me that the party wants to take an hour long rest expecting the bad guys in the next room, WHO KNOW YOU'RE HERE, to just... what? Chill?"

I'm going to stop you right here.

In the vast majority of case, resting doesn't make sense... because it is not *supposed* to happen.

If you try to rest one hour when a group of bad guys is in the next room and know you're here, what the bad guys (provided they're able to and don't have special instructions) will do is raise the alarm and then the whole dungeon is going to fall on the PCs' face at once, because that's how people defending from intruders work.

When you short rest, it's because a) you're in a spot that is safe and b) the enemies don't manage to find you before the end of the rest.

Monsters aren't going to let you play in their territory, if they know you're here. And no one want to face a whole dungeon at once. Dunno why, and I mean no offense to you by that, but people on this forum often seem to have the assumption monsters will calmly wait in their box/room for the PCs to come and play.

Some creatures, like Strahd in the Curse of Strahd module, will let you rest when they could kill you, but that's because he's toying with you and is too insane and arrogant to realize the PCs can potentially be a threat. In Princes of the Apocalypse, if I recall correctly, there are several groups within the same dungeon and taking rests is for when you're out of everyone's radar.



I recall reading somewhere (don't ask me where because I simply don't remember) that WoTC expected the average game session to consist of 5-6 encounters and 3 or more Rests. That... BOGGLES... my mind.

This is 100% incorrect. WotC balanced the classes so that during one adventuring day (aka the space between two short rests), which can take several sessions, all the classes can handle 6 to 8 Medium Encounters (or fewer Hard/Deadly ones) with 2-3 short rests before running out of ressources.

That's it. They don't expect you to face 6-8 encounters every single sessions, nor every single day, nor to limit the number of encounters in a dungeon to that rate.



When we were playing Princes of the Apocalypse we needed to rest after almost every encounter.

Well, the question is: did you NEED to, or did you WANT to?

Were you really so low on ressources all the PCs needed to recharge or else they'd die?

Did everyone just use their best abilities all the time and then asked for a rest because they wanted it back?

5e, and its dungeons in particular, are based around ressource attrition. Players who want to try to avoid risk and rest whenever they're a few HPs or ability shorts are trying to treat dungeon-dwelving like a game you can pause rather a dynamic situation meant to be dangerous, possibly because of assumptions set by other games/editions of D&D.

Fully rested PCs can punch WAY above their weight classes, simply by burning a day's ressources in one fight. That's why attrition is important.

Resting DOES fit narrativly, but only when it makes sense to happen.


Hoping my post is useful.

[DM_Trick]

I'm going to stop you right here.
And I'm going to stop you right there.

Whatever your intent may be, that's a rude way to begin a conversation. So, just like I would in real life, I'm simply going to walk away. Have a good one.

[Unoriginal]

And I'm going to stop you right there.

Whatever your intent may be, that's a rude way to begin a conversation. So, just like I would in real life, I'm simply going to walk away.

Well, I apologize, as being rude was not my intent. The tone was meant to be good-natured. As a word of advice, though: if you're going to dismiss a whole post because of a rude-sounding common expression, well, you're probably going to dismiss too many posts to have any discussion, on this forum.



Have a good one.

Passive-aggressiveness is pretty rude, though.

[Merudo]

Hi DM_Trick! Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the game!

I think your two posts are full of interesting ideas. I would personally recommend you create multiple threads so that each suggested modification can be explored fully.

I personally think your "Rolling To Defend" idea is very good. It makes the players more involved, and from the perspective of the players it unifies the mechanics (i.e. having to roll to resist a spell is the same as rolling to avoid a goblin's attack).

The only problem I can imagine with that new system is that it's unclear what should happen if there PVP or if one PC gets mind controlled and attacks another.

[Vorok]

It's interesting that your group decided that healing people (I'm not sure if you were trying to have max HP all the time or if you were healing downed people) is more effective than using spells to kill or control the enemy. Whenever healing is discussed in 5e, I see basically everyone is arguing that killing and controlling the enemy is much more effective than healing, and that there is no need for 'heal bots' (much less need for the ranger to spend slots in fight on healing).

Also I don't see the sense in boosting the healing so much that short rests are unneeded to the point that you have to boosts the short rests, so short rest-dependent (sub)classes aren't nerfed.

[Lunali]

It seems to me that both your issues could be caused by simply having your encounters be too large. The majority of the 6-8 encounters per long rest should not be a serious threat to the players, they exist to drain resources for later.

[Contrast]

I'm surprised the active defence rolls by the players are faster than you just rolling yourself (which was you original aim) though I can certainly see that it would help keep players more engaged when it wasn't their turn.

With regard to the resting/healing, you seem to be trying to solve a problem I've never had in my games so makes it a little difficult to comment. I barely ever see non-healing word healing spells being cast and have several times played in groups with no-one capable(/interested in) casting healing spells without it being a major deal. We tend not to do massive dungeon crawl type encounters so unless there's a specific set piece we're engaged in we've usually got time to secure a short rest if we really want one.

Out of interest did you try out the 'epic heroism' resting variant in the DMG (p267)? It cuts short rests down to 5 mins and long rests to an hour (but restricts regained spell slots until you get a full 8 hour rest).

[PhoenixPhyre]

A few things from my experience on both sides of the screen (not that I use one):

1) rolling time is strictly dominated by slow decision-making. Spell-casters (especially indecisive ones) are the dominant source of time-wastage. My turns as DM take very little time unless one of two things is true:

** I'm not sure what the monsters should do (almost always due to being a spell caster and having multiple valid options)
** There are crap-tons of monsters (more than about 8 seems to be the break-point).

2) Rests are only needed constantly if you're burning resources/nova'ing. It's ok to be down hit points at the start of combat. Or to be down spell slots/consumable resources.

[ThePolarBear]

So the player has to roll a 6 or better to Defend the goblin's attack.

I bet you meant 7.

1-6 are 6 outs, at 5% each is 30%

[BW022]

DM Trick,

I have played a ton of systems and IMO rule changes are rarely worth it. 5e is pretty balanced, well tested, etc. Significant rules changes tend to have unintended consequences and rarely worth the months of "testing" at the table.

I would recommend doing as much within the rules as possible first.

If the DM turn takes too long... Put in fewer monsters, have a player track monster damage, prepare enemy tactics, spread initiative out, limit spellcasting, use waves, put in fewer combats, have enemies flee or surrender, etc. Initiative cards, multiple dice, predrawn battle maps, etc.

If resting is an issue... Use encounters which limit, punish, dissuade rests.

I'd try as many of these as you can before playing with rules.

[Theodoxus]

Thanks for the analysis, DM_Trick. I've made a number of changes to the rest mechanic, as well as using HD for additional things.

My short rests are 10 minutes, I've added Breathers (any time you're not in combat, you can burn a HD to heal, or other things). The party can take 1 Breather between short rests, and 2 short rests between a long rest. So, Long Rest -> Breather -> Short Rest -> Breather -> Short Rest -> Breather -> Long Rest, repeat.

Each class can burn a HD to regain a class specific ability. I've added feats that boost that ability and add options. I'm considering adding that you can burn HD anytime you're healed with a spell as well.

One thing I'm curious, is if you allow your modified Cure Wounds to be "upcast" to use spell slots sans HD healing. I'd consider that change if I were to implement it.

As for speeding up combat, I like the attempt to make each player an active participant, but there's a lot of math prep for each encounter. I suppose if I were to use this all time, I'd eventually wrap my head around it, but it really feels like THAC0, and adjusting the math on the fly isn't my forte.

For all the detractors, homebrew solutions are very personal. if it's not your bag, that's ok, but slamming others for offering up ideas is not only not cool, it's actively harmful. Do we really need that bit of unnecessary information?

I suspect DM_Trick, if he's been honest about his longevity with the hobby (and why lie?) knows all the little ideas that have been posited as solutions, and they obviously haven't worked for his table. Discussing the merits of the ideas is one thing. Poopooing them because your table works more like WotC expected them to, isn't helpful.

[Unoriginal]

[QUOTE=Theodoxus; For all the detractors, homebrew solutions are very personal. if it's not your bag, that's ok, but slamming others for offering up ideas is not only not cool, it's actively harmful. Do we really need that bit of unnecessary information?

I suspect DM_Trick, if he's been honest about his longevity with the hobby (and why lie?) knows all the little ideas that have been posited as solutions, and they obviously haven't worked for his table. Discussing the merits of the ideas is one thing. Poopooing them because your table works more like WotC expected them to, isn't helpful.[/QUOTE]

All I did was correcting the inaccurate informations/misconceptions about the rules/what the game designers, which DM_Trick described as boggling his mind.


Homebrewing is more than fine and the game expects you to do so, but if something doesn't work due to someone's misconception on how to use it, you don't help modify the thing so it work with the person's misconception, you just tell them where they got it wrong.


If DM_Trick still prefers his homebrew after the explanation, that'd be fine.

[Theodoxus]

Well, I was more speaking to BW022 who came off as "badwrongfun" because of "badwrongDMing".

To which I reiterate, DM_Trick has more than likely tried all those things, and they didn't work - with his specific table. To assume he didn't likewise assumes he's lying about his length of time as a DM.

Talk to the merits of the proposal, not how they're unnecessary...

[Jamesps]

DM Trick,

I have played a ton of systems and IMO rule changes are rarely worth it. 5e is pretty balanced, well tested, etc. Significant rules changes tend to have unintended consequences and rarely worth the months of "testing" at the table.



I've played a ton of systems and in my extensive experience with making tweaks to them, it's often worth the attempt. I'm in the process of designing a game right now and it's really hard to come up with a ruleset that broadly fits to people's play experiences. It's much easier to design one that usually works and give some suggestions for how to modify it to a table's particular preference. That's actually half the point of the DMG in 5e. It's got a bunch of small rules tweaks that are meant to improve the experience for particular table cultures.

Of course all this assumes that the DM is making adjustments based on their entire table's preferences, and not just their own personal preferences. Those can go pretty wrong.

[robbie374]

It wasn't awful but it wasn't great. My players liked that it was fast. They liked that part. They were always doing something and they didn't get bored at all. Even my narcoleptic player was paying attention to everything that was going on. But a lot of things clearly didn't work. They didn't like that they couldn't move and attack. For example, my ranged guy couldn't out maneuver a goblin that kept circling a rock in order to maintain cover. He'd move to gain line of sight and the goblin would move to break it. And this just kept going on and on. I thought it was hilarious but he didn't. Likewise the goblin couldn't shoot AND maintain cover so it would have been a stalemate until someone else stepped in. Flaws were identified and compromises were made. Ok, you can attack if you engage in the same movement. But what about ranged? They still have to wait. Well that's not fair. What about disengaging? Ok, you can disengage and move at the same time. What about helping? I can move in and help the rogue get his backstab but the monster will just disengage and out maneuver him? How does that work?
This may be too complicated, but if you got into the rhythm of it, it could work:

There are 6 sub-rounds per round.
* A character divides his available movement into 6 even portions, in 5-foot blocks.
* If an effect gives the character extra movement, that movement should similarly be divided across the next 6 sub-rounds.
* Each sub-round, a character can use one portion of movement.
* If a single act, such as standing up from prone, requires more than one portion of movement, he can spend other available portions early to finish it in the same sub-round.
* Each sub-round a character can take an action, attack, or bonus action, if he has one available.

This allows character to chase each other in an interesting way, and should help alleviate the problems of ranged characters.

[MagneticKitty]

Don't try to 2e my 5e. Reversed rolls are like my kryptonite.

[Tanarii]

One of my biggest annoyances as a DM is spellcasting DCs PCs and having to constantly roll saving throws for monsters. This especially jumps put with Sacred Flame and Acid Splash, as cantrips. No PC at-will ability should require a saving throw. Period.

Unfortunately, I've found players strenously object to the idea of changing saving throws to attack rolls or equivilents. Hell, it was a hugely controversial part of 4e ... which I loved as a DM.

[robbie374]

One of my biggest annoyances as a DM is spellcasting DCs and having to constantly roll saving throws for monsters. This especially jumps put with Sacred Flame and Acid Splash, as cantrips. No PC at-will ability should require a saving throw. Period.

Unfortunately, I've found players strenously object to the idea of changing saving throws to attack rolls or equivilents. Hell, it was a hugely controversial part of 4e ... which I loved as a DM.

What reasons do they give for their objections?

[Tanarii]

What reasons do they give for their objections?
Lasts time I brought it up with a few different sessions I mainly had objections based on tradition, appeals to the superiority of raw, disparaging the balance of homebrew, and general expressions of discomfort at the idea at such a "radical" change.

This is from mostly college age players, so most have no grognard-y roots that I would have expected such a reaction. 😂

[Theodoxus]

Wow, I never even considered that problem, Tanarii, but I totally agree with you. Heck, as both a player, and a DM, I'd love to get rid of saves in general. I really did like 4th Ed's Defense stats...

If I could cast Sacred Flame as an attack with my kobold cleric, so I got advantage on the roll from pack tactics? Heck yeah!

Yeah, the time saver of having the player roll attacks would be good too.

However, since this is a thread for changing combat, I think if I were to turn at least all cantrips to attack rolls, I'd probably take a page from 3rd Ed with Touch attacks and 4th Ed with Defense attacks.

Sacred Flame targets Dex, so I'd be fine with it targeting AC (although a "touch" attack makes more sense, as the Flame would ignore your armor (hence the Dex Save, RAW). But something like Toll the Dead, as a Wisdom save, makes less sense as an attack against AC - but if you had a Will Defense stat (stealing from 4th, where it would be Wis or Cha), rolling to hit that does make sense.

But this again, gets pretty mathy... though I could certainly see it, from a groundfloor buildup working quite well.

[robbie374]

Lasts time I brought it up with a few different sessions I mainly had objections based on tradition, appeals to the superiority of raw, disparaging the balance of homebrew, and general expressions of discomfort at the idea at such a "radical" change.

This is from mostly college age players, so most have no grognard-y roots that I would have expected such a reaction. 😂

Wow. Sounds like a bunch of people incapable of thinking for themselves. Changing to attack rolls keeps statistics identical, although you could theoretically use things like the Lucky feat. Your attack bonus is your standard spellcasting attack (no new math required!). Target's AC is 14 + saving throw bonus (very little math).

[Theodoxus]

Why 14? Just wanting to understand your math...

[Greywander]

One of the big issues with converting spells that require saving throws to use attack rolls instead is that it severely reduces your tactical options. A creature with high AC doesn't necessarily have high DEX, and might be weak in other saves as well. By making this change you would be inflating the usefulness of AC and reducing the usefulness of saving throws.

One idea I've considered was converting saving throws to "saving class" (SC?), which would work like AC. Players would make an attack roll, but would target the "saving class" instead of AC.

You could work it out so the math was identical, but even this would cause a minor change in the rules. Namely, RAW you can cast ranged spells from melee with no problem if they use a saving throw instead of an attack roll, on the other hand these spells can't benefit from things like Spell Sniper that specifically require an attack roll (oh yeah, and there's also cover to consider). You could simply say that if you target a "saving class", it's not technically an attack roll, or you can embrace the change.

To the OP, RE; healing. I feel like maybe you're trying to change too much at once. You're changing one thing to fix one problem, but in doing so you create some more, so you fiddle with it a bit more to fix those problems, etc. I feel like there is probably a simpler solution to your problem that doesn't muck things up quite so much.

So how about this instead?

You can spend 1 minute (so not in combat) to take a quick breather, spending ONE hit die to heal as you would during a short rest. You can only do this a limited number of times, say, once at 1st level, twice at 5th, three times at 11th, and four times at 17th level. (Alternatively, you can use it a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, so twice at 1st level (except you only have one hit die) and up to 6 times at higher levels.) Finishing a long rest (or short rest?) refreshes this ability.

Also: a new cantrip, let's call it Close Wounds. It grants 1d4+1 temp HP, scaling up to 4d4+4 temp HP at 17th level, with the caveat that your current HP + temp HP can't exceed your max HP.

[robbie374]

Why 14? Just wanting to understand your math...

It just happens to work out that way. Here is the math:

Saving Throw Math:
Save DC = 8 + (att)ack mod., Saving throw bonus = +st
Player fails on enemy roll of DC - st or higher.
Player succeeds on enemy roll of DC - st - 1 or lower.
Successes on DC - st - 1 out of 20 rolls.
Successes out of 20 = 8 + att - st - 1 = 7 + att - st

Attack Roll Math:
Roll + attack mod. >= AC is success
Against AC 10, successes on 11 out of 20 rolls (miss on 9 or lower).
x - (AC=10) = 11 success; x = 21
21 - AC = successes out of 20. (e.g. 21 - 10 = 11)

Putting them together:
21 - AC = successes out of 20
successes out of 20 = 7 + att - st
21 - AC = 7 + att - st
14 = AC + att - st
14 + st = AC + att
AC is the minimum roll when you have a 0 attack modifier:
AC = 14 + st.

[lawgnome]

I just started DMing 5E, and have really been liking the system.

I love the idea of the defense roll, as anything to make it more interactive for my players in combat is a good thing (rather than saying "well, it looks like I rolled well. Nothing you can do. Take 8 damage").

As for the healing, I haven't had any issues so far, so I don't know if your system works better or worse (not enough experience with this system to determine if it is necessary or not yet), but I definitely think I'll take the defense roll idea and give that a whirl.


If you think of any other good ways to give the players more agency, please let us know :)

[Theodoxus]

Ok, need more coffee to suss that out - but that's on me, not you.

I have a general question then. Shouldn't proficiency in the Save translate to an AC bonus to the attack?

I brought this up to my players in a Slack thread and one pushed back with the general argument that's raged since 5E's introduction: non-proficient saves will be harder hit with an AC roll attack than proficient ones.

If everything is a static 14+mod, then that argument goes away... but it does mean things like starting Fighter (or Sorcerer) for Con saves doesn't matter anymore...

[Grod_The_Giant]

To the OP, RE; healing. I feel like maybe you're trying to change too much at once. You're changing one thing to fix one problem, but in doing so you create some more, so you fiddle with it a bit more to fix those problems, etc. I feel like there is probably a simpler solution to your problem that doesn't muck things up quite so much.
I agree with this. You're overthinking things. Replacing the healing side of things doesn't have to be complicated-- something like "if you spend one minute and a charge from a Healer's Kit, you may spend hit die as though taking a short rest" will get you most of the same benefits.

But from the intro to the post, it sounds like you've got a more all-encompassing issue with rests, which I certainly cannot blame you for. Classes like the Monk, and-- holy crap you guys-- the Warlock, as well feats like Inspiring Leader and Healer, can become significantly better or worse, depending on the encounter:short rest ratio, and it's one of my biggest gripes about 5e. Changing how healing works might mitigate some need to burn spell slots, but there are still major reasons to take them.

The simplest solution is probably to say something along the lines of "your first two Short Rests each Long Rest only take five minutes." That's a lot easier to fit into an adventure, and-- as a bonus-- it means that you can easily have different characters short resting at different times, making the resource allocation question less party-dependent. You can also convert each Short Rest ability into a 3/Long Rest one, perhaps with "no more than the original value in a single encounter" clause to prevent excessive nova strikes.


EDIT: As for the who-rolls-when question... I like "players roll all the dice," even if it means different standards for players and GMs. Monster attacks a PC? They roll d20+AC. They attack a monster? d20+Prof+Stat against the monster's normal AC. Monster casts a spell? Player rolls a save. They cast a spell? They roll d20+Prof+Stat against the monster's save bonus+8.

[robbie374]

Ok, need more coffee to suss that out - but that's on me, not you.

I have a general question then. Shouldn't proficiency in the Save translate to an AC bonus to the attack?

I brought this up to my players in a Slack thread and one pushed back with the general argument that's raged since 5E's introduction: non-proficient saves will be harder hit with an AC roll attack than proficient ones.

If everything is a static 14+mod, then that argument goes away... but it does mean things like starting Fighter (or Sorcerer) for Con saves doesn't matter anymore...

It actually works out quite nicely. Save proficiencies are still part of the AC calculation: your saving throw bonus is equal to your ability modifier + your proficiency bonus, if you are proficient. So your save AC is just 14 + that. The balance remains unchanged, and proficiency or not is built in. Non-proficient saves are just as difficult in either method.

[Theodoxus]

Of course... /facepalm. See, need more coffee...

Thanks for the maths :)

[DM_Trick]

One of the big issues with converting spells that require saving throws to use attack rolls instead is that it severely reduces your tactical options. A creature with high AC doesn't necessarily have high DEX, and might be weak in other saves as well. By making this change you would be inflating the usefulness of AC and reducing the usefulness of saving throws.

One has nothing to do with the other. Roll to Defend uses AC and +to Hit. Roll to Afflict uses Saving Throws and Spell DC. Roll to Defend/Afflict is mathematically identical to Rolling to Hit and Rolling to Save. All it's doing is a simple math trick to make it seem like the players are ACTIVELY defending from physical attacks or ACTIVELY trying to bypass a creatures magical defenses.

Mathematically it is identical to the current system, it changes who's rolling and how the roll is psychologically delivered.

[Unoriginal]

It also makes antagonists feel less like beings who exist independently from the PCs, and more like things that are there to affect the PCs and not much else.

[Theodoxus]

I'm not getting that vibe, can you explain your rational, Unoriginal?

OTOH, I also do see it is actively defending - a traditional saving throw is active. An enemy rolling an attack, from the PCs perspective, is passively defending. Who rolls the die determines the whether the action is active or passive.

It does bring up a question in regards to environmental effects... how does one get hit "by an exhausting trip across a desert without water." [normally a Con save]....

Likewise, I have a bit of a problem visualizing "dodging" the gaze of a vampire as Willpower resistance. Or getting stabbed by a poisoned blade, and then "dodging" the poison effect... Some things, as a natural form of resistance makes more sense as a save than an attack...

[Greywander]

DM_Trick, other people posting in this thread had brought up the possibility of simply converting all spells (or cantrips, at least) from saving throws to attack rolls. That's what I was directing that portion of my post towards. Roll to Afflict is, if I understand correctly, basically the same thing as my "saving class" idea, except that it is explicitly not an attack roll, whereas my "saving class" idea isn't fleshed out enough and leaves open the possibility that it could be an attack.

I have to admit, I only skimmed your two posts, so I'll need to go back and reread them in full later. You've got some interesting ideas, and you've clearly put some thought it into. If it works well for you to have players roll everything then I say, great, mission accomplished.

For me, I'm partial to symmetry in my systems, specifically that NPCs should function exactly like PCs. It makes it much easier to compare the power of PCs to NPCs, it means there doesn't need to be special rules for PvP or NPvNP, and it means that PCs get to work with the same tools NPCs do instead of one or the other getting access to things the other doesn't get. In other words, it makes things simpler (since we don't need different rules for PCs and NPCs) and more fair (since they're running off of the same rules). YMMV, as you seem to want to introduce asymmetry in order to improve the play experience for your players. D&D 5e is already slightly asymmetric, as most creatures are a discrete package of stats and abilities instead of race + class.

[mephnick]

Unfortunately, I've found players strenously object to the idea of changing saving throws to attack rolls or equivilents. Hell, it was a hugely controversial part of 4e ... which I loved as a DM.

Man I would welcome that with open arms now that I realize how many DMs are open to fudging. Give me control of my abilities back, thanks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It also makes antagonists feel less like beings who exist independently from the PCs, and more like things that are there to affect the PCs and not much else.

And what do you do about NPC followers? I frequently have a couple hangers-on--

One PC has a pet Giant Lizard. I control them, but otherwise they act like a party member. Another has a pseudodragon familiar. They've had a full-statted NPC (not DMPC because they gave it orders) following along. Another group had 2 NPC party members filling in missing roles.

Who rolls for them, and how are they handled?

I didn't mind this system in 4e, honestly. It fit very well there. But having a bunch of AC vs X defenses doesn't really solve all that much in this edition IMO.

[lawgnome]

It also makes antagonists feel less like beings who exist independently from the PCs, and more like things that are there to affect the PCs and not much else.

Now that I think of it, I did play with a friend several years ago using a home brew system. It had mechanics very like this (where the players rolled for defenses, etc. instead of the DM rolling for the attack). It did not feel like you say at all. Instead, it worked to make the combats a little more interactive for the players.

There was no detraction from combat. The bad guys still moved around and attacked in whatever way suited them. The only difference was that the players rolled to defend rather than the monster rolling to attack.

Anything that gives more "look what I did!" highs and lows to players is a good thing :smallsmile:

[DM_Trick]

Anything that gives more "look what I did!" highs and lows to players is a good thing :smallsmile:
That is exactly my opinion.

If *I* roll well, the players will always wonder... "Did he really?" Some of the guys I play with I've played with for decades. That's plural. We all know each other well and they know I don't "fudge" but there's always that lingering doubt.

This way, their fates are in their hands. Their highs are really high and their lows are "GOD D*MN IT!"

We're still feeling out the healing system, the general consensus is that they like it but too soon to tell. They really like the Roll to Defend/Afflict though. Especially when I ask them to occasionally narrate HOW they defended/afflicted.

Edit:

As a side effect of this change, it also gives the player's a means by which to figure out on their own what a monster's weaknesses are through legitimate experience. Vs. trying to make a "lore" check of some fashion. When they Roll to Afflict that 'X' Monster and they see the DC is low, "It's weak against Dex! GET IT!!" This creates a genuine dynamic of discovery and growing as an Adventurer.

[Lunali]

If *I* roll well, the players will always wonder... "Did he really?" Some of the guys I play with I've played with for decades. That's plural. We all know each other well and they know I don't "fudge" but there's always that lingering doubt.

In actual campaigns I have never questioned when the DM rolls well, only when they roll poorly. In one-shots I sometimes have questioned both, but there was never enough evidence for a pattern. If you really feel the DM is against you, there may be other underlying problems.

[Greywander]

As a side effect of this change, it also gives the player's a means by which to figure out on their own what a monster's weaknesses are through legitimate experience. Vs. trying to make a "lore" check of some fashion. When they Roll to Afflict that 'X' Monster and they see the DC is low, "It's weak against Dex! GET IT!!" This creates a genuine dynamic of discovery and growing as an Adventurer.
I was going to say this leads to gaming the system to figure out exactly what a monster's stats are, but now that I think about it, I like it. Because when you, say, throw a Fireball and see the enemy sluggishly try to move out of the way, you can tell it's bad at dodging things. So you're going to adapt your strategy to target its poor Dexterity. Even for mental stats you can tell when a creature gives up their will easily or when they resist without flinching. And it's not like they will learn this on the first roll; they have to roll poorly and still hit in order to find out a monster is weak to something, or roll well and still miss to find out it is resistant.

[Mordaedil]

This whole thing was printed in Unearthed Arcana for 3.5

But you might be overcomplicating things. All you really need to do is replace d20 with a 10 for your monsters and use it like a reverse attack roll. This does mean every spell becomes a spell attack roll, even the eponimous fireball and the like.

[War_lord]

{Scrubbed}

If you're reading through a system (any system not just D&D) and you see something that doesn't make sense, there's three possibilities.

1. You read it wrong, or otherwise misunderstood the text.

2. You read it correctly, and your negative opinion is formed because you're stuck in the mindset of a different game/edition without actually seeing how the actual intended rule works in play. It will clear up after some playtime.

3. The professional game designers, who in WoTC's case are some of the very few full timers in the industry legitimately designed something in their own game wrong, and you, a random Grognard on the internet, knows how to fix it without causing far greater design problems.

Now, I'm not saying number three is impossible, indeed 5e does have its faults. But so called "veterans" have a profound tendency to jump to answer three without first considering the first and second possibilities. And then when Unoriginal actually pointed out that the base assumptions behind your homebrew are grossly incorrect, what did you do? You resorted to the tone fallacy. Ironic that in a thread titled "lessons learned", you're refusing to learn the actual lesson, make sure you actually understand what the rules of the game are before you go trying to change them.

[Scripten]

-snip-

As someone who wouldn't use these homebrew rules at my table, this post completely misses the following possibility:

4. Some tables have preferences that differ from others and might find homebrew rules more palatable.

Creating homebrew rules and sharing them does absolutely nothing to harm or disparage 5e. This isn't a case where OP came in and started ranting about how 5e is a broken, unfinished mess. This wasn't a tirade against basic assumptions of the system. It was (arguably) ill-informed in some ways, but your arguments don't bring anything constructive to the table here.

I get that we might be a bit defensive here, as 5e endures a fair bit of trolling from certain board members, but calling OP "incessantly long and incoherent" doesn't raise the level of discourse whatsoever.

[Jamesps]

As someone who wouldn't use these homebrew rules at my table, this post completely misses the following possibility:

4. Some tables have preferences that differ from others and might find homebrew rules more palatable.



In my experience with homebrew games this is actually by far and away the most frequent reason for a rules modification.

[Unoriginal]

As someone who wouldn't use these homebrew rules at my table, this post completely misses the following possibility:

4. Some tables have preferences that differ from others and might find homebrew rules more palatable.

I second Jamesps's post. This is, as far as I've experienced, the main reason why homebrew exist, and it's why 5e tells you to change whatever you want if you want it.



It was (arguably) ill-informed in some ways, but your arguments don't bring anything constructive to the table here.

However, I'm not sure what's arguable about OP being ill-informed in some ways, given that some of the points he expressed as assumptions of the game are demonstrably not what the game assumes.

In any case, it's true there is no need for hostility. Not for what the OP did so far, in any case.

[Tanarii]

As someone who wouldn't use these homebrew rules at my table, this post completely misses the following possibility:

4. Some tables have preferences that differ from others and might find homebrew rules more palatable.

Creating homebrew rules and sharing them does absolutely nothing to harm or disparage 5e. This isn't a case where OP came in and started ranting about how 5e is a broken, unfinished mess. This wasn't a tirade against basic assumptions of the system. It was (arguably) ill-informed in some ways, but your arguments don't bring anything constructive to the table here.

I get that we might be a bit defensive here, as 5e endures a fair bit of trolling from certain board members, but calling OP "incessantly long and incoherent" doesn't raise the level of discourse whatsoever.


In my experience with homebrew games this is actually by far and away the most frequent reason for a rules modification.
Not for 5e, but in AD&D (both editions), my experience was that house-ruling was done either because:
A) they felt the rules were insufficient to cover the situation
B) they felt the rules were too complex or messy to use

It was only with the rise of 3e and internet forums did I become aware that there were people who felt they knew better than the designers and could "fix" things with house-rules.

Homebrew is a totally different thing to me. It's usually inventing classes or the like from the ground up. Or, less commonly, means a custom campaign setting that's been heavily worked on at length.

[Scripten]

However, I'm not sure what's arguable about OP being ill-informed in some ways, given that some of the points he expressed as assumptions of the game are demonstrably not what the game assumes.

I probably should have used a different word. I would say that the first section (players roll both to hit and dodge) is on more solid footing than the healing/rest stuff, and I wouldn't say that having the players roll to dodge goes against the assumptions of the system in the same way.

[Unoriginal]

I probably should have used a different word. I would say that the first section (players roll both to hit and dodge) is on more solid footing than the healing/rest stuff, and I wouldn't say that having the players roll to dodge goes against the assumptions of the system in the same way.

Well, yes, this is why I only corrected the incorrect informations in the second part.

Then I was told I was rude and so my post didn't deserve reading.


My only objection to the first part is that in my opinion it kind of abstracts the NPCs into harmful effects you roll against rather than make them feel like independent beings, but that's self-acknowledgedly an impression/opinion, and if DM_Trick prefers it that way it's his prerogative as a D&D user.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Let's keep it civil in here, please.

[DM_Trick]

I was told I was rude and so my post didn't deserve reading.

If you want to have a discussion, I’m more than happy to. If you want to preach, become a pastor and gather some parishioners; I’m not interested in sermons.

This thread was written as a narration of evolution of thought. It’s intent is solely for entertainment, not debate. Note, that only once did I ask for input and it was only in regard to a very specific circumstance. That exception aside, reader input was never addressed or requested. This wasn’t accidental, it was purposeful.

If you agree with my thoughts, great. If you don’t, that’s great too. Your permission, however, is neither requested nor required. If that bothers you, which evidently it does, I’m sorry but that’s not my burden to bear.

If you would like to talk out some ideas or thoughts, I’m all ears. If you want to “prove you’re right on the Internet” then I have better things to do with my time.

[DM_Trick]

3. The professional game designers...

To be a professional you simply need to be paid for your work.

To be a game designer you simply need to design games.

I’ve played a lot of bad games made by “professional game designers”. We all have. If “professional game designers” were infallible there would be no 2nd Ed through 5th Ed D&D. Or, to a better point, only one game in existence.

I trust my point is made here without need of further explanation.

[Unoriginal]

If you want to preach, become a pastor and gather some parishioners; I’m not interested in sermons.


If you want to “prove you’re right on the Internet” then I have better things to do with my time.

I'm neither preaching nor trying to "prove I'm right on the Internet". You wrote about a mistaken assumption(s) you had, which you declared boggling your mind, and I just wanted to tell you the accurate facts about it. It's not a question of opinions or or badwrongfun or of anything of this nature.

Note that I've never said anything like "you shouldn't use your homebrew", "your homebrew is bad because XYZ" or the like.


Your permission, however, is neither requested nor required. If that bothers you, which evidently it does, I’m sorry but that’s not my burden to bear.

If you had actually read my posts, you'd have seen I've clearly said that doing what you want was your prerogative and that you could do anything you wanted if you preferred your version.

All what I said was trying to inform you of a factual mistake in how you said the game treat rests and the adventuring day.


If you want to have a discussion, I’m more than happy to.


If you would like to talk out some ideas or thoughts, I’m all ears.


It’s intent is solely for entertainment, not debate.


That exception aside, reader input was never addressed or requested. This wasn’t accidental, it was purposeful.

Kind of a contradictory message, but alright. Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed that someone posting on a forum wanted input on/ to debate/to discuss their works.

But just to say, though, when people use the "DM Help" tag, they generally want help, or at least someone to discuss their ideas.

I apologize for assuming things about this thread, but if you want no debate nor input, you probably should make it more explicit in the opening post.

[Marcloure]

One of my biggest annoyances as a DM is spellcasting DCs PCs and having to constantly roll saving throws for monsters. This especially jumps put with Sacred Flame and Acid Splash, as cantrips. No PC at-will ability should require a saving throw. Period.

Unfortunately, I've found players strenously object to the idea of changing saving throws to attack rolls or equivilents. Hell, it was a hugely controversial part of 4e ... which I loved as a DM.

Really? I think Healing Surges and Fort./Ref./Will as defenses (a.k.a. NAD) are the two most accepted changes 4E made to the game, I frequently hear about how it should have stayed that way and how 5e should look for more ways to burn Hit Die as resources.

Now to the OP, I like your doings. I usually find that players don't like to play a system they don't recognize (after all, they are there to play D&D), but I like what I read here. And just FYI, your changes are somewhat like somethings 4E did (mostly the ones related to healing), and I really enjoy DMing that edition. It's still my favorite edition to run. Using the Healing Dice as resources like that, you can have things (a ghoul?) that eat away a die, or somesort of blood exchange etc.

My babbling isn't very conclusive, but I can say I like at least to read those changes. I myself have a pile of things I would do different in 5e, and changing rules for healing is only one of those things.

[War_lord]

This is a forum, that means that when someone comes along, they're allow talk about your posts, critically, without your permission. I don't know why some people on here are under the impression that the "discussion" part of a forum is optional. I want to clarify something because some people seem to think that my problem with your posts here is that you're homebrewing.

No, the problem isn't that. The problem is that you're trying to homebrew something without the foggiest idea of how it actually works before you mess with it, and presenting that as an "improvement" to the game. And then when anybody corrects the underlining false assumptions, instead of accepting you got something wrong, you fall back on your right to ignorance, and misdirect by complaining about their tone.

If you want to be wrong without being called out on being wrong, start a blog.

[DM_Trick]

I'm neither preaching nor trying to "prove I'm right on the Internet".

Then don’t enter a thread with the phrase, “I’m going to stop you right there.”


If you had actually read my posts...

I would have, had you not been so rude. I’m not sure who exactly you’re accustomed to speaking to, but I’m not them.

[DM_Trick]

This is a forum, that means that when someone comes along, they're allow talk about your posts, critically, without your permission.



I never said you needed my permission in order to state your opinion, just that your opinion doesn’t matter. You can say what you want. Just like I can acknowledge your existence or not. In your case, I choose not.

Best wishes.

/ignored

[War_lord]

I never said you needed my permission in order to state your opinion, just that your opinion doesn’t matter. You can say what you want. Just like I can acknowledge your existence or not. In your case, I choose not.

Best wishes.

/ignored

I don't care if you choose to pay attention to the fact that you're incorrect about the basics of D&D 5th edition. I am going to continue pointing out that you're incorrect about the basics of D&D 5th edition. It's not an opinion that you have gotten these things wrong. It is a fact of the game's design. It is once again ironic that the person calling their thread "Lessons Learned" is incapable of learning from their errors and instead publicly chooses to publicly maintain a position they know is incorrect. I don't understand why someone would bother creating a forum account when they display such a pronounced inability to deal with criticism of their ideas.

I think you did read the entirety of unoriginal's first post, I think you're just mad because unoriginal conclusively showed that you got it wrong. And you just can't take that.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: What part of "civil" do you not understand? Thread locked.