What do you do to make 5e simpler?

[Bjarkmundur]

I've heard a lot of talk about changes the DM might feel are for the better, but end up being "unfun" for the player.

How can a DM make the game more fun, by simplifying varius aspect of 5e rules, classes, feats, ability scores, character sheets or combat systems?

What changes have you made to keep a good flow at your table?

[Theodoric]

Don't use feats or multiclassing, don't fret about ammunition, go easy on somatic components for spellcasting (ie. no weapon juggling).

[Man_Over_Game]

Don't tell your players what skill to roll. Instead, tell them what stat to roll, and then let them tell you what skills' proficiency they want to apply. If they can apply more than one, add Advantage.

Player: "I want to attempt to disarm the trap"
DM: "Make an Intelligence check".
Player: "Adding Investigation and Thieves Tools?"
DM: "Sounds good."

It opens up your players to allowing them to decide how their skills are relevant, opens up your challenges to be solved in more ways, and rewards specialists (so that someone doesn't always have to choose between using Stealth and Sleight of Hand, or Deception and Performance, or Persuasion and Deception. Why NOT both?).

Skills like Medicine and Nature wouldn't be as bad if DMs weren't trying to figure out how to fit those specific challenges into their narratives. So don't. Leave it open ended, and let your player decide on how they want to apply them.

It's one of the simplest, most fluid changes I've done at my table, and I can't stress how useful it has been.

[Tanarii]

Don't tell your players what skill to roll. Instead, tell them what stat to roll, and then let them tell you what skills' proficiency they want to apply. If they can apply more than one, add Advantage.

Player: "I want to attempt to disarm the trap"
DM: "Make an Intelligence check".
Player: "Adding Investigation and Thieves Tools?"
DM: "Sounds good."
That's more complex, not simpler.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's more complex, not simpler.

Depends on how you look at it. Currently, people have specific skills for specific challenges, which results in either unused skills, certain skills being a higher priority, creating a bunch of challenges/rolls to make those unused skills relevant, and a whole bunch of problems.



Consider it like this: You could spoon something into a frustratingly small hole, over and over again, or you can add a funnel. Is it easier/simpler with or without the funnel?

[FreeRangeDM]

Edit - changed a homophone

5E is, for better or worse, significantly streamlined and simplified compared to earlier editions. What qualifies as simple varies from person to person, but in my experience:

-Call spell levels something else i.e. "when you reach level 5 you can cast 3rd tier spells"

-Give reasons to minimize inventory management e.g. a bag of holding/Outlander background feature...or skip it entirely

-Be loose with action economy e.g. draw and throw two weapons with extra attack, bonus actions as actions (may affect balance)

-Find out if your group prefers theater-of-the-mind, battlemap & miniatures, or some combination; it really affects the flow of combat

-No feats or multi-classing (sad but simple)

-Be open to rule of cool e.g. "Can I use thornwhip to trip a guy instead of damaging & pulling him?" (again, may affect balance)

-Have players help players e.g. I had a paladin that could never remember proficiency bonuses, so the rogue (politely) reminded them whenever skills were used.

-Keep in mind that D&D rules, like the pirate code, are really more guidelines than anything

P.S. Tell your players when you are altering rules in case they play with a different group/DM.

[Mikal]

Nothing. It’s already bog simple as is

[strangebloke]

don't sweat ammunition

Don't worry about the "spells cast in same round" nonsense.

Allow bonus actions to take any place in the action economy.

Don't distinguish between melee weapon attacks, melee attacks with a weapon, etc.

Don't worry about weight.

Make it very clear (and this one is actually in the rules) that players don't roll any skills until you tell them too. Players want to roll for everything but sometimes they shouldn't have to.

[Shuruke]

I don't roll as a Dm

I just go with what naratively sounds good

If someone puts resources toward being good at something then naratively they are good at it

In not saying they don't fail but I just don't like the way a d20 can cause such a big swing in consistency

Generally I base things off difficulty of encounter

Easy
Little resources and little damage taken
Maybe one at most 2 hits or 15% or less of total party health


Medium
Generally 3 -4 attacks will land 30% or less of total party health

Hard 50% of party health


Deadly 75% total party health at Least one person goes down



If resources are used creatively
Or I want someone to get spotlight for bit their actions lower the danger by 1 or 2 tiers

[MaxWilson]

I've heard a lot of talk about changes the DM might feel are for the better, but end up being "unfun" for the player.

How can a DM make the game more fun, by simplifying varius aspect of 5e rules, classes, feats, ability scores, character sheets or combat systems?

What changes have you made to keep a good flow at your table?

The most important one for me is tossing the vanilla initiative system in favor of WE-GO (everybody declares, then everybody acts, rolling initiative as necessary to resolve ordering dependencies).

PHB cyclic initiative, where players take turns one at a time being able to talk to the DM, has many negative effects:


It imposes artificial boundaries on play which make situations like ambushes and surrendering unnecessarily complicated,

It makes it harder for players to work cooperatively or declare actions that span multiple rounds,

It makes it more complicated to run large battles with lots of monsters, and

It risks boring the players whose turn it isn't, which in turn leads WotC to invent complicated schemes like legendary actions to partially-counteract the boredom.


Switching initiative systems is the best thing I ever did for my game. The variant I use doesn't necessarily have simpler rules, because I like to think ahead and account for corner cases, but it has simpler game flow in practice because those corner cases rarely come up. Here's an example: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?513971-Concurrent-initiative-variant-Everybody-declares-Everybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative

[Naanomi]

For my SpED school group I cut Alignments, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws... and made a simplified character sheet with a bunch of visual supports (and cutting out all the stuff I removed)

[Toofey]

Consider it like this: You could spoon something into a frustratingly small hole, over and over again, or you can add a funnel. Is it easier/simpler with or without the funnel?
Irrelevant metaphor is irrelevant, things need to be similar for metaphors to work... the change you proposed is definitely more complex.

OP: I would say there's not much to mechanically simplify, if you want to make it as simple as possible don't use the optional rules, specifically multi-classing and feats. That really makes character creation/leveling a lot easier.

[MaxWilson]

Depends on how you look at it. Currently, people have specific skills for specific challenges, which results in either unused skills, certain skills being a higher priority, creating a bunch of challenges/rolls to make those unused skills relevant, and a whole bunch of problems.

Consider it like this: You could spoon something into a frustratingly small hole, over and over again, or you can add a funnel. Is it easier/simpler with or without the funnel?

Wouldn't it be a bigger funnel if you let the players declare an intention and approach and then pick which attribute to use as well as the skill? You can then pick an appropriate DC, if one exists for that skill/attribute, or tell them that the approach can't work/isn't applicable.

Grappling and evading do this already: player picks from Dex/Acrobatics or Str/Athletics. You'd just be opening it up to player creativity at more types of things like haggling and climbing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nothing. It’s already bog simple as is In a lot of ways, yeah..

We are now discussing a quantum funnel. The Playground is great. :smallsmile:

Grappling is not supposed to be an I Win button for PCs. It is supposed to be a tactical choice they make (like trying to keep a particular enemy from moving). Grappling for a lot of monsters is significantly more powerful as many of them get to restrain the PC with a successful hit, or a failed DC / save by the PC.

Strangebloke has some great points in his post.

[Yora]

To make encumbrance practical, let characters carry a number of items equal to one, two, or three times their Strength score, instead of multiplying it by 5 pounds. Counting the numbers of items is way easier and faster than recalculating the weight of all items all the time.

Also, all players go on the same turn, with the player who decides what to do first being the first to act. This way you get players to pay attention to the encounter all the time and you don't have to wait for every player to get updated what happened during the last 10 minutes when it comes to their turn every time.

[MrStabby]

Drink.

It is amazing how many fewer rules the game has after multiple beers.

Also people seem to enjoy the game.

[bid]

Drink.
This is the stupidest and yet the truest answer.
With loose inhibition, you don't care about mistakes. You go with the flow and end up with interesting failures.

You are building a myth, the story you are playing is how it will be told 100 years later. It didn't really happen that way, whatever impossible thing you rolled is just dramatization of the facts.

[Rynjin]

I don't roll as a Dm

I just go with what naratively sounds good

If someone puts resources toward being good at something then naratively they are good at it

In not saying they don't fail but I just don't like the way a d20 can cause such a big swing in consistency

Generally I base things off difficulty of encounter

Easy
Little resources and little damage taken
Maybe one at most 2 hits or 15% or less of total party health


Medium
Generally 3 -4 attacks will land 30% or less of total party health

Hard 50% of party health


Deadly 75% total party health at Least one person goes down



If resources are used creatively
Or I want someone to get spotlight for bit their actions lower the danger by 1 or 2 tiers

So you're not playing 5e, you're playing Amber Diceless with D&D trappings.

[bid]

So you're not playing 5e, you're playing Amber Diceless with D&D trappings.
Lords of Gossamer & Shadow is the modern equivalent.

[Spiritchaser]

Don’t use flanking rules

Players need to have the stats of summonables or I pick

Most monsters get pre-rolled initiatives

When playing with my kids, kids always get to go first

[2D8HP]

. The last time I offered to DM I said:

You may take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger for classes only and Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Humans for races only, with a background of "has sword wants loot", Ideals, Bonds, et cetera is "Get Rich or die trying".

Steal, but not from other PC's, Fight but not other PC's. No torture, and don't squick me out!

Maybe the "gritty realism" slow healing variant.

For "back-story" write up whatever you want for yourself, or to share with the other players, I'm unlikely to remember much of it

So some of the PHB, maybe some of the SCAG and Xanthar's if it isn't too complex

All to make it manageable for me (the adventure would be "Young Vikings meet Morlocks").

I had no takers.

I've now hung up my DM's hat for good and other than some PbP and buying the books now I'm pretty much out of the game.

A little sad about that.


Nothing. It’s already bog simple as is


?????? :confused:

The 1977 48 page "bluebook" Dungeons & Dragons rules was simple, 5e decidedly isn't.


For my SpED school group I cut Alignments, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws... and made a simplified character sheet with a bunch of visual supports (and cutting out all the stuff I removed)


@ Naanomi, you cut out Alignment?

But you made the:
When Alignment Matters Mechanically (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically)
thread!

Your 'bout the only person who understands Alignment well!

Say it isn't so!

[Naanomi]

@ Naanomi, you cut out Alignment?

But you made the:
When Alignment Matters Mechanically (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically)
thread!

Your 'bout the only person who understands Alignment well!

Say it isn't so!
My DnD group(s) at school are all students with varying degree of developmental disability, removing everything I could from the busy character sheet took priority over rich Cosmology in this case. I wouldn’t pull it (or any of the characterization pieces, which I enjoy as a whole) if that were not such important functional scaffolding in this case

[Tanarii]

Depends on how you look at it. Currently, people have specific skills for specific challenges, which results in either unused skills, certain skills being a higher priority, creating a bunch of challenges/rolls to make those unused skills relevant, and a whole bunch of problems.



Consider it like this: You could spoon something into a frustratingly small hole, over and over again, or you can add a funnel. Is it easier/simpler with or without the funnel?
In my brevity, you misunderstood me. Applying variant skill checks isn't what makes it more complicated & slowing the game down. It's inviting the players to do it, instead of doing it yourself as a DM.

[Zirconia]

Though this isn't at "the table", per se, our group plays using the Roll20 site because we are spread across 3 states. The DM set up macros for our attacks where they always generate two d20 results. If there is advantage or disadvantage for that attack, the result is already available, otherwise it is ignored, but it saves doing another roll. Similarly, when we cast a spell with a save, it generates a save roll for the foe and lists the DC, though the DM has to adjust the outcome based on stats of the foe. That is something that could be done at the table, have players roll foe saves, while the DM can be checking the bonus. It also gives players a bit more to do.

One other thing about Roll20 that almost makes it tempting to use even in a live game is that you can set various vision levels for different PCs. The Elf can see 60' with darkvision, while the human in the same group only sees 30' with their light source, so there is much more tension and uncertainty in fights with a "fog of war" effect.

[Man_Over_Game]

5e, Simplified:


Don't use Attributes. Only care about proficiencies. When something would get your Attribute Bonus, instead apply your Proficiency. If they add both their proficiency and modifier, then they add Proficiency x2. The current system, using Attributes + Proficiency, ranges from about +3 total to +11 total. The simplified system ranges from +4 total to +12.
Weapons range from Small (1d6, can be dual wielded), Medium (1d8, can wield a shield) and Large (1d10 and reach). As to what exact weapon it is, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter much that a weapon deals Bludgeoning or Piercing, and it's definitely not worth making 3 different common damage types that the difference of which is never mentioned in hardly any scenario.
For spells, use the Magic Points system in the DMG. Treat every spell as prepared, as the limiting factor will more likely come down to their spell slots rather than the spells they know.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don’t use flanking rules
Players need to have the stats of summonables or I pick
When playing with my kids, kids always get to go first This!

My DnD group(s) at school are all students with varying degree of developmental disability .. ..I wouldn’t pull it (or any of the characterization pieces, which I enjoy as a whole) if that were not such important functional scaffolding in this case My hero.
(My cousin spent 38 years in teaching special ed, deaf, hearing impaired ... just retired last year. )

[Arkhios]

Don't use feats or multiclassing, don't fret about ammunition, go easy on somatic components for spellcasting (ie. no weapon juggling).

This. In addition, I would use averages (rounded down) with damage rolls and with hit dice regarding hit points.

This doesn't take much more work. Do it once when something changes, write it down, and afterwards, everything runs smoother and quicker. (crits obviously would deal twice the average before additional modifiers — if any)

For example, a longsword deals 1d8, an average of 4.5 ≈ 4. Adding standard bonus +3, it's 7 points of damage, every time you make a regular hit. A critical would deal 4.5+4.5+3 = 12 points of damage. Nothing to scoff at to be honest.

On your character sheet, you could write down: "longsword, 7 damage (12 on critical)". No need to hurt your head with math afterwards (jk)


As a bonus, the only dice players would really need is d20. This would, imho, be especially good for players who like to roleplay instead of rollplay.

[Rynjin]

roleplay instead of rollplay.

Slight aside, posting this combination of words in this order should be a bannable offense on any RPG site.

Re: the thread as a whole, why do you want to simplify an already very simple game instead of going full freeform or something?

[Arkhios]

Slight aside, posting this combination of words in this order should be a bannable offense on any RPG site.

Re: the thread as a whole, why do you want to simplify an already very simple game instead of going full freeform or something?

A "touch" touchy are you? Did I hit a nerve?

I don't think that's an offense. I count myself as a rollplayer more than a roleplayer and neither is an offense towards either group; both ways of playing are alright. I wouldn't get offended by that, so why would you?
Ever heard of the saying "to each their own"? This, right here, is one example.

[GreyBlack]

Don't roll to hit, just roll damage. When a character attempts something, just assume they make the check.

[2D8HP]

...why do you want to simplify an already very simple game instead of going full freeform or something?


5e D&D is decidedly not "simple".

To repeat myself (from 2016):

OK, I admit my eyes glazed over in reading arguments of I'm not sure what in this thread, and I skipped a lot of posts, so maybe someone has addressed this but "rules light compared with previous editions"??!!!??
The 1977 "blue book" rules from the Basic Set was 48 pages, the small-print 1978 PHB was 128 pages, as was the large-print 1994 The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Rules and Adventures Book. The 5e PHB is over 316 freakin' pages.

5e Light?

What monstrosity of an edition is heavy than?


(From earlier this year):

A bit of pushback on the usual "5e is simplified D&D".

No, it's pretty damn complicated if you use all of the options.

The 48 pages of the "bluebook (https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Dungeons-Dragons-Game-Book/dp/B0084HAO0C)" that I first DM'd with in 1978 is what simplified Dungeons & Dragons looks like, and as far as games go I would rate 5e D&D as more complex than at least 90% of all games.

That 3.5 D&D may be more complex than 95% of all games doesn't make 5e "simple".

I think that one big reason to choose any version of D&D is that it is a fantasy adventure game with lots of players who have some familiarity with the rules, a gamer lingua franca, and the more players 5e has the more worthwhile it is to learn the gist of the rules, if you want to interact with them - for closed tables there's less incentive.


Here's a way to easily tell if a game is simple:


1) Take off a shoe.

2) Hold the "corebook rules" at waist level.

3) Drop the rules on your unshod foot.


Even in a box with dice, the D&D "Basic" rules I started with in 1978 were literally far lighter than just the 5e PHB, hell the 1e AD&D DMG, PHB, and MM combined didn't weigh much more than the 5e PHB alone (please someone with a postal scale test this!).

Look, I now enjoy playing first level 5e D&D PC's more than first level PC's using the TSR D&D rules I grew up with, but I don't suffer delusions that the new D&D rules are simpler, I know what simpler D&D looks like (I started with it a little over 40 years ago!) and 5e just isn't that, and frankly even old "Basic" D&D isn't that simple compared to Risk, Monopoly, Uno, Gin Dummy, et cetera - you know, most games people play, in fact no published version of D&D is simple.

I know I'm not as smart as you younger guys (there was more atmospheric lead when I was growing up than now) but I can still tell simple from complex, and I say it again - 5e D&D is very complex, and D&D rules that were simpler than 5e are still complex compared to the games that most people play.

There's a very big gap between somewhat simpler and "freeform", and if 5e actually looks "bare bones" to you @Rynjin our points of view are very different, so much so that I'm puzzled by how you can think so.

[Rynjin]

That doesn't really make much sense. Length and complexity are not the same thing. A line can theoretically be of infinite length, but it's still just a line. For a more direct comparison, your post there is pretty long, but it's not complicated to understand or anything.

5e's rules are very simple and straightforward, especially compared to the other major RPGs on the market. Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Shadowrun, world of Darkness, Mutants and Masterminds (just for the ones I've actually played or read the rulebooks for) are all more complex than 5e. The only ones I've read/played that I'd say are simpler are EXTREMELY rules-lite games, like Magical Burst, MASKS, High School Harem Comedy, Time Wizards, and so on.

But if you really want to break it down, there are really only 36 pages of rules that a player needs to just KNOW (11-15 for character creation, 173-179 for ability scores, 181-186 for movement/rest, 189-198 for combat, 199-202 for spells, and page 290 for Conditions). You can trim four pages if the player isn't playing a spellcaster. Then each individual needs to know their race (3-4 pages on average) and class (5-6 pages on average), for a maximum total of 46 pages of rules; 2 less than your 48 pages of Basic.

That's all you need to know to play the game. It's very short, and more to the point as I mentioned above, all the rules are very straightforward and simplified.

[deljzc]

D&D has always been a bit of a "rabbit hole" game. Yes, on the surface, there might be 40 pages of things to read and brush up on and Boom!, you're ready to play (i.e. the beginner set). But there is a ton of other things to learn or dig into.

I kind of agree that if you want to make it simple to "start", no feats and no multiclassing. Try to explain "you don't need to learn EVERYTHING" in the book, just the rules for YOUR CHARACTER.

The DM can also make the game simpler just by the type of adventure run. I mean if you get into wilderness adventures right off the bat, or some very complex encounters in difficult environs (under water, etc.) that adds a level of complexity and rules to a beginning player. You keep the adventure to a simple dungeon crawl or a very linear path of encounters and the game is very easy to learn after the 3rd or 4th encounter.