I also find it deeply disturbing that it actually is necessary for other players. This is a game entirely for, of, and about imagination. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be whatever the heck anybody can imagine it to be. The fact that they somehow managed to not make that clear in the first place is an issue.
I wouldn't put this entirely on WotC. It seems obvious to us, but a lot of people who are unaccustomed to the freedom of D&D need more specifics than "use your imagination." Some people live in a world where they do this so rarely that they're not sure how to proceed. In addition, there's a line where imagination must defer to the rules. Exactly where that line is can be tricky and vary widely between tables, so I don't mind examples that can provide guidelines for newer players (and perhaps some DMs as well).
I'd like to highlight this one again, because he's got a good point that I'd like to go deeper into.
D&D is deceptively open ended. "You can do whatever you want." So the player takes a leap of faith and says, "Can I fly over there?" And they are hit with, "You can't. You don't have a fly speed." You're larger than you character sheet, but when a new player (or DM for that matter) is unsure about the rules, but is excited to play, they're looking for the comfort of structure and are afraid to go against it.
Sure, we all know that most changes won't do a darn thing, but they don't. A smaller box is comforting to a new player (and getting those is WotC #1 priority). Being upset that they aren't catering to the veteran is like being angry at Lens Crafters because they don't carry any product for you when you have 20/20 vision.
Again, I think my point was missed. The Basic Rules and PHB should have expressly stated that changing the cosmetic appearance of a spells effect is okay. Those are the publications that should be catering to players of all ages and experience levels. What I found disturbing is that those new players didn’t get that from the outset. Anything outside of the “Core Three” is inherently not “beginner level” stuff. That’s why it’s not in the core three. But if one player wants to envision their Eldritch Blast as looking like the hand animated fire from the movie Warlock, and another wants it too look like Gambit’s playing cards, and a third wants it to be like their shooting with finger pistols (pew pew), that should never have intimidated anyone.
That stuff should have been made clear in the “core rules,” and “supplemental” rules like Volo’s, Xanathar’s, Tasha’s, etc should be catering more towards veteran players (even if they are only veterans from this edition with maybe only a single campaign behind them).
And if it was as clear as you say, then why did pangurjan’s players find it such an epiphany? This isn’t Schrödinger's Cat, it can’t be both already clearly stated and completely new information at the same time.
Eh, it's not all of them. And a good session zero can prevent a lot of issues. As to why though, I'd say it's partly because WotC's rulesets are written to be more comprehensive, so the impression of what you can do being defined comes across more strongly; another part is not wanting to "play wrong" (I always stress there's no wrong way to play if everyone's having fun, but new players usually need some time to loosen up); and partly it's maybe that not everyone reads introductions (weird, I know). There's lot's of potential reasons, and I'd say in possibly half the cases it was something they really already knew, had read or had been told, but either hadn't processed fully or didn't realize what it meant, or weren't ready to try themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, I think my point was missed. The Basic Rules and PHB should have expressly stated that changing the cosmetic appearance of a spells effect is okay. Those are the publications that should be catering to players of all ages and experience levels. What I found disturbing is that those new players didn’t get that from the outset. Anything outside of the “Core Three” is inherently not “beginner level” stuff. That’s why it’s not in the core three. But if one player wants to envision their Eldritch Blast as looking like the hand animated fire from the movie Warlock, and another wants it too look like Gambit’s playing cards, and a third wants it to be like their shooting with finger pistols (pew pew), that should never have intimidated anyone.
That stuff should have been made clear in the “core rules,” and “supplemental” rules like Volo’s, Xanathar’s, Tasha’s, etc should be catering more towards veteran players (even if they are only veterans from this edition with maybe only a single campaign behind them).
I think that you think WotC/Hasbro has been putting more money and time into 5e than it has. I cannot prove this, but D&D and Avalon Hill are both pretty small branches of WotC getting scraps of their funding.
I would like to point out how lackluster the art for 5e is in the PHB, as well as how poorly assembled the SCAG is for this theory. I'm pretty sure that 90% of the SCAG was carved out of the first version of the PHB as "consistent formatting" wasn't even considered in its formation. I'd 100% believe that the PHB was forced to print before it was ready (which is part of why we have the SCAG) and that was a rule they dropped the ball on.
Heck, 4e was bombing and they may have been worried about a second Black Monday.
Again, I think my point was missed. The Basic Rules and PHB should have expressly stated that changing the cosmetic appearance of a spells effect is okay. Those are the publications that should be catering to players of all ages and experience levels. What I found disturbing is that those new players didn’t get that from the outset. Anything outside of the “Core Three” is inherently not “beginner level” stuff. That’s why it’s not in the core three. But if one player wants to envision their Eldritch Blast as looking like the hand animated fire from the movie Warlock, and another wants it too look like Gambit’s playing cards, and a third wants it to be like their shooting with finger pistols (pew pew), that should never have intimidated anyone.
That stuff should have been made clear in the “core rules,” and “supplemental” rules like Volo’s, Xanathar’s, Tasha’s, etc should be catering more towards veteran players (even if they are only veterans from this edition with maybe only a single campaign behind them).
I think that you think WotC/Hasbro has been putting more money and time into 5e than it has. I cannot prove this, but D&D and Avalon Hill are both pretty small branches of WotC getting scraps of their funding.
I would like to point out how lackluster the art for 5e is in the PHB, as well as how poorly assembled the SCAG is for this theory. I'm pretty sure that 90% of the SCAG was carved out of the first version of the PHB as "consistent formatting" wasn't even considered in its formation. I'd 100% believe that the PHB was forced to print before it was ready (which is part of why we have the SCAG) and that was a rule they dropped the ball on.
Heck, 4e was bombing and they may have been worried about a second Black Monday.
Can't speak to Avalon Hill, but I'm pretty sure that D&D 5e and Magic the Gathering are the flagship products of WotC, and are key sources of the company's revenue and success...WotC made 816 million last year, a 24% increase "fueled by record years for D&D and Magic" (Source: Wikipedia, quoting the Wall Street Journal)
No multiclass or Feats until 9th level. Players are way too overpowered as it is. Opinion, but whatever...
Detect Evil and Good - ALSO includes standard good and evil (alignment) results. Old school.
I hate all things Warlock. I won't prevent a player from playing one, but they better have an epic level, long, and detailed backstory or the class will not be allowed in my games. See #4 below.
Players have to play GOOD alignments. My campaign world is about good vs evil and the players are on the side of good. Nuff said!
The one thing about a Warlock is that they can actually be good. They don't have to like their Patron. Mine made a deal under duress with an entity from the Shadowfell, in order to save the warlock's mother's soul being trapped in the Shadowfell. My guy hates his Patron, and is a Good char.
Rules we do use: We use artificer, sterlingvermin's pugilist, and mystic v3 ( though I only played it for 1 session ), and Matt Mercer's gunslinger v3.
Me, as a DM, only let someone play gunslinger if they have a darn good backstory.
Called Hits: you can target a specific area of a creature for a extra bonus on the hit (bonus is up to the DM, but could be extra damage, a debuff on the target, etc). AC is raised by 5 for the attack roll. You still hit if you meet or exceed normal AC but no bonus is given unless you meet the improved AC target
That seems a bit absurd.. so every attack is a called hit than? There is no reason not to called shot like head with every single attack you ever make than because you don't actually miss under this house rule. Does the DM do it back to the players?
Called Hits: you can target a specific area of a creature for a extra bonus on the hit (bonus is up to the DM, but could be extra damage, a debuff on the target, etc). AC is raised by 5 for the attack roll. You still hit if you meet or exceed normal AC but no bonus is given unless you meet the improved AC target
That seems a bit absurd.. so every attack is a called hit than? There is no reason not to called shot like head with every single attack you ever make than because you don't actually miss under this house rule. Does the DM do it back to the players?
If I were DMing, I'd let the target make a free attack of opportunity if they missed the called hit, but still hit the AC. Ultimately, both hit eachother at the same time.
One rule my table is talking about is the "Find Your Target" rule. In short, if you hit a target with a melee attack, if you don't move nor attack anything else, each subsequent attack that turn auto-hits (no roll).
You trade your chance to crit for garenteed success. This does extend to bonus attacks, haste, and action surge. Part of it is to make Martial characters feel better at attacking since they miss much less often.
My group has multiple DMs, each uses their own setting and each uses their ownhouserules and omits different rules. As such, I can only really comment on which rules wr do or do not use when I am the DM, the others can speak for themselves if they choose.
Rules we Don’t Use:
Inspiration (I award extra XP instead.)
Wild Magic subclasses or any other player option allowing Wild Magic. (This is strictly a geographic/temporal anomaly and not something PCs can actively use.)
The Psionic subclasses, or any other player option allowing Psionics. (I hate them with a passion and am slowly working on my own rules that suck less.)
The new custom origin/lineage rules from Tasha’s.
Rules we Do Use:
Damage gets rounded down against the monsters/NPCs, but rounded up against PCs whenever there’s a fraction.
Almost any skill can be used “passively,” depending on situation. (If one PC tells another a lie but isn’t really trying to get away with it, the second PC would roll Insight against the first PC’s “passive deception” to see if they fell for it unless the second player chooses to fail that check. Another example would be rolling Perception against “passive stealth.”)
Many racial traits (like languages, cultural traits, or even ASIs) can be swapped or exchanged for something else pending discussion with and approval from the DM.
My group has multiple DMs, each uses their own setting and each uses their ownhouserules and omits different rules. As such, I can only really comment on which rules wr do or do not use when I am the DM, the others can speak for themselves if they choose.
Rules we Don’t Use:
Inspiration (I award extra XP instead.)
Wild Magic subclasses or any other player option allowing Wild Magic. (This is strictly a geographic/temporal anomaly and not something PCs can actively use.)
The Psionic subclasses, or any other player option allowing Psionics. (I hate them with a passion and am slowly working on my own rules that suck less.)
The new custom origin/lineage rules from Tasha’s.
Rules we Do Use:
Damage gets rounded down against the monsters/NPCs, but rounded up against PCs whenever there’s a fraction.
Almost any skill can be used “passively,” depending on situation. (If one PC tells another a lie but isn’t really trying to get away with it, the second PC would roll Insight against the first PC’s “passive deception” to see if they fell for it unless the second player chooses to fail that check. Another example would be rolling Perception against “passive stealth.”)
Many racial traits (like languages, cultural traits, or even ASIs) can be swapped or exchanged for something else pending discussion with and approval from the DM.
I want to make sure I understand this. Your group has multiple DM's. Does that mean a DM runs their campaign/quest, and when it is completed, they hand off to the next DM? Are characters transferrable when the DM changes, or are the char's linked with one DM?
My group has multiple DMs, each uses their own setting and each uses their ownhouserules and omits different rules. As such, I can only really comment on which rules wr do or do not use when I am the DM, the others can speak for themselves if they choose.
Rules we Don’t Use:
Inspiration (I award extra XP instead.)
Wild Magic subclasses or any other player option allowing Wild Magic. (This is strictly a geographic/temporal anomaly and not something PCs can actively use.)
The Psionic subclasses, or any other player option allowing Psionics. (I hate them with a passion and am slowly working on my own rules that suck less.)
The new custom origin/lineage rules from Tasha’s.
Rules we Do Use:
Damage gets rounded down against the monsters/NPCs, but rounded up against PCs whenever there’s a fraction.
Almost any skill can be used “passively,” depending on situation. (If one PC tells another a lie but isn’t really trying to get away with it, the second PC would roll Insight against the first PC’s “passive deception” to see if they fell for it unless the second player chooses to fail that check. Another example would be rolling Perception against “passive stealth.”)
Many racial traits (like languages, cultural traits, or even ASIs) can be swapped or exchanged for something else pending discussion with and approval from the DM.
I want to make sure I understand this. Your group has multiple DM's. Does that mean a DM runs their campaign/quest, and when it is completed, they hand off to the next DM? Are characters transferrable when the DM changes, or are the char's linked with one DM?
It depends.
Our main DM, Thorsday, has two separate campaigns going in parallel to one another both set in his homebrewed world. The same four players are in both campaigns running completely separate characters. He switches back and fourth after each adventure to give himself an opportunity to plan the next adventure for Party A while running one for Party B, and vice versa. He is our main DM. When he needs a longer break, or when one of us specifically wants to DM a story we came up with then we take the resigns for an adventure. I usually DM in my Homebrew-adapted version of Mystara, another DM uses Faerûn, and another uses a version of Faerûn with an additional homebrewed continent added for his West Marches. (That one has two groups, one comprised of his friends from work, and the other is us. We play in his West Marches when our regularly scheduled game doesn’t run for whatever reason.) (There are three other players who also DM, but they are currently doing their own things with other groups. Yes, you read that correctly, technically our group of 8 people has 7 people who either have DMed or do DM. The 8th person could DM, but chooses not to.)
Currently I am DMing in Thursday’s homebrewed world for one of the groups (Party B) and my PC has shifted to an NPC, and one of his NPCs is now Thorsday’s PC for that adventure. When this adventure is over, Thorsday will take the reigns back to run for one of the two parties, I don’t know which one.
In addition to the Ready Action, I let my players take a Wait.
It doesn't affect the game in a negative manner at all, and prevents wasted action frustration.
If it's the same thing as the old "delay" from 3e, we were really happy to get rid of it because it's a source of immense confusion and complexity in combat, where everyone can delay and pop up their turn whenever they fancy, modifying initiative etc.
And without it, we never have wasted actions, it's so easy to ready something that has a high chance of occuring.
Interesting. I haven't had a problem with it...so far.
I understand that players should be ready with their actions, but sometimes they are just not sure. I don't like to punish them by taking away their turn. It doesn't happen often and a Readied Action would take precedence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I don’t mind a little thinking time, but there is a limit. Especially since I tell players when they’re “on deck” so that they can be ready on their turn. When one player cannot be prepared on their turn out of curtesy for everyone else at the table it’s annoying. When it has started to affect everyone at the table and even a medium-hard combat takes a whole session, its a problem. That was starting to happen during my first 5e campaign, so I got a 60-second “hour glass” style egg timer. I told folks I would use it if necessary and put it on the table next to me during sessions. I had to use it once, and the when the player shouted out a spell an instant after the sand ran out. I said “sorry,” narrated his Character’s indecision and moved on. I haven’t had to do that again since.
In addition to the Ready Action, I let my players take a Wait.
It doesn't affect the game in a negative manner at all, and prevents wasted action frustration.
If it's the same thing as the old "delay" from 3e, we were really happy to get rid of it because it's a source of immense confusion and complexity in combat, where everyone can delay and pop up their turn whenever they fancy, modifying initiative etc.
And without it, we never have wasted actions, it's so easy to ready something that has a high chance of occuring.
Interesting. I haven't had a problem with it...so far.
It would of course depend on your players. Before we took a series of steps, and despite (or maybe because actually) some of them are experienced players, we had a lot of hesitation during declarations, and people intervening and giving advice, and people delaying just because they just wanted to make sure to have maximum efficiency and creating a mess because when something happened, then everyone wanted to jump in at once and the game was not even clear what the priority was to interrupt the delay.
We did it before with a few tricks, but were really happy with 5e streamlining all that and still leaving tons of possibilities open with " ready".
I understand that players should be ready with their actions, but sometimes they are just not sure. I don't like to punish them by taking away their turn. It doesn't happen often and a Readied Action would take precedence.
Despite all of the above and what you, we still have people (always the same, it's not a question of rules but of personality, but of course the rules help) dithering at the start of their turn and wanting to ask for advice, etc. but honestly it's not helping them or the group to push things to later, it might annoy the other players (it does at our table especially those who want the game to move forward and take their turn, which they do quickly), and I'd rather favor the people who make an effort to play quickly than cater to the idiosyncrasies of people who go in the wrong direction for the collective enjoyment.
It's not punishment, it's just trying to make sure that the game favors those who play it in the right spirit - as per the game intent and our table rules.
I recognize the Ready Action is RAW. But I have seen it abused so many times, completely misunderstood by players (no player, you don't get to move AND attack, and it is a REACTION, not your entire menu of options), that I would be happy to remove the entire mechanism from the game. You roll Initiative, and you play in that sequence. No if's and but's.
I recognize the Ready Action is RAW. But I have seen it abused so many times, completely misunderstood by players (no player, you don't get to move AND attack, and it is a REACTION, not your entire menu of options), that I would be happy to remove the entire mechanism from the game. You roll Initiative, and you play in that sequence. No if's and but's.
Up to you, of course, but I find it really hard to abuse if you play it RAW, it takes your action anyway, it uses your reaction (we had the case on Friday of a player who, extremely fairly, had used his reaction to speak because it was important (house rule) and therefore decided to forgo his readied action), and if it's explained properly there should not be any confusion.
And it's a great mechanism for players who really live in the situation, who want to be ready, to act on things that others do, etc. And we have even extended it so that you can get ready out of combat, because again we want to encourage people to think about the situation, what might happen, etc.
In the end, it's very different from "delay" which is just a technical artefact of the game and corresponds to nothing in reality, it's just a simulation element whereas "ready" is a game world behaviour and linked to roleplaying.
Pretty much this. It's a really restricted way of using your turn, and while it might tactically be the best way to use your turn in some cases I don't see a lot of room for abuse. It's also sometimes the only way to accomplish something (setting off a trap or using an circumstantial advantage at the right time) or avoid the mechanically obnoxious delay (casting Fireball as soon as the rest of the party clears the area of effect) outside going freeform.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Pretty much this. It's a really restricted way of using your turn, and while it might tactically be the best way to use your turn in some cases I don't see a lot of room for abuse. It's also sometimes the only way to accomplish something (setting off a trap or using an circumstantial advantage at the right time) or avoid the mechanically obnoxious delay (casting Fireball as soon as the rest of the party clears the area of effect) outside going freeform.
Indeed, I would also add that, in terms of roleplay, we also use insight (and passive insight a lot in these cases) to see if people are tense or ready, which greatly adds to the situation. If you are negotiating and some people start to get ready for a fight, others can read it in their attitude for example, and it can precipitate a situation. And even in combat, someone watching a door for example is something that can be seen, and acted upon by enemies and friends, etc.
Great mechanism overall, and fairly well controlled in its use and the great advantage is that it does not modify the initiative order, which is always a pain in terms of management but also because it removes some of the excuse that players might have not to be ready to take their turn.
The only thing that you must be careful of is the trigger, and I know that some people have trouble with plain english being used in 5e, but a "perceivable circumstance" is a good simple way to formulate that, and it avoids the trigger to be purely technical.
I agree that the Ready mechanic (I hate to use the word Action, since that in and of itself leads to confusion) is perfectly fine, when used properly, and when all players AND the DM understand how it precisely works. But I have seen so many people, including DM's, totally misunderstand how it works, or worse, ignore how the mechanic works and proceed to take a full turn, as opposed to a Reaction. It drives me nuts to be playing in a game when I am abiding by the rules, and assume the DM and other players are also playing by the same rules, when some player badly breaks the Reaction Rule and the DM does not even clue in. It is not my place to say anything at another DM's table, but at that point, I don't have a clue what rules I am playing with at that point.
Another rule I WANT to implement is that any magical item that requires a Command Word MUST be attuned to. I would have liked to extend that to ANY magical item requires Attunement, but I know there would be massive pushback on that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd like to highlight this one again, because he's got a good point that I'd like to go deeper into.
D&D is deceptively open ended. "You can do whatever you want." So the player takes a leap of faith and says, "Can I fly over there?" And they are hit with, "You can't. You don't have a fly speed." You're larger than you character sheet, but when a new player (or DM for that matter) is unsure about the rules, but is excited to play, they're looking for the comfort of structure and are afraid to go against it.
Sure, we all know that most changes won't do a darn thing, but they don't. A smaller box is comforting to a new player (and getting those is WotC #1 priority). Being upset that they aren't catering to the veteran is like being angry at Lens Crafters because they don't carry any product for you when you have 20/20 vision.
Again, I think my point was missed. The Basic Rules and PHB should have expressly stated that changing the cosmetic appearance of a spells effect is okay. Those are the publications that should be catering to players of all ages and experience levels. What I found disturbing is that those new players didn’t get that from the outset. Anything outside of the “Core Three” is inherently not “beginner level” stuff. That’s why it’s not in the core three. But if one player wants to envision their Eldritch Blast as looking like the hand animated fire from the movie Warlock, and another wants it too look like Gambit’s playing cards, and a third wants it to be like their shooting with finger pistols (pew pew), that should never have intimidated anyone.
That stuff should have been made clear in the “core rules,” and “supplemental” rules like Volo’s, Xanathar’s, Tasha’s, etc should be catering more towards veteran players (even if they are only veterans from this edition with maybe only a single campaign behind them).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Eh, it's not all of them. And a good session zero can prevent a lot of issues. As to why though, I'd say it's partly because WotC's rulesets are written to be more comprehensive, so the impression of what you can do being defined comes across more strongly; another part is not wanting to "play wrong" (I always stress there's no wrong way to play if everyone's having fun, but new players usually need some time to loosen up); and partly it's maybe that not everyone reads introductions (weird, I know). There's lot's of potential reasons, and I'd say in possibly half the cases it was something they really already knew, had read or had been told, but either hadn't processed fully or didn't realize what it meant, or weren't ready to try themselves.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think that you think WotC/Hasbro has been putting more money and time into 5e than it has. I cannot prove this, but D&D and Avalon Hill are both pretty small branches of WotC getting scraps of their funding.
I would like to point out how lackluster the art for 5e is in the PHB, as well as how poorly assembled the SCAG is for this theory. I'm pretty sure that 90% of the SCAG was carved out of the first version of the PHB as "consistent formatting" wasn't even considered in its formation. I'd 100% believe that the PHB was forced to print before it was ready (which is part of why we have the SCAG) and that was a rule they dropped the ball on.
Heck, 4e was bombing and they may have been worried about a second Black Monday.
Can't speak to Avalon Hill, but I'm pretty sure that D&D 5e and Magic the Gathering are the flagship products of WotC, and are key sources of the company's revenue and success...WotC made 816 million last year, a 24% increase "fueled by record years for D&D and Magic" (Source: Wikipedia, quoting the Wall Street Journal)
Sweet char
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Rules we don't use: none
Rules we do use: We use artificer, sterlingvermin's pugilist, and mystic v3 ( though I only played it for 1 session ), and Matt Mercer's gunslinger v3.
Me, as a DM, only let someone play gunslinger if they have a darn good backstory.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
That seems a bit absurd.. so every attack is a called hit than? There is no reason not to called shot like head with every single attack you ever make than because you don't actually miss under this house rule. Does the DM do it back to the players?
If I were DMing, I'd let the target make a free attack of opportunity if they missed the called hit, but still hit the AC. Ultimately, both hit eachother at the same time.
One rule my table is talking about is the "Find Your Target" rule. In short, if you hit a target with a melee attack, if you don't move nor attack anything else, each subsequent attack that turn auto-hits (no roll).
You trade your chance to crit for garenteed success. This does extend to bonus attacks, haste, and action surge. Part of it is to make Martial characters feel better at attacking since they miss much less often.
My group has multiple DMs, each uses their own setting and each uses their ownhouserules and omits different rules. As such, I can only really comment on which rules wr do or do not use when I am the DM, the others can speak for themselves if they choose.
Rules we Don’t Use:
Rules we Do Use:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I want to make sure I understand this. Your group has multiple DM's. Does that mean a DM runs their campaign/quest, and when it is completed, they hand off to the next DM? Are characters transferrable when the DM changes, or are the char's linked with one DM?
It depends.
Our main DM, Thorsday, has two separate campaigns going in parallel to one another both set in his homebrewed world. The same four players are in both campaigns running completely separate characters. He switches back and fourth after each adventure to give himself an opportunity to plan the next adventure for Party A while running one for Party B, and vice versa. He is our main DM.
When he needs a longer break, or when one of us specifically wants to DM a story we came up with then we take the resigns for an adventure. I usually DM in my Homebrew-adapted version of Mystara, another DM uses Faerûn, and another uses a version of Faerûn with an additional homebrewed continent added for his West Marches. (That one has two groups, one comprised of his friends from work, and the other is us. We play in his West Marches when our regularly scheduled game doesn’t run for whatever reason.)
(There are three other players who also DM, but they are currently doing their own things with other groups. Yes, you read that correctly, technically our group of 8 people has 7 people who either have DMed or do DM. The 8th person could DM, but chooses not to.)
Currently I am DMing in Thursday’s homebrewed world for one of the groups (Party B) and my PC has shifted to an NPC, and one of his NPCs is now Thorsday’s PC for that adventure. When this adventure is over, Thorsday will take the reigns back to run for one of the two parties, I don’t know which one.
Edit: Spelling
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In addition to the Ready Action, I let my players take a Wait.
It doesn't affect the game in a negative manner at all, and prevents wasted action frustration.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Interesting. I haven't had a problem with it...so far.
I understand that players should be ready with their actions, but sometimes they are just not sure. I don't like to punish them by taking away their turn. It doesn't happen often and a Readied Action would take precedence.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I don’t mind a little thinking time, but there is a limit. Especially since I tell players when they’re “on deck” so that they can be ready on their turn. When one player cannot be prepared on their turn out of curtesy for everyone else at the table it’s annoying. When it has started to affect everyone at the table and even a medium-hard combat takes a whole session, its a problem. That was starting to happen during my first 5e campaign, so I got a 60-second “hour glass” style egg timer. I told folks I would use it if necessary and put it on the table next to me during sessions. I had to use it once, and the when the player shouted out a spell an instant after the sand ran out. I said “sorry,” narrated his Character’s indecision and moved on. I haven’t had to do that again since.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I recognize the Ready Action is RAW. But I have seen it abused so many times, completely misunderstood by players (no player, you don't get to move AND attack, and it is a REACTION, not your entire menu of options), that I would be happy to remove the entire mechanism from the game. You roll Initiative, and you play in that sequence. No if's and but's.
Pretty much this. It's a really restricted way of using your turn, and while it might tactically be the best way to use your turn in some cases I don't see a lot of room for abuse. It's also sometimes the only way to accomplish something (setting off a trap or using an circumstantial advantage at the right time) or avoid the mechanically obnoxious delay (casting Fireball as soon as the rest of the party clears the area of effect) outside going freeform.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree that the Ready mechanic (I hate to use the word Action, since that in and of itself leads to confusion) is perfectly fine, when used properly, and when all players AND the DM understand how it precisely works. But I have seen so many people, including DM's, totally misunderstand how it works, or worse, ignore how the mechanic works and proceed to take a full turn, as opposed to a Reaction. It drives me nuts to be playing in a game when I am abiding by the rules, and assume the DM and other players are also playing by the same rules, when some player badly breaks the Reaction Rule and the DM does not even clue in. It is not my place to say anything at another DM's table, but at that point, I don't have a clue what rules I am playing with at that point.
Another rule I WANT to implement is that any magical item that requires a Command Word MUST be attuned to. I would have liked to extend that to ANY magical item requires Attunement, but I know there would be massive pushback on that.